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.
Amishprn86 wrote: Not everyones troops are a tax. I always play Brigade+Outrider with my sisters for example.
vice versa some have a huge ammount of "tax units". Considering the Fast assault pieces of alot of dexes in that regards especially.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
The point of a brigade in 8th is to have lots of CPs and multiple HS/FA or HQs. With the new system detachments don't genereate CPs, which means the only reason you could be interested in a brigade is to spam HS/FA without limiting the HQs to just two slots available. Tons of points invested, little reward. That's why it should cost 0-1 CPs.
A smaller detachment allows to add a few key units to an army without investing many points. Do I need more than the 3 HS that my ork battallion gives me? I'd add a Spearhaed. Now if it costs just 1-2 CPs, then why not, at some point it could even be an autotake, and some armies could abuse souping a lot with a system like this.
Instead with smaller detachments costing more CPs there would be a fair tradeoff between cons and advantages.
The new system can only work if adding detachments means a critical choice between a significant loss of CPs and the advantage of using units/combos that wouldn't be allowed in a single detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Not everyones troops are a tax. I always play Brigade+Outrider with my sisters for example.
With a single brigade you should be able to bring the exact same list unless points changes become significant. You'll lose the advantage to have 2 different chapters bonuses and the additional CP that you can get too easily, which is the goal of the new edition's system. Alternatively you can still have the two detachments but you'd lose a significant amount of CPs. It's the tradeoff for having two chapter bonuses and more than 6 FA.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/09 13:24:06
Smaller detachments costing more doesn't make sense because that makes taking additional detachments in small games all but impossible. In a 1000 point game, you can have 2 detachments but have only 6 CP. Adding a Patrol Detachment as your second detachment should not take up all of your CP. That's just bad rules design.
It makes much more sense for a Patrol to be 1-2 points and a Brigade to be 4-6 points than the reverse for second detachments, same army or allied, to be possible without draining all the players starting CP.
So I'd expect something like (just spitballing):
Patrol 2 CP Battalion 3 CP Brigade 5 CP Outrider/Supreme Command/Spearhead/Vanguard/Air Wing 3 CP Fortification 1 CP (or even free)
Aux Lord of War 3 CP Lord of War 5 CP Auxiliary Support 1 CP
alextroy wrote: Smaller detachments costing more doesn't make sense because that makes taking additional detachments in small games all but impossible. In a 1000 point game, you can have 2 detachments but have only 6 CP. Adding a Patrol Detachment as your second detachment should not take up all of your CP. That's just bad rules design.
It makes much more sense for a Patrol to be 1-2 points and a Brigade to be 4-6 points than the reverse for second detachments, same army or allied, to be possible without draining all the players starting CP.
So I'd expect something like (just spitballing):
Patrol 2 CP Battalion 3 CP Brigade 5 CP Outrider/Supreme Command/Spearhead/Vanguard/Air Wing 3 CP Fortification 1 CP (or even free)
Aux Lord of War 3 CP Lord of War 5 CP Auxiliary Support 1 CP
I'm also interested how they will handle Superheavies and Fortifications.
I could see Brigades made interesting even at a higher CP cost than 5, if they would allow to bring a superheavy or a fortification.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm also interested how they will handle Superheavies and Fortifications.
I could see Brigades made interesting even at a higher CP cost than 5, if they would allow to bring a superheavy or a fortification.
This.
If the Brigade had even a single slot for Fortifications or Super-heavies, it would be incredibly more appealing with the new system.
If the Fortification Network or the Super-heavy detachments cost little or no CP, that would be pointless of course.
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm also interested how they will handle Superheavies and Fortifications.
I could see Brigades made interesting even at a higher CP cost than 5, if they would allow to bring a superheavy or a fortification.
This.
If the Brigade had even a single slot for Fortifications or Super-heavies, it would be incredibly more appealing with the new system.
If the Fortification Network or the Super-heavy detachments cost little or no CP, that would be pointless of course.
The super heavy Auxiliary detachment is probably 1CP but most LoW don't get traits if taken in an Aux detachment.
The Super heavy detachment is a different thing all together and I can see it being 3 or 6 CP.
