Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXIX: Miracle on 39th Thread

[LansXero]

That tells you how models killed counts towards the tally, but not how the tally counts towards kill points.

Yes but it tells you that wiping out units doesnt matter so as long as you can plink away models from the enemy you're adding to it; wasnt morale supposed to matter? what do you care if the unit survives so long as you get as many kills as you can hit / wound / deny saves through AP?

[Cheesegear]

Yes but it tells you that wiping out units doesnt matter so as long as you can plink away models from the enemy you're adding to it; wasnt morale supposed to matter? what do you care if the unit survives so long as you get as many kills as you can hit / wound / deny saves through AP?

You play ITC. You know how Reaper works.
The way you play around Reaper, is by having respawning units (Daemons, Tyranids, Chaos Cultists, etc.). Your opponent gets max points, sure. But you can still make dudes back and keep achieving your own objectives.
If you can't respawn dudes (Orks), you're in trouble when your opponent picks up Reaper.

Spoiler: Uh oh, Guys

Show

Y'know how Chapter Approved comes out, and all's you do is plug in the new numbers and then you see the change.
Here, I changed an Intercessor's points value from 17, to 20. As you can see, I couldn't possibly establish whether or not an Intercessor (a unit with no special abilities) is better or worse than another unit.

global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’.

I can't even.

[Forum Explorer]

This is also why "I deploy all my stuff then you deploy all your stuff" is trash. The old "1 unit at a time, whoever finishes first gets +1 to the start roll" was so much better, as it let you play around with what to deploy, where to do it and bait out the opponent with chaff units at the cost of being less likely to go first.


His troops, which feed him CPs, aren't shooting across long edges turn 1 from their deployment zone. His HQs and force multipliers likely aren't either. There are specific units which are dangerous, which you can outrange or hide out of LoS keeping in mind threat ranges considering if they will or wont move. Yes, this is also a function of terrain, but that doesnt mean changing the terrain rules, it means building tables to give both side an sporting chance and not placing objectives somewhere stupid like on the base floor of a 12" tall magic box. Indirect fire is often low S or low AP or low BS; work that to your advantage; getting sniped by a DaJumped Mek sucks of course, but your characters need to be deployed in a way that making that happen leads to overexposure. Many people fall into the mistake of placing their stuff where they need to be turn 1, as if they wont move. Why? What do reroll auras do for you while being shot? There are many common pitfalls in table design and deployment methods / habits that exacerbat the existing issue with frontloaded firepower, but its not something inherent to the game

More importantly:



Surely you dont mean the 9th edition that lets me spam reapers without having to waste points on guardians, rangers or dire avengers has "less alpha strike" as a feature, right? You dont mean the 9th who is about to give Knight Crusader spam same CPs as a guard brigade is somehow less conducive to blasting people off the table, do you?

Taking each change and dissecting it on a vacuum is pointless. Early 8th already showed us what a detachmentless game will shift to: spam the good stuff, forget anything else, blast other to nothing. "less alpha strikes is a feature" yeah right.

Agreed. My only problem with the deploy 1 unit at a time thing was how much it sucked to go up against Deep Strike heavy armies who would have some 5 or more 'invisible' drops. But my solution would've been to change it so that you always had to maintain the 50% units on the board, or all Deep Strikes counted as 1 drop.

His troops don't really do a lot of damage. They are there to screen out melee armies and provide board control. Any damage they inflict is just a bonus. His force multiplying HQ's don't need to be anywhere near you to do damage because they force multiply the artillery.. As for it being low AP, low S or low BS, tell that to Thunderfire Cannons. Or Night Spinners if you want an Eldar example.

