Command Points and 9th Ed List Building - The Reveals So Far (including Supreme Command)

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.

**Grimgold**

Like Daedalus says, there is no way a single knight could do it, in the example mission they gave you'd have to table them super quick, and then go camp on their objective to win. To make it worse you'd have to table them in an environment where they could trace LoS through ruins to you, but you couldn't trace LoS back. If you did the smart thing and went to camp the objective in their deployment zone (the only way you could make more than 5 a round) you could find yourself in CC with a squad of thunderhammers without them having to make a charge roll or you getting to shoot overwatch.

Armigers might work, as long as you have deep pockets. At 25 PL you could get three armigers, but only if your using 2 of the forge world armigers.

**Gadzilla666**

Not a single knight. The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries. It's talking about armigiers and wardogs. Not the big knights.

**Grimgold**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not a single knight. The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries. It's talking about armigiers and wardogs. Not the big knights.

You can only take a single unit in an aux (so two armigers since they can be taken in pairs, which would leave 7 PL+ on the table), so they'd have to break at least on of the rules they've stated so far to have knights in combat patrol. However three armigers would be tolerable, it's not fundamentally different from a chaplain dread a scout squad and two dreads which also cost 25pl. That also makes a good case for not using PL for this since they could have hundreds of points in upgrades that are not accounted for in PL.

**Daedalus81**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.

Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

**Gadzilla666**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.

Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments. A super heavy auxiliary detachment is an auxiliary detachment. That's why they don't get traits. You need to be battle forged for the missions, and apparently auxiliary detachments don't count. That's my guess. It's in the asterisk section at the end of the article.

**sanguine40k**

Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

AM super heavies lack Invulns, which I suspect is why you don't see them competitively. Plus, most of their main armaments are likely to be blasts, so even if they can shoot in combat, it's mostly going to be their secondary armaments, which are not necessarily capable of clearing many of the tougher CC units (especially with the -1 on top of AM BS and any profile degradation).

Objectives are meant to be the name of the game in 9th, so having a bunch of bodies is still incredibly useful.

Adding a Fellblade/Magnus/etc is only adding killing power if they provide more killing power per point than an equivalent amount of non-super heavies.

Magnus, however, I expect to see regularly in Supreme Command detachments given TS's have some excellent HQ options.

**Daedalus81**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.

Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments. A super heavy auxiliary detachment is an auxiliary detachment. That's why they don't get traits. You need to be battle forged for the missions, and apparently auxiliary detachments don't count. That's my guess. It's in the asterisk section at the end of the article.

I can't locate what you're talking about. I went through both of them. Do I need new eyeballs?

**Gadzilla666**

The weapons that will be blast are most likely the ones that already can't be fired in cc, baneblade cannons, demolisher cannons, volcano cannons, and the like. They also can already shoot and charge after falling back, and fire in combat at full ballistic skill because of the steel behemoth rule. I expect they will keep those abilities.

And if the fellblade's accelerator cannon's he shells loose their special rule to be replaced with the new blast weapons rules I would consider it a nerf.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
I can't locate what you're talking about. I went through both of them. Do I need new eyeballs?

You're killing me Daedalus.

Except for Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights - they can only fit in a super heavy detachment, but they can still take part in combat patrols.

Bottom of the article marked with 5*

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/6/26/join-the-combat-patrolgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-3/

**alextroy**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18] The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments, not auxiliaries.

Huh? Where do you see that?

Only the Super Heavy gets a refund. Aux does not. Is that what you mean? You can take 3 or 4 dogs (points dependent), but those are most definitely vulnerable to AT.

The article says knights can only come in super heavy detachments. A super heavy auxiliary detachment is an auxiliary detachment. That's why they don't get traits. You need to be battle forged for the missions, and apparently auxiliary detachments don't count. That's my guess. It's in the asterisk section at the end of the article.

I can't locate what you're talking about. I went through both of them. Do I need new eyeballs?

From the Join the Combat Patrol article:

An army for Combat Patrol is based on a single Patrol Detachment,***** which gives you a nice amount of flexibility and choice for the size of battle.

.....

***** Except for Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights – they can only fit in a Super-heavy Detachment, but they can still take part in Combat Patrols.

Note that this is probably a matter of them simplifying the language since Faction Focus: Imperial Knights makes it clear they can be taken in both Super-heavy and Super-heavy Auxiliary detachments.

My suspicion is that Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights will be allowed to take a Super-heavy Detachment, which would have to be 3 Armigers/War Dogs. That does assume they reduce the PL to be more inline with the points values and that those don't exceed and average of 166 points a model. It might be a bit of a challenge, but I would think it 36 T7 3+/5++ wounds would not be too much to expect a Combat Patrol to be able to deal with. It's not like you won't see multiple vehicles in other factions Combat Patrols, even if not as destructive as an Armiger/War Dog.

