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.

Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?

Also in what capacity do you think detachments will serve in the new rules?

I've always enjoyed mono codex more anyway, so not going to change a lot on my list building.
I'm not sure how my detachments will work, it seems like it's still open to interpretation HOW command points unlock detachments (mono-codex vs allies) so I'll have to wait and see. I play Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, and Custodes so I'm not filling out a full 3 detachments anyway.

Seems like the new system will work in reverse compared to now: you spend CP to use extra detachments, rather than getting more CP per detachment. I suspect the first detachment is free (pretty sure they mentioned that on stream) but probably only if it's a Brigade/Battalion. Each one after that will cost CPs to unlock and hopefully it also costs extra CPs to use a detachment form a different Codex.

In theory I think it looks great as it provides a genuine drawback for soup while also not randomly boosting the power of certain armies because they happen to have cheap and useful Troops, or can easily fill out a Brigade because of weird unit slot allocations. My only problem at the moment is that armies like SoB and SM are currently set up to receive a big benefit from going mono-Codex so they theoretically are bigger winners than other armies at this point but that should be rectified as new Codices are released.

I think one of the biggest pieces we are missing is how this will affect troops.

Are troops going to play a more critical role for scoring points with the new missions?

Overall, my Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons will be affected some, but this is going to be a boon for my Necrons.

I'm glad they chose to go with something like this. The basic concept is exactly what I suggested last year.

Start with flat CP and allied detachments cost you CP (additional detachments in general should also cost you CP). I do wonder what detachments are going to look like now. Maybe they wont change. In general though I think the game could do without the supreme command detachment and other specialty detachments.

We would be better off with just
patrol (should have a big CP negative as an additional detachment)
batallion (maybe add a lord of war slot)
brigade (should have a big CP negative as an additional detachment) (+ add lord of war slot)

It is basic but it is also easy to manage.
superheavy

Slipspace wrote:
Seems like the new system will work in reverse compared to now: you spend CP to use extra detachments, rather than getting more CP per detachment. I suspect the first detachment is free (pretty sure they mentioned that on stream) but probably only if it's a Brigade/Battalion. Each one after that will cost CPs to unlock and hopefully it also costs extra CPs to use a detachment form a different Codex.

In theory I think it looks great as it provides a genuine drawback for soup while also not randomly boosting the power of certain armies because they happen to have cheap and useful Troops, or can easily fill out a Brigade because of weird unit slot allocations. My only problem at the moment is that armies like SoB and SM are currently set up to receive a big benefit from going mono-Codex so they theoretically are bigger winners than other armies at this point but that should be rectified as new Codices are released.

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for that. So no spamming vanguards or spearheads without consequence.

I'm thinking most of my armies will fit into a brigade without needing to spend on troops for a double battalion. It feels quite nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:
I think one of the biggest pieces we are missing is how this will affect troops.

Are troops going to play a more critical role for scoring points with the new missions?

Overall, my Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons will be affected some, but this is going to be a boon for my Necrons.

This was my thought as well. Missions will lean into that part.

For the Drukhari, I really don't know, as we currently need three detachments to be able to field our whole codex.

 harlokin wrote:
For the Drukhari, I really don't know, as we currently need three detachments to be able to field our whole codex.

Dark Eldar specifically will need a detachment update as well as Imperial knights probably. Easy fix.

Don't know till i see the rest of the rules.

Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.

It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.

Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.

Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.

Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.

Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?

Not enough details to say really. From what I got from both live streams is that it will cost CP to get detachments from a second codex, but nothing was said regarding taking multiple detachments from the same codex as far as I can tell. Thats a very important distinction as their are several codexes where having to pay CP for taking more than 1 detachment could be a real dealbreaker, Drukhari especially. This also heavily relies on how many CP you'll get at what points level and how many CP it will cost to take any other detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.

It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.

Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.

Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.

Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.

Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?