There's less and more CP spam. Everyone being at the same level means armies without a lot now have a decent amount, and armies with excessive amounts (guard brigades and the like) now have less. As for detachmentless, I disagree. I mean, potentially you are right. But I think it might be more along the lines of 'fit your army into as few detachments as possible'. You want more than 3 Heavy Supports? Then you are either looking at taking a Brigade for everything, and thus need 6 Troops, or you are spending CP to take an extra Spearhead. Though really, the only thing troops seem to need to be relevant is Objective Secured. And they haven't said anything that implies they are getting rid of that.

less fire & fade, less celestial shield, less lightning reflexes, forget about Pathfinders... Eldar becomes much less survivable with a lack of CPs early on, having to choose between psychic consistency, re-rolls or defense. Im sure this isnt only true for Eldar, so what this does in fact is just skew things hard to one side, it doesnt necessarily means anything for alpha strike.

Well we've actually got some hard numbers now. 12 CP for a 2000 point game. It hasn't dropped that much from the typical lists. Really it seems the lists that are used to have 20+ CP in a single list are the ones getting slammed. Though with generating CP a turn, we either aren't getting a lot of CP a turn (1+1 more for your Warlord?) or we are just going to get a massive amount of CP, period.

We're not even hiding the ITC's influence anymore.
Great. Choose all the Kill Point ones. Win games. All hail our Marine, T'au and Craftworld overlords.



Or, y'know you could make the new standard 1750 or 1850, or 1500?



FFS GW.
It'll take less than a week.

You get 1. They say specifically, you can only ever have 1 of each type. Though admittedly, it does seem like they have multiple kill categories. More importantly though, the victory points for secondaries maxes out at 15 for the entire game. If the 4 Pillars mission is typical, it's possible to score 15 VP in a single turn from the primary objective. So kill secondaries will simply be worth less than whatever the primary objective is due to it being worth so many more points.


I agree, though I heard it argued that higher point levels allow for more granularity in the game. Like guardsmen shouldn't be as cheap as cultists, but guardsmen need to be less points then veterans, which need to be less points than a fire warrior and so on. By increasing everything, you can form a proper hierarchy of quality.


No kidding.

[Brookshw]

Ok, so the points cost adjustments will be free right? Otherwise me "being able to use my old Codex" is a lie.

Oh, please. Your codex is useless for point costs every Chapter Approved

*sad tyranid noises*

Hiss, snarl?

[Keraunograf]

Uh, the discussion on alpha strikes seems to have been caused by my comment, and there's a lot of telling me/my friends we're bad for getting alpha striked, which I already knew as a note, but no telling me how I can not get alpha striked. We know we're new and bad, that's why I asked for advice. It's not a lot of fun for either player for games to be over on turn 1 or 2 given how much set up time and stuff everything takes.

[Fable Wright]

Uh, the discussion on alpha strikes seems to have been caused by my comment, and there's a lot of telling me/my friends we're bad for getting alpha striked, which I already knew as a note, but no telling me how I can not get alpha striked. We know we're new and bad, that's why I asked for advice. It's not a lot of fun for either player for games to be over on turn 1 or 2 given how much set up time and stuff everything takes.

Ultimately, it depends on the kind of alpha strike that's going on. If you're getting shot off the board in one turn, you need to add more line of sight blocking cover scattered around, to make mobility more important and to give armies a chance to hide. If you're getting melee'd off the board in one round from a turn 1 charge, you need to change how you deploy to make sure you have enough room/give you more room to back off and hide, and/or add more difficult terrain bits to the map. If the problem is squads of intercessors appearing out of nowhere and a min squad of 3 mowing down your infantry units like wheat, the problem is systemic unbalancing in the game from codex creep and the answer is to politely ask your friends to not do that. And/or make sure to bring along cheap units to screen against deep strike's 9" setup requirement.

[LansXero]

Uh, the discussion on alpha strikes seems to have been caused by my comment, and there's a lot of telling me/my friends we're bad for getting alpha striked, which I already knew as a note, but no telling me how I can not get alpha striked. We know we're new and bad, that's why I asked for advice. It's not a lot of fun for either player for games to be over on turn 1 or 2 given how much set up time and stuff everything takes.

Ok, lets see: do you play in 6x4, 4x4 or a custom board size? What are the dimensions of you LoS blocking pieces? How many of them do you have? How many pieces go into a typical board when you play?

