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.
2020/06/28 12:12:03
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Ice_can wrote: No army outside of Drukari needs multiple detachments.
Also if you want to add some scions 2CP isnt exactly a massive cost.
Too many people have got too used to min maxing subfactions in 8th and they are going to have to suck it up for 9th.
I do hope the roumered CP cost for additional codex's does materialise.
Some armies require multiple detachments to take more than one of a particular HQ (and for certain of those armies, the non-limited HQ's are so sub-par that they effectively have an HQ tax *AS WELL* as a troop tax).
2CP for another detachment can be worthwhile, but that varies from army to army.
Ofc, the factions with the most functional single detachment were often the ones who most abused multi-battalion lists (SM-Successor lists, I am looking at you!).
Again, that would have been another buff for certain armies that can do everything well *cough*Codex Marines*cough* so, even though my armies are all single codex armies, I would be happy for multi-codex lists not getting an additional CP nerf.
2020/06/28 12:52:26
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Armies in 9th will have to be less optimized. Each detachment slot will be much more valuable. I'm sorry guys but is something we will have to suck it up.
Yeah I know space marines have the better subfaction of the game, but that has nothing to do with this general rule being actually better than what we have now.
People will have to adapt to play with fewer CP, with fewer subfactions so you will not be able to have each units in each detachment to receive the best subfaction for them.
I mean, the worst out of this detachment and CP change are Chaos lists, because chaos to be competitive needed a TON of inter-faction sinergyes and a TON of CP, both things they cannot have with this new system.
They should change the Tau commander rule and the Genestealer Cult rule.
But I mean. How can't imperial guard function under this new system? Make a Brigade and you have 5 HQs. Yeah maybe you can't have 3 tank commanders and 3 officers, but you can have a couple of each and have space for other things.
Soup is death in 9th guys. Is what most people wanted. I know many people wont like it. I do. And I'm affected by it because my most played army (Adeptus Custodes batallion+Tempestus Scions batallion+Sisters of Battle batallion) that was NOT a competitive army will be even worse under this new rules. But I know as a whole is best for the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 12:54:05
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 12:55:45
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: Armies in 9th will have to be less optimized. Each detachment slot will be much more valuable. I'm sorry guys but is something we will have to suck it up.
Yeah I know space marines have the better subfaction of the game, but that has nothing to do with this general rule being actually better than what we have now.
People will have to adapt to play with fewer CP, with fewer subfactions so you will not be able to have each units in each detachment to receive the best subfaction for them.
I mean, the worst out of this detachment and CP change are Chaos lists, because chaos to be competitive needed a TON of inter-faction sinergyes and a TON of CP, both things they cannot have with this new system.
They should change the Tau commander rule and the Genestealer Cult rule.
But I mean. How can't imperial guard function under this new system? Make a Brigade and you have 5 HQs. Yeah maybe you can't have 3 tank commanders and 3 officers, but you can have a couple of each and have space for other things.
Soup is death in 9th guys. Is what most people wanted. I know many people wont like it. I do. And I'm affected by it because my most played army (Adeptus Custodes batallion+Tempestus Scions batallion+Sisters of Battle batallion) that was NOT a competitive army will be even worse under this new rules. But I know as a whole is best for the game.
The guard part is a joke
Go brigade but you won't be having Scions AND Infantry/Vehicle related custom regiments...it's a no starter
2020/06/28 13:07:45
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Yeah... you'll have to sacrifice subfaction optimization like most armies of the game. Imperial Guard can't complain about it, they have some of the best generic subfaction traits. Genestealer Cultists or Tyranids are very much fethed, because their subfactions are made to basically only benefit X units.
But thats what most people wanted. And thats what we will get.
GW listened to their customers in this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 13:08:48
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 13:10:41
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: Yeah... you'll have to sacrifice subfaction optimization like most armies of the game. Imperial Guard can't complain about it, they have some of the best generic subfaction traits. Genestealer Cultists or Tyranids are very much fethed, because their subfactions are made to basically only benefit X units.
But thats what most people wanted. And thats what we will get.
GW listened to their customers in this one.
All guard custom regiments are either only infantry/only vehicle based whose purpose is to be specifically used for self contained vehicle/infantry detachments; Marines on the other hand have subfaction traits that apply to ALL MODELS in the detachment, regardless of their keywords.
GW didn't listen to gak, they're clueless as usual.
2020/06/28 13:20:34
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
My thoughts exactly. An of course it's 9+5 Cp in effect, assuming a 5-turn game, as each commander gets 1cp at the start of their turn.
If you want to spam strong HQs now you have to pay. If you want to jank your list to run three different subfactions, you have to pay. If you want to soup in to cover weakness of your primary faction, you have to pay.