I really hope rule of 3 gets made a permenant rule for matched play, whilst there are some outliers that get penalised for the most part it has been great in stopping those spam alpha unit lists (though when Scatbikes where a common thing they were troops and wouldn't have been affected by it).

I have a friend that has run a Dark Angel all dreadnaught list and still stuck to rule of 3 with ease, since with Redemptors, Leviathans, Doredeo's, Contemptors, Irondclads, Vens, Chaplins (and he has actually chaplin dreads) and the standards angry washing machine there's more than enough choice. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad either.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.

It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.

Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.

Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.

Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.

Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?

Yes, true, but I think you're kind of running away with the premise before we know if Ro3 is gone or not. I doubt that it is.

I hope it'll mean I don't have to spend as much time juggling detachments to work out how I'm going to get enough CP to do anything. I tend to go for armies that have very expensive Troops/HQ choices (Deathwatch, Custodes, that kind of thing) and I'd love to be able to relax and just take the units I actually want to use instead of trying to figure out whether I can do a double-battalion and still have enough units to play the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, my armies have always been extremely troop heavy because that's what I like to paint. I own a relatively small number of vehicles in proportion to the number of infantry models I tend to own.

It is going to be really gakky, IMO, if 9th ed turns into a similar situation to late 7th where you could basically make an army out of spamming one super powerful thing 9 times and that's your list.

Every time they try this, the same tired old "I want to play muh fluffy deathwing" and "I want to do the all-biker saim-hann much fluff very narrative" and inevitably you never see those lists because they're buried under a gigantic pile of miserable 6-riptide or 5 flying hive tyrant or 30 scatbike skew lists.The rule of 3 being a competitive play guideline that is not an official rule for matched play or whatever but which has been widely accepted by the playerbase as standard has been a massive boon for average gameplay.

Anyone whose list is actually "I just like dreadnoughts, my list is 12 dreadnoughts!" is not playing a game that's competitive enough for people to be real "rule of 3' sticklers (and if people are doing that to you, they're the donkey-cave, not you). and anyone who just wants to club seals with their 6 hive tyrant skew list is most likely going to be dissuaded by the fact that they won't be allowed to run that at any organized event.

Any time GW has made a rules change that's just thrown everything out and said "Take what you want!" it's resulted in hideous powergaming abuse basically immediately.

Remember early AOS lists? Wall o' Culexus lists? 30 Malefic lords? Were those fun?

Yes, true, but I think you're kind of running away with the premise before we know if Ro3 is gone or not. I doubt that it is.

Heck it might be RoX where each unit has a number to them.

Although there's not enough info/details yet, I doubt it'll have much (if any) impact on how I build armies.
I mean, worrying about CP isn't something I do. It's an afterthought to me. As such I'm not going to build a force in some way other than what I enjoy just to max out CP.

Now if building an army how I envision it model-wise is going to cost me x CP in 9th? Then I'll have to make sure I take that into account. But I'm still not going to worry about what strats I can/can't use. I'll build the army 1st & then make use of whatever CP I have left over.

Maybe I can finally finish that Eldar wraith army which I started years ago when the eWraithguard were briefly troops in that Iyanden supplement...

Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?

I'm not so sure the way everyone is interpreting this is the way it's ACTUALLY going down though. In the preview I saw, all they really said was "Everyone starts with the same CP", which, technically is true now. Everyone has what? 5 CP to start with and THEN you build your army. I feel like what's actually going to happen is everyone will get that 10 CP or whatever it was they said, you will spend CP to soup, but you willl still GET CP bonuses for other things. I really don't get the optimism, or how everyone seems to think they actually KNOW what system gdubs is switching to from that super vague teaser. As the edition hasgone on, it's become more and more obvious they don't fully grasp the concept, or problem of CP Farming, and I'm not so sure they're really capable of jumping right from "We don't get this. At all." to "WE FIXED IT!" on the first attempt. Was there another place where they elaborated on it? Please link me if possible?