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm also interested how they will handle Superheavies and Fortifications.
I could see Brigades made interesting even at a higher CP cost than 5, if they would allow to bring a superheavy or a fortification.
This.
If the Brigade had even a single slot for Fortifications or Super-heavies, it would be incredibly more appealing with the new system.
If the Fortification Network or the Super-heavy detachments cost little or no CP, that would be pointless of course.
The super heavy Auxiliary detachment is probably 1CP but most LoW don't get traits if taken in an Aux detachment.
The Super heavy detachment is a different thing all together and I can see it being 3 or 6 CP.
I'm betting on 6cp since that's what knights get if they have 3 big knights and they said knights would keep their cp bonus. That way you break even.
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm also interested how they will handle Superheavies and Fortifications.
I could see Brigades made interesting even at a higher CP cost than 5, if they would allow to bring a superheavy or a fortification.
This.
If the Brigade had even a single slot for Fortifications or Super-heavies, it would be incredibly more appealing with the new system.
If the Fortification Network or the Super-heavy detachments cost little or no CP, that would be pointless of course.
The super heavy Auxiliary detachment is probably 1CP but most LoW don't get traits if taken in an Aux detachment.
The Super heavy detachment is a different thing all together and I can see it being 3 or 6 CP.
I'm betting on 6cp since that's what knights get if they have 3 big knights and they said knights would keep their cp bonus. That way you break even.
It was 3 in codex got faq/Errata'd to 6 when battalions went from 3 to 5. I suspect 6CP would be prohibitive to any other codex ever running LoW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/09 18:02:22
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm also interested how they will handle Superheavies and Fortifications.
I could see Brigades made interesting even at a higher CP cost than 5, if they would allow to bring a superheavy or a fortification.
This.
If the Brigade had even a single slot for Fortifications or Super-heavies, it would be incredibly more appealing with the new system.
If the Fortification Network or the Super-heavy detachments cost little or no CP, that would be pointless of course.
The super heavy Auxiliary detachment is probably 1CP but most LoW don't get traits if taken in an Aux detachment.
The Super heavy detachment is a different thing all together and I can see it being 3 or 6 CP.
I'm betting on 6cp since that's what knights get if they have 3 big knights and they said knights would keep their cp bonus. That way you break even.
It was 3 in codex got faq/Errata'd to 6 when battalions went from 3 to 5. I suspect 6CP would be prohibitive to any other codex ever running LoW.
Blackie wrote: The point of a brigade in 8th is to have lots of CPs and multiple HS/FA or HQs. With the new system detachments don't genereate CPs, which means the only reason you could be interested in a brigade is to spam HS/FA without limiting the HQs to just two slots available. Tons of points invested, little reward. That's why it should cost 0-1 CPs.
A smaller detachment allows to add a few key units to an army without investing many points. Do I need more than the 3 HS that my ork battallion gives me? I'd add a Spearhaed. Now if it costs just 1-2 CPs, then why not, at some point it could even be an autotake, and some armies could abuse souping a lot with a system like this.
Instead with smaller detachments costing more CPs there would be a fair tradeoff between cons and advantages.
The new system can only work if adding detachments means a critical choice between a significant loss of CPs and the advantage of using units/combos that wouldn't be allowed in a single detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Not everyones troops are a tax. I always play Brigade+Outrider with my sisters for example.
With a single brigade you should be able to bring the exact same list unless points changes become significant. You'll lose the advantage to have 2 different chapters bonuses and the additional CP that you can get too easily, which is the goal of the new edition's system. Alternatively you can still have the two detachments but you'd lose a significant amount of CPs. It's the tradeoff for having two chapter bonuses and more than 6 FA.
alextroy wrote: Smaller detachments costing more doesn't make sense because that makes taking additional detachments in small games all but impossible. In a 1000 point game, you can have 2 detachments but have only 6 CP. Adding a Patrol Detachment as your second detachment should not take up all of your CP. That's just bad rules design.
It makes much more sense for a Patrol to be 1-2 points and a Brigade to be 4-6 points than the reverse for second detachments, same army or allied, to be possible without draining all the players starting CP.