**Daedalus81**

Gadzilla666 wrote:

You're killing me Daedalus.

Wearin' you down!

**Gadzilla666**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

You're killing me Daedalus.

Wearin' you down!

Right, just get your glasses checked.

And I still say this is

unless either taking detachments outside of your core detachment's codex costs extra or taking one from your own codex comes with a refund. Or if super heavys in general see a very small rise in points, or in the case of the hellforged/relic super heavys, an even bigger drop than I'm expecting. Because if they raise those prices then they have definitely lost the plot.

**Daedalus81**

alextroy wrote:
It might be a bit of a challenge, but I would think it 36 T7 3+/5++ wounds would not be too much to expect a Combat Patrol to be able to deal with. It's not like you won't see multiple vehicles in other factions Combat Patrols, even if not as destructive as an Armiger/War Dog.

I don't imagine i'll even play CP, but if I did...

Ahriman on Disc
20 Tzaangors
Vindicator with gubbins (maybe a daemon engine, but like the idea of T8 in that point bracket)

Not sure how much room i'd have left after that, but it'd take a long time to clear through those Tzaangors. Run em with -1 and 4++. Toss heals on the vindicator.

**Nazrak**

Seen a couple of people saying restrictions on numbers of certain characters per detachment should be dropped now – I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I'd like to see it become more prevalent for other Codices too – since when did Space Marines have multiple Captains available all to join in a battle with like half a company's worth of guys?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also quite neatly fixes things like people saying "well why would I take a normal Russ when Tank Commanders are so much better for the points?" which resulted in lists that flew in the face of the background. Now, you take regular Russes because, even they might not be as optimal on paper as a commander, you have more available to you, which is how it should be.

**ewar**

Nazrak wrote:
Seen a couple of people saying restrictions on numbers of certain characters per detachment should be dropped now – I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I'd like to see it become more prevalent for other Codices too – since when did Space Marines have multiple Captains available all to join in a battle with like half a company's worth of guys?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also quite neatly fixes things like people saying "well why would I take a normal Russ when Tank Commanders are so much better for the points?" which resulted in lists that flew in the face of the background. Now, you take regular Russes because, even they might not be as optimal on paper as a commander, you have more available to you, which is how it should be.

Couldn't agree more, there should be more choice restrictions to match some of the fluff. I never run more than one captain, and only take a chapter master and captain in suitably large games (4k+). I'm not a fan of seeing lists with 3/4 points in characters and their handful of backfield camping cheerleaders.

From what I've seen so far, I think 9th will do a good job of pushing/incentivising players to make use of a wider range of slots in battalions and brigades to really help armies reflect the background a bit better.

**Nazrak**

ewar wrote:

From what I've seen so far, I think 9th will do a good job of pushing/incentivising players to make use of a wider range of slots in battalions and brigades to really help armies reflect the background a bit better.

Indeed – there really wasn't a lot to incentivise you to fill up non-compulsory slots before – you were almost always better off rolling htem over into another detachment to maximise your CPs.

Something else that just occurred to me is that the removal of functionally infinite force org slot might help create some space in armies for support characters, when previously the thinking was perhaps "well why not just spend those points on more of whatever they buff?" – Runtherds and Waagh Banners spring immediately to mind.

**Martel732**

Make tau commanders BS 3+ and there's no reason for the restriction.

**alextroy**

Or just make the points valuation between Commanders and Crisis Suits better so that you actually want to purchase Crisis Suits? The problem isn't that Commanders are better. Every character model is better than the non-character model of the same time. It's that a comparable points value of Commanders is better than the same points in Crisis Suits.

**Martel732**

It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

**the_scotsman**

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

Particularly because GW insists that valuing weapons off the datasheet is a good idea.

That powerfist costs the same on an A2 sarge with WS3+ as it does on an A4 captain with WS2+ and reroll 1s to hit....yeah....that makes sense....

Costing weapons separately from datasheets while also trying to limit the options of weapons datasheets can take is one of the weirdest organizational choices out of 8th IMO. Seems like NMNR and the philosophy of "bespoke rules" is the perfect opportunity to self-contain point costs right on the datasheet to reflect the different value a unit gets out of various options. Is a Heavy Flamer really the same value on a long range battle tank that has it as an Auxiliary/Emergency weapon as it is on a close range squad? is a Storm Shield really the same value on a 1W model as a 5W model that starts from a 4++?

**Kanluwen**

alextroy wrote:
Or just make the points valuation between Commanders and Crisis Suits better so that you actually want to purchase Crisis Suits? The problem isn't that Commanders are better. Every character model is better than the non-character model of the same time. It's that a comparable points value of Commanders is better than the same points in Crisis Suits.