The thing is, for any advice to be useful someone would need to have a lot more info than just factions. Lets start with whats simple to help you with: terrain and how to make it so it keeps turn 1 a bit more sane.

You guys are playing matched, right? Which format: eternal war, maesltrom, schemes of war?

[Voidhawk]

Though really, the only thing troops seem to need to be relevant is Objective Secured. And they haven't said anything that implies they are getting rid of that.

They can't get rid of Objective Secured, because it doesn't exist. Instead every single codex has an identical rule named differently, and since "Codexes are still valid" it has to carry over as written.

[Blackhawk748]

FFS GW.
It'll take less than a week.

I swear to god they've never even looked at Dakka Dakka. They'll have it hammered out in a few days. Or less

1 killpoint / model seems a terrible thing that should not exist or at least should be capped way lower than 15.

Ya, because if it does work at 10 models per VP (and I honestly don't know how else that sentence could end) then Orks, Nids and probably Ad Mech, Sisters, and Tzanagor Spam are getting blasted straight out of the meta because killing 10 of them in a round of shooting is a cakewalk. Hell, if you can score it multiple times in a turn (hopefully not, but who knows?) Against Orks or Nids you could easily get 3 VP.

Just as a crappy example:

Orks routinely show up on the field with 200 models
A Primaris heavy Space Marine army can show up with like... 50.

10 for the Ork is only 5% of his overall force, and they expect to lose double that in a shooting phase.
10 for the Primaris player is 20% of his force and they don't expect to lose that till like Turn 2 or 3. (ideally)

So the Ork is getting hosed from word go, simply because his models are so much easier to kill. Hell, you may as well hand them their free VP a Turn.

Oh, please. Your codex is useless for point costs every Chapter Approved

Yes, and I find that incredibly annoying. However, I was told that I could use my current rules. If they are redoing all of the points, and they arent available for free, then they straight up lied.

And now that I can get a proper look at the pictures as Im not on my phone, 12 CP is fine for a 2k list, but I'm curious as to how many you get per turn. Is it another 12? Cuz that would be nuts. Do you refresh to 12? Do I get 2 or 3?

Like, this is workable, it just really sucks for the Space Marines who have expensive Strats

[Forum Explorer]

They can't get rid of Objective Secured, because it doesn't exist. Instead every single codex has an identical rule named differently, and since "Codexes are still valid" it has to carry over as written.

Pretty much my reasoning on why they won't.

Ya, because if it does work at 10 models per VP (and I honestly don't know how else that sentence could end) then Orks, Nids and probably Ad Mech, Sisters, and Tzanagor Spam are getting blasted straight out of the meta because killing 10 of them in a round of shooting is a cakewalk. Hell, if you can score it multiple times in a turn (hopefully not, but who knows?) Against Orks or Nids you could easily get 3 VP.

Just as a crappy example:

Orks routinely show up on the field with 200 models
A Primaris heavy Space Marine army can show up with like... 50.

10 for the Ork is only 5% of his overall force, and they expect to lose double that in a shooting phase.
10 for the Primaris player is 20% of his force and they don't expect to lose that till like Turn 2 or 3. (ideally)

So the Ork is getting hosed from word go, simply because his models are so much easier to kill. Hell, you may as well hand them their free VP a Turn.

Well looking at the example mission we've got, Secondaries are worth 15 points throughout a game. However, you can score 15 points in a single turn from the primary objective. So getting 1 point per 10 models killed, well you need to kill 150 models to max it out. That's not easy, not even if you're facing Orks.

Basically it looks like secondaries are going to be a pretty minor part of the game. They aren't easy to score, and they don't give you nearly as many points as the primary objective. Though it makes me wonder what Maelstrom is going to be like.

[LansXero]

Basically it looks like secondaries are going to be a pretty minor part of the game. They aren't easy to score, and they don't give you nearly as many points as the primary objective. Though it makes me wonder what Maelstrom is going to be like.