The game design is to penalize soups. Now, if detachments really are that cheap soup armies will have even more CPs than they can have now. A knight army could add two AM patrols and get more CPs than they could have in 8th by adding an AM battallion with no effort and without giving up any buff they can get by souping. In a 1000 points game you should definitely be able to take anything you need in your core detachment, unless you want to soup which really shouldn't be easy in a smaller game.
There are too many advantages for the soup player with cheap detachments: a patrol seems to be limiting but in practise it's still huge. With orks I can bring Ghaz, another HQ, 90 boyz, 20 meganobz, 6 buggies, 12 mek gunz and two fliers in that not-so-tiny patrol. All IN ADDITION to the core detachment.
Yeah, but are those FA all max out? Instead of 3x5 Seraphims you can bring a bigger squad for example. And with the new points hikes you may not be able to replicate the exact 8th list anyway.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 07:03:00
Yeah, but are those FA all max out? Instead of 3x5 Seraphims you can bring a bigger squad for example. And with the new points hikes you may not be able to replicate the exact 8th list anyway.
I need 7 elite slots. 2 paladin squads, 2 apothecaries, 2 dreadnoughts for anti tank and and a banner ancient. If I were to run the paladin squads as 5 man squads I would need 8 elit slots, but generaly it is not worth to split them as stratagems and squad protection works better on a 10man squad.
No idea how it works for SoB, but for GK taking one detachment won't be enough.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Yeah, but are those FA all max out? Instead of 3x5 Seraphims you can bring a bigger squad for example. And with the new points hikes you may not be able to replicate the exact 8th list anyway.
I need 7 elite slots. 2 paladin squads, 2 apothecaries, 2 dreadnoughts for anti tank and and a banner ancient. If I were to run the paladin squads as 5 man squads I would need 8 elit slots, but generaly it is not worth to split them as stratagems and squad protection works better on a 10man squad.
No idea how it works for SoB, but for GK taking one detachment won't be enough.
No, you don't need them, you just want them without losing CPs.
The game design is to penalize soups. Now, if detachments really are that cheap soup armies will have even more CPs than they can have now. A knight army could add two AM patrols and get more CPs than they could have in 8th by adding an AM battallion with no effort and without giving up any buff they can get by souping. In a 1000 points game you should definitely be able to take anything you need in your core detachment, unless you want to soup which really shouldn't be easy in a smaller game.
I always took it that getting a detachment from another codex cost a little extra compared to extra detachments from the same codex. This way it reduces the amount of soup, but allows for inter-codex detachment freedom. That's a good thing.
Either way they are going to be normalizing CP across the board so all armies have a chance to start on equal footing. It makes balancing stratagems and CP stuff in the long run easier as you are not worrying about variable quota that can either be no CP or all CP as 8th tended to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 08:22:43
alextroy wrote: Smaller detachments costing more doesn't make sense because that makes taking additional detachments in small games all but impossible. In a 1000 point game, you can have 2 detachments but have only 6 CP. Adding a Patrol Detachment as your second detachment should not take up all of your CP. That's just bad rules design.
It makes much more sense for a Patrol to be 1-2 points and a Brigade to be 4-6 points than the reverse for second detachments, same army or allied, to be possible without draining all the players starting CP.
The game design is to penalize soups. Now, if detachments really are that cheap soup armies will have even more CPs than they can have now. A knight army could add two AM patrols and get more CPs than they could have in 8th by adding an AM battallion with no effort and without giving up any buff they can get by souping. In a 1000 points game you should definitely be able to take anything you need in your core detachment, unless you want to soup which really shouldn't be easy in a smaller game.
There are too many advantages for the soup player with cheap detachments: a patrol seems to be limiting but in practise it's still huge. With orks I can bring Ghaz, another HQ, 90 boyz, 20 meganobz, 6 buggies, 12 mek gunz and two fliers in that not-so-tiny patrol. All IN ADDITION to the core detachment.
Yeah, but are those FA all max out? Instead of 3x5 Seraphims you can bring a bigger squad for example. And with the new points hikes you may not be able to replicate the exact 8th list anyway.
Yes, 30 Doms, 30 Seraphim, iI love them.