All seems great to me, and all affect me directly. These are the changes the community as a whole has been crying out for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 13:22:20
2020/06/28 13:45:00
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.
I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.
I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".
But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.
2020/06/28 13:49:32
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.
I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.
I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".
But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.
I really hope that GW makes Knight's only refund the full 6CP if they are mono.
2020/06/28 14:01:37
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 14:01:37
Subject: Re:Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.
I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.
I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".
But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.
I really hope that GW makes Knight's only refund the full 6CP if they are mono.
That won't happen and that shouldn't happen.
Knights are a faction which is meant to be complementary to another one.
I don't see a problem with it. You either play a full knight army at 12 CP, or you soup into a (small) battalion for 3CP. Seems fine.
Remember that to refund the CP, you need to have at least 3 titanic units inside. Assuming that after the point increase a knight goes to 450-500 points, you are talking about souping into 500 points of stuff. For 3CP seems fine and in line with what the other factions can do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:04:22
2020/06/28 14:05:07
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.
Where did they say that? They've talked about "soup" this whole time, but unless I missed the specific quote, they've never made clear whether they meant something beyond just the cost of another detachment.
2020/06/28 14:06:59
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Considering what we know, and making a few guesses, what types of armies are the winners and losers from the upcoming 9th Edition list building methods?
If you were playing with less than 12 CP at 2000 points in 8th with a single Detachment then clearly you are ahead with the new system. Not sure if many folks played this way, but if your single Battalion is effective on its own then you are doing well in 9th since you will have more CP while everyone else might be dealing with less. Custodes might be winners here? I think we will see an interesting effect on list building, a flipping of the script. In 8th you went for minimum requirements to get as many Battalions as you could. Now, I think we'll try to max out our slots in the core formations before adding a second Detachment.
If you were starting with more than 12 CP in 8th and you really needed those CPs to power your army then 9th is going to be a tough adjustment. I faced many lists that had three Battalions and relied heavily on expensive Stratagems. Yes we get 1 CP a turn, but I see some armies out there that are burning through six or more CPs in a single phase.
Armies that brought lots of HQs (more than 3) will also face challenges, unless they don't care about CPs. I think this is a good thing.
Armies that brought together Detachments from three Codexes (Eldar, some Chaos, Imp Soup) are certainly hurt. They can't find ways to combine those into less than three Detachments, so their starting CPs will likely be quite a bit lower than before. I think this is a good thing. Armies that brought together Detachments from different sub-factions from the same Codex (AM, GSC, Orks) are also hurt. While I am one of them I think its a good thing? List building should be about choices with consequences for choices. You can still mix to gain effectiveness, but you pay a cost in CP. OK.
For me, my Dark Angels might have some new opportunities when we learn about Vanguards and Outriders. Some of my Character-heavy lists have taken a hit. My Astra Militarum have taken a hit, but I think its survivable. An effective Brigade is certainly achievable. Cadian and Catachan traits benenfit both tanks and infantry, so now I will make a decision and pick one Brigade instead of having a Battalion of each. I think thats good for the game?
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2020/06/28 14:14:09
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Actually now you have to make decisions. With the current system you don't. Because is detrimental to not optimize. In 8th, if you bring each subsections of units on their own detachment with the most optimal subfaction rules you are rewarded with extra CP. THATS braindead. Now you have to actually make a choice: You want more CP, or you want more optimized units with better subfaction rules?
Galas wrote: They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.
Where did they say that? They've talked about "soup" this whole time, but unless I missed the specific quote, they've never made clear whether they meant something beyond just the cost of another detachment.
I cannot quote it but I remember they said it in one of the first streams or one of the first community posts. But don't take it as granted, I can be missremembering, but I'm quite sure I'm not.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:15:24
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 14:31:37
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Actually now you have to make decisions. With the current system you don't. Because is detrimental to not optimize. In 8th, if you bring each subsections of units on their own detachment with the most optimal subfaction rules you are rewarded with extra CP. THATS braindead. Now you have to actually make a choice: You want more CP, or you want more optimized units with better subfaction rules?
Galas wrote: They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.
Where did they say that? They've talked about "soup" this whole time, but unless I missed the specific quote, they've never made clear whether they meant something beyond just the cost of another detachment.
I cannot quote it but I remember they said it in one of the first streams or one of the first community posts. But don't take it as granted, I can be missremembering, but I'm quite sure I'm not.
No you don't actually make decisions because your CP allocation is for the most part defined when choosing an Army rather than another. Entire codices are made with superspecific subfaction traits that only apply to a handful of units by design and they will be left in a totally unplayable state until they redo the aforementioned codices again in 9th.
