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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Also pricier. So you have chosen there whose sole purpose is to die without doing anythign in advance(because that's what the front line screen does. It's there, forces reserves away from key units and then die).

You want the screen to be as cheap as possible because that's what they basically do. Die. Anything else they do is lucky bonus.

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Also pricier. So you have chosen there whose sole purpose is to die without doing anythign in advance(because that's what the front line screen does. It's there, forces reserves away from key units and then die).

You want the screen to be as cheap as possible because that's what they basically do. Die. Anything else they do is lucky bonus.

and?
Like i said, the other detachments have troopslots and 1 pts more for a chosen over a CSM is moot.

I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.

It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.

Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.

If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.

tneva82 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.

It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.

Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.

If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.

This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

Well I hope the cost is substential. And it is not something like two detachment mono army 20 CP, single soup detachment 17CP.

 Bosskelot wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.

It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.

Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.

If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.

This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

Make the first detachment free, and any subsequent detachments using the same subfaction as the first free?

Well my main army (DE) is boring as hell on its own, and I can now look forward to being punished if I have the audacity to ally in some units from a different army.

I guess I'll have a look at the new Necron rules and see if they fix any of the army's core problems or just make all the new units OP to compensate. If the latter, I'll probably just drop out of 40k.

 Bosskelot wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.

It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.

Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.

If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.

This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

1 Language

2 It will depend on the cost in CP but 1-2CP to be able to bring multiple HQ's doesn't sound all that broken. The idea is very simple somepeople just seem to be stuck to the idea of 8th where everything should be optimized for no cost.
You take a less optimized force you are up on CP, take a more optimized list you trade CP for that optimization.
Want to soup give up even more of your CP.

3 They have already said there will be points and errata changes for the new edition.

4 GSC is a bad codex from start to finish it's not fun to play against as it's esentially codex gotcha, it's OP if you don't know how it works and how to counter it, otherwise it's hard counterable especially by marines aka one of the top lists currently.

After watching the Reveal and QnA there is one thing that struck me. Nowhere do they mention detachments explicitly except once, and even then he backtracked so I am leaning towards agreeing with my friend that there will be nothing like detachments.

In fact, I am kinda leaning towards it will be a similar system to what AoS already has. You can take X amount of heroes depending on army size and there will be Y limitations to larger units depending on army size.

We of course won't know until we see some leaks, but the guys in the stream were very explicit that you are going to be able to make the army you want and there won't be artificial limitations like x amount of troops.

Ice_can wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I can't really see them making normal detachments cost CP. So far all they've mentioned is allied detachments doing that, specifically to discourage soup. By punishing people from taking more detachments from units in their main codex if flies in the face of their main objectives which are to give people more CP to play with and to encourage more specialized armies.

It also discourages souping in codex that's neccessary for balance. Or otherwise you have ork army A that's vastly superior for free to ork army B that stays mono.

Staying mono should be rewarded. Taking superior rules can't be for free. There has to be trade. Better rules or CP? Well correct should be point costs but since GW doesn't want to go for correct source and have goff lootas cost less than bad moon lootas CP is best we have.

If you don't minmax for raw power one codex, one detachment is sufficient. If you take power you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's not balanced.

This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

2 It will depend on the cost in CP but 1-2CP to be able to bring multiple HQ's doesn't sound all that broken. The idea is very simple somepeople just seem to be stuck to the idea of 8th where everything should be optimized for no cost.
You take a less optimized force you are up on CP, take a more optimized list you trade CP for that optimization.
Want to soup give up even more of your CP.

3 They have already said there will be points and errata changes for the new edition.

Who said anything about optimization? If you want to take a thematic Saim-hann jetbike army, you would be punished under the system some people assume is happening. If I wanted to run a fluffy Ulthwe list, with multiple Warlock's leading all my squads of Guardians, I would be punished for that. They explicitly mentioned this is sort of the thing they want to move away from; they want to encourage these more specialized and themed armies and to give you MORE freedom in list-building within a Codex. You'd just end up with the same situation as right now, where people start with a Battalion except rather than doing it for direct CP gain, they're doing it because it has more HQ slots.

