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.

ERJAK wrote:
Just make your whole army immune to rend -2. Problem solved.

Do you mean that daemons counter the bikes?

 Leth wrote:


But when it is the same faction aren’t they getting the benefit of keeping their traits when adding a super heavy? Honestly when you are adding 3 knights it’s a little beyond “allies” since they are over half your army. It’s like claiming that because I do something stupid and put my warlord in my patrol instead of my battalion it costs me CP.

It just seems like detachments are detachments and the rules are standardized to make taking diverse detachments to cover your weakness come at a cost versus just being an all in benefit. I think it is good and while not perfect? Is pretty so,I’d way to do that while not saying “you can’t use this anymore”

When you're "adding 3 knights" who also contain your warlord then you aren't adding knights. You're adding something to the knights.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem spending 3CP to add a Wraithknight if it were actually worthwhile taking!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Leth wrote:


But when it is the same faction aren’t they getting the benefit of keeping their traits when adding a super heavy? Honestly when you are adding 3 knights it’s a little beyond “allies” since they are over half your army. It’s like claiming that because I do something stupid and put my warlord in my patrol instead of my battalion it costs me CP.

It just seems like detachments are detachments and the rules are standardized to make taking diverse detachments to cover your weakness come at a cost versus just being an all in benefit. I think it is good and while not perfect? Is pretty so,I’d way to do that while not saying “you can’t use this anymore”

When you're "adding 3 knights" who also contain your warlord then you aren't adding knights. You're adding something to the knights.

Exactly.

 bullyboy wrote:
I honestly wouldn't have a problem spending 3CP to add a Wraithknight if it were actually worthwhile taking!

I think you'll always struggle to justify it, because of mental anchoring against knights who have access to so much more extra gubbins.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Just make your whole army immune to rend -2. Problem solved.

Do you mean that daemons counter the bikes?

The "just ignore -2" ignores # of shots you have. When you shoot over 100 shots with rerolls you wipe out tons of stuff anyway even if they ignore your asm...One squad of aggressors can basically wipe out 4 squads of VH sisters for exaple with couple bodies to spare. And having just faced marines even basic marines took out my sisters steadily(not helped that their heavy version basically ignored my 6+++ part of VH).

 BroodSpawn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?

If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.

Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.

Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.

No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.

Have you considered finding a gaming group that was willing to play to those restrictions?

Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
*Sigh* One of the advantages of soup is that it allows a faction to make up for its inherent disadvantages by taking allies who make up for those disadvantages. Guard allies provide knights with screening units that are also good at scoring objectives, two things that knights lack. A faction that lacks super heavys makes up for that disadvantage by adding knights. This is one of the things that makes soup hard to balance. That's why soup should have an additional cost, which it may have but hasn't been revealed yet. Until such information is available we must assume that detachment costs are the price of soup.

Super heavys in factions whose codexes are already written with them being available in mind should be balanced with points, as they already are considering they are already expensive units. If gw insists on using cp to balance them then their points should be lower to compensate. Perhaps they've done this, as the new terrain rules are also a detriment to them. We don't know that either.

This slow drip of information is aggravating.

Given that we do not know the rules for the Supreme Command detachment, and there could be a super heavy slot put in to other places (Brigade was mentioned) I would not be so quick to dismiss superheavies.

I'm 100% fine on there being a 3CP tax of sticking a superheavy, any superheavy, into a list with just 3 troops 2 HQs baseline. That has the potential to allow you to create an extreme skew list at around the 1k points level, and I think the cost of about 1/2 your CPs at that level makes sense.

I think people really heavily overstate the difficulty of getting a brigade going even in an elite faction. There are low-cost options for heavy support, fast attack and elites in pretty much any army that has an in-codex LOW. CSMs can currently get there for about 850-ish points taking low cost options under current points.

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

Aye, but i shouldn't need to replace the hammer handle after i just bought the set now should i?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

yet some people claim that small games were impossible to play before 9th as the toolbox did not tell them in detail how to do it

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...

Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...

Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak

I disagree, but I've always enjoyed homebrewed narrative games as well as RTT events so I have some.bias towards the fact GW has always tried to leave the door open for homebrew.

I have a feeling it'll be pretty painless to include a single LOW in a 2k list, whether that's thru a supreme command, a free slot in a brigade, or Batt+SH Aux for 3CP.

Like, woe is you, previously you could include a SH Aux+Batt and have 8CP, and now you *only* get 9CP+1 per turn! How awful!

You now get more CP than you previously did, and if you're playing that LOW+Batt list against an opponent that previously ran the standard double Batt or Brigade list setup, they end up with fewer CPs to start off. And this is a...nerf for lists that include a LOW, somehow?

the_scotsman wrote:
I have a feeling it'll be pretty painless to include a single LOW in a 2k list, whether that's thru a supreme command, a free slot in a brigade, or Batt+SH Aux for 3CP.

Like, woe is you, previously you could include a SH Aux+Batt and have 8CP, and now you *only* get 9CP+1 per turn! How awful!

You now get more CP than you previously did, and if you're playing that LOW+Batt list against an opponent that previously ran the standard double Batt or Brigade list setup, they end up with fewer CPs to start off. And this is a...nerf for lists that include a LOW, somehow?

Probably true for most armies, I could see some exceptions being made for stuff like the Primarchs since being leader characters it doesn't fit to make them negatively impact the army's CP like they do under what we currently know of the rules.

They'll at least zero out the lost CP for their inclusion is my guess.

Thinking of CP, Calgar may not keep his rule as it currently exists. That pr characters who give free CP are likely to see a points hike for said free CP based on how the new edition works.

the_scotsman wrote:
I have a feeling it'll be pretty painless to include a single LOW in a 2k list, whether that's thru a supreme command, a free slot in a brigade, or Batt+SH Aux for 3CP.

