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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well whatever they are remember goal isn't balance. Just change what's imbalanced

"Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." We have no reason to assume intent over simply being bad at balancing.

That saying really shouldn't apply to corporations, given the sheer lenghts they've been proven to go for profit time and time again.

Interesting that they seem to be setting out at least a page on the subject of what Battle Ready looks like - something that I'd say should've been in the core rulebook.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well whatever they are remember goal isn't balance. Just change what's imbalanced

"Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." We have no reason to assume intent over simply being bad at balancing.

That saying really shouldn't apply to corporations, given the sheer lenghts they've been proven to go for profit time and time again.

Overstatement of the year. Is the "sheer lengths" that one guy who said to drop the points of the wraithknight?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Interesting that they seem to be setting out at least a page on the subject of what Battle Ready looks like - something that I'd say should've been in the core rulebook.

It was in there, but it was a bit more brief than this.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well whatever they are remember goal isn't balance. Just change what's imbalanced

"Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." We have no reason to assume intent over simply being bad at balancing.

That saying really shouldn't apply to corporations, given the sheer lenghts they've been proven to go for profit time and time again.

Overstatement of the year. Is the "sheer lengths" that one guy who said to drop the points of the wraithknight?

I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?

Yea, sure that's fair, but I'm not sure it's a warranted caution in this instance though I can't fault vigilance.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?

Yea, sure that's fair, but I'm not sure it's a warranted caution in this instance though I can't fault vigilance.

Yeah, you're probably right, to be honest.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:

Spoiler:

That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.

 alextroy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:

Spoiler:

That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.

Press X to doubt. It isn't in their MO, but I guess we'll find out!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?

Yea, sure that's fair, but I'm not sure it's a warranted caution in this instance though I can't fault vigilance.

at this point it is just hard to tell, as for example "it is the costumers responsibility" is a common theme on corporations to defend terrible decisions in the name of profit

in case of GW, I would say it is the mix of trying to get stuff done as cheap and fast as possible while at the same time just being bad at rules because they don't play their own game (and there is always something that sounds good on paper but will be terrible on the table, but if you never play you never find out)

 alextroy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:

Spoiler:

That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.

That would require more effort than copy/paste.

 alextroy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:

Spoiler:

That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.

Of course not. The BRB core rules are on pg. 194-233. Thats pretty close to number of pages in nephilim, which are 95-136. It will probably also have the rare rules/glosssary. And of course it will not have the updated core rules.

All seems to be confirmed and expanded upon https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/14/war-zone-nephilim-the-next-mission-pack-is-bringing-massive-changes-to-matched-play/



Bonus points:

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.

"you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction"

woop woop

Nice to see it's including the core rules too. Could actually be tempted to pick this up rather than make a word doc of the various small changes since the last CA! See that GW, make a good and user friendly product and I'll actually spend money on it!
The cherry on top would it being spiral bound. *crosses fingers*

Dudeface wrote:
All seems to be confirmed and expanded upon https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/14/war-zone-nephilim-the-next-mission-pack-is-bringing-massive-changes-to-matched-play/



Bonus points:

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.

Only explanation I can think of is that it lets you take an additional LoW slot as part of a second detachment, though I can't figure out for the life of me what the advantage of doing so might be, other than if you need an extra slot because you're spamming war dogs/armigers and ran out of space in the 5 you get in your normal detachment?

Absolutely the worst "fix" they've attempted so far.

Dudeface wrote:
Bonus points:

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.

Take 2 SHADs for 2 LoW slots, rather than trying to cram 3 in? (Incursion is 500-1k points, right?)

MY favorite part is how they cut us down by 8CP in the pregame and then try to pretended like worthless round 4 or round 5 CP 'balances it out' like we don't know how the game works.

I'd trade 20 round 5 CP for even just your first warlord trait to be free.

I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!

 Fergie0044 wrote:
I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!

Won't that... still happen with these changes? Not familiar with the exact combo but if it only costs 4CP, they'll easily be able to have that much for turn 1.

I'm excited to be able to take multiple faction secondaries if I want.

The CP changes will probably just make people more vulnerable to alpha strikes. You won’t have as much cp to defend yourself and you won’t be able to push back as hard against armies that pressure you.

Indeed, but much less likely on turn 1 unless my opponents doesn't want any relics, war lord traits or any other stratagems that turn. Which is a fair compromise.

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:
I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!

Won't that... still happen with these changes? Not familiar with the exact combo but if it only costs 4CP, they'll easily be able to have that much for turn 1.

Will still happen, but it also means the resource is depleted for a few rounds and you can't have a single player do the combo first 2-3 rounds a game.

Personally I am happy with the CP changes. Puts the game more in line with the AoS CP system which I like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dendarien wrote:
The CP changes will probably just make people more vulnerable to alpha strikes. You won’t have as much cp to defend yourself and you won’t be able to push back as hard against armies that pressure you.

Do you have any scenarios in mind? Remember that both players now start with the smaller pool so technically both are still at equal grounds(depending on who is spending more on traits and relics). You also have to remember that most stratagems are limited to once per phase and usually apply to a single unit). Transhuman is something you benefit from proccing twice a round at most.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.

Well, that's 1cp less than now. As a regular user of a Kytan I'm not upset to be at 0cp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Bonus points:

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.

Take 2 SHADs for 2 LoW slots, rather than trying to cram 3 in? (Incursion is 500-1k points, right?)

Yeah that's my only thought but then neither of them get house bonuses etc.

I didn't see whether it clarifies named characters' warlord traits -- Will they cost CP? Kinda looks like they do?

Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.

Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.

They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.

Quasistellar wrote:
I didn't see whether it clarifies named characters' warlord traits -- Will they cost CP? Kinda looks like they do?

Suggests they do, they are still warlord traits after all.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.

Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.

Depends on the exact wording. If it literally sets the CP cost of the detachment to 0, which is 6 + 1 from Martial Legacy, then it eats Martial Legacy. I guess that might depend on the order you're supposed to apply those (my bet is they won't consider that detail at all and we'll need an FAQ)