Or it could be as simple as everyone starts with a battalion no matter what like older editions.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or it could be as simple as everyone starts with a battalion no matter what like older editions.

I don't think that's likely given that they've tried to cut back on having units that can hop FOC slots. You'll probably still be able to build a freeform army with no Troops if you don't want them.

Tycho wrote:

Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?

I'm not so sure the way everyone is interpreting this is the way it's ACTUALLY going down though. In the preview I saw, all they really said was "Everyone starts with the same CP", which, technically is true now. Everyone has what? 5 CP to start with and THEN you build your army. I feel like what's actually going to happen is everyone will get that 10 CP or whatever it was they said, you will spend CP to soup, but you willl still GET CP bonuses for other things. I really don't get the optimism, or how everyone seems to think they actually KNOW what system gdubs is switching to from that super vague teaser. As the edition hasgone on, it's become more and more obvious they don't fully grasp the concept, or problem of CP Farming, and I'm not so sure they're really capable of jumping right from "We don't get this. At all." to "WE FIXED IT!" on the first attempt. Was there another place where they elaborated on it? Please link me if possible?

In the Q&A yesterday around minute 38 they said that your CP are linked to the size of game (Combat Patrol, Onslaught etc), and that you have the same amount as your opponent. They say that you have the same "economy" as your opponent in a way similar to Points of Power Level. They offer that you could spend them on gaining access to Allies etc. My takeaway is that they mean what they say: your CPs are generated by the size of game and then you spend them. You don't generate them with Detachments anymore.

Of course, none of us have the rulebook in front of us!

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Don't know till i see the rest of the rules.

This so much.. We don't even know if detachments will remain the same..

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?

Also in what capacity do you think detachments will serve in the new rules?

I can't see myself using more than 20 battle sisters outside of a full infantry spam list. One of the biggest SoB had before was they needed tons of CP but the troops are only really good for taking up space and acting as a screen. Being able to save 100ish points and have the option to use 10 girl units if I have the 4++ auras rocking would be nice.

For Orks, it'll largely depend how much CP we get at 1000, 1500, or 2000. Hopefully it's not less than we normally get now (15-20).

And since we have no allies, also how much extra detachment cost. I sort of hope extra detachments can be free if they are Batallions or Brigades, as you are forced to take troops as a tax.

I like the idea of fixed CP, though my big issue is going to be how/if GW adjusts Stratagem power to adjust, I suspect they will not. With respect to army construction, on my end I never really built to maximize CP's to begin with, it was always a secondary or tertiary concern to think about after I knew what kind of force I wanted to build and what I wanted to include, so at best it may rejigger how I arrange stuff but probably won't change what I actually put on the table too much, though without seeing the 9E rules I can't be certain.

Depends. If the detachments stay the same and there's no good reason to run troops besides opsec? I'll start most lists with a vanguard, drop basic csm and run chosen as my boots on the ground. Right now chosen are closer to what csm should be. 1ppm more for two more attacks (remember, chosen get chainswords for free), and throw on a combi-bolter for 2 more points to double their shots? Sign me up. Other than that it'll probably stay pretty much the same. Lots of warp talons, combi-plasma terminators, and fw dreads. The extra cp just means my Night Lords can still act like Night Lords a little longer.

What interests me the most is what they'll do in the new fw books. Hope they fix my fellblade and dreadclaws so their worth using again. Waiting to see the new flyer rules to see if the hell blade is still worth taking as well.

Of course this is just speculation at this point, but my take on the CP and list building system based on the Q&A was that you start with a fixed number of CPs based on the size of battle, and there is still a detachment system. CPs would be spent during list building to include allies and such. Troops were no longer required to generate/unlock CPs, but unless I missed it, I don’t think they said that troops would lose Objective Secured.

