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.

 Galas wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 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.

No, the latter doesn't reward mono armies because MANY mono armies actually field MULTIPLE detachments. It only rewards Marines, Custodes and monoKnights

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 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.

No, the latter doesn't reward mono armies because MANY mono armies actually field MULTIPLE detachments. It only rewards Marines, Custodes and monoKnights

Mono Brigade Guard works perfectly well too., the only reason it doesn't happen in 8th is an additional Battalion for 200 pointa nets you 5CP. Yes I have seen people playing mono subfaction in multiple detachments for CP.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 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.

No, the latter doesn't reward mono armies because MANY mono armies actually field MULTIPLE detachments. It only rewards Marines, Custodes and monoKnights

9th edition problems need 9th edition solutions. Stop thinking about how things are now in 8th. In 8th having 9 cps is garbage because you see armies with 15-20 everyday. Things will change in 9th. If the normal is 12, 9 are comparatively more CP.

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Yeah, it sounds like that is not happening. Perhaps the Codex unlocking cost we (well me at least) were inferring from the early reveals is simply baked into the new Detachment costing CP system. If you have two Codexes you are certainly taking two Detachments, so it costs you CPs. When you figure in that the 8th Edition way rewarded you for taking additional Detachments we can see a double-hit to Soup.

Add to this that all 9th codici will have super doctrines unlocked by staying mono codex.

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.

If that happens I hope Harlequins finally get a full army codex, not just 8 units, 4 of which are characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.

Initial reports from playtesters are to the contrary, that the changes to the game make it even faster and deadlier. Brad Chester, by far the highest ranked person to be involved in playtesting, said in a podcast interview the other day that most games seem to be a hugh moshpit of death that results in 80% of both armies being dead by T3.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If that happens I hope Harlequins finally get a full army codex, not just 8 units, 4 of which are characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.

Initial reports from playtesters are to the contrary, that the changes to the game make it even faster and deadlier. Brad Chester, by far the highest ranked person to be involved in playtesting, said in a podcast interview the other day that most games seem to be a hugh moshpit of death that results in 80% of both armies being dead by T3.

Well that does sound fun, it doesn't bode well for total CP What podcast was that?

tulun wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.

For sone codex's like Tau with 1 commander per Detachment and GSC I suspect ecen mono the additional patrol is going to be common.

Akso 18CP is just the base CP if you have regen and its still capped at 1CP per turn you gain 1 per round ontop of the 1 per turn for Battle-forged and thats ontop of the 12CP could see you have 22 to 23 CP plus any CP for named Charictors. 2CP for a Patrol or 3 for a Battalion is cheap. I know it doesnt sound cheap against 12 but gaining 2 per round is a lot.

tulun wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If that happens I hope Harlequins finally get a full army codex, not just 8 units, 4 of which are characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Honestly, this doesn't seem cheap.

The fact is GW was quite clever. Sure, you get "18 CP" over the course of the game, but many armies are crippled / practically dead by turn 3 (my own included). We might win because we scored early, but the fact is, I can probably only really bank on 14-15 CP over the course of a game realistically in a lot of matchups.

Some armies can really play the game over 6 turns. Maybe the general shift to the game will make it easier for any army to do so, but I'll doubt it until I see the killing power of units get reduced, or their price get jacked up so you're seeing less of them.

Initial reports from playtesters are to the contrary, that the changes to the game make it even faster and deadlier. Brad Chester, by far the highest ranked person to be involved in playtesting, said in a podcast interview the other day that most games seem to be a hugh moshpit of death that results in 80% of both armies being dead by T3.

Well that does sound fun, it doesn't bode well for total CP What podcast was that?

AoW 40k, I can't remember if that particular comment was in the free part or the patreon part, but he talks a lot about 9th in both bits. It's probably in the first, free bit actually since that's the more general discussion. But if you're not a patreon I think it'll be another day or two before the free half is released to the public. It looks like it isn't up yet.

https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/category/Podcast

Ice_can wrote:

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.

Not really. Keep in mind that, by the end of 8th, the vast majority of souping was done in order to maximize command points, with a subsection of that being dedicated to armies that would maximize command points and pick up a few really solid units as a secondary bonus, ala the rusty 17 with dunecrawelers. The number of armies that souped in order to use other armies units without getting a nice injection of CP out of it was pretty much limited to knights and smashcaptain supreme commands.