If they are easy to score then they are super important because if the other guys trivially gets 10 points and you dont then you lose. 15 points a round for the example mission is taking 3/4s of the table and holding it, at that point you are winning so hard it doesnt even matter anymore, so it will more likely be we both camp half the table for half the points and run each other down on secundaries until we're capped with a big push to break the stalemate in the final turns. So very ITC like, and also very boring.

Edit: to explain myself properly: if there are a few secondaries that are easy / trivial / guaranteed to be scored, then you will always, always pick them because if you dont you're leaving VPs on the table for no reason. But this also warps how you buid your list, deploy and play, but since everybody else would also needlessly nerf themselves if they dont do it, then you all end up playing the same way. Since whatever mission you roll is not a factor you can control or choose beforehand, but secondaries are, then secondaries are much more important to how you play.

[Forum Explorer]

If they are easy to score then they are super important because if the other guys trivially gets 10 points and you dont then you lose. 15 points a round for the example mission is taking 3/4s of the table and holding it, at that point you are winning so hard it doesnt even matter anymore, so it will more likely be we both camp half the table for half the points and run each other down on secundaries until we're capped with a big push to break the stalemate in the final turns. So very ITC like, and also very boring.

Edit: to explain myself properly: if there are a few secondaries that are easy / trivial / guaranteed to be scored, then you will always, always pick them because if you dont you're leaving VPs on the table for no reason. But this also warps how you buid your list, deploy and play, but since everybody else would also needlessly nerf themselves if they dont do it, then you all end up playing the same way. Since whatever mission you roll is not a factor you can control or choose beforehand, but secondaries are, then secondaries are much more important to how you play.

You only need 2 if the opponent is holed up in a corner. Or more likely, you take 3 objectives for only one or two turns. But that's a 20 point lead right there, and that's more then an entire secondary objective can provide. So it seems like playing for objectives will be much more rewarding.

Also the secondaries we have seen aren't that easy to score. I mean, it's easy to get some points on them but hard to max them out. Like Assassinate. It's 3 points per character killed. So you need to get 5 characters to max it out. Getting a point per 10 models is easy to get a few points on, but hard to get the full 15. From the example we we're given, it seems a greater priority is being put on board control then the current ITC does.

[LansXero]

You only need 2 if the opponent is holed up in a corner. Or more likely, you take 3 objectives for only one or two turns. But that's a 20 point lead right there, and that's more then an entire secondary objective can provide. So it seems like playing for objectives will be much more rewarding.

Also the secondaries we have seen aren't that easy to score. I mean, it's easy to get some points on them but hard to max them out. Like Assassinate. It's 3 points per character killed. So you need to get 5 characters to max it out. Getting a point per 10 models is easy to get a few points on, but hard to get the full 15. From the example we we're given, it seems a greater priority is being put on board control then the current ITC does.

If you can shift a third objective from your oponent you either wiped out whatever was on it or he isnt trying, which makes no sense. So why not ignore the whole thing for two turns, wipe him out, then use the multiplier on the last three turns since he has nothing to catch up with anymore?

AoS missions are like that, and this is heavily inspired by it. First few turns is less about the objectives, and more about making sure there is nothing left of the oponent to make double turns important or for them to capture objectives with. Of course this doesnt mean ignoring objectives as giving the enemy an early lead is dumb, but that less "playing to objectives" and more "lets crush the other guy so I can afford wasting units doing random bs like channeling focus power or whatever".

[Forum Explorer]

If you can shift a third objective from your oponent you either wiped out whatever was on it or he isnt trying, which makes no sense. So why not ignore the whole thing for two turns, wipe him out, then use the multiplier on the last three turns since he has nothing to catch up with anymore?

AoS missions are like that, and this is heavily inspired by it. First few turns is less about the objectives, and more about making sure there is nothing left of the oponent to make double turns important or for them to capture objectives with. Of course this doesnt mean ignoring objectives as giving the enemy an early lead is dumb, but that less "playing to objectives" and more "lets crush the other guy so I can afford wasting units doing random bs like channeling focus power or whatever".