I expect that this means that detachments are still a thing (entirely possible they change what units each detachment can/must take), but detachments don’t give CPs. Instead each detachment has a CP cost. If you want to take 3 vanguard detachments you can, but you need to pay CPs for them whether or not you use those detachments for allies or from the same codex. I think the result will be to encourage fewer detachments, which in turn would encourage you to take troops. Only taking one detachment in 2000 points so you can save CPs, you can, but you’d need a brigade or battalion so you’ve got to fill up those troop slots.

It could see the first detachment being free, possibly the one with your Warlord in it, and you only pay for additional detachments.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now that we all get the same CP how does this change how you're going to build your armies?

Also in what capacity do you think detachments will serve in the new rules?

necrons: Doom scythes become less used. I use nephrek but that's 100% useless for flyers(automatically max advance, umm flyers get that already. Go through terrain? We do that already...) so I would be paying CP for that. So more likely to go for heavy destroyers providing those don't get hit by nerfbat in 9th ed.

Sisters: Probably not much. I still likely use 2nd det for bloody rose if I want multiple sororita melee units. Just too big buff and VH doesn't help them all that much. I might not take brigade so often though that's not HUGE tax...Especially once I get 2nd storm bolter dominion squad.

Orks: Probably aim for 2 klan rather than 3. Have to think do I need to buy more. My models were bought and painted mostly before 8th as mix of 4 klans...Then it didn't matter. Then 8th ed came and I needed to split them by detachment and got reward. Now I'm going to be likely paying CP for it. Urgh. GW is having good laugh at my orks

Imperium: Haven't played with these(apart from mono sisters) much so hard to say yet. Might play mono knights more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Depends. If the detachments stay the same and there's no good reason to run troops besides opsec? I'll start most lists with a vanguard, drop basic csm and run chosen as my boots on the ground. Right now chosen are closer to what csm should be. 1ppm more for two more attacks (remember, chosen get chainswords for free), and throw on a combi-bolter for 2 more points to double their shots? Sign me up. Other than that it'll probably stay pretty much the same. Lots of warp talons, combi-plasma terminators, and fw dreads. The extra cp just means my Night Lords can still act like Night Lords a little longer.

What interests me the most is what they'll do in the new fw books. Hope they fix my fellblade and dreadclaws so their worth using again. Waiting to see the new flyer rules to see if the hell blade is still worth taking as well.

If you have just elite stuff you will struggle with board control. Enjoy stuff appearing out of reserves, shoot and charge without you getting to do anything to prevent. You have unit of havoc? Well you either dedicate expensive unit as ablative chaff screen or enemy deals with them by unit in reserve appearing, charging and wiping them and you get overwatch...The reserves seems to be increasing in use.

Also missions could increase value of ob.sec.

It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.

Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?

Also missions could increase value of ob.sec.

Sure that might happen, but considering all detachment^'s except the high command, have troopslots it wouldn't change much, heck you'd still not see CSM, and you sure as hell would get the 2 squads with PG back at most.

Not Online!!! wrote:
It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.

Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?

Missions, board control. Unless you don't care about your elite units being ambushed all the time unable to do anything before being charged

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It, as stated before, entierly depends on the army in question and the ammount of CP granted baseline.
10 CP f.e. whilest a lot for knights mono would literally be not worth playing for CSM at 1000+ pts level.

Also the baseline, what detachments can be free is also important.if only patrols, brigades and battalions can be then ok, troops still serve a purpose.
If all can be free or cost, why should i bother with troops in many armies?

Missions, board control. Unless you don't care about your elite units being ambushed all the time unable to do anything before being charged

Sorry, but there's units, you know, like chosen which are like csm but better?
And considering PA is still around the ammount of possible movement shenanigans and modifications possible for some armies will make that a moot point tbh.


Then again 10 + models squads now count as a horde, for whatever reason, so you maybee see some mini csm squads?
Hip hip hurray i say,

no, it will be like the old force org chart, take the bare minimum necessarry and then focus on the actual usefull stuff.