With soup lists having a cost rather than a benefit there's no reason to soup any more unless what you could bring in your list is at least 2CP worse than what you plan to bring in your allied detachment.

Admittedly, one unintended consequence is that if you run out of slots or if you run out of units that can take advantage of your primary chapter tactic, it's exactly the same price to add another chapter tactic as it is to add a whole new faction.

Most (or at least many) chaos lists souped multiple codexes too. As did 95%+ of competitive quins lists (not that this was a big number to begin with).

2CP for an allied patrol feels absolutely right, though. There's no reason it needs to be penalized any more than that.

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.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.

And if there is a 1 CP cost per detachment if the detachment isn't from the same Codex as the Warlord? That will certainly change the calculation a bit.

As for all those people going crazy about not getting enough X slots, I want to introduce you the red-headed stepchild of detachments, the Auxiliary Support detachment (1 Unit of any type except Lord of War). Who wants to bet its cost will be 1 CP? Perfect if you need just one more unit to make your list work, especially if that unit isn't and HQ or Troop unit.

What would be a nice touch would be a small discount if your second detachment is still the same subfaction. So if you really don't take it for some special bonus, but just because you ran out of a specific slot for your favourite subfaction, you might save a CP.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.

True, but running mono-Knights nets you even more CPs than souping in a battalion of allies. That's my point - this allows the Knights to function as a mono-faction. Is this fair to those with Superheavies in their Codex? Maybe not, but its pretty much the only way to make the Knights work as a faction.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.

True, but running mono-Knights nets you even more CPs than souping in a battalion of allies. That's my point - this allows the Knights to function as a mono-faction. Is this fair to those with Superheavies in their Codex? Maybe not, but its pretty much the only way to make the Knights work as a faction.

I agree. I just don't like the additional cost applied to taking a LOW from your own faction. That price should be paid for in points. Perhaps super heavys will not be hit as hard by the day one errata in points increases.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.

True, but running mono-Knights nets you even more CPs than souping in a battalion of allies. That's my point - this allows the Knights to function as a mono-faction. Is this fair to those with Superheavies in their Codex? Maybe not, but its pretty much the only way to make the Knights work as a faction.

I agree. I just don't like the additional cost applied to taking a LOW from your own faction. That price should be paid for in points. Perhaps super heavys will not be hit as hard by the day one errata in points increases.

I could get behind adding a Lord of War slot to the Brigade organization chart. There might be some negative second-order effects, but it would be considering. Academic, I suppose!

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.

Not the completely the same.

Three knights doesn't leave a lot of room for other stuff. And depending how missions score - those knights will need buddies.

When the "soup" is something like 25% of your list it isn't doing that much - especially when it no longer provides CP, which was the primary purpose for knights doing that.

There's a distinction to be made.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, it encourages souping in knights if you want to play super heavys. Three knights plus a detachment from another faction nets the same CP as running a single super heavy from the same codex as the other detachment. That's backwards if you want to discourage soup.

Not the completely the same.

Three knights doesn't leave a lot of room for other stuff. And depending how missions score - those knights will need buddies.

When the "soup" is something like 25% of your list it isn't doing that much - especially when it no longer provides CP, which was the primary purpose for knights doing that.

There's a distinction to be made.

Yes, they will need "buddies" for purposes such as scoring and screening, that's one of the reasons players soup in other factions, to make up for what they lack in their own codex.

I'm not opposed to knights getting this rule, my problem is if the CP cost associated with bringing a super heavy from your own faction isn't mitigated by the points cost of those units. If they continue to be as relatively expensive compared to other units while also costing 3CP to field its another detriment to bringing them and it means an automatic nerf along with the ones they're already getting from the new terrain rules. Are things like baneblades and fellblades currently breaking the game?

Maybe there's something else that will be revealed that will help them. But right now it looks like my favorite model will be sitting on the sidelines for another edition, right when I thought that the new fw books would finally make it viable again.

I play Sisters, and we have an Order called Bloody Rose, which gives a cool close combat buff. All the other Orders give buffs that are more shooty. So in 8th, it was cool to field one detachment from a shooty order that contained all the shooty units, plus a Bloody Rose detachment, which contains all of your close combat units.

Now in order to do that, I have to pay CP. I think that's totally fair because it is a HUGE advantage. I'm also really stoked because in this system, a lot of the old "slotless" rules were a disadvantage since you were trying to field as many detachments as possible for CP; now it's a huge advantage because we're trying to use as few detachments as possible. So I can take 2 units of Repentia in a patrol because I know I can take their Superia as a slotless elite.

