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.

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.

If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP

But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.

Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.

Same with calgar and other characters...

Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.

If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP

But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.

Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.

It said on the stream that he still gives you CPs, so my guess it's in addition to what we've seen so far.

Have you got a link for the stream ?

 Argive wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.

If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP

But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.

Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.

Same with calgar and other characters...

Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.

Calgar can actually be in your core detachment, and thus give full points.

So you spend your 3 CP for the battalion, put Calgar in there, which nets you the 3 point rebate. And then Calgar gives his 2 bonus. Net gain +2 CP

With Guiliman, you pay 3 for a battalion, pay whatever for a supreme command, (or whatever have space for a LoW). Gain G’s +3 CP. Maybe get a rebate on the detachment he’s in. Net +0 CP, maybe -1 or 2, depending if it gives a rebate for having the warlord.

So technically he still gives the CP, but practically, they all get spent on detachments.

Guilliman is just kind of bad now and getting worse. It's a pity. I started custodes with an idea of building a crusade force centered around Gman, but I haven't had any reason to take him in a while.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.

If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP

But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.

Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.

Same with calgar and other characters...

Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.

Calgar can actually be in your core detachment, and thus give full points.

So you spend your 3 CP for the battalion, put Calgar in there, which nets you the 3 point rebate. And then Calgar gives his 2 bonus. Net gain +2 CP

With Guiliman, you pay 3 for a battalion, pay whatever for a supreme command, (or whatever have space for a LoW). Gain G’s +3 CP. Maybe get a rebate on the detachment he’s in. Net +0 CP, maybe -1 or 2, depending if it gives a rebate for having the warlord.

So technically he still gives the CP, but practically, they all get spent on detachments.

So we know Rebates are only for Patrols, Battalions and Brigades that have your warlord within.
If Bobby G is taken in a Supreme Command, I expect that you will pay maybe 1-2 CP for that detachment.
Bobby is then going to give you CP back for including him (whatever that is, don't know his rules...3?) So it's probably a wash overall, but at least you're not getting charged for adding that extra detachment.

I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation

Also from what we saw the specialist detachments won’t refund CP for the warlord, so you are always paying for them.

 Eldarain wrote:
I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation

I doubt that tbh, simply because you will never get points back for them, even if warlord within.
Case in point...Deathwing. If it costs 3-4CP for a Vanguard, they would pretty much start with close to nothing, which they do now and is supposed to be the opposite of what 9th offers.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation

I doubt that tbh, simply because you will never get points back for them, even if warlord within.
Case in point...Deathwing. If it costs 3-4CP for a Vanguard, they would pretty much start with close to nothing, which they do now and is supposed to be the opposite of what 9th offers.

That is a good point.

Yeah, it's another reason I think that the current 1CP generating detachments will probably cost only 1CP. They specifically said they wanted to encourage people to just take the models they want, without feeling like there's a detachment tax, so it would make little sense to replace forcing people to take troops in order to generate CP with...forcing people to take troops to avoid costing CP. That'd effectively just be ending up in the same place they were trying to escape from, in a different way.

The warlord making the detachment not cost CP if it's one of the detachments that requires troops seems to me like a compromise so that people who want to take troops can, and can get a very minor bonus for it, without making it a requirement.

It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.

That would be a great development for those classic armies from the background.

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.

That would be a great development for those classic armies from the background.

It'd fit GW's goal of trying to get people to play what they like over just what games the system the best too.

ClockworkZion wrote:It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.

That is a great idea would be very cool. A master in terminator armour could do likewise for Deathwing.

Well, sort of. It'd lock people into taking special characters for the CP bonuses, something that they have experimented a little with, but recently seem to have moved away from - a good thing, in my opinion, because it feels kinda lame to be taking special characters not for their own abilities but just as a CP battery.

Seems like it'd be better to just make it into a special rule for the army the way the Drukhari codex tried to do in 8th (though it failed because the specific rule was junk), not dependent on taking a specific character.

 Chamberlain wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.

That is a great idea would be very cool. A master in terminator armour could do likewise for Deathwing.

Belial is the master of the Deathwing:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, sort of. It'd lock people into taking special characters for the CP bonuses, something that they have experimented a little with, but recently seem to have moved away from - a good thing, in my opinion, because it feels kinda lame to be taking special characters not for their own abilities but just as a CP battery.

