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.

Karol wrote:

 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.

Thus the problem of fixing units/armies with strategems.

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

Is this going to curb alpha strikes?

Or it's phase where current CP generation happens. Or there's going to be some CP generation in addition to start of game.

Unlikely to be AOS style 1CP per turn. For one that would require all codexes etc to be rewritten. For second GW is going to increase CP amount rather than reduce.

Mostly it's there for sequencing to clarify what happens when.

Karol wrote:

 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.

Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).

Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn

The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.

 alextroy wrote:

Karol wrote:

 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.

Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).

Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn

The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.

True the issue is we have already been told allies and it's been inplied multiple detachments cost CP, Given most armies can spend 4-6 CP on relics and warlord traits, we now have upgrade strategums like demons, reserving units for CP, they have said their is additional core strategums I can see games of 9th burning 30 plus CP easily, with 10 or more spent before the game even starts.

Pregame spending sounds like it could be very steep and it will have to be otherwise the trade-off for allies will be zero.

Also if the admech leaks are anything to go by we are going to find a lot more units depending upon strategums to do things that are core to the unit being viable.

I'm not saying there won't be a ton more CP in 9th. I'm just saying there doesn't need to be 60 CP over the course of a game either.

And yes, there are many stratagems that would be nice to use. Which ones you use depends on how much CP you have and what is the best use of them over the course of the game and your CP budget. You don't spend CP to turn Ragnar Blackmane into full blender mode to kill 5 Tactical Marines.

Ice_can wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Karol wrote:

 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.

Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).

Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn

The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.

True the issue is we have already been told allies and it's been inplied multiple detachments cost CP, Given most armies can spend 4-6 CP on relics and warlord traits, we now have upgrade strategums like demons, reserving units for CP, they have said their is additional core strategums I can see games of 9th burning 30 plus CP easily, with 10 or more spent before the game even starts.

Pregame spending sounds like it could be very steep and it will have to be otherwise the trade-off for allies will be zero.

Also if the admech leaks are anything to go by we are going to find a lot more units depending upon strategums to do things that are core to the unit being viable.

I hope it’s not somewhere in the region of 30 CPs per army. I’m not the biggest fan of strategems ( I fall in the camp that thinks most should be unit abilities with appropriate points costs) but I can accept that they are sticking around for 9th. I am however excited about new ways to spend CPs other than stratagems: reserves, allies, detachments(?) and I hope that these new options lead to interesting decisions rather than everyone getting so many CPs that they can spend them on everything. I think pregame abilities, reserves, allies and saving enough for mid game abilities should have to be carefully considered and none of them should be so good that they are auto take every time.

I’m interested to see what they’ve done with the CP system. Seems likely there will be a flat number to start with and a fixed number earned at the start of the turn. What those numbers are looks to be related to the scale of the battle (combat patrol, escalation etc).

 deffrekka wrote:

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

I fix this problem by throwing as many " [ /quote]"s on beginning of my post as possible. 5 usually does it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

Karol wrote:

 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.

Why? Let's assume GW wants you to have 20 CP for the total game, assuming a 5 turn game (the minimum allowed in most scenarios).

Option A: Give the player 20 CP before the game and let them go crazy
Option B: Give the player 10 CP before the game and 2 CP per turn
Option C: Give the player 5 CP before the game and 3 CP per turn

The total CP for the game is the same, but the flow of Stratagem usage is very different in each case.

Really hope it's similar to option B, give the player enough to fool around with in terms of pregame stuff and then have there be a dripfeed as the game goes on.

It would certainly make the game less deadly and cut down on alpha strikes, though many armies that rely on strategems to function will need an update. Maybe the day one errata will address that.

As always my perspective is Space Marines/Word Bearers. Currently a massive amount of Marines extreme power level is passive.

High powered multi functional traits on all units
Doctrine and Super Doctrines
Varied and powerful auras.

In an edition where souping and heavy CP expenditure is reigned in something rather drastic will need to be done for armies who relied on them to hang on.

Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.

Ice_can wrote:
Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.

That's too glass cannony. The game needs less glass cannon saturation. Take some of their offensive powers and make them defensive.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not saying there won't be a ton more CP in 9th. I'm just saying there doesn't need to be 60 CP over the course of a game either.

And yes, there are many stratagems that would be nice to use. Which ones you use depends on how much CP you have and what is the best use of them over the course of the game and your CP budget. You don't spend CP to turn Ragnar Blackmane into full blender mode to kill 5 Tactical Marines.

In case of some armies you do use them every turn though. I can't imagine a GK army not usingblessed ammo or prognosticators. And if they run paladins their buff stratagems. Well besides not using them because they run out of CP.