 Bosskelot wrote:
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

So what makes GSC special snowflake that deserves more than orks? And generally why YOU should get free power boost while others don't? Orks have to pay but you get for free with no downside. Yeah that's fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Who said anything about optimization? If you want to take a thematic Saim-hann jetbike army, you would be punished under the system some people assume is happening. If I wanted to run a fluffy Ulthwe list, with multiple Warlock's leading all my squads of Guardians, I would be punished for that. They explicitly mentioned this is sort of the thing they want to move away from; they want to encourage these more specialized and themed armies and to give you MORE freedom in list-building within a Codex. You'd just end up with the same situation as right now, where people start with a Battalion except rather than doing it for direct CP gain, they're doing it because it has more HQ slots.

So you want things to be too good and broken as long as you get "narrative" forces(though 99% times people's narrative is just excusee for free power trip)

Look balance matters most. You can't have free power ups with zero downside. If you have power boost it must come down with tradeoff.

Alternatively of course let's up the point cost of those all saim han jetbikes to compensate for free power boost. Up for that? In all saim han army jetbikes etc cost +X%.

Or do you drop your pretense and just admit you want free power boost while others should pay so that you get to win with your broken army? Like 99% of these "but muh narrative army!"

tneva82 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

So what makes GSC special snowflake that deserves more than orks? And generally why YOU should get free power boost while others don't? Orks have to pay but you get for free with no downside. Yeah that's fair.

I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm only highlighting that GSC are reliant on their character use, in fact the entire codex revolves around it and how that limiting slots by enforcing a CP-tax on added detachments harms them to a ridiculous degree. In fact all horde-based armies start to get really harmed under a system like that because they often need to start spending points on characters or at least really benefit (from a game perspective as well as a player sanity one) from doing so. In a system where added detachments within a codex starts to cost CP it just incentivizes LESS choice, which is at odds with GW's design philosophy with 9th.

Now, making the Warlord's subfaction the "Main" subfaction of the list and making other subfaction detachments cost CP would absolutely be fine. So if a Four Armed Emperor GSC army wanted to also take Rusted Claw detachments it would cost them. Or your earlier example of |Bad Moonz and Goffs. That's reasonable.

In fact I think we've completely misunderstood each other, especially going by your edit. All the examples I listed are of mono themed army ideas that are currently fething trash in terms of being "powerful" but under a system of any sort of extra detachment costing CP they become even worse. Unless you want to sit here and argue that Saim-hann jetbike armies are good or that mass guardian squads with 3 footslogging warlocks are actually competitive.

So you want things to be too good and broken as long as you get "narrative" forces(though 99% times people's narrative is just excusee for free power trip)

Look balance matters most. You can't have free power ups with zero downside. If you have power boost it must come down with tradeoff.

This is where unit balance comes in. There is nothing useful coming out of telling players "Yes, you can take those units, but half of your army has to be gak and you have no interest in using just because".

Troops should not be gak units and troops in general need to be boosted across the entire board to be viable units. That has nothing to do with detachments or CP, but the internal rule of the codex.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
This completely ignores several armies, or army themes, that would get completely screwed over by normal non-allied detachments costing CP though. GSC? Absolutely fethed. You want that Saim-Hann jetbike army and you want to use more than 2 characters? In an Codex that is almost entirely reliant on its character use? Get fethed, kid. Similar problem with Deathwing or Ravenwing.

The only way this changes is if they also change the make-up of detachments by allowing more HQ slots in each.

So what makes GSC special snowflake that deserves more than orks? And generally why YOU should get free power boost while others don't? Orks have to pay but you get for free with no downside. Yeah that's fair.

I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm only highlighting that GSC are reliant on their character use, in fact the entire codex revolves around it and how that limiting slots by enforcing a CP-tax on added detachments harms them to a ridiculous degree. In fact all horde-based armies start to get really harmed under a system like that because they often need to start spending points on characters or at least really benefit (from a game perspective as well as a player sanity one) from doing so. In a system where added detachments within a codex starts to cost CP it just incentivizes LESS choice, which is at odds with GW's design philosophy with 9th.

