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.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.

Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books.

Same. The special bonus rules have been irking me for how free and variable they are.

This will improve the game, by limiting alpha strike power on the first turn.

Removing WT and relic Aura stacking with some multiple stratagems turn one will decrease lethality on the first turn.

The way I see it, it gives armies without good traits/relics the option of giving them up for extra CP and that is a good thing. In regards to a situation like Orks, I feel the problem is not in this change making them unable to build a certain way but rather that they need to build that way in the first place. We shouldn't fault global changes for the flaws in army-specific design.

Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...

Their goal is to make people replace units and armies with new. If people get new units to have the new op'ness then their goal accomplished and they proved you wrong. They do know what they are doing.

They don't aim for balance. Opposite actually as balance hurts profits as try-hards don't have to replace units and armies all the time

 Grimtuff wrote:
Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...

It isn't a wild swing.

It's removing the front loading of CP either via relics/traits, detachments, or strat use.

Different amies will react in their own way, but all will be required to make tough choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Their goal is to make people replace units and armies with new. If people get new units to have the new op'ness then their goal accomplished and they proved you wrong. They do know what they are doing.

They don't aim for balance. Opposite actually as balance hurts profits as try-hards don't have to replace units and armies all the time

Ok great. What units are they trying to sell with this again?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...

It isn't a wild swing.

It's removing the front loading of CP either via relics/traits, detachments, or strat use.

Different amies will react in their own way, but all will be required to make tough choices.

And via playing the "wrong" units. If this rumour is true, then Martial Legacy either needs to die or be changed to something sensible.

Edit: Triple post. Sorry folks, wonky internet today.

I do think at this point martial legacy should go, but I don't think it would happen directly in the book itself.

And if not then we need to bug the gak out of them until they do.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.

I hate these tournament CAs.

How is it any different to now? People take the best one for free, if it's good enough they'll pay a CP for it.

Previously I would have Righteous Rage, Burning Ire and the options to take Indomitable belief for more resilient troops or Pure of Will for anti-psychic.

Similarly with Relics I would have the option to pick a damage relic, a support relic, and even a 'comfy-ness' relic like Book of St' Lucius.

Now...not gonna lie, I probably just won't take any relics or Warlord traits anymore. Every Bloody Rose list NEEDS 2CP to start for our pregame move strat, and giving up all of our turn 1 CP for the sake of relics/warlord traits seems stupidly wasteful. Especially if the model you elect as your warlord is still forced to take your first warlord trait.

This increases the bar for how good a warlord trait must be to an insanely high level. ESPECIALLY if they don't change the 'you don't get CP at the start of the command phase unless X' missions.

Your Warlord Trait or Relic previously had to be good enough to justify 1/12th of your CP total being invested into it. NOW, it needs to be worth as much as 1/4th depending on how many 'first turn ultra strats' you have. Most books have MAYBE 1 warlord trait OR relic that's good enough to see play under these conditions. Really great books (or books like Orkz that have terrible strats) might have more, but on average you're reducing most Warlord Trait+Relic lists down to 1-2 entries.

And no, it DOESN'T matter that they increased the amount of CP you get during the game and those points AREN'T counted towards your total CP because A. You won't get them every mission anyway and B. CP you get after turn 1 carry a small fraction of the value of the CP you get BEFORE turn 1.

If there was a way to trade your 3rd, 4th, and 5th round CP (even under the current doubling of CP per battle round) for ONE pregame CP, I would take that in a heartbeat.

Oh, this also makes rules supplements like OoML and Bloody Rose had nearly useless because their only content is stratagems and warlord traits because GW needed 4 pages for the goddam PHOTO SPREAD and couldn't be bothered to print actual rules. Is anyone going to take the Blade of Sacrifice/Martyr's Strength Canoness now that they have half the CP to use? No. No they will not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...

It isn't a wild swing.

It's removing the front loading of CP either via relics/traits, detachments, or strat use.

Different amies will react in their own way, but all will be required to make tough choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Their goal is to make people replace units and armies with new. If people get new units to have the new op'ness then their goal accomplished and they proved you wrong. They do know what they are doing.

They don't aim for balance. Opposite actually as balance hurts profits as try-hards don't have to replace units and armies all the time

Ok great. What units are they trying to sell with this again?

It can ABSOLUTELY be both of those. They are not in ANY WAY mutually exclusive.