2020/06/28 14:35:14
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
I agree with that. I even put examples. But I disagree thats a general problem, or that it affects imperial guard specifically. Is something that has an easy fix. But that doesnt mean this new CP and detachment system is bad. Is quite better, actually.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:35:51
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 14:38:26
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
If that's more fun than endlessly optimising, yeah, I'll play "braindead". Now, if you don't mind, quit being all condescending that someone enjoys the game in a different way?
They/them
2020/06/28 14:38:36
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
I don't really see it as disincentivising optimisation so much as changing the parameters so that there is a new optimal.
More restricitons help to make more meaningful choices, and hopefully more viable lists leading to greater variety in the game. At least I think that's the intention. Whether or not that is achieved is another matter.
2020/06/28 14:41:25
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: I agree with that. I even put examples. But I disagree thats a general problem, or that it affects imperial guard specifically. Is something that has an easy fix. But that doesnt mean this new CP and detachment system is bad. Is quite better, actually.
It's bad because it doesn't really fix the problem they had with the previous detachment rules (Fix Soup? Removal of the need for Battalion farms?) and instead only made many things worse and other better
2020/06/28 14:45:06
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:45:35
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 14:45:13
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.
I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.
I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".
But that's not how it works with the information we currently have. If there isn't an additional cost for bringing a second codex and making a super heavy detachment your primary detachment refunds the 6CP, then running a soup list of three knights and a battalion of another faction will have you starting at 9CP, which is the same as bringing a mono codex army consisting of a single super heavy and a battalion of a single faction. That doesn't discourage soup. If their isn't an additional cost for bringing another codex then soup will still be perfectly viable for knights, but bringing a super heavy from your own faction will be less so. Soup should be penalized, not mono faction.
I really hope that GW makes Knight's only refund the full 6CP if they are mono.
That won't happen and that shouldn't happen.
Knights are a faction which is meant to be complementary to another one.
I don't see a problem with it. You either play a full knight army at 12 CP, or you soup into a (small) battalion for 3CP. Seems fine.
Remember that to refund the CP, you need to have at least 3 titanic units inside. Assuming that after the point increase a knight goes to 450-500 points, you are talking about souping into 500 points of stuff. For 3CP seems fine and in line with what the other factions can do.
i completely disagree if it has it's own codex it's supposed to function Mono, that is the point of a codex.
Also noone will be allying a Battalion it'll be a patrol .
Knights are already 450-500 points and simply arn't worth their points currently, not to mention so far every change to the rules from 8th to 9th hurts them more than helps them.
Seeing any points increases for a faction already over paying for most of their weapons would be a great way for GW to ensure they are unplayable in anything but narative games where people complain about then being OP.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:45:53
2020/06/28 15:01:05
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: They have said that using additional codex will have an extra cost on Cp on top of normal detachment ones.
That would be good. To be honest, though, people seem skittish about even using a second detachment period at current CP costs -- if they wanted people to focus on mono subfaction, it seems they've succeeded.
I somehow doubt this will stand the smell test, though. People love herohammer too much, and brigades are a bit bonkers for a lot of factions to actually field.
2020/06/28 15:16:26
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Aash wrote: I suspect the CP refund for knights and chaos knights will be an errata first their codexes rather than something for all armies using those detachments, similar the the DE getting their faction specific rule. That would explain why it’s not mentioned in the rules for the detachments themselves.
Yeah let's just Hope GW actually manage to word it correctly so it doesn't make Knight allies free for Guard and Admech too.
Purely speculation on my part, but I expect they will have a rule in the knights and chaos knights codex that says that if a battle forged super heavy detachment of knights/chaos knights includes your warlord then it refunds the CPs for that detachment.
Galas wrote: How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.
Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army
2020/06/28 15:21:08
Subject: Re:Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 15:21:58
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2020/06/28 15:22:37
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.
Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army
The thing is: In 8th, the more detachment you have, the more CP you have. That rewards soup. In 9th, the less detachment you have, the more CP you have, thats reward mono armies.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/06/28 15:24:42
Subject: Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
Galas wrote: How does this not fix soup and the need for batallion farms? Of course each change will make some things worse and others better. Thats a unavoidable reality.
Because the costs for detachments are the same/only 1 CP higher (but the latter is not confirmed) in case of another Codex.
Enjoy the "Soup Fix" but realize that you're paying the same/almost the same EVEN for mono Codex army
A mono codex army has its full allotment of 12 CP as long as you properly build the army.
If you want to soup (and bringin different subfactions is soup), then you pay the cost. Easy.
2020/06/28 15:24:50
Subject: Re:Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Makes sense(the Knights rule quoted in by Aash) - goes with the idea of rewarding mono-faction. Hopefully some similar rules come in for themed "Elite" armies to allow things like single Vanguards and Outriders viable from a CP perspective.
Just wish it didnt make it sound like the additional Codex CP isn't actually happening after all as right now 2CP for an allied Patrol seems very cheap.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 15:25:27