Spoiler:

Now, making the Warlord's subfaction the "Main" subfaction of the list and making other subfaction detachments cost CP would absolutely be fine. So if a Four Armed Emperor GSC army wanted to also take Rusted Claw detachments it would cost them. Or your earlier example of |Bad Moonz and Goffs. That's reasonable.

In fact I think we've completely misunderstood each other, especially going by your edit. All the examples I listed are of mono themed army ideas that are currently fething trash in terms of being "powerful" but under a system of any sort of extra detachment costing CP they become even worse. Unless you want to sit here and argue that Saim-hann jetbike armies are good or that mass guardian squads with 3 footslogging warlocks are actually competitive.

That would be why the have 6 charictors in Elites slots and 6 in HQ's. 2 battalions would get you one of each charictor, however plenty of other armies will have to make choices about which of their HQ options they take or if they spend the CP to be able to take more, but thats the point you either take the extra detachment as the charictors are more important than the CP or you work with the limitations of the detachment and have extra CP.
It's about making trade-off decisions which is player agency, I'm sure some choices will have a clearly better choice but it does mean people not taking that optimized build get some CP or extra versatility to compensate.

This new system is going to highlight just how trash the CP system is to begin with.

It will add no flavor. Everyone will do the exact same thing with the CP.

Pancakey wrote:
This new system is going to highlight just how trash the CP system is to begin with.

It will add no flavor. Everyone will do the exact same thing with the CP.

To be honest most stratagems could just be unit specific abilities that require CP to activate without having to be their own stratagem cards. AoS already does this so I am always surprised how backwards 40k is about this.

 Eldarsif wrote:

So you want things to be too good and broken as long as you get "narrative" forces(though 99% times people's narrative is just excusee for free power trip)

Look balance matters most. You can't have free power ups with zero downside. If you have power boost it must come down with tradeoff.

This is where unit balance comes in. There is nothing useful coming out of telling players "Yes, you can take those units, but half of your army has to be gak and you have no interest in using just because".

Troops should not be gak units and troops in general need to be boosted across the entire board to be viable units. That has nothing to do with detachments or CP, but the internal rule of the codex.

I don't think GW wants to balance units. It does not seem to be their goal, not even a secondary one. So it is safer to ask for GW to do stuff they can do. They can design rules in a such a way that one has to pay, in some way for them. Auto take or auto non take option are bad, that is true. But no where near as bad as GW trying to balance the game with ally in mind, and then some poor sod picking up an army that doesn't have ally. Because he can't balance his army around taking ally, if GW design made it so his faction doesn't have any ally.

GW just wants to make money. That is just how corporations run and the only time a corporation would give us balance is because it is "profitable" for them.

Now, what the game designers want is another issue and I would not pretend to know their intentions. However, I imagine many of them just want to have fun and that even some of them might want to get some balance. the FAQs and CA/GHB all point towards some intent towards balance regardless of how well that is done or not.

Either way, I am looking forward to 9th to see how this all plays out.

I am wondering, however, if the rule of 3 will be codified for Matched Play. There's been no hint or suggestions of anything related there.

8th FAQ tought me that the GWs idea of fun is to nerf my army over and over again. And when they finaly did put out a good rule set, no one could use it, and now they announced a new edition. Where stuff suppose to be backwards compatible, the crucial part about it is the some. Kick out some of the good stratagems from PA4, and unlike other armies, GK don't have a solid codex to go back to.

With the rule of 3, I would love for it to be gone. The units I like are all elite, and stuff like strikes are just an inferior version of a interceptor. But there would probably be some horror build for some army using 9 of some FW model, or something necron, so probably won't happen. Even if GW doesn't reprint the rule people will enforce it anyway.

The thing is you can largely make any army you want now - there are just downsides of turning up with triple spearhead detachments.

I'm much more concerned about a mentality that says "we think troops suck, who wants to bring 6 squads of boring grunts along, bring your 15~ tank list, your all flyer lists etc instead" as that creates rather tedious skewed games, (sorry Knight players, this is why a lot of people dislike your army) than I am of "yeah, if you want to unlock alternate chapter tactics/allies, you have to pay 2CP" (or whatever).