What they've done here is they're reduced the amount of CP in strikeforce match by 2/3rds. We had 12 CP and a free warlord trait/relic previously. If you wanted to start the game with exactly that, you'd be at 4. (The CP you get during the game DO NOT MATTER. The value of a turn 1 CP is a fraction of the value of a pregame CP. The value of a turn 2 CP is a fraction of the value of a turn 1CP, the value of turn 3 CP is a fraction of the value of the turn 2CP, and turn 4 or turn 5 CP is essentially worthless. Also, again, some missions your opponent can easily stop you from getting the 'per turn' CP.)

Going from 12CP to 4CP per game is world shaking. It's almost impossible to predict how the meta will shake out except 'really goddamn badly'. Under those conditions, you're looking at a massive inflation of power to armies that have extremely strong army special rules and datasheets and an absolute nose-dive for any faction that relied heavily on stratagems, warlord traits, or additional detachments.

Harlequins, Aeldari, and possibly Nids are likely going to be back up into the 80% winrate range. Yes, they have good stratagems but they also have point for point some of the best unit datasheets and army special rules in the game (Light Saedath, Hail of Doom/Masterful Shots, Leviathan, Fate Dice, luck of the laughing god which is essentially 5 extra free CP per turn, etc) making their Hive-Tyrant pay for Reaper of Obliterax is not going to be enough to keep their raw point efficiency from making them even better than they already are.

Eldar are even WORSE. Yes, they have amazing stratagems and some really amazing warlord traits/relics but Harlequins don't need them to win 65% of games NOW. Imagine how it will be when you can't CP your way past their defenses. Regular Aeldari...Masterful Shots/Hail of Doom into armies that can't afford to pay for their defensive techs anymore? Not going to end well.

They were ONE decent balance patch away from a good, fun format and they're throwing it out the window for hilariously short-sided overcorrection to a problem THEY created.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
This will improve the game, by limiting alpha strike power on the first turn.

Removing WT and relic Aura stacking with some multiple stratagems turn one will decrease lethality on the first turn.

For Guard, sure. It's not going to stop Eldar, Harlequins, or Nids. Also, a lot of armies use their aura stacking defensively to deal with the alphastrike armies LIKE eldar can do 'acoustically'. If anything, this will increase the relative lethality of alphastrikes by decreasing the relative defense of most armies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do think at this point martial legacy should go, but I don't think it would happen directly in the book itself.

And if not then we need to bug the gak out of them until they do.

Yeah, it'll probably come in an errata to the Compendium, a balance dataslate, or in the codexes (they are calling CSM "Legionaries" now).

But, yeah, I'll keep bugging them about it if they don't (you really think that I haven't been already? ). Glad to have you aboard though Daed.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
The you have to pay CP for WLT and relics is a stealth buff to Necrons. All of our traits and relics(maybe the veil is still worth it) are pretty terrible so if everyone has to pay for their sweet cool abilities we'll just start with more CP than them now cause ours are definitely not worth a CP.

Which is kind of what I figured as I have a Necron army.

However, the downside of the new system is that it makes named characters that much more attractive in most armies as they have trait/relic type stuff already built into their profile. So I wonder if those characters will get a point increase.

They shouldn't. Most named characters had built in Warlord traits. A Morvenn Vahl that doesn't reroll in combat is not worth anywhere near as many points as one that DOES.

In fact, all things considered, I think characters should drop in points across the board. Why pay even 65pts for a Canoness when it costs 2 of your 4 available per game CP to actually get her to do anything useful?

Make way for my truck load of salt.

ERJAK wrote:
snip

It kinda sounds like you agree that being able to spam relics and traits and instead making them being a tough choice is a good thing to change however. You're now engaged in decision making over resources rather than just by default taking all of the toys.

Dudeface wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
snip

It kinda sounds like you agree that being able to spam relics and traits and instead making them being a tough choice is a good thing to change however. You're now engaged in decision making over resources rather than just by default taking all of the toys.

Or you can just reign in the troublesome Warlord Traits and Relics. There isn't a lot of those.

If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.

Wouldn't it have been better to find a middle ground? First relic/trait as normal, but then 2CP for every one after that? Or even 1 for the next, two the one after that, and so on.

There has to be more than GW hurling that Pendlum of Endless Overcorrection every time they want to fix something.

And if it's to 'reign in' relics/traits that are 'troublesome', then why not fix those rules then take yet anothet general approach to specific problems?