PS: Again for the 20th time, go watch Fridays show, he literally said "The internet grossly over estimate the point changes. My 2k Marine army is only one squad less".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 09:41:48
Yeah, but are those FA all max out? Instead of 3x5 Seraphims you can bring a bigger squad for example. And with the new points hikes you may not be able to replicate the exact 8th list anyway.
I need 7 elite slots. 2 paladin squads, 2 apothecaries, 2 dreadnoughts for anti tank and and a banner ancient. If I were to run the paladin squads as 5 man squads I would need 8 elit slots, but generaly it is not worth to split them as stratagems and squad protection works better on a 10man squad.
No idea how it works for SoB, but for GK taking one detachment won't be enough.
Define "need". It's extremely unlikely any army will be able to be run exactly as it is now in 9th edition. That's part of the point of edition changes: to adjust how the game plays in as many ways as feasible and that almost always has an effect on army building. Who's to say if that particular combination of units is even good any more? The only thing anyone needs is to accept that a new edition means you're likely going to have to change your army.
alextroy wrote: Smaller detachments costing more doesn't make sense because that makes taking additional detachments in small games all but impossible. In a 1000 point game, you can have 2 detachments but have only 6 CP. Adding a Patrol Detachment as your second detachment should not take up all of your CP. That's just bad rules design.
It makes much more sense for a Patrol to be 1-2 points and a Brigade to be 4-6 points than the reverse for second detachments, same army or allied, to be possible without draining all the players starting CP.
The game design is to penalize soups. Now, if detachments really are that cheap soup armies will have even more CPs than they can have now. A knight army could add two AM patrols and get more CPs than they could have in 8th by adding an AM battallion with no effort and without giving up any buff they can get by souping. In a 1000 points game you should definitely be able to take anything you need in your core detachment, unless you want to soup which really shouldn't be easy in a smaller game.
There are too many advantages for the soup player with cheap detachments: a patrol seems to be limiting but in practise it's still huge. With orks I can bring Ghaz, another HQ, 90 boyz, 20 meganobz, 6 buggies, 12 mek gunz and two fliers in that not-so-tiny patrol. All IN ADDITION to the core detachment.
Yeah, but are those FA all max out? Instead of 3x5 Seraphims you can bring a bigger squad for example. And with the new points hikes you may not be able to replicate the exact 8th list anyway.
Yes, 30 Doms, 30 Seraphim, iI love them.
PS: Again for the 20th time, go watch Fridays show, he literally said "The internet grossly over estimate the point changes. My 2k Marine army is only one squad less".
The issue is with Marines that could be anywhere from like 85 points to 330 points. Assuming primaris only. Including old marines it's even more of a range.
The issue is with Marines that could be anywhere from like 85 points to 330 points. Assuming primaris only. Including old marines it's even more of a range.
Exactly this, in a 2000 points it can be enough to screw a brigade.
You also love the 16 CPs the army starts with in 8th and a specific appropriate bonus for those different kinds of FA, not just the same one. I get it, but a more balanced game design would make you chose between playing with the same old list and losing a few CPs. Not a big deal actually, as you can still get "12+6-whatever an outrider costs" if you still want that brigade+outrider combo. Adepta Sororitas are one of those armies that can absolutely live with 10ish CPs. Huge deal for the most broken soup lists instead.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 11:02:37
I could care less about stratagems in SOB, i was only using the same 2-3 anyways. I took a brigade + outrider b.c i wanted that many models on the take table. I play Horde lists with them. I had 120+ models on the table.
I need 7 elite slots. 2 paladin squads, 2 apothecaries, 2 dreadnoughts for anti tank and and a banner ancient. If I were to run the paladin squads as 5 man squads I would need 8 elit slots, but generaly it is not worth to split them as stratagems and squad protection works better on a 10man squad.
No idea how it works for SoB, but for GK taking one detachment won't be enough.
No, you don't need them, you just want them without losing CPs.
the army doesn't work if it doesn't double the apothecaries, paladins and dreads. if I take one they are too easy to focus fire. making take them at all a bad idea. And I would not buy strikes and razorbacks, because A I don't have the money and B I don't like how either look.