Now if I was a guard player, I would probably be a bit choked about being required to pay for the Super Heavy Auxiliary needed to field my Baneblade. But I'm not sure, maybe for some guard players, that is worth the 3CP, maybe it isn't. There may also be an offset coming for guard that we don't know about it... Actually, I think there already is: don't guard have a WL trait/ relic combo that blasts CP recovery?

If so, you take that combo every time you want to field your baneblade to help you afford the CP. Against certain enemies, you might decide to leave the Baneblade at home to get a more suitable WL trait/ Relic combo and the extra 3 CP.

Finally, I want to challenge the notion that all of the rules presented so far are bad for knights. I can agree that all TERRAIN rules previewed so far are bad for knights. We also haven't seen anywhere near all of the terrain rules- I think we know exactly how 4 of the 12 traits work, and another 3 of those 12 traits have been named but not clearly explained. I'm hoping there's a keyword that makes some terrain vulnerable to destruction by LOW to make up for some of their terrain-based woes.

But even if not, some other rules have been at least good for knights, and some have been great:

- Blast Weapons are okay for Knights (being better for some factions than others is not the same as being bad for you)
- Reserves are okay for knights (pretty costly for knights because it's done by PL, but still could be game changing for Alpha Strike avoidance)
- Having the option of 12CP +1 per turn at 2k points in a mono-knight army is great for knights- previously, they could never have hit this height
- Not sure if Knights always had the capacity to fire into hand to hand, but they certainly do now. If they didn't before, this is huge!

I think imbalances will be there- a new system can't help but benefit different armies in different ways. A lot of folks on Dakka see 'It's not as good for me as it is for some other factions" and "It's bad for me" as being the same thing; they are not the same thing. In fact they are not even close to the same thing.

I also think that armies in most need of a balance boost based on what we know now will get it quickly- in a day one FAQ, in a first year codex release, in a WD article or in this year's CA.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, they will need "buddies" for purposes such as scoring and screening, that's one of the reasons players soup in other factions, to make up for what they lack in their own codex.

I'm not opposed to knights getting this rule, my problem is if the CP cost associated with bringing a super heavy from your own faction isn't mitigated by the points cost of those units. If they continue to be as relatively expensive compared to other units while also costing 3CP to field its another detriment to bringing them and it means an automatic nerf along with the ones they're already getting from the new terrain rules. Are things like baneblades and fellblades currently breaking the game?

Maybe there's something else that will be revealed that will help them. But right now it looks like my favorite model will be sitting on the sidelines for another edition, right when I thought that the new fw books would finally make it viable again.

There's a lot of variation in that. *Blades aren't breaking the game, but they do offer a greater density of weapons than most units. And where their points have landed is still well up in the air.

Castellan, BA smash cap(s), IG - Smash Caps do something Castellans can't. The rest of the IG don't do something another knight couldn't provide except objectives and CP. This kind of list will stand at 3 CP now unless you want your Castellan sitting on a 5++ or you spend points to bring him Armigers.
Castellan, Ogryns/IG Brigade - Same situation except the Ogryns are way less CP intensive, but require a bunch of points for support. I'm not sure how this will work now, either.
3 Knights & IG - IG isn't doing jack other than CP and maybe enough bodies for objectives. What's the benefit now? They're a CP drain unless they devote more to that detachment.

Adding a Felblade or Magnus or a single Knight is adding killing power rather than replacing a deficiency.

I know the analogy isn't always going to be perfect, but there's a whole lot we don't know. I'm itching to run Magnus. I don't know if I can do it without reserves yet nor do I know if I can sneak by on 6+6 CP.

Is GW going to nail every facet of this? No, no they will not. The important thing for the Felblade is that one group is responsible for points and rules now, so, you might see more traction on updates if things aren't quite right.

PenitentJake wrote:
- Not sure if Knights always had the capacity to fire into hand to hand, but they certainly do now. If they didn't before, this is huge!

Just a nitpick, most Knight weapons will be blast weapons that can't shoot in close combat. Granted, Knights can Fallback, traveling over any models, and still shoot/assault with no penalty. I think it's very unlikely that Knights will stick around to shoot in close combat.

Knights came out a big winner with these changes, which is exactly what GW intended and that bodes well for their other stated goals. Knights with allies are the same or slightly better (my Knight+AdMech 1500pt list gained 3 CP), and mono-Knights are vastly stronger than in 8th.