This all feels like more evidence of why Narrative Play is better than Matched Play.

I think some sort of constraint on CP usage in the first couple of turns would be a good thing.

But I fear the effects of this are just going to further skew the currently good books. Which were possibly drafted with the view something like this might be on the cards.

Going from having say 6-8~ CP turn 1 to having... 1-2 represents a massive change.

Is cp per turn dependant on warlord being on the board?

I mean orks are already one of the worst 9th codexs why stop nerfing then now. They made 1 warboss/beastboss per detachment. They increased the prices of popular units like breastboss on squig cause it was strong w relics and warlord traits until it was barely played might as well make it a single tax unit per army. I’m sure orks wasn’t the reason for this change but it’s not like the playtest or competitive community cares about orks balance.

Tyel wrote:

...But I fear the effects of this are just going to further skew the currently good books. Which were possibly drafted with the view something like this might be on the cards...

Yeah... I think too. The monstrous books right now are strong because of army wide rules and some very strong units. Not because of Relics/Warlord traits combos.

I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP. There isn't a middle ground between those two numbers. Further relics already cost CP so no change there. What it really is, is giving players the option of not taking them, as well as simplifying the system and removing the need for the related stratagems to exist. If it proves to be too burdensome overall they can always increase the starting CP by 1 or 2 to compensate.

As for moving towards more of an income approach to CP than front loaded, I think that is a good decision in general. It affects alpha strike yes, but it also broadly cuts back on the amount of stuff happening in early rounds when there is already quite a lot happening. Maybe it means people will wait until round 2 before enacting the same strategy, but that is still a round spent doing positioning and setting up tactics, which IMO the game needs more of. Quite subjective though, so I'm more speculative on this bit.

Well 2 cp. Warlord trait as well needs to be paid.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

Tyel wrote:

...But I fear the effects of this are just going to further skew the currently good books. Which were possibly drafted with the view something like this might be on the cards...

Yeah... I think too. The monstrous books right now are strong because of army wide rules and some very strong units. Not because of Relics/Warlord traits combos.

80% of the currently "unfair" Eldar list's power is in Masterful Shots/Hail of Doom and some aggressively pointed datasheets.

Harlequins are powerful because of Light/Dark Saedath, luck of the laughing god, and the 4++ with no rerolls the army hands out being backed up by very efficient damage output.

Nids have some of the best Points Per Wound in the game and while their uber combos are generally more CP intensive than Eldar, a Nid Army without stratagems vs. something like a Tsons army without stratagems is EVEN MORE in Nids favor than it is currently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP. There isn't a middle ground between those two numbers. Further relics already cost CP so no change there. What it really is, is giving players the option of not taking them, as well as simplifying the system and removing the need for the related stratagems to exist. If it proves to be too burdensome overall they can always increase the starting CP by 1 or 2 to compensate.

As for moving towards more of an income approach to CP than front loaded, I think that is a good decision in general. It affects alpha strike yes, but it also broadly cuts back on the amount of stuff happening in early rounds when there is already quite a lot happening. Maybe it means people will wait until round 2 before enacting the same strategy, but that is still a round spent doing positioning and setting up tactics, which IMO the game needs more of. Quite subjective though, so I'm more speculative on this bit.

The problem is that as much as this decreases offense(for some armies) it also decreases DEFENSE for a lot of armies. Sister's of battle, for example, often buy a warlord trait that increases their invul in an aura, and a relic that increases the range of that aura. With this change, I can't afford those anymore so I have to dedicate my strategy EVEN MORE to turn 1 to 2 all-ins.

There's an argument to be made that this will result in even MORE alphastrike as armies now generally lack the resources to transhuman+Defensive relic+defensive warlord trait+Pop Smoke in the first turn to prevent damage.

If I only need 4 CP to do my big megadeath combo but you need 7 CP to survive it, I'm now even more incentivized to try and kill you as hard as I can early.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.

Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3, which has been a huge problem at events due to a combination of damage output combined with front loading all your strats. So yes, it seems like an over-reach if you're looking at it as just addressing WLT/Relics, but it's not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


The problem is that as much as this decreases offense(for some armies) it also decreases DEFENSE for a lot of armies. Sister's of battle, for example, often buy a warlord trait that increases their invul in an aura, and a relic that increases the range of that aura. With this change, I can't afford those anymore so I have to dedicate my strategy EVEN MORE to turn 1 to 2 all-ins.

