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.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out.

If these simple changes to CP actually result in the optimal army configuration becoming a relatively balanced list with a mix of HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, then GW will have converged fluff and crunch in a way never before reached in the history of the game.

Realistically, unless the non-Battalion/Brigade detachments cost a lot of CP, then armies built from those detachments will be better off than they are currently. But I don't see any problem with having the most generalist detachment with the highest number of compulsory choices confer the greatest CP benefit.

This is a really interesting perspective- I hadn't seen it from these angles.

Maybe Unbound will be the best thing for the game. If we're only taking things because of what they do on the table it should hyper focus where the balance is off.

Now if GW takes that info to bring the outliers closer together great. If they just release new units that invalidate the top 20% not so much.

PenitentJake wrote:
If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.

This assumes that you'll still have a choice of brigade. That might be locked behind points levels.

0-1000 = Combat Patrol
1001-2000 = Batallion
2001+ = Brigade.

And rule of 3 isn't a rule.

The Rule Of Three *is* a rule, boy does that one get old. It’s a rule, albeit an optional one with a nickname, and a lot of games outside of tournaments use it. Sure, it’s not a *Core Rule*, but please do stop saying it isn’t a rule. It is, and a widely-used one at that.

Please stop saying it's a rule. It's a guideline, specifically for matched play organised events, and if it was a rule (which it isn't) it's not even "of three". It varies depending on points level.

You’ll be in a minority with that viewpoint. It’s commonly known as the Rule of Three and is used as a rule by many, whatever hairs you wanna split. Good luck telling those who use it otherwise. This was meant as an aside btw and isn’t the topic so if you want to continue this please PM me or start a thread so this one isn’t derailed for others.

It’ll be interesting to see what the new shape of detachments etc. is. Some people aren’t I have (mis?)interpreted previews about unlocking allies to mean any extra detachments cost CP. I just don’t see that being the case. I also don’t think there’ll be mandated ‘core detachments’ as that would fly in the face of their ‘collect what you like so long as you BUY STUFF’ current ethos. Don’t see that changing.

I’m very on board with the set CP thing if only so I don’t have to skew lists for a chance at using my toys properly. I do wonder if some armies will struggle now if they can’t build for their CP-hungry tools, such as GSC. I needed the CP advantage to have a look-in vs modern Marines. If they’ve now same points, better rules AND more tricks my GSC might be shelf-warming until a new Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Please stop saying it's a rule. It's a guideline, specifically for matched play organised events, and if it was a rule (which it isn't) it's not even "of three". It varies depending on points level.

I'd say it is a rule de facto, as you can't find a pickup game if you break it, let alone play in a tournament. At least here where I live.
My guess is that it will be a matched play rule presented in the new rulebook, with limits of 2x up to 1000, 3x up to 2000, ...

 Galas wrote:
The typical FOC is rubbish and it makes many armies unplayable. We are , and I'm very glad of it, pass that.


The old FOC was so bad that nearly half the codexs had characters that allowed you to ignore it , with things like making bikes troops, etc, etc...


Feth the idea of trop tax. 8th has accomplished something nearly no other edition did: Many factions play their troops because they are actually quite good and usable! Others use them as CP bots, ok, just like in nearly all edition many armies troops were trash that you would take only if you had no way to NOT take them.

I don't see how this is suppose to be a good thing, for any army without multiple good elite, fast attack and heavy support choices though. It is like the ally thing. Technicaly opens the number of army combinations, but not to people who don't have ally as an option. And that is before some people maybe not wanting to play with ally.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You’ll be in a minority with that viewpoint.

Irrelevant. It's not a rule. Doesn't matter if people commonly think it is, it's still not a rule. End of story. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But I am splitting them correctly? You betcha!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’ll be interesting to see what the new shape of detachments etc. is. Some people aren’t I have (mis?)interpreted previews about unlocking allies to mean any extra detachments cost CP. I just don’t see that being the case. I also don’t think there’ll be mandated ‘core detachments’ as that would fly in the face of their ‘collect what you like so long as you BUY STUFF’ current ethos. Don’t see that changing.

That seems to be what they said - want more detachments, pay CP for them. You are correct though, it does go against the "buy stuff" ethos, which is why I think that the Brigade will be the norm. If everyone has 6 HS slots and 6 FA slots without needing to buy more detachments, then everyone will still "buy stuff".