There's lots of reasons and ways to do it. I mean, for starters, you only have 1 objective in your deployment zone. So simply going first lets you put units on 3 objectives. Then the pressure is on your opponent. Either wipe me off those objectives, or take them from me somehow or I'll get a point lead. It also determines what they can shoot at. Because now they can't ignore those units in order to shoot at things with more damage.

It's a playstyle that really punishes gunlines and castles. Kinda how ITC doesn't. Right now it's really easy to castle for ITC missions, and it doesn't really hurt because hey, you only give up a minor point lead early on because most points are in secondaries and killing stuff. But if most points are in holding objectives, then you either split up your castle or end up in a massive point deficit.

[LansXero]

There's lots of reasons and ways to do it. I mean, for starters, you only have 1 objective in your deployment zone. So simply going first lets you put units on 3 objectives. Then the pressure is on your opponent. Either wipe me off those objectives, or take them from me somehow or I'll get a point lead. It also determines what they can shoot at. Because now they can't ignore those units in order to shoot at things with more damage.

It's a playstyle that really punishes gunlines and castles. Kinda how ITC doesn't. Right now it's really easy to castle for ITC missions, and it doesn't really hurt because hey, you only give up a minor point lead early on because most points are in secondaries and killing stuff. But if most points are in holding objectives, then you either split up your castle or end up in a massive point deficit.

Being pressured by your opponent to fan out and gain board control punishes gunlines more than it does melee? I dont know, it seems like it would be the other way around. After all, a gunline can wipe out something while remaining in threat range to cover another objective; a melee army has to hard comit towards something and once they're there hoof it across the map to maintain presence elsewhere. Sure, there is DaJump and stuff, but then thats not so different from now. Castle usually dont care about LoS so wherever you are they can still focus fire you down. If anything, it'll make them add mobile elements but dont most gunline / castle lists already have either skirmisher units or bricks? Be it HQs on bikes / jetpacks, mobile castles that have no penalties for firing on the move or can advance, shoot then charge, etc.

Lets take your example: You start with 100% of your list, and say "I'll cap 3 points for no reason since this doesnt trigger turn 1". Because of how auras work, you need to split force multipliers or leave one side weaker than the other. Hopefully in doing so you've also managed to deal a good amount of damage to your opponent, because otherwise you're over reaching and ceding initiative; unlike you who had to try and get LoS into a chickened out deployment (hello Obscuring terrain), second player now has you spread out on objectives outside proper coverage range. Can you screen for all three objectives? Can you trigger defensive strats for all three? Its a terrible play, since you now can get baited and lose more models than if you'd just taken 2, and stalemated things going for secondaries. Is a temporary assumed point lead worth it? The smart move is to deploy as hidden as you can, and to put a brick of hard to shift stuff on 1 objective then concentrate all possible buffs on it. If you DO move it you'll have spent such an inconmesurate amount of resources that you'd eat the counterpunch all the harder, so it forces stalemates.

[Cheesegear]

Well we've actually got some hard numbers now. 12 CP for a 2000 point game. It hasn't dropped that much from the typical lists.

Yes it has.
Reserves cost CPs.
Allies cost CPs.
Detachments cost CPs.

You wont have 12 CPs at the start of the game.

You get 1. They say specifically, you can only ever have 1 of each type.

That's fine. ITC has already proved this game model and exactly how it works. We've been seeing their tournaments and tournament-results for years at this point. We've been seeing Twitch streams of high-tier tables and matches. We know how this works.

You can choose 5 Secondaries.
Great.
Choose the 5 that tailor to your opponent's army. You will either choose Secondaries after you've seen your opponent's army list, or maybe during deployment.
Choose as many Kill Point Objectives as you can, maybe, just maybe, you end up picking an Objective-based Secondary, because your opponent's list doesn't have any 10+ Wound models or whatever. But you wouldn't pick that Secondary, if they did have a 10+ wound model.

This means, that no matter what you shoot, you're generating VPs, and you don't even need to leave your DZ. Always. Be. Scoring.

