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.

The new CP rules are extremely restrictive on the types of build you can make across multiple armies.

Increaseing pts by 1 had almost no impact on the number of models you can take but the extra CP grants players the CP they need to construct armies the way that they want leading to a greater variety of viable lists.

U02dah4 wrote:
The new CP rules are extremely restrictive on the types of build you can make across multiple armies.

Increaseing pts by 1 had almost no impact on the number of models you can take but the extra CP grants players the CP they need to construct armies the way that they want leading to a greater variety of viable lists.

I think the CP rules are intended to be restrictive and force people to change their lists from what they were in 8th, that being said, there's nothing to stop anyone going for 2001 pts if that's what they want. I doubt the big tournaments will go for it if they decide to adopt the GW official 9th ed missions though, because the missions/maps are linked to the size of battle. there are only 3 missions for 2001-3000 pts. Also, if the rumours are true about the rules recommending the amount/type of terrain on the tabletop, this will possible be different for 2001-3000pts than it is for 1001-2000pts.

Fairly certain that the idea as allude to in the live streams and podcasts is to hace everyone using the GW matched play missions, which they have 6 off for event's AKA it's staying at 2000 points.

Also what army's are restricted by having to shimmy down to 1or 2 detachments outside of the wierd wombo combo subfaction optimisation lists (which GW is intentionally trying to nerf)?

A 2000 point game gives each player 18 CP before regen (max 6) and charictor bonuses.(giving 24 total over the game)
Double battlion costs 3 of those CP, 15CP vrs 18CP doesn't feel like a game breaking handicap to me.

Even tripple battalions have 12 CP, thats still double didget numbers.

Some armies in 8th have been struggling along with 4-9CP

18 CPs pre-game plus CP regeneration sounds already a big deal, there's no need to get more, not even for those armies that are CPs hungry.

I'd even set the standard to 1500 points but if those rumored/announced massive points increases are going to happen I can settle with the 2000 format as well.

 Blackie wrote:
18 CPs pre-game plus CP regeneration sounds already a big deal, there's no need to get more, not even for those armies that are CPs hungry.

I'd even set the standard to 1500 points but if those rumored/announced massive points increases are going to happen I can settle with the 2000 format as well.

Should probably make it clear the new way is 12 pre game then 1 per turn for 18 over all, any regeneration relics/WL trait are on top of that.

12 +1 per turn is functionly very different to 18 when CP costs are front loaded - Warlord traits, relics characterbuffs deepstrikes. Etc

It also isn't 12+1 for anyone not running a single detatchment which is a lot of the list players want to run and which create the variety. Otherswise you get admech mars/stygies artillery SoB valourous heart or bloody rose brigades.

Other than SM armies a lot of armies dont have the variety of units so if your force mono detatchment you end up with roughly the same most efficient filler units

6+1 representing current variety seems almost unplayable and 9+1 representing two detatchments is visble for a few armies but certainly not the CP intensive ones used to 14 - 21

Made worse by there hinted at cp to deepstrike

Most CP I've ever managed to get, using an army I want to play, is about 12 anyway. I had the option to swap an effective part of my army for some gretchin and some weirdboys, but that didn't sound like a fun way to "improve" my list (seriously, what can 3 units of gretchin do aside from camp objectives and screen things, which I normally have boys for anyway?).

I am greatly looking forward to being able to build a themed army and not have it be, somehow, less effective than a disjointed army filled with minimum detachments. it made no sense before!

U02dah4 wrote:
12 +1 per turn is functionly very different to 18 when CP costs are front loaded - Warlord traits, relics characterbuffs deepstrikes. Etc

It also isn't 12+1 for anyone not running a single detatchment which is a lot of the list players want to run and which create the variety. Otherswise you get admech mars/stygies artillery SoB valourous heart or bloody rose brigades.

Other than SM armies a lot of armies dont have the variety of units so if your force mono detatchment you end up with roughly the same most efficient filler units

6+1 representing current variety seems almost unplayable and 9+1 representing two detatchments is visble for a few armies but certainly not the CP intensive ones used to 14 - 21

Made worse by there hinted at cp to deepstrike

Lets break that down as I'm confused by a few of your points why do you think double battalion armies don't get the 1CP per turn?

You can do Double battalion starting with 9CP and again 1 per turn plus relic etc that compaired to 8th is 13 CP and 0 per turn.

What in 40k are you taking that doesnt fit into 6 HQ, 12 troops, 12 Elites 6Fast Attack, 6 Heavy and 4 flyer slots and complies with the Rule of 3?