Martel732 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.

That's too glass cannony. The game needs less glass cannon saturation. Take some of their offensive powers and make them defensive.

With the damage out put marines have and GW already having committed to changibg points it more likely than your suggestion, though in all honesty I doubt we will see anything but other factions models get cheaper still. Roll on the 1point guardsman.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Simply put Marines Prinaris especially probably need to go back to the points they cost at the drop of codex 1.0 as right now they are bonkers good for their points.

That's too glass cannony. The game needs less glass cannon saturation. Take some of their offensive powers and make them defensive.

With the damage out put marines have and GW already having committed to changibg points it more likely than your suggestion, though in all honesty I doubt we will see anything but other factions models get cheaper still. Roll on the 1point guardsman.

Doesn't make it the correct or best decision.

 Eldarain wrote:
As always my perspective is Space Marines/Word Bearers. Currently a massive amount of Marines extreme power level is passive.

High powered multi functional traits on all units
Doctrine and Super Doctrines
Varied and powerful auras.

In an edition where souping and heavy CP expenditure is reigned in something rather drastic will need to be done for armies who relied on them to hang on.

Agreed. Either the upcoming day one errata will need to be extensive, or they need to hurry up with the new codexes, especially considering some codexes are already outdated by 8th edition standards.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

On the plus side though, now that detachments have no associated reward, an Outrider is perfect for Ravenwing and a Vanguard is perfect for Deathwing. What used to mess it up was the fact you got squat CP for using those detachments compared to battalions and brigades. Now that doesn't matter, so you can actually build the army you want- assuming, of course, that they don't standardize which detachment should be your core.

Karol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not saying there won't be a ton more CP in 9th. I'm just saying there doesn't need to be 60 CP over the course of a game either.

And yes, there are many stratagems that would be nice to use. Which ones you use depends on how much CP you have and what is the best use of them over the course of the game and your CP budget. You don't spend CP to turn Ragnar Blackmane into full blender mode to kill 5 Tactical Marines.

In case of some armies you do use them every turn though. I can't imagine a GK army not usingblessed ammo or prognosticators. And if they run paladins their buff stratagems. Well besides not using them because they run out of CP.

One thing to bear in mind whenever a new edition comes along is your current way of playing and pattern of thinking will likely need to change. Remember, everyone is in the same position. If the rules were to change so you could only use a maximum of 5-6CP a turn your army wouldn't be the only one affected. You'd not have to deal with many of the supercharged alpha strikes we get right now with people dumping 8-10CPs into one turn to get maximum benefit. It's simply too early to tell what these changes will actually mean for any one army yet.

Personally, I'm hoping that the first turn and pre-game CPs are quite closely tied together and there are meaningful decisions to be made about spending them. I'd prefer a system where you can't just take 2 warlord traits, 3 relics, buff 2 units prior to the game and still spend 5CPs in the first turn on your alpha strike. Rather I'd prefer you need to choose one or the other, or take a more measured approach. I'm not too hopeful because GW seems to think stratagems and CPs are the greatest thing ever, but we'll have to wait and see once they preview them properly.

Are you really thinking you get a fixed amount of CP ? This is GW, they love randomness. You get D6 CP

I will laugh if it's a D6 or 2D6 starting CP pool. Maybe there will be a chart?

PenitentJake wrote:
On the plus side though, now that detachments have no associated reward, an Outrider is perfect for Ravenwing and a Vanguard is perfect for Deathwing. What used to mess it up was the fact you got squat CP for using those detachments compared to battalions and brigades. Now that doesn't matter, so you can actually build the army you want- assuming, of course, that they don't standardize which detachment should be your core.

But army composition and structure should matter. I am glad that GW are divorcing CP generation from detachments, but I wish they'd put more thought into the way you get detachments and what those detachments are.

It is kind of crazy how fast they were able to go from clean slate
opportunity (8th) to hopelessly convoluted balance state. With nothing more than the power from paint Pandora's box they opened they've put themselves in a place where the points can never be truly accurate.

Well it's just like 3rd Ed: It's the new version after a big wipe, and by the end of its time it is burdened with a bazillion extra books and errata and sub-rules and new ideas that they had along the way that it collapses under the weight of its own convolutedness.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I will laugh if it's a D6 or 2D6 starting CP pool. Maybe there will be a chart?

PenitentJake wrote:
On the plus side though, now that detachments have no associated reward, an Outrider is perfect for Ravenwing and a Vanguard is perfect for Deathwing. What used to mess it up was the fact you got squat CP for using those detachments compared to battalions and brigades. Now that doesn't matter, so you can actually build the army you want- assuming, of course, that they don't standardize which detachment should be your core.