Someone else said it earlier, and I know it'll never happen, but I'd like FOC to be determined by the army you're playing, and the structure of that army's military forces.

I'm always reminded of the Epic 2nd Ed Tyranid rules, where their structure was hexagonal. You'd start with Hive Mind creatures at the centre (Hive Tyrant and the Dominatrix), and you could attach units to each of the 6 sides. Want to expand that? Bring some Tyranid warriors, who had 2-3 sides available for further attachments. Meant that the larger force you had, the more synapse you needed to support it. Always thought it was a nifty idea. You could do the same for various armies, like the company structure for Marine armies, platoon structure for Guard, and so on. Imagine a Death Guard army whose organisation is geared around the number 7?

As I said, GW would never do it, but it would be fun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You’ll be in a minority with that viewpoint.

Irrelevant. It's not a rule. Doesn't matter if people commonly think it is, it's still not a rule. End of story. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But I am splitting them correctly? You betcha!

Just to jump on this pedant train, yes you are splitting hairs, but you aren't doing it correctly. Is it a rule? Yes. Is it always applicable? No.

Is points a rule? yes. is it used in Open play? No

Is Power Level a rule? yes. Is it used in Matched play? no.

Is a house rule a rule? Yes. is it relevant if you're not using house rules? no.

Is the legal drinking age in the UK 18 yrs old? yes. Is this a rule? yes. Is it relevant in a bar in California? No, but it is still a rule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You’ll be in a minority with that viewpoint.

Irrelevant. It's not a rule. Doesn't matter if people commonly think it is, it's still not a rule. End of story. Am I splitting hairs? Sure. But I am splitting them correctly? You betcha!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’ll be interesting to see what the new shape of detachments etc. is. Some people aren’t I have (mis?)interpreted previews about unlocking allies to mean any extra detachments cost CP. I just don’t see that being the case. I also don’t think there’ll be mandated ‘core detachments’ as that would fly in the face of their ‘collect what you like so long as you BUY STUFF’ current ethos. Don’t see that changing.

That seems to be what they said - want more detachments, pay CP for them. You are correct though, it does go against the "buy stuff" ethos, which is why I think that the Brigade will be the norm. If everyone has 6 HS slots and 6 FA slots without needing to buy more detachments, then everyone will still "buy stuff".

Someone else said it earlier, and I know it'll never happen, but I'd like FOC to be determined by the army you're playing, and the structure of that army's military forces.

I'm always reminded of the Epic 2nd Ed Tyranid rules, where their structure was hexagonal. You'd start with Hive Mind creatures at the centre (Hive Tyrant and the Dominatrix), and you could attach units to each of the 6 sides. Want to expand that? Bring some Tyranid warriors, who had 2-3 sides available for further attachments. Meant that the larger force you had, the more synapse you needed to support it. Always thought it was a nifty idea. You could do the same for various armies, like the company structure for Marine armies, platoon structure for Guard, and so on. Imagine a Death Guard army whose organisation is geared around the number 7?

As I said, GW would never do it, but it would be fun.

This reminds me of the way Imperial Guard used to be bilt around platoons, with a limited number of specialist squads added on. The 3.5 codex had Command platoons, Infantry platoons, and Heavy Weapons platoons, all requiring command squads to access the units in a time before orders made command squads vital. Veterans, conscripts and armoured fist squads were limited in number (doctrines notwithstanding). This kind of persisted into the 5th ed codex, but everything was rolled into the Infantry platoon, loosing much of the flavour.

I would quite like a return to the platoon structure, with unit options being unlocked by using command assets.

There would need to be some variation and flexibility- a small game would be appropriate to be lead by a Commissar or platoon commander, but a larger game should be a Lord Commissar or company commander.

 Haighus wrote:
This reminds me of the way Imperial Guard used to be bilt around platoons, with a limited number of specialist squads added on. The 3.5 codex had Command platoons, Infantry platoons, and Heavy Weapons platoons, all requiring command squads to access the units in a time before orders made command squads vital. Veterans, conscripts and armoured fist squads were limited in number (doctrines notwithstanding). This kind of persisted into the 5th ed codex, but everything was rolled into the Infantry platoon, loosing much of the flavour.

I would quite like a return to the platoon structure, with unit options being unlocked by using command assets.