PA4 finaly gave me an option to play a termintor heavy army, that also actualy works. The fact that that should be taken away, because other people played soup, after a bad edition is stupid. GK weren' ultra powerful in 8th, there is no reason to punish them. The missions scoring is already punishing enough.
You also love the 16 CPs the army starts with in 8th and a specific appropriate bonus for those different kinds of FA, not just the same one. I get it, but a more balanced game design would make you chose between playing with the same old list and losing a few CPs. Not a big deal actually, as you can still get "12+6-whatever an outrider costs" if you still want that brigade+outrider combo. Adepta Sororitas are one of those armies that can absolutely live with 10ish CPs. Huge deal for the most broken soup lists instead.
but it is not 12+6. it is 12+1 per turn. if the game stops on turn 3-4, you would get 3CP. And while sob and the other new armies get a ton of 1 CP stratagems, other armies have 2CP or 3CP stratagems as corner stone of their army. If I get 12CP at start , lose 4-6 for taking two detachments, then after turn 2, I would run out of CP and that is with getting two CP every turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace 788740 10826065 wrote:
Define "need". It's extremely unlikely any army will be able to be run exactly as it is now in 9th edition. That's part of the point of edition changes: to adjust how the game plays in as many ways as feasible and that almost always has an effect on army building. Who's to say if that particular combination of units is even good any more? The only thing anyone needs is to accept that a new edition means you're likely going to have to change your army.
Terminators are horrible now, and there doesn't seem to be any hint at GW buffing or changing them. I would run paladins, because they got nice, but costly, stratagems in the PA book. It doesn't matter what is good in 9th, termintors are not going to be better then paladins. And I am not going to buy strikes, because of how many of them I would have to buy ,I am as well buy another army, and because I like terminator models more. why if GW gave options to run good terminators at the very end of 8th ed, am I suppose to now be punished for stuff my army didn't do. GK weren't good soup material, they werent pluged in to every list. Yes some people took IG with them, but that is because GW gave GK shity high cost stratagems and low CP generation, which was suppose to be fixed with the PA book, but before that to played GW announced 9th ed. I played 3 games before february stop close in the entire country. You want to tell me that my good times with w40k were those 3 games, and now I can wait another 2+ years for a fix?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 11:24:11
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Amishprn86 wrote: I could care less about stratagems in SOB, i was only using the same 2-3 anyways. I took a brigade + outrider b.c i wanted that many models on the take table. I play Horde lists with them. I had 120+ models on the table.
Exactly, there's litterally no reason to complain for an army like yours if adding an outrider to a core brigade costs 4-5 CPs.
I wonder how cult players are going to be playing their armies without taking detachments from the tyranid codex. That book was not designed with mono in mind, quite the opposite probably.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I meant if taking genestealers as the unit. Also Rippers or Hgants might still be popular as they are really good for Nids level. But Fex spam might just be a thing too.
Amishprn86 wrote: Not everyones troops are a tax. I always play Brigade+Outrider with my sisters for example.
vice versa some have a huge ammount of "tax units". Considering the Fast assault pieces of alot of dexes in that regards especially.
This edition is buffing the fast attacks a lot.
There will not be many "tax" units left around. There could be "slightly less optimal units". but purely tax units are probably gone from the game with this last change on mobility. (Except spore mines).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 11:53:02
I look at GK troops and they feel very much like tax units to me. If I could run army without them I would.
Or assuming GW does some changes, just remove strikes and termintors and replace them with inteceptors and paladins.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Define "need". It's extremely unlikely any army will be able to be run exactly as it is now in 9th edition. That's part of the point of edition changes: to adjust how the game plays in as many ways as feasible and that almost always has an effect on army building. Who's to say if that particular combination of units is even good any more? The only thing anyone needs is to accept that a new edition means you're likely going to have to change your army.
Terminators are horrible now, and there doesn't seem to be any hint at GW buffing or changing them. I would run paladins, because they got nice, but costly, stratagems in the PA book. It doesn't matter what is good in 9th, termintors are not going to be better then paladins. And I am not going to buy strikes, because of how many of them I would have to buy ,I am as well buy another army, and because I like terminator models more. why if GW gave options to run good terminators at the very end of 8th ed, am I suppose to now be punished for stuff my army didn't do. GK weren't good soup material, they werent pluged in to every list. Yes some people took IG with them, but that is because GW gave GK shity high cost stratagems and low CP generation, which was suppose to be fixed with the PA book, but before that to played GW announced 9th ed. I played 3 games before february stop close in the entire country. You want to tell me that my good times with w40k were those 3 games, and now I can wait another 2+ years for a fix?
