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.

I feel like this change really hurts how CSM currently plays. I recently got back into the game and as a longtime CSM player I was surprised by how much soup and HQs they had to take just to be competitive. I think an average list had something like 3 disco lords, 2 sorcerers, and 2 Dark apostles plus 1 or 2 misc. ones like Master of Possessions or Warpsmith... and they aren't even considered THAT competitive.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Being forced in to taking dragio in every army just to have 4HQ, because GW designed your army to run it with 4 HQs, is a case of pre building the list for you.

Armies weren't designed for HQs. People just optimized for what they could get the most out of and that wound up being HQs. Now you can "get" 4, but you're paying a penalty on the WL trait. Magnus' trait is mostly worthless.

GK are build around the casting of new PA psychic powers, and only characters can cast those. 4 HQs is a bare minimum, as one is going to be a CP bot every turn anyway. when they talked about GK rules in PA on their twich chanel when PA4 was coming out, they very much said that characters are going to be the focus of it. As are going to be paladins.

In the 9th GK write up they have on their site, the playtester who did them also says how paladins and characters are the most important thing for GK.

To me those bares all the hallmarks of being designed to be focused on those two types of units.

Just about everything in 9th hurts how CSM plays. We all saw this coming when they said they were nerfing soup.

 slave.entity wrote:
Just about everything in 9th hurts how CSM plays. We all saw this coming when they said they were nerfing soup.

How many people were taking a Corsairs Batt for CP and doing nothing with it? Daemon Engines are super happy.

What people need to keep in mind is the game plays a lot differently now. Scoring primaries, for example, in your command phase means you can't just run, grab, score, and die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Being forced in to taking dragio in every army just to have 4HQ, because GW designed your army to run it with 4 HQs, is a case of pre building the list for you.

Armies weren't designed for HQs. People just optimized for what they could get the most out of and that wound up being HQs. Now you can "get" 4, but you're paying a penalty on the WL trait. Magnus' trait is mostly worthless.

GK are build around the casting of new PA psychic powers, and only characters can cast those. 4 HQs is a bare minimum, as one is going to be a CP bot every turn anyway. when they talked about GK rules in PA on their twich chanel when PA4 was coming out, they very much said that characters are going to be the focus of it. As are going to be paladins.

In the 9th GK write up they have on their site, the playtester who did them also says how paladins and characters are the most important thing for GK.

To me those bares all the hallmarks of being designed to be focused on those two types of units.

That isn't what the article said. Characters in GK are important just as mine are, but you're going to need to think differently on how you use them.

Paying 3 cp and 3x MSU troops IS an expense, but doing it would give you 6 HQ.

And if you happen to like your Supreme Commander's WL trait, and subfaction (in some cases), the Supreme Command detachment is pretty darned cool. It sucks that Magnus has a bad WL trait; his should be the coolest.

Pandabeer wrote:
I think it would be neat and also fluffy to allow Magnus to select a second Warlord Trait from one of the Nine Cults, being the most powerful psyker in the known universe besides Emps and all. Then price him accordingly of course.

Tzeentch is all about change so theres definitely an argument for Magnus to not have a specific WL trait

ALL the changes so far have really hurt mono slaanesh. those that had ranged weapons (whips) could already "shoot" into melee even ones they weren't involved with.

 warmaster21 wrote:
ALL the changes so far have really hurt mono slaanesh. those that had ranged weapons (whips) could already "shoot" into melee even ones they weren't involved with.

Flanking and terrain rules, and overwatch becoming a strat were all good for all close combat forces. The flanking is not as big a deal for daemons, due to lots of built in DS, but it's still another tool in the toolbox.

Blast and fall back hurt, but fallback is no worse than 8th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Daemon Engines are super happy.

True, but only the ones that were underplayed. And they're still getting hurt from losing the ability to soup with daemons for free.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
With Thousand Sons, playing Magnus will make him the warlord which will invalidate half of the stuff in the PA update (because Magnus is named and can't have a Cult).

Your mistake here was thinking that anyone writing this rule remembered the PA 1KSons stuff. GW write rules in a vacuum. The person who wrote the Supreme Command stuff wouldn't have even considered this when doing so.

I mean, this is the same company that gave 1KSons 9 new sets of options, and then FAQ'd it to ensure that you can only ever use 1 of them at a time.

...and now it's use half of said 1 cult if you want to even field your big guy.

I am dissapoint.

Or field magnus as non warlord

Which costs 3 CP and his chapter trait.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That isn't what the article said. Characters in GK are important just as mine are, but you're going to need to think differently on how you use them.

They are needed to use the basic mechanics mechanics the GK army has, at least until GW makes a 9th ed GK codex , conslidates the codex and PA rules, and makes it possible for non characters to use tide related psychic powers.

Every unit, even the lowliest of chaffs are important, to their respective armies. But if there was a unit with a rule of, lets say, to use a WAAGH or chapter tactics you need a warboss/captin on the board, then it turns from important to required to use the army mechanics. Those are two different things. In one caseyou can change how you use, sacrifice one for the other or mix and match. In the other case there is no going around this. A GK player is going to need a CP generator bot, a tider changer a chaplain to buff the paladins etc. There is no place for I will replace it with something else, because there is no something else.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That isn't what the article said. Characters in GK are important just as mine are, but you're going to need to think differently on how you use them.

They are needed to use the basic mechanics mechanics the GK army has, at least until GW makes a 9th ed GK codex , conslidates the codex and PA rules, and makes it possible for non characters to use tide related psychic powers.

Every unit, even the lowliest of chaffs are important, to their respective armies. But if there was a unit with a rule of, lets say, to use a WAAGH or chapter tactics you need a warboss/captin on the board, then it turns from important to required to use the army mechanics. Those are two different things. In one caseyou can change how you use, sacrifice one for the other or mix and match. In the other case there is no going around this. A GK player is going to need a CP generator bot, a tider changer a chaplain to buff the paladins etc. There is no place for I will replace it with something else, because there is no something else.

Orks are feeling the same. With the current codex multiple HQs are pretty much required, and even fielding 5-6 in an optimal choice. The new detachment system forces orks lists to be reworked pretty hard; however if this and all the other edition's changes will benefit or cripple the faction is too soon to say.

I'm also somehow bitter at the moment as according to the leaks I can't field the army I'd like to play without losing something (a lot actually) in terms of competitiveness, but it's really too soon to say and first impressions could be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Which costs 3 CP and his chapter trait.

Sounds fair. Free Warhammer from gigantic models

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
Just about everything in 9th hurts how CSM plays. We all saw this coming when they said they were nerfing soup.

How many people were taking a Corsairs Batt for CP and doing nothing with it? Daemon Engines are super happy.

What people need to keep in mind is the game plays a lot differently now. Scoring primaries, for example, in your command phase means you can't just run, grab, score, and die.

Bold, considering alot of dakka options for Daemonengines are going upwards due to Blast and considering their inherent flaws.
Not to mention there was 1 daemonenengine that worked and that is in the HQ position...
And i don't think a Brigade is an option either, because csm at 14 pts (or even 15 like tacs) is only slightly above 60 pts cultist squads now is it.
FA is full of waste of paper for most of the subfactions, and mix and match is also not working.
Elites is iffy. And heavy support will probably still prefer Obliterators and havocs over Daemonengines.