But army composition and structure should matter. I am glad that GW are divorcing CP generation from detachments, but I wish they'd put more thought into the way you get detachments and what those detachments are.

You will laugh, i will just be further disilusioned.

As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.

But then again considering the start of 9th will basically be in the best case 8th with better coverrules (HOPEFULLY!) and at the worst case just break certain armies over their reliance on CP by either giving out too much or too few, i feel like this will not really touch the status quo.

What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.

Not Online!!! wrote:
As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.

Yeah not a fan of stratagems that act as unit or equipment upgrades. Maybe the exception is using CP to bring additional limited upgrades like Relics or the Tyranid adaptation thingy, as that's using a strategic resource to bring more of something that you would otherwise normally be allowed, but straight up "Your unit are now 'Veteran Intercessors'" or "You are now a Chapter Master" just reek of "Here are rules for something that we haven't got a specific model yet, so won't make a full Codex entry!".

Karol wrote:
What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.

False dilemma. You just add those in as actual options. Problem solved.

Karol wrote:
What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.

I'd settle down until we find out just how the new rules work. They said they'll talk about it sometime this week. Hopefully they won't be overly vague.

Edit:
Or as H.B.M.C. says they could be made actual options you pay points for. The day one errata could address that. Units and equipment should cost points, not cp.

Karol wrote:
What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.

You mean armies like CSM and GK?

Honestly, they are fundamentally flawed and i say that as a CSM player.
In essence you are bound to use the most effective way of CP to fuel the gameplan you have, any option that can't achieve that is a liability, even moreso then in other factions, due to the extreme stackability combintions required to make them work, core issue of this is that especially in the case of CSM you get units that start to get extremely over effective, like obliterators, or Combiplas termites, whilest other variants might aswell not exist because the same stratagems that make these units overly effective also would make the other units overly effective, makeing it so that to balance that all of the units in a dex have to be slightly inefective to counter that one hammer that you got .


Best case scenario, make the upgrades payable in points, balance the unit without the upgrade and balance the upgrade.
But that is my opinion.

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

There was no Psychic phase until recently. Psychics were usually in place of shooting, or at the start of the turn.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.

Yeah not a fan of stratagems that act as unit or equipment upgrades. Maybe the exception is using CP to bring additional limited upgrades like Relics or the Tyranid adaptation thingy, as that's using a strategic resource to bring more of something that you would otherwise normally be allowed, but straight up "Your unit are now 'Veteran Intercessors'" or "You are now a Chapter Master" just reek of "Here are rules for something that we haven't got a specific model yet, so won't make a full Codex entry!".

Karol wrote:
What about armies that are build around the idea, that their gear and special rules are not unit rules, but stratagems. Remove those, and the armies have nothing to play with.

False dilemma. You just add those in as actual options. Problem solved.

Atleast those models are functional without said upgrade strategums, which isn't subfaction specific.
Crisis suits, greater demons and I'm sure their are other examples are just flat out units that don't work without those Strategums.
Worst part is they aren't even changing the models it's just statsline or additional rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
As for detachments and stratagems, i will still remain of the opinion that unit upgrade strats, equipment strats and modifying damage / durability strats should not be a thing period.

Yeah not a fan of stratagems that act as unit or equipment upgrades. Maybe the exception is using CP to bring additional limited upgrades like Relics or the Tyranid adaptation thingy, as that's using a strategic resource to bring more of something that you would otherwise normally be allowed, but straight up "Your unit are now 'Veteran Intercessors'" or "You are now a Chapter Master" just reek of "Here are rules for something that we haven't got a specific model yet, so won't make a full Codex entry!".

It's plain lazy aswell, and crippling narrative players (probably better to name these in that case themaitc) just as much as options for matched players.

F.e. Red butcher terminators for WE, one unit or lord, great, a signature unit of WE is a one off.
Veteran intercissors are another exemple, considering Veteran companies are a thing , you know.....


Not to mention that stratagems that are euqipment options in essence are also not effecitve at filling roster gaps, you know, like AA and CSM missile launchers,
For one it is daft that a Havoc is going to ask his commander to allow him to use the AA missile, and for two it is the only regular unit with capability for AA and three it 'd be an easy fix for the gap.

Aye, if fixed cp does anything for csm it will mean no longer being forced to take double battalions just to have enough cp to function. Either we'll get enough, or we won't. I wish gw would just make our units good without the need for stacking buffs. I hate being the wombo combo faction.