Twilight Pathways wrote:
Don't battles need to be 3000 points before you get 18 CPs though?

 MinscS2 wrote:
imo 40k needs less CP / Stratagem-shenanigans, not more.
9th is a step in the right direction, and it's a clear indication that GW is of the same mindset.

*In before all Codex-Stratagems becomes one use only in 10th Ed.*

I doubt tournaments will go 2001, but if you and your opponent both want more CP there's nothing that prevents you.

 Galef wrote:
First off, I plan on continuing to use 2000pts as our standard limit.
2k in 8th was starting to feel bloated and with the points increases and different way to build your army (specifically needing less "tax units" to fill out detachments) 2k in 9th feels right.

But with 2001-3000pts games getting 18cps, do you think any groups might start playing "2001" pts limit games?
Kinda like the opposite of 5th or 6th (can't remember at this point all prior edition blue together) in which tourneys were doing 1999+1pt games because at 2000pts you could take 2 detachments, so making it 1999+1pt, you force everything into 1 FoC.

With so much more requiring CPs, like Overwatch and putting units into Reserve, it actually nets most Armies LESS CPs than they would have had in 8th.
So to offset that, do you think 2001pt limits will become a thing?

-

 Blackie wrote:
2001+ points game require huge table though, so they're not gonna get the standard game format thankfully.

 buddha wrote:
I hope not because it also changes the table size which undoes most what what 9th is trying to accomplish.

Technically the edition doesn't even come out until Saturday. Let's play a bit with the rules before we worry about house ruling everything.

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

Uuuhh what you are talking about? If you agree 2001 pts game both have 2001 pts to spend. You most certainly don't have half that!

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

Uuuhh what you are talking about? If you agree 2001 pts game both have 2001 pts to spend. You most certainly don't have half that!

Hmm... looking back at the article, it only said total PL, not total points.

tneva82 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I hope not because it also changes the table size which undoes most what what 9th is trying to accomplish.

Technically the edition doesn't even come out until Saturday. Let's play a bit with the rules before we worry about house ruling everything.

The old board is still just as valid as before. New board sizes is minimum. Not even recommended. Minimum. And chosen not for what's good for game or what's balanced but for £££££££££££(especially for ITC who chose that purely for PROOOOOOFIIIIIIITS!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2001+ points game require huge table though, so they're not gonna get the standard game format thankfully.

Does it really though?
I mean, I keep reading about how every things going up in points, how a 2k pt army really only = about 1850 pts or so worth of 8e stuff, how people are having to cut this or that unit from their existing lists, etc.
In addition none of our existing 4x6 or 4x8 tables have magically shrunk.

So if I just keep my existing 2k pt list as-is but recalc the pts for 9th ed.... Be it 2k pts today, or 2150 pts come Sat, my army will still be taking up the exact same footprint on that 4x6 or 4x8 table.

Well minimum for the 18CP level is 44"x90". While 44" isn't issue as standard size so far has been 48" the 90" minimum is bit harder to fit. So far people have been playing 6'x4' boards so while 2k minimum(44"x60") so can be played just fine the onslaught sized minimum requires going for bigger board than we have been using in 8th

If you have minimum 44x90 board fair play but I know we don't We'll be sticking to our 6'x4' boards which works with 2k but bigger than that we aren't fitting minimums.

tneva82 wrote:
well if you are going to house rule things you can just house rule your CP rather than playing 2001 pts game...At which point OP's question is moot point and is actually "are you going to house rule to have 18CP to start with?".

You either play 2001 pts game with all it entails or you house rule things. OP didn't specify he's looking for house ruling things but playing 2001 pts games.

Voss wrote:
If it's just you and your boys in your house, you aren't 'stuck' with anything. If you wanna have it all with CP, you can do that.

 Kithail wrote:
I'm going to throw a wild guess here and say the same people that complain about smaller table sizes will be complaining about melee being underpowered a couple of weeks or months later into the edition...

It's the opposite, I suspect. People who have already decided melee is bad, so folks with melee armies are preemptively demanding the smaller size to compensate. At the same time, those with ranged armies want the bigger table and 'don't see what the big deal is'