There would need to be some variation and flexibility- a small game would be appropriate to be lead by a Commissar or platoon commander, but a larger game should be a Lord Commissar or company commander.

Oh I remember. Guard were my top army back in the days of 3rd/4th. Their platoon structure might as well have been tattooed onto my eyeballs it was something I used so often.

When GW removed it in favour of individual squads and, worse, removed the Officers from their command squads (which runs counter to the entire reason Guard officers were put in command squads for the first place, as having them as roaming heroes wasn't their style), it was a sad day for the Guard (then they even changed their name - a sadder day for the Astra Miliwhatnow?). There weren't many things as fun as throwing down a 55-man Mechanised platoon as a single Troops choice.

I like your idea, with command assets, and some variation of commanders (Commissars being a good example, another could be Storm Trooper commanders or even higher-level Priests, could even unlock some of the more esoteric units, Flaggelants, Crusaders, etc.). Just as long as it isn't like the old Doctrine system, where in order to get the good stuff you had to "give up" units that you were never going to take anyway (Sanctioned Psykers, Ratlings, Ogryn, etc.).

Aash wrote:
Is it a rule? Yes.

No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...

 Haighus wrote:

This reminds me of the way Imperial Guard used to be bilt around platoons, with a limited number of specialist squads added on. The 3.5 codex had Command platoons, Infantry platoons, and Heavy Weapons platoons, all requiring command squads to access the units in a time before orders made command squads vital. Veterans, conscripts and armoured fist squads were limited in number (doctrines notwithstanding). This kind of persisted into the 5th ed codex, but everything was rolled into the Infantry platoon, loosing much of the flavour.

I would quite like a return to the platoon structure, with unit options being unlocked by using command assets.

There would need to be some variation and flexibility- a small game would be appropriate to be lead by a Commissar or platoon commander, but a larger game should be a Lord Commissar or company commander.

No expiriance with prior editions, but to those that did play back then would it be interesting to have each army have army specific detachments. With rules and CP cost tailored to this specific factions.

And if some specific detachmant was too good to soup, it could get an anti soup rule. So lets say a quintet of smash hammers, chaplains and librarians could be an option only if all the other detachments were space marines of the same chapter. Or would something like that be a stupid idea?

Aash wrote:
Is it a rule? Yes.

No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...

Merriam-Webster:

Guideline (noun)
A rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guideline

Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.

 alextroy wrote:
Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.

Yes.

Makes me wonder whether we are going full Kill Team on this.

According to the last news, CPs arrive turn by turn!

Is this going to curb alpha strikes?

Spoletta wrote:
According to the last news, CPs arrive turn by turn!

Is this going to curb alpha strikes?

The more expensive ones maybee?
Rip concealed obliterators or Termies.

Spoletta wrote:
According to the last news, CPs arrive turn by turn!

Is this going to curb alpha strikes?

Now what would be perfect would be, the guy who gets turn 1, gets zero CP during the first turn.

Aash wrote:

Aash wrote:
Is it a rule? Yes.

No. It's a guideline. Not a rule. Says so even in its own text: "... we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length ... feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit ...". None can split hairs more efficiently as me. Everything else you said is so much straw...

Merriam-Webster:

Guideline (noun)
A rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done

Whilst this is off topic, I actually agree with H.B.M.C in that it's a guideline. Should isnt must, and whilst they are similar, "should” is used to denote recommendations, advice, or to talk about what is generally right or wrong within the permissible limits of society. For instance:

You should chew your food properly.
We should respect our parents.
You should stop smoking.
You must clean our car

Just because we all use it, and its enforced by tournaments doesnt mean it's an official rule. We are advised to use it and thus we have adopted it as a rule, but in no way is it enforced by Gamesworkshop as a rule.

If I'm told I should hand my report in by 12pm, doesnt mean I have to stick to that timing. But if I'm told I must, then if I miss that deadline I have broken that command. One is a recommendation, the other is an obligation.

We as a community have just accepted it as a rule for the sake of balance.

No idea why this is trapped inside a quote haha

Spoletta wrote:
According to the last news, CPs arrive turn by turn!

Is this going to curb alpha strikes?

Very much love this, actually. It's kind of a no-brainer rule steal from AoS that helps cure my reticence for fixed CP. Means you gotta be more sparing for certain tactics per turn early, save up for a late-game CP dump tactic, or just blow through them willy-nilly each turn for some fun and power.