Seems like it'd be better to just make it into a special rule for the army the way the Drukhari codex tried to do in 8th (though it failed because the specific rule was junk), not dependent on taking a specific character.

I think it's on par with taking special characters to unlock "count as troops" options and would at least let us see some characterful armies a bit more often.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.

That is a great idea would be very cool. A master in terminator armour could do likewise for Deathwing.

Belial is the master of the Deathwing:

Lol. I confused him with someone else. Though now that I think about it, I think having that rule for space marine characters in the right armour would be good rather than it just being named character based. Like a captain with a jump pack doing the same thing with a fast attack based detachment.

It also sounds like taking another faction along with another detachment may also cost more:

Games Workshop wrote:An army drawn exclusively from the same Faction and comprising a single Detachment is the most strategically flexible on account of their experience fighting alongside one another, and therefore offers the most Command points.

To me, that sentence reads that it may cost more to take an Airwing of Drukhari alongside my Battalion of Eldar, more than it would if I were just taking an Airwing of Eldar. Maybe -3 CP for another detachment, -2 more if the detachment is not of the same faction or something.

Well, maybe. Or it just means that a battle-forged detachment gives you the most CP, (1) because it's a single detachment, and (2) because it's battle-forged, and therefore gets you the battle-forged CP bonus each turn.

I.e. you can read the "single faction and a single detachment" as just code for "battle-forged single detachment" rather than saying anything more than that.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, maybe. Or it just means that a battle-forged detachment gives you the most CP, (1) because it's a single detachment, and (2) because it's battle-forged, and therefore gets you the battle-forged CP bonus each turn.

I.e. you can read the "single faction and a single detachment" as just code for "battle-forged single detachment" rather than saying anything more than that.

Maybe so. I just remember them saying that they were "doing away with soup" on the first previews. Seems like making it more expensive to unlock allies would do that. I guess we'll see.

Have we seen if it will even be possible to have mixed detachments anymore? I get the feeling that detachments might be mono faction going forward.

 Leth wrote:
Have we seen if it will even be possible to have mixed detachments anymore? I get the feeling that detachments might be mono faction going forward.

Inquisitor rules will still be valid in 9th, but they have special privileges.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.

If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP

But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.

Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.

Same with calgar and other characters...

Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.

Calgar can actually be in your core detachment, and thus give full points.

So you spend your 3 CP for the battalion, put Calgar in there, which nets you the 3 point rebate. And then Calgar gives his 2 bonus. Net gain +2 CP

With Guiliman, you pay 3 for a battalion, pay whatever for a supreme command, (or whatever have space for a LoW). Gain G’s +3 CP. Maybe get a rebate on the detachment he’s in. Net +0 CP, maybe -1 or 2, depending if it gives a rebate for having the warlord.

So technically he still gives the CP, but practically, they all get spent on detachments.

So we know Rebates are only for Patrols, Battalions and Brigades that have your warlord within.
If Bobby G is taken in a Supreme Command, I expect that you will pay maybe 1-2 CP for that detachment.
Bobby is then going to give you CP back for including him (whatever that is, don't know his rules...3?) So it's probably a wash overall, but at least you're not getting charged for adding that extra detachment.

I mean the SIMPLIST solution would be to just get rid of the LOW distinction and make Lord of Wars a HQ or heavy support option unit depending. I mean, on a practical level, Gulliman isn't much differant from Abaddon, Ghaz or even Calgar,

Smellingsalts wrote:
Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.

Ah yes luck. Always the solution! Forget about playing good. Just rely on luck.

And besides if enemy can fall back and you get to use this things are pear shaped anyway. problem with fall back for assault armies isn't they don't take hit. It's that you are shot freely then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smellingsalts wrote:
Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.

Maybe 1/1000000 games.

I’ve been wondering about whether they will use character/army rules to modify the cost of detachments. I really hope they do, as it’s a neat way to encourage fluffy builds, hopefully without adding too many abusable loopholes.

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.

2 bat's in 8th ed had less than this. Necrons couldn't hope for 2 bat's. Basically any army that takes less than 3 det's(unless it's brigade+battalion) in 8th ed gets more in 9th

And with likely 20%+ point ups getting multiple det's would be harder anyway. And reduces CP drain.

Also less game revolves around stratagems the better. One of the worst crutches 8th ed created


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:
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.