This is because CP cost can always be adjusted up and down as necessary - whereas "oh no, we were wrong, our whole idea of how you should build armies needs to be chucked in the bin" is something they are likely to only do in 10th edition.

(I guess taken to extreme something like Guard would only be slotting in an extra 1-2 tanks by ditching some/all of their guardsmen, but still.)

Pancakey wrote:
This new system is going to highlight just how trash the CP system is to begin with.

It will add no flavor. Everyone will do the exact same thing with the CP.

It's certainly the opposite direction I would have liked to see them go with CP.


Also, I look forward to Stratagems still existing and being as helpful to gameplay as raw-sewage is to drinking water.

Karol wrote:
8th FAQ tought me that the GWs idea of fun is to nerf my army over and over again. And when they finaly did put out a good rule set, no one could use it, and now they announced a new edition. Where stuff suppose to be backwards compatible, the crucial part about it is the some. Kick out some of the good stratagems from PA4, and unlike other armies, GK don't have a solid codex to go back to.

With the rule of 3, I would love for it to be gone. The units I like are all elite, and stuff like strikes are just an inferior version of a interceptor. But there would probably be some horror build for some army using 9 of some FW model, or something necron, so probably won't happen. Even if GW doesn't reprint the rule people will enforce it anyway.

Yeah, if GW hadn't caused covid you could have enjoyed those rules. The bastards! This was all according to their plan!

They have not said that "some" of the PA content will be compatible with 9th, they actually said all of it would be.

The censor doesn't want me to call it the Nottingham Virus

At least GK's didn't get 90% squated like my Corsairs did...

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Chosen do everything that csm do, but better. The only thing you lose is obsec and 1ppm. In the current system you also lose cp. If the new system removes that then unless obsec is made more important than it is now there's no good reason to run csm instead of chosen.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
8th FAQ tought me that the GWs idea of fun is to nerf my army over and over again. And when they finaly did put out a good rule set, no one could use it, and now they announced a new edition. Where stuff suppose to be backwards compatible, the crucial part about it is the some. Kick out some of the good stratagems from PA4, and unlike other armies, GK don't have a solid codex to go back to.

With the rule of 3, I would love for it to be gone. The units I like are all elite, and stuff like strikes are just an inferior version of a interceptor. But there would probably be some horror build for some army using 9 of some FW model, or something necron, so probably won't happen. Even if GW doesn't reprint the rule people will enforce it anyway.

Yeah, if GW hadn't caused covid you could have enjoyed those rules. The bastards! This was all according to their plan!

They have not said that "some" of the PA content will be compatible with 9th, they actually said all of it would be.

The censor doesn't want me to call it the Nottingham Virus

If GW wrote the GK rules properly when they came out, or fixed them I don't know a year or year and a half ago that wouldn't be a problem. Lets say the covid didn't happen, even if it did, I got the rules in february, if 9th comes out in a month, this means 4 months of good rules, and after that they can be back to how they were for 2 years. They said that PA is going to be legal, but there is also going to be FAQ, errata, point changes and when the codex pop out only some of the rules are going to make it in to the codex. So if we get a codex early in the edition the PA stuff can end up being invalidated, if they don't get a codex or get it late, I get to enjoy 9th ed with a codex without rules for 9th ed. neither option seems to be very good.

And I don't know what GW plans were. What matters is the end result, not the intentions. According to GWs intentions 8th was suppose to be the best edition they ever made, that had the best set of rules, and which was playtested to hell and back. And in the end we got what we got.

Karol wrote:
If GW wrote the GK rules properly when they came out, or fixed them I don't know a year or year and a half ago that wouldn't be a problem. Lets say the covid didn't happen, even if it did, I got the rules in february, if 9th comes out in a month, this means 4 months of good rules, and after that they can be back to how they were for 2 years. They said that PA is going to be legal, but there is also going to be FAQ, errata, point changes and when the codex pop out only some of the rules are going to make it in to the codex. So if we get a codex early in the edition the PA stuff can end up being invalidated, if they don't get a codex or get it late, I get to enjoy 9th ed with a codex without rules for 9th ed. neither option seems to be very good.