Also a big issue is that except for Commanders and Farsight, you have no Crisis Suited character options.

A Lieutenant level character or swapping Bodyguards to be something similar would be a welcome move.

**Nazrak**

Kanluwen wrote:

A Lieutenant level character or swapping Bodyguards to be something similar would be a welcome move.

I'd like to see this as an option for most armies tbh – similar to the old minor/major hero situation in the early editions. I guess Warlord Traits *kinda* allow for this, but it can still seem a bit weird at times.

**Sterling191**

Martel732 wrote:
Make tau commanders BS 3+ and there's no reason for the restriction.

Sure thing, lets get on that right after we push all Marine characters to WS/BS3+ since apparently theyre not in need of being restricted at all.

Oh. Right.

**Martel732**

Sterling191 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Make tau commanders BS 3+ and there's no reason for the restriction.

Sure thing, lets get on that right after we push all Marine characters to WS/BS3+ since apparently theyre not in need of being restricted at all.

Oh. Right.

That's fine, too. I don't really care. But the jump from 4+ to 2+ makes even less sense. It would be nice if we had more than 4 different skill profiles.

**Nazrak**

I'd happily see Marines limited to 1 each of Captain, Lieutenant (slot, so up to 2), Librarian, Chaplain per Detachment. Although I guess that's likely to kinda happen anyway as a result of the new way Detachments work.

**Zustiur**

My only complaint with this rule is that we didn't get it 18 months ago in Chapter Approved.

**Daedalus81**

the_scotsman wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

Particularly because GW insists that valuing weapons off the datasheet is a good idea.

That powerfist costs the same on an A2 sarge with WS3+ as it does on an A4 captain with WS2+ and reroll 1s to hit....yeah....that makes sense....

Costing weapons separately from datasheets while also trying to limit the options of weapons datasheets can take is one of the weirdest organizational choices out of 8th IMO. Seems like NMNR and the philosophy of "bespoke rules" is the perfect opportunity to self-contain point costs right on the datasheet to reflect the different value a unit gets out of various options. Is a Heavy Flamer really the same value on a long range battle tank that has it as an Auxiliary/Emergency weapon as it is on a close range squad? is a Storm Shield really the same value on a 1W model as a 5W model that starts from a 4++?

They did this to some degree. The most obvious was the Thunderhammer. Does a Captain getting a fist at a "discount" really matter overall though?

The rest of your point stands though there is some nuance needed on some other levels, but then that becomes bloat so a fine line to walk.

**Kanluwen**

Nazrak wrote:
I'd happily see Marines limited to 1 each of Captain, Lieutenant (slot, so up to 2), Librarian, Chaplain per Detachment. Although I guess that's likely to kinda happen anyway as a result of the new way Detachments work.

Some of the biggest things that need to happen with regards to Marines?

Chapter Masters, period, need to be given the rules from the Chapter Master stratagem. It's silly that Shrike and Azrael can't call down orbital strikes.
I guess Calgar and Grimnar too.

Armies(not detachments) need to be limited to one keyworded Chapter Master.

Captains need to be 1 per Detachment.
Lieutenants need to be 0-2(there's 4 per Company from what I've been able to dig up).
Librarians and Chaplains should be 1 per Detachment as well.

**Martel732**

Librarians typically only function well in multiples; there's no point to a single librarian.

**Aash**

Kanluwen wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
I'd happily see Marines limited to 1 each of Captain, Lieutenant (slot, so up to 2), Librarian, Chaplain per Detachment. Although I guess that's likely to kinda happen anyway as a result of the new way Detachments work.

Some of the biggest things that need to happen with regards to Marines?

Chapter Masters, period, need to be given the rules from the Chapter Master stratagem. It's silly that Shrike and Azrael can't call down orbital strikes.
I guess Calgar and Grimnar too.
Armies(not detachments) need to be limited to one keyworded Chapter Master.

Captains need to be 1 per Detachment.
Lieutenants need to be 0-2(there's 4 per Company from what I've been able to dig up).
Librarians and Chaplains should be 1 per Detachment as well.

I'd totally get behind this, and similar for all the factions. Its a company level game, there shouldn't be multiple Captains (or equivalents running around in a single detachment, and it should be rare to have multiples in a single army. The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

If this sort of philosophy was introduced across the board there would be no need for sweeping rules like the "rule of 3" as each faction would have its own faction-specific limits.

**Nazrak**

Aash wrote:
The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

Deffo agree it'd be nice for some armies to have more options, but it's a less pressing problem now people won't be trying to maximise the number of detachments they're taking, which required you to load up on HQs. Which, in my book, is another reason to like the new system.