It stunted the alpha strike of CP dumped into turn 1 more likely turn 2.

GW already out and out said they never intended the CP farming to be a thing, they didn't intend people to have armies in the 20CP range ever.

If your taking 3 detachments for 3 subfactions well tough you want to minmax your trait advantages you should be handicapped conpaired to others not doing so.

Yes Spacemarines are OP and don't look like they have been appropriately nerfed in the switch to 9th edition either, but that is no reason to break the game for everyone else.


Heck i'll happily play 3000 points games at tournaments as long as that chess clock stays. But I won't envie the poor people trying to play 3000 points of hordes in sub 2 hours.

2000 Points on the nose is gonna be the sweet spot. 12 CP lets armies buy all the pre-game toys they want, and still have some to use in game stratagems.

12 CP is a huge boost to armies that have never had access to cheap troops, which have by and large, been by far the weakest armies this edition.

With emphasis on troops being lessened, unless actions prevent units from acting that turn, the rule of 2/3/4 based on points level is going to be crucial to prevent people from going back to the same tired old crap of 12 hive tyrants, 30 malefic lords, or other nonsense.

If we're lucky, they'll completely remove the Supreme Command detachment from the game. Or otherwise, they'll make the CP cost from it fairly high.

 iGuy91 wrote:
2000 Points on the nose is gonna be the sweet spot. 12 CP lets armies buy all the pre-game toys they want, and still have some to use in game stratagems.

12 CP is a huge boost to armies that have never had access to cheap troops, which have by and large, been by far the weakest armies this edition.

With emphasis on troops being lessened, unless actions prevent units from acting that turn, the rule of 2/3/4 based on points level is going to be crucial to prevent people from going back to the same tired old crap of 12 hive tyrants, 30 malefic lords, or other nonsense.

If we're lucky, they'll completely remove the Supreme Command detachment from the game. Or otherwise, they'll make the CP cost from it fairly high.

If you do an action you only acore if you do nothingnin your turn and your opponents as you have to be still in position at the start of your command phase.
Also troops are kinda mandatory still if you dont want tk give away CP for your warlords detachment.

 iGuy91 wrote:
2000 Points on the nose is gonna be the sweet spot. 12 CP lets armies buy all the pre-game toys they want, and still have some to use in game stratagems.

12 CP is a huge boost to armies that have never had access to cheap troops, which have by and large, been by far the weakest armies this edition.

With emphasis on troops being lessened, unless actions prevent units from acting that turn, the rule of 2/3/4 based on points level is going to be crucial to prevent people from going back to the same tired old crap of 12 hive tyrants, 30 malefic lords, or other nonsense.

If we're lucky, they'll completely remove the Supreme Command detachment from the game. Or otherwise, they'll make the CP cost from it fairly high.

if it was 12 cp reguardless of detatchment i agree but 6 cp in a 3 detatchment list and some players may want 3 factions or subfaction they should still be viable. I don't want to play the same brigades every time.

i cant imagine they will get rid of rule of 3

U02dah4 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
2000 Points on the nose is gonna be the sweet spot. 12 CP lets armies buy all the pre-game toys they want, and still have some to use in game stratagems.

12 CP is a huge boost to armies that have never had access to cheap troops, which have by and large, been by far the weakest armies this edition.

With emphasis on troops being lessened, unless actions prevent units from acting that turn, the rule of 2/3/4 based on points level is going to be crucial to prevent people from going back to the same tired old crap of 12 hive tyrants, 30 malefic lords, or other nonsense.

If we're lucky, they'll completely remove the Supreme Command detachment from the game. Or otherwise, they'll make the CP cost from it fairly high.

if it was 12 cp reguardless of detatchment i agree but 6 cp in a 3 detatchment list and some players may want 3 factions or subfaction they should still be viable. I don't want to play the same brigades every time.

i cant imagine they will get rid of rule of 3

Based on what i've read, you could take patrols of allied forces to bring them in for flavor, or to get access to a key unit. They don't cost as much as a battalion, which costs less than a brigade. Nobody is forcing anyone to take an allied force as large as a battalion.
With your warlord making your core detachment free, you could run a brigade of guard for free, a patrol of space marines, and a patrol of sisters of battle, and you'd start with a base of what, 10 CP before any relics, specialist detatchments etc, and then gaining 1 each turn, and any refunded CP.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Ice_can wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
12 +1 per turn is functionly very different to 18 when CP costs are front loaded - Warlord traits, relics characterbuffs deepstrikes. Etc

It also isn't 12+1 for anyone not running a single detatchment which is a lot of the list players want to run and which create the variety. Otherswise you get admech mars/stygies artillery SoB valourous heart or bloody rose brigades.