Like, woe is you, previously you could include a SH Aux+Batt and have 8CP, and now you *only* get 9CP+1 per turn! How awful!

You now get more CP than you previously did, and if you're playing that LOW+Batt list against an opponent that previously ran the standard double Batt or Brigade list setup, they end up with fewer CPs to start off. And this is a...nerf for lists that include a LOW, somehow?

Some armies could force that second battalion plus aux. They'll be at a loss, but I don't weep for that.

Non-Knight superheavies don't usually need a lot of CP (mostly because there isn't much to use on them) so taking one sort of alleviates needing stratagems for a quarter of the army.

UnitPL might be upset, but I'm so glad the cheaper triple superheavies are dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Thinking of CP, Calgar may not keep his rule as it currently exists. That pr characters who give free CP are likely to see a points hike for said free CP based on how the new edition works.

There's still going to be lots of CP in the game. The relics will be more relevant again. It's just that the CP isn't all front loaded to get dumped on turns 1 and 2.

Oh I agree, but to further reduce early game advantage I could see that bonus CP reduced or removed, with a points hike to match.

I don't know if people recall this, but in the first videos about 9th edition Stu did mention that adding a single Imperial Knight to your Imperial Guard would cost around 1-2 CP.

Now whether that is true or not remains to be seen.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I don't know if people recall this, but in the first videos about 9th edition Stu did mention that adding a single Imperial Knight to your Imperial Guard would cost around 1-2 CP.

Now whether that is true or not remains to be seen.

I do recall. I figured that was him indicating the cost for "true soup" on top of detachment cost. But with the overwatch thing I think it could just be Stu misremembering some things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like today will possibly be the rules for models in the box.

I thought they said the rules for the models would be Saturday along with an actual game of 9th.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I thought they said the rules for the models would be Saturday along with an actual game of 9th.

FB post says this:

Get ready for the big Indomitus Face-off with today's #New40K show. We'll also be looking at Knights and Genestealer Cults in the new edition.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Just make your whole army immune to rend -2. Problem solved.

Do you mean that daemons counter the bikes?

The "just ignore -2" ignores # of shots you have. When you shoot over 100 shots with rerolls you wipe out tons of stuff anyway even if they ignore your asm...One squad of aggressors can basically wipe out 4 squads of VH sisters for exaple with couple bodies to spare. And having just faced marines even basic marines took out my sisters steadily(not helped that their heavy version basically ignored my 6+++ part of VH).

No they can't. A squad of 3 aggressors barely kills a full 5 girl squad with doubleshot on average, even with CM rerolls. Unless you're the kind of person that just leaves SoB out in the open it should have taken 6 aggressors to even kill your one chaff unit. (note, that's with the guns, the flamers kill slightly more on average but at that point they've locked themselves into a +3 range, infiltrate/run straight at your face build, which means it really doesn't matter how many they kill because they'll need to fully wipe multiple units to even have a chance to get their points back and considering they telegraph their deployment super hard...it's your fault more than theirs if they succeed.

100 shots with rerolls is 9 sisters per turn. That's 850 points of intercessors to kill 81 points of sisters.

And having just face marines, basic marines can't touch VH sisters of battle without HORRENDOUS save rolls, or ap-3. They'll shred the feth out of your vehicles and things that get out of the VH bubble, but your infantry are incredibly frustrating to take out.

Also, not for nothing but it was a tongue in cheek joke, not an explicit tactical recommendation. You should probably relax a little.

Huh. I guess I misunderstood yesterday's video.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...

Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak

I disagree, but I've always enjoyed homebrewed narrative games as well as RTT events so I have some.bias towards the fact GW has always tried to leave the door open for homebrew.

No, it's just them being lazy. Wanting to homebrew is fine, but making it mandatory essentially is bad rules writing. You don't NEED a toolbox that says "okay whatever", you need a toolbox that functions to begin with.

Otherwise, you can literally just make pewpew noises and whoever makes the best noises wins.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I thought they said the rules for the models would be Saturday along with an actual game of 9th.

FB post says this:

Get ready for the big Indomitus Face-off with today's #New40K show. We'll also be looking at Knights and Genestealer Cults in the new edition.

Splitting half an hour 4 ways (indomitus, knights, chaos knights & cults) means they won't be sharing much of anything.

Dudeface wrote:

Splitting half an hour 4 ways (indomitus, knights, chaos knights & cults) means they won't be sharing much of anything.

I think the knights and cults is just the upcoming articles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course wouldn't be the first time FB got it wrong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Splitting half an hour 4 ways (indomitus, knights, chaos knights & cults) means they won't be sharing much of anything.

I think the knights and cults is just the upcoming articles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course wouldn't be the first time FB got it wrong.

10 minutes in and they're starting to discuss stealer cults, they skimmed over knights for 7-8 mins

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."

See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.

The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.

Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...

Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak

I disagree, but I've always enjoyed homebrewed narrative games as well as RTT events so I have some.bias towards the fact GW has always tried to leave the door open for homebrew.

No, it's just them being lazy. Wanting to homebrew is fine, but making it mandatory essentially is bad rules writing. You don't NEED a toolbox that says "okay whatever", you need a toolbox that functions to begin with.

Otherwise, you can literally just make pewpew noises and whoever makes the best noises wins.

That's not what I said. No one said homebrew was mandatory, the statement was that homebrew was explicitly permitted so if you wanted to do something different than the core rules you had the permission in the rules to do so which keeps the "but the rules don't allow that!" crowd from having a valid arguement.

Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

I hate to tell GW but the new coherency rule, while good, doesn't stop congalines, it just makes them shorter and thicker as they work in two ranks.