It is good for the long term health of the game. Will need some rebalancing in the short term as there are currently races that are just hanging on by spending a ton of CP to compete.

Why would this stop alpha striking? Alpha striking was around before Command Points came about. It's the reason why getting the first turn has always been so powerful.

Someone in the other thread said that generating CP at the start of each turn would go a long way to making the "auto-include" CP-generating Warlord Traits and Relics not quite such a thing. I'd also imagine that such traits/relics might find themselves left out of future Codices.

That said, I don't mind additional CP for specific army choices (Red Corsairs spring to mind).

Aash wrote:
Merriam-Webster

Cool story bro. Still not a rule, of 3 or otherwise.

Its sort of brave to make a whole new phase.. Interesting.

Aldo actual terrain rules.

Give it another 6 years and we'll back to proper 40k with firing arcs, templates and a proper wound and hit chart.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
If they assign a cost to detachments, every mono army will just be a brigade with extra slots maxed out. Rule of 3 is still out there to my knowledge.

This assumes that you'll still have a choice of brigade. That might be locked behind points levels.

0-1000 = Combat Patrol
1001-2000 = Batallion
2001+ = Brigade.

And rule of 3 isn't a rule.

Nice- I think you're onto something. That sounds like exactly what they'll do. Funny thing: I was kinda up in arms a little about limits on detachments outside of subfaction/faction concerns, but if they link it to escalation like that, given that I'll be playing a crusade anyway, I might be able to get behind it. Thanks for the perspective.

In the end, it's just a guess, but I could see your "core" detachment (and CP) being set by the points level, and then additional detachments (and different Codices) being bought with those CP.

I seriously doubt there will be any fixed core detachment. They have already said you can play any type of army you want. The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.

Furthermore, there are armies that can't fix a Brigade in even at 2000 points such as Custodes and the Knights (Imperial or Chaos).

The rules are far more likely to be a more simple, pick any detachment you want as your first detachment (maybe requiring your Warlord be in that detachment) and then allowing you to just add more at the cost of some of your starting CP. They can literally just remove the detachment benefits from the current detachments and call it done as far as that part is concerned.

 alextroy wrote:
The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.

That's why I wish army composition was Codex-based, rather than generic. If the Dark Angel Codex had a FOC for Battle Companies, Deathwing and Ravenwing armies it would solve the issue. Knights could have their own without having to awkwardly ignore the "standard" FOC we have now.

Argive wrote:Its sort of brave to make a whole new phase.. Interesting.

Aldo actual terrain rules.

Give it another 6 years and we'll back to proper 40k with firing arcs, templates and a proper wound and hit chart.

Not sure it's exactly brave, or really much of a new phase in practice. I'd suspect all the current "start of turn" abilities will be moved to the Command Phase to give them a proper place tomtrigger in the turn sequence.

alextroy wrote:I seriously doubt there will be any fixed core detachment. They have already said you can play any type of army you want. The example of a Deathwing army doesn't fit with a fixed core detachment of Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.

Furthermore, there are armies that can't fix a Brigade in even at 2000 points such as Custodes and the Knights (Imperial or Chaos).

The rules are far more likely to be a more simple, pick any detachment you want as your first detachment (maybe requiring your Warlord be in that detachment) and then allowing you to just add more at the cost of some of your starting CP. They can literally just remove the detachment benefits from the current detachments and call it done as far as that part is concerned.

I'm not so sure. I could easily see a rule that says you get a Battalion or Brigade for free but you don't have to use it. If you want anything other than that you have to pay. Not saying it will happen but it's one route they could take to allow flexibility while still making Troop-heavy armies desirable.

I'm liking the generating CPs approach they're going for. I think it'd be even better if the CPs you get at the start of the game were a fixed number that you also need to spend if you want to soup or add more detachments. So you can get a more flexible army overall but will have fewer resources to spend early in the game. It might help reduce the effect of alpha strikes but I think we need proper terrain and LoS rules for that. We'll wait and see what they've come up with.

 alextroy wrote:
Hold onto your hats everyone. Today's New Edition post on WC revealed that you will be gaining CP each turn during the brand new Command Phase.

It better be 6CP minimum per turn then. Otherwise GW is going to have to make an errata for codex GK, to change some stratagems to either be 0CP or to be unit rules.