The way ITC works, is that if, during a turn, you don't score at least one VP in each Secondary Category you have until it's maxed:
a) You chose the wrong Secondary, or
b) You and/or your list, is bad.

Look at current Maelstrom. You know you can remove 18 cards from the deck. You remove the same 15 cards every time, with maybe 3 'wild cards'. You tailor your army to the Objectives you're going to pick every single time, because it doesn't make sense not to.

Though admittedly, it does seem like they have multiple kill categories.

I advise you to read the ITC document I linked earlier.

I agree, though I heard it argued that higher point levels allow for more granularity in the game. Like guardsmen shouldn't be as cheap as cultists, but guardsmen need to be less points then veterans, which need to be less points than a fire warrior and so on. By increasing everything, you can form a proper hierarchy of quality.

Ah, that makes sense. My guess is that that means that points will be determined by Mathhammer done by GW themselves. Which is interesting.

Then again, if everything was made equal, Guardsmen to make parity with Primaris Marines, an Infantryman would need to be 7-9 Points (depending on target), if Intercessors are 20. Somehow, I don't think Guardsmen will end up being 8 Points each.

but no telling me how I can not get alpha striked.

The whole point of a true alpha strike, is that you really can't do anything about it, because 40K isn't a reactive game. Your opponent completes their turn, before you get to do anything.
There are a number of Stratagems and abilities that let you interrupt your opponent's turn, but those are fairly few and far between (and the Factions that have those Stratagems and abilities, are, coincidentally, among the best Factions of the game).

It's not a lot of fun for either player for games to be over on turn 1 or 2 given how much set up time and stuff everything takes.

More and/or better terrain.
Deploy defensively.

That's the generic advice.

For specific advice; You're gonna need to list our your specific army, and the units you have trouble against.

The other problem, is that because 750 Points is so limited, the funnel of what's good, and what isn't, is so narrow that you simply don't really have room to play 'fluffy' armies, if your opponent's 'fluffy' armies (e.g; Mostly or all Slaanesh Daemons) can steamroll right over you. Not all fluffy armies are equal. Sometimes, being fluffy, means running 30 Biel-Tan Dark Reapers (Biel-Tan runs Aspect Warriors. Dark Reapers are Aspect Warriors. I don't understand why you have a problem with this?)

They can't get rid of Objective Secured, because it doesn't exist. Instead every single codex has an identical rule named differently, and since "Codexes are still valid" it has to carry over as written.

[Rule X]
Remove this rule.

...Done. GW absolutely can and has deleted sections from Codecies before.

but I'm curious as to how many you get per turn.

My guess is 2-3. Or 1+Warlord. Or GW will need to errata certain abilities that give extra CPs, etc. It wont be a lot.

If they are easy to score then they are super important because if the other guys trivially gets 10 points and you dont then you lose.

This.
Once again, I refer you to simple logic:

There are 15 Objectives to choose from.
5 are trivially easy compared to the others. They all grant the same amount of VPs.
Why choose the other 10? Ever? Why not build your army list with the 5 easy Secondaries in mind, and choose them every time?

Maelstrom is doing this now.
ITC has been like this for years.
Life is a simulation.
Time is cyclical.

so it will more likely be we both camp half the table for half the points and run each other down on secundaries until we're capped with a big push to break the stalemate in the final turns. So very ITC like, and also very boring.

Castle up.
Rack Kill Points.
Maybe on Turns 4 and 5, whoever has been ravaged the least, can make some plays to eke out a Major Win, instead of a Minor.

[druid91]

Yes it has.
Reserves cost CPs.
Allies cost CPs.
Detachments cost CPs.

You wont have 12 CPs at the start of the game.

Given what they've stated, I'm fairly certain that's 12 CP a turn. Which is significantly more than before.

You generate CP each turn in the command phase.

The lowest level is 3 CP, which there's no way to divide up amongst 5 turns unless the idea is you just run out of CP after turn 3. Which makes no sense.

So either A.) The command phase does not generate command points and serves no functional purpose (Unlikely.)

Or B.) These are CP per turn.