Other than SM armies a lot of armies dont have the variety of units so if your force mono detatchment you end up with roughly the same most efficient filler units

6+1 representing current variety seems almost unplayable and 9+1 representing two detatchments is visble for a few armies but certainly not the CP intensive ones used to 14 - 21

Made worse by there hinted at cp to deepstrike

Lets break that down as I'm confused by a few of your points why do you think double battalion armies don't get the 1CP per turn?

You can do Double battalion starting with 9CP and again 1 per turn plus relic etc that compaired to 8th is 13 CP and 0 per turn.

What in 40k are you taking that doesnt fit into 6 HQ, 12 troops, 12 Elites 6Fast Attack, 6 Heavy and 4 flyer slots and complies with the Rule of 3?

It stunted the alpha strike of CP dumped into turn 1 more likely turn 2.

GW already out and out said they never intended the CP farming to be a thing, they didn't intend people to have armies in the 20CP range ever.

If your taking 3 detachments for 3 subfactions well tough you want to minmax your trait advantages you should be handicapped conpaired to others not doing so.

Yes Spacemarines are OP and don't look like they have been appropriately nerfed in the switch to 9th edition either, but that is no reason to break the game for everyone else.


Heck i'll happily play 3000 points games at tournaments as long as that chess clock stays. But I won't envie the poor people trying to play 3000 points of hordes in sub 2 hours.

when i write plus1 i mean plus1 per turn.

in 8th most double battalion lists wernt 2 battalions they were two battalions and a third

2 admech battalions wouldn't allow a knight two sisters battalions wouldn't allow a battle sanctum. 3 sub factions or 3 factions wouldn't be an option. besides which most players took alternate detatchments based on the tax units you might not want 6 scout squads in ba you might want more hq's or elites

it doesnt really stunt alpha strikes of CP they still function in the brigade armies if you have 12 you can
im not suggesting CP farming its a time intensive mechanic. as to CP GW stated there wold be more CP this edition and you would be able to play the way you wanted to. you can claim a lot if you cherry pick the,

don't disagree there should be a cost to 3 sub faction but it should be playable. at 18 CP base mono lists still have a 6CP advantage but tripple detatchment lists can still function.

at 12 cp mono detatchment lists function and tripple at 6 are unplayable

thats why i would recommend playing 2001pts with the 2000 pts missions

Ice_can wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
18 CPs pre-game plus CP regeneration sounds already a big deal, there's no need to get more, not even for those armies that are CPs hungry.

I'd even set the standard to 1500 points but if those rumored/announced massive points increases are going to happen I can settle with the 2000 format as well.

Should probably make it clear the new way is 12 pre game then 1 per turn for 18 over all, any regeneration relics/WL trait are on top of that.

Ok, that sounds better, definitely more honest. 12+6 CPs is still a lot, my only worry was to start with something like 3-4 CPs, which would hurt a lot an army like orks since most of the competitive stratagems we have are all pre-game based.

The issue is your trying to make all of the tripple faction lists viable with lots of CP.

GW is trying to make taking extra detachments a trade off you can get your 3 sub faction bonuses but you get less CP than the player playing with just 1 and having to deal with bonus that won't help maximise every unit. I have spent all of 8th playing the game with 8 CP total after relics etc, it works but you have to be very conservative on strategums and not go spamming away like a gaurd player.

GW is deliberately trying to make it a trade of decision, do you get all the subfactions you want or do you take the hit in CP for your super soup benifits instead.

Also if its just one unit that needs to be super soup why not use patrols instead as they are roumered to be 2CP each so your 6 CP becomes 8CP per game?

and i have scarcely had less than 16 often more.

no i want triple detatchment with enough cp to be viable. extra CP after that is fine for to encourage mono builds 6 CP is not fine for starting

It's worth remembering that things are going up in cost in 9th - so what was 1500pts will now cost about 2k, by my understanding.

So you'll have 12 + 1 per turn for what is currently a 1500pt army, when you play a 2k game.

How many points do you normally have at 1500pts? As orks, I would not have more than 2 brigades (or batallions, the small ones) at that points. I doubt many lists, aside from loyal 32's which I disregard as they exist for CP and not to be part of the army, would have much more than that at 1500pts, and those that do would be specifically designed to do so.