Yeah either there are those or the total power level thing on table is 100% senseless waste of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
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.

We know they can shoot FROM combat. No word yet can they shoot INTO combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

My opponents are usually sensible and do the easy thing and prevent it. Why not? Easy to prevent.

Oh and if you have 30 guys in range how on earth the enemy can even fall back? You would have to have screwed up big time as you should prevent fall back and if 30 is in range only reason they can fall back is because you screwed up and ALLOWED him to fall back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Please learn pay attention: if we gain 1 CP per TURN then that totals 24 for a 6 turn game. If we gain 1 CP per ROUND (as in, only on our own turns or the start of the round) then it's 18.

The turn order page says players gain CP every turn. That single image from today says on our own turns and is likely tied to a specific mission or game size.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no CP gained in Combat Patrol, 1 CP per round in Incursion, 1 CP a turn in Strike Force, and Onslaught would do 2 a turn.

Lol. GW flat out says "1CP per YOUR command phase". You then decide that means you get 2 per battle round.

You ignore flat out what GW already has stated. Lol. Next you probably ignore that detachments cost CP and decide each detachment gives CP instead


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation

I doubt that tbh, simply because you will never get points back for them, even if warlord within.
Case in point...Deathwing. If it costs 3-4CP for a Vanguard, they would pretty much start with close to nothing, which they do now and is supposed to be the opposite of what 9th offers.

But they have least tax and access to best units.

Why anybody would take bat for 2nd det if vanquard is 1 or 2 CP? Only if you are newbie or just want to build bad army.

Balance needed. Best det's, highest cost. They gave least in 8th due to being best outside CP so bat/Brigade needed to give more CP to compensate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
It also sounds like taking another faction along with another detachment may also cost more:

Games Workshop wrote:An army drawn exclusively from the same Faction and comprising a single Detachment is the most strategically flexible on account of their experience fighting alongside one another, and therefore offers the most Command points.

To me, that sentence reads that it may cost more to take an Airwing of Drukhari alongside my Battalion of Eldar, more than it would if I were just taking an Airwing of Eldar. Maybe -3 CP for another detachment, -2 more if the detachment is not of the same faction or something.

Eh no. Single faction single detachment is 1 detachment and with warlord there in bat/Brigade is free. Any addition of other codexes requires detachment which cost CP.

Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.

That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more

Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.

I think this guy has never heard of the “Fly” keyword before.

Again, no one is saying it is super powerful, they are saying it has situational uses.

But that seems to offend you on some level that people can see a situational use for it.

Ice_can wrote:
Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.

That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more

Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.

You can be fairly sure drukhari and tau commanders gets day 1 errata.

Anyone already looking at their lists to try and scale down detachments? here is my ork list:



Its proving very tricky. Across all my armies the two things that are standing out are:
Battalion is 3 HQ - its really hard to get these HQ that you nomrally rely on a bit back into the list.
Heavy support is also proving to be a big one, most armies i have (not just orks) are on the 4-6 heavy support front, looks like spear heads are gonna have to be a purchase for me or stick at dual bata if spear heads cost more. Prob is all this leaves ye down on CP.

All a bit early with the points changes etc, but interesting exercise at the minute

 Leth wrote:
I think this guy has never heard of the “Fly” keyword before.

Again, no one is saying it is super powerful, they are saying it has situational uses.

But that seems to offend you on some level that people can see a situational use for it.

Except people are saying it's good stratagem. It's not. It's poor. You might get weak use out of it 1/100 times. Significant result out of it even less times. And so far that's only bone horde melee units have been given after being given kick in the loin after kick in the loin so it's rather insulting that GW hypes out this as some sort of good boost when if you even get to use it means you are already screwed and then isn't even that useful. 1-2 primaris marines die if they flee from orks! Woo! Of course them fleeing means you are screwed anyway so 1-2 dead marine is hardly useful. But then we have noob players in this thread as well praising how it's good when even cursory look at it reveals it's bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:
Anyone already looking at their lists to try and scale down detachments? here is my ork list:

Yep. I went with assumption 1600 pts will be about new 2k and tried with sisters. Sure feeling cramped! Starting to think I might want to get and paint some VH melee elements rather than rely on BR. Also 3rd exorcist might be one of the first things to go.

Going to change my lists quite a bit. Assuming tournaments don't go to 2500 or 3000 right off the bat. In that case odds are nothing changes for me.