Boo-hoo, how terrible you have to actually make meaningful decisions in the game and list building instead of being able to take all the toys AND get your front-loaded strats.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP.

And halving the available CPs. Hence "overcorrection". They could have done one, or the other, but did both.

It's definitely a big shift from the start of 9th edition. Remember, one of the things that they advertised about 9th was: "Everyone likes having LOTS of CP! So we're going to give everyone 12CP to start in a 2000 point game! And you get another 1CP every turn!". Now it's: "Oh crap! People are starting with too many CP! We have to reduce it somehow!". Definitely a big pendulum swing.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.

Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3, which has been a huge problem at events due to a combination of damage output combined with front loading all your strats. So yes, it seems like an over-reach if you're looking at it as just addressing WLT/Relics, but it's not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


The problem is that as much as this decreases offense(for some armies) it also decreases DEFENSE for a lot of armies. Sister's of battle, for example, often buy a warlord trait that increases their invul in an aura, and a relic that increases the range of that aura. With this change, I can't afford those anymore so I have to dedicate my strategy EVEN MORE to turn 1 to 2 all-ins.

Boo-hoo, how terrible you have to actually make meaningful decisions in the game and list building instead of being able to take all the toys AND get your front-loaded strats.

If you knew how the game worked, you'd know that I'm describing a situation which is counter to what most people are hoping for when they ask for 'more decisions' and 'less stratagem nonsense', which is a net INCREASE in lethality.

Decisions are fine. Decisions that result in Eldar tabling you on turn 2 because you can no longer afford any of the tools you have to stop them, are not.

People like you are imagining some pie-in-the-sky dream where reducing the number of CP means you can leave your assault marines out in the open without a dire avenger squad picking up the whole unit.

The truth is: Dire Avengers don't need to use CP to pick up a full unit of marines in one round of shooting, but marines ABSOLUTELY need CP to NOT get picked up.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.

Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3

LOL this is a serious comment too.

The best armies aren't reliant on their Warlord Traits and Relics I hate to tell you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP.

And halving the available CPs. Hence "overcorrection". They could have done one, or the other, but did both.

Functionally, they've reduced CP by 2/3rds. Very few armies really won't bring ANY warlord traits or ANY relics so you'll get 4.

Also, Recover the Relics will be pretty much unplayable if it denies the losing player two CP per turn. You very easily end up in a position in the end game where your opponent got 16CP to your 6-8.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Starting CP is 6 now. You gain 1 cp per player turn (2 per battle round)
Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH ).

This is just... this is just fething awful.

Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books.

Well, presumably all relics and warlord traits will cost 1 CP each, which doesn't actually fix or address your presumed concern with them having all been free despite their variable power and utility. They are equally as unbalanced all costing 1CP each as they are costing 0CP each.

It has been mentioned on reddit that the new CA rules only apply to GT games so if you are playing Tempest or any other variant these new rules will not apply to them. That is at least how the rumor goes.

lol, thats how it works in theory. In practice, everyone will follow whatever CA says is the "correct" way to play.

H.B.M.C is right, it's an over correction. And they have a bad habit about it. The CP change would have been enough, but they had to take one more step.

Overcorrection is basically GWs M.O. Its the only way the know how to do things, they can never just go with a subtle change and sew aht happens, they always have to go the extra mile and "double tap" what they perceive as overpowered game mechanics to make sure its dead and can't be abused anymore. In the process, they just end up breaking the game worse.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The way I see it, it gives armies without good traits/relics the option of giving them up for extra CP and that is a good thing. In regards to a situation like Orks, I feel the problem is not in this change making them unable to build a certain way but rather that they need to build that way in the first place. We shouldn't fault global changes for the flaws in army-specific design.

They could have achieved the same thing by letting Relics and WLTs continue to be free, but giving players the option to trade them in for the extra CP if they didn't want them. Accomplishes basically the same thing without the "feelsbadman" element to it, you're not taking something away from the playerbase, you're giving them more options for how they configure "their dudes".

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.

Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3

LOL this is a serious comment too.

The best armies aren't reliant on their Warlord Traits and Relics I hate to tell you.

Nids have the best offensive relic in the game in Reaper of Obliterax and still probably wouldn't miss it too much. It's good enough that they'd pay a CP for it but if they didn't it's not like someone's Oops all Reivers casual list is suddenly going to get to see turn 3 because they don't have it.