I think the meta is going to shake out to taking a single additional detachment at ~3CP, and we'll all just come to accept that as the cost of doing business. A huge element of list building that nobody's talking about is the secondary objectives. Of course it's too early to plan around specifics, but I think we aren't going to build lists in abstract. We'll build lists planning to meet pre-selected secondaries. That's going to really expand the decision tree for taking additional detachments. You're not just trying to cover weaknesses generically, you're trying to achieve this particular result.

Maybe there's particularly lucrative secondary that is hard to achieve with your own faction, but you can take allies more suited to it. I'm sure sometimes we'll see the Warlord taken for the faction secondary objectives, and a larger Brigade or Battalion of another faction to capitalize on it. Essentially paying CPs to skew your victory conditions rather than your dice effectiveness.

 DarkHound wrote:

Maybe there's particularly lucrative secondary that is hard to achieve with your own faction, but you can take allies more suited to it. I'm sure sometimes we'll see the Warlord taken for the faction secondary objectives, and a larger Brigade or Battalion of another faction to capitalize on it. Essentially paying CPs to skew your victory conditions rather than your dice effectiveness.

Well said.

So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.

Mostly because AT guns don't work vs them.

I don't think armies in 9th will be less optimized, they will just be optimized in a different manner. The incentive in 8th ed was to have as many detachments as you could squeeze into a list, this gave you more CP and extra stratagems. In 9th ed the optimization will work in the opposite direction, your looking to minimize the number of detachments, while still getting access to useful stratagems and units. Some factions are self contained and fairly well rounded so they'll go with a single detachment. Other faction will benefit more from souping, and will figure out the minimum number of CPs they have to sacrifice to get what they need. Soup was so easy in 8th ed we took it for granted, in 9th ed the cost makes it more of an investment, but I think people will still find reasons to make that investment.

I think it will be useful in 9th ed to have more specific nomenclature around the types of additional detachments, because there will be multiple detachments where you add a second detachment within the same faction (adding LoW such as Guilliman or Szarek), and souping where you add a second detachment from a different faction (adding demons to a Tsons list, or adding a knight to an IoM list). For running multiple detachments in the same faction I was thinking of the number of detachments, the letter D, and then the faction, such as a 2D necron list. However I'm sure someone more clever than myself will come up with a better name for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.

You can't it's patrol detachment only, so no super heavies.

 Grimgold wrote:
I don't think armies in 9th will be less optimized, they will just be optimized in a different manner. The incentive in 8th ed was to have as many detachments as you could squeeze into a list, this gave you more CP and extra stratagems. In 9th ed the optimization will work in the opposite direction, your looking to minimize the number of detachments, while still getting access to useful stratagems and units. Some factions are self contained and fairly well rounded so they'll go with a single detachment. Other faction will benefit more from souping, and will figure out the minimum number of CPs they have to sacrifice to get what they need. Soup was so easy in 8th ed we took it for granted, in 9th ed the cost makes it more of an investment, but I think people will still find reasons to make that investment.

I think it will be useful in 9th ed to have more specific nomenclature around the types of additional detachments, because there will be multiple detachments where you add a second detachment within the same faction (adding LoW such as Guilliman or Szarek), and souping where you add a second detachment from a different faction (adding demons to a Tsons list, or adding a knight to an IoM list). For running multiple detachments in the same faction I was thinking of the number of detachments, the letter D, and then the faction, such as a 2D necron list. However I'm sure someone more clever than myself will come up with a better name for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.

You can't it's patrol detachment only, so no super heavies.

I assumed that as well, but the Combat Patrol article mentions at the bottom (footnotes) that Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights can still take part in Combat Patrol.

The reserves strat is pretty useless for proper knights, even if you could afford the CP cost, why? They'll just shoot at a different knight in your list instead. It doesn't reduce their alpha because they still have a target to shoot at, and it just reduces your ability to strike back.

It might have some uses on the cheaper mini-knights I guess.

DarknessEternal wrote:So long as you can take a single Knight in a patrol level game, it is broken.

Martel732 wrote:Mostly because AT guns don't work vs them.

A single knight can't possibly cover an entire table. Let's not forget terrain. Additionally, it would start with 0 CP since the refund is not to the Aux. Last I checked Knights don't fair super well with just a 5++. And I guess good luck holding one objective at a time.