Cool. How much do Paladins and GK Terminators cost in 9th? You, along with everyone else, have no idea how good anything is in 9th edition yet. That probably goes even more so for GK because we've seen no information about the Psychic phase yet. The point that you seem to have missed is that everyone will need to make changes and everybody's armies will be changed by this. It seems likely that everyone will have to drop some units to continue playing at their old points levels and it's also looking likely you'll be incentivised to put as many units as possible into a single detachment. I wouldn't get too hung up on squeezing everything in yet though, because you don't know how many units you'll have to get rid of to meet the new points limit.
Slipspace wrote: Cool. How much do Paladins and GK Terminators cost in 9th? You, along with everyone else, have no idea how good anything is in 9th edition yet. That probably goes even more so for GK because we've seen no information about the Psychic phase yet. The point that you seem to have missed is that everyone will need to make changes and everybody's armies will be changed by this. It seems likely that everyone will have to drop some units to continue playing at their old points levels and it's also looking likely you'll be incentivised to put as many units as possible into a single detachment. I wouldn't get too hung up on squeezing everything in yet though, because you don't know how many units you'll have to get rid of to meet the new points limit.
Totally this. Everyone getting eggy over 9th so far is basically like the blind men and the elephant, except they're all furious. Maybe people should chill out on the complaining until they see how stuff ends up fitting together.
Define "need". It's extremely unlikely any army will be able to be run exactly as it is now in 9th edition. That's part of the point of edition changes: to adjust how the game plays in as many ways as feasible and that almost always has an effect on army building. Who's to say if that particular combination of units is even good any more? The only thing anyone needs is to accept that a new edition means you're likely going to have to change your army.
Terminators are horrible now, and there doesn't seem to be any hint at GW buffing or changing them. I would run paladins, because they got nice, but costly, stratagems in the PA book. It doesn't matter what is good in 9th, termintors are not going to be better then paladins. And I am not going to buy strikes, because of how many of them I would have to buy ,I am as well buy another army, and because I like terminator models more. why if GW gave options to run good terminators at the very end of 8th ed, am I suppose to now be punished for stuff my army didn't do. GK weren't good soup material, they werent pluged in to every list. Yes some people took IG with them, but that is because GW gave GK shity high cost stratagems and low CP generation, which was suppose to be fixed with the PA book, but before that to played GW announced 9th ed. I played 3 games before february stop close in the entire country. You want to tell me that my good times with w40k were those 3 games, and now I can wait another 2+ years for a fix?
Cool. How much do Paladins and GK Terminators cost in 9th? You, along with everyone else, have no idea how good anything is in 9th edition yet. That probably goes even more so for GK because we've seen no information about the Psychic phase yet. The point that you seem to have missed is that everyone will need to make changes and everybody's armies will be changed by this. It seems likely that everyone will have to drop some units to continue playing at their old points levels and it's also looking likely you'll be incentivised to put as many units as possible into a single detachment. I wouldn't get too hung up on squeezing everything in yet though, because you don't know how many units you'll have to get rid of to meet the new points limit.
Not essentially disagreeing with what you said but consider this
1) marine codex 2.0 were made with 9th edition in mins, so no datasheet will be changed for marines for 2 years.
2) take the Tyranid haruspex. The index cost was 254 PTS. The current cost is 150 PTS. It still suck, not simply because it's too expensive, but because it's damage table is terrible, and it's high cost is merely due to it being a T8 W14 model.
My point is, some units have inherently bad datasheet and within a reasonable point adjustments window (ie they can't go down indefinitely) they will always be bad.
For marines, the problem is that the weaponry of primaris is too good and their firepower is so much better than oldmarines that PTS adjustments are not enough , because it's better to have an expensive unit who can dish serious damage, than a soso cheap unit who does crap damage.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