Ice_can wrote:

Heck i'll happily play 3000 points games at tournaments as long as that chess clock stays. But I won't envie the poor people trying to play 3000 points of hordes in sub 2 hours.

Yeah, I think we should drop to 1500, not go up. And the more restricted pool of CP will be good for the game.

 some bloke wrote:
It's worth remembering that things are going up in cost in 9th - so what was 1500pts will now cost about 2k, by my understanding.

So you'll have 12 + 1 per turn for what is currently a 1500pt army, when you play a 2k game.

How many points do you normally have at 1500pts? As orks, I would not have more than 2 brigades (or batallions, the small ones) at that points. I doubt many lists, aside from loyal 32's which I disregard as they exist for CP and not to be part of the army, would have much more than that at 1500pts, and those that do would be specifically designed to do so.

With orks playing the 1500 points format I have two battallions and a spearhead at most, so 13-14 CPs. But it was before PA which gave us a nice boost but also tons of CPs to invest pre game. 13-14 CPs were ok for pre-PA orks, right now 18-19 CPs means actually 9-10 left after deployment.

A smaller format but the same amount of CPs than a current 3x battallions list provides would be perfect IMHO.

U02dah4 wrote:
and i have scarcely had less than 16 often more.

no i want triple detatchment with enough cp to be viable. extra CP after that is fine for to encourage mono builds 6 CP is not fine for starting

The issue is if I start with 18CP and gain another 6 I now have 24 CP to spend those extra 6 that I get to balance not having super soup give very diminishing returns.

Definite no from me, 12 is more than enough.

Ice_can wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
and i have scarcely had less than 16 often more.

no i want triple detatchment with enough cp to be viable. extra CP after that is fine for to encourage mono builds 6 CP is not fine for starting

The issue is if I start with 18CP and gain another 6 I now have 24 CP to spend those extra 6 that I get to balance not having super soup give very diminishing returns.

24 CPs are way too many for a balanced game, several armies don't need more than 8-10 in total as their statagems are lackluster. 12+6 CPs plus multiple chapter bonuses or units from different books would also be bad: soups must have some drawbacks. If someone wants to bring them in casual games those 9/6+6 CPs would certainly be enough.

If the rumors about points hikes are also true we'll play with 1500 points lists (using the current points values) so having 4-5 CPs less than the amount that is required for our current 2000 points lists sounds fair.

With my orks I always have 6ish heavy support units while cheap troops and cheap HQs are useful units, so going 3x battallions is a good deal, with no tax units. And those 18-19 CPs are absolutely needed. With the new system I must make a choice: sacrifice lots of heavy support units, use a brigade and add several tax units, or lose CPs. Tactical choices help balancing the game.

100% agree.
It's a trade off you get soup and less CP or More CP and less minmaxing.

Restrictions are good. People have to get creative in a restricted space.

Something to consider: the new rules will make it easier to estimate how many CP players will have in a given game. This means GW could theoretically go through and recost stratagems with the new expectations in mind. So factions that are assumed to be good at generating CP in 8th and thus have expensive strats might find some of those CP costs go down. Alternatively, armies that are assumed to be bad at generating CP who were given surprisingly cheap strats to compensate might see CP costs go up here and there.

Just speculation, but worth keeping in mind if you're worried about strat cost disparity.

Wait, what am I missing. Why does 1 point matter at all? I don't get it.

 Togusa wrote:
Wait, what am I missing. Why does 1 point matter at all? I don't get it.

According to the information currently available for 9th Edition, 1001-2000 pts has 12 CPs per side and is played on a table of minimum size 44" x 60" whereas 2001-3000pts is 18CP and minimum table size 44" x 90".

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/taking-command-of-your-pointsgw-homepage-post-1/

 Togusa wrote:
Wait, what am I missing. Why does 1 point matter at all? I don't get it.

It matters because up to 2000 points the player starts with 12 CPs and table size is minimum 44'' x 60''. At 2001 points the player starts with 18 CPs and the min table size bumps to a huge 44'' x 90''. Only one point so basically the same lists but very different game formats.

Edit: seconded.

Nah, bad idea. It'll just lead to more damage for no reason. Its going to be 15-18CP on average, that's enough.

With the planned changes to increase points across the board, I suspect the 9th ed's 2000 pt army will look like what 8th ed's 1500~1750 pt army looks like.

With that in mind, increasing the army pt limit by 1 for the sake of gaining more CP's will actually have worse effect overall as the plethora of CP's will only be spent on select few units, resulting in re-formation of deathstars.