And I don't know what GW plans were. What matters is the end result, not the intentions. According to GWs intentions 8th was suppose to be the best edition they ever made, that had the best set of rules, and which was playtested to hell and back. And in the end we got what we got.

This is How GW runs their business. Do you really think they consider the terrain rules the “best evar?” Do you really think the omission of the “rule of three” in the original rule set was an accident? Do you remember the original flyer rules?, they only got “fixed” when models were completely sold out and going for 150%-200% price on ebay.

Pancakey wrote:

Karol wrote:
If GW wrote the GK rules properly when they came out, or fixed them I don't know a year or year and a half ago that wouldn't be a problem. Lets say the covid didn't happen, even if it did, I got the rules in february, if 9th comes out in a month, this means 4 months of good rules, and after that they can be back to how they were for 2 years. They said that PA is going to be legal, but there is also going to be FAQ, errata, point changes and when the codex pop out only some of the rules are going to make it in to the codex. So if we get a codex early in the edition the PA stuff can end up being invalidated, if they don't get a codex or get it late, I get to enjoy 9th ed with a codex without rules for 9th ed. neither option seems to be very good.

And I don't know what GW plans were. What matters is the end result, not the intentions. According to GWs intentions 8th was suppose to be the best edition they ever made, that had the best set of rules, and which was playtested to hell and back. And in the end we got what we got.

This is How GW runs their business. Do you really think they consider the terrain rules the “best evar?” Do you really think the omission of the “rule of three” in the original rule set was an accident? Do you remember the original flyer rules?, they only got “fixed” when models were completely sold out and going for 150%-200% price on ebay.

Nah they fixed DE RWF spam b.c no one bought RFW b.c its literally the worst unit to buy in the game and no one in their right mine will buy them from GW.

Oh and b.c players didn't have fun fighting against 120 3w/5++/6+++ 8 attacks re-roll everything models. Which is fully understandable.

GW isn't a rules designer, they literally have no idea what they can mess up at times, it has nothing to do with money, just stupidity.

EDIT: To add, go watch the SoB beta reveal with Reece and a GW game tester/designer.
They said "Its cool, if you take a Priest you don't have to take slots for these other units"
Reece snapped "But thats a bad thing" the GW guy "What? Wait? Why is that bad"
Reece then just said "We can talk about it later"

Its clear GW doesn't look to deeply into what can break the game.

Honestly, set CP should have been here a long time back.

That said, if detachments don't give anything to the mix while it benefits theme armies it also seems to hark back to troops being an ever more ignored " Tax " to an army as everyone takes detachments to load up on the power.

I don't think that overall adds good to the game but at least it should take some of the stigma off cheap troop armies. I am hoping they have something in mind and not just make it an edition of " Troops suck hur dur, stand on objective har har "

 Eldarsif wrote:
After watching the Reveal and QnA there is one thing that struck me. Nowhere do they mention detachments explicitly except once, and even then he backtracked so I am leaning towards agreeing with my friend that there will be nothing like detachments.

In fact, I am kinda leaning towards it will be a similar system to what AoS already has. You can take X amount of heroes depending on army size and there will be Y limitations to larger units depending on army size.

We of course won't know until we see some leaks, but the guys in the stream were very explicit that you are going to be able to make the army you want and there won't be artificial limitations like x amount of troops.

They did say that people will still be taking troops for the same reasons they have to now...
Not sure what hes on about because I take 3-6 troops because I have to for CP tax reasons..

One thing that remains is the RO3.. So even the troops requirement goes away from a generating CP perspective the RO3 should in theory prevent spamming just unit x without repercussions.
Also spamming heavy support might not be a good idea, depending on terrain rules and so on. So this might not be as bleak as the -1 modifier cap sounds

Waay to many veriables. You can just see it falling flat on its face straight away.. Its GW after all.. They have "amazing ideas every 60 seconds"...... Which is not great for a game this big.
I wish they just released a beta set of rules so we can all play test it and pick it apart.. Why they don't beta test things with their player base for freee before putting out a tight paid for version is absolutely beyond me..