Or C.) There's some bewildering and probably stupid reason it's neither.

[Cheesegear]

Given what they've stated, I'm fairly certain that's 12 CP a turn. Which is significantly more than before.

...And that prevents Alpha Strikes, how, exactly?

My guess is you start with a number of CPs based on points limit - in this case, 12 CPs.
You reduce that number by pregame army building and deployment.
You gain a small amount CPs per turn during the Command phase, based on certain things you did during army list building. You can't generate more than the maximum.
(e.g; In AoS, you gain +1 CP per turn, for 50 Points. Running a Battalion [Formation] gives you another CP, per turn, etc.]

CPs left from previous turns stack, to a maximum based on the points limit - 12, in this case.

[Forum Explorer]

Being pressured by your opponent to fan out and gain board control punishes gunlines more than it does melee? I dont know, it seems like it would be the other way around. After all, a gunline can wipe out something while remaining in threat range to cover another objective; a melee army has to hard comit towards something and once they're there hoof it across the map to maintain presence elsewhere. Sure, there is DaJump and stuff, but then thats not so different from now. Castle usually dont care about LoS so wherever you are they can still focus fire you down. If anything, it'll make them add mobile elements but dont most gunline / castle lists already have either skirmisher units or bricks? Be it HQs on bikes / jetpacks, mobile castles that have no penalties for firing on the move or can advance, shoot then charge, etc.

Lets take your example: You start with 100% of your list, and say "I'll cap 3 points for no reason since this doesnt trigger turn 1". Because of how auras work, you need to split force multipliers or leave one side weaker than the other. Hopefully in doing so you've also managed to deal a good amount of damage to your opponent, because otherwise you're over reaching and ceding initiative; unlike you who had to try and get LoS into a chickened out deployment (hello Obscuring terrain), second player now has you spread out on objectives outside proper coverage range. Can you screen for all three objectives? Can you trigger defensive strats for all three? Its a terrible play, since you now can get baited and lose more models than if you'd just taken 2, and stalemated things going for secondaries. Is a temporary assumed point lead worth it? The smart move is to deploy as hidden as you can, and to put a brick of hard to shift stuff on 1 objective then concentrate all possible buffs on it. If you DO move it you'll have spent such an inconmesurate amount of resources that you'd eat the counterpunch all the harder, so it forces stalemates.

Going by my last opponent (Blood angels), they have no problem using their scout squads to try and cap objectives while the rest of the army rushed up to put pressure on my forces. Board control is very powerful.

I disagree, mainly because I have been in those exact sort of games, and have built an insurmountable point lead while they stay castled up. Though, I typically play high mobility factions that don't need to stay grouped up for force multipliers.

Yes it has.
Reserves cost CPs.
Allies cost CPs.
Detachments cost CPs.

You wont have 12 CPs at the start of the game.



That's fine. ITC has already proved this game model and exactly how it works. We've been seeing their tournaments and tournament-results for years at this point. We've been seeing Twitch streams of high-tier tables and matches. We know how this works.

You can choose 5 Secondaries.
Great.
Choose the 5 that tailor to your opponent's army. You will either choose Secondaries after you've seen your opponent's army list, or maybe during deployment.
Choose as many Kill Point Objectives as you can, maybe, just maybe, you end up picking an Objective-based Secondary, because your opponent's list doesn't have any 10+ Wound models or whatever. But you wouldn't pick that Secondary, if they did have a 10+ wound model.

This means, that no matter what you shoot, you're generating VPs, and you don't even need to leave your DZ. Always. Be. Scoring.

The way ITC works, is that if, during a turn, you don't score at least one VP in each Secondary Category you have until it's maxed:
a) You chose the wrong Secondary, or
b) You and/or your list, is bad.

Look at current Maelstrom. You know you can remove 18 cards from the deck. You remove the same 15 cards every time, with maybe 3 'wild cards'. You tailor your army to the Objectives you're going to pick every single time, because it doesn't make sense not to.



I advise you to read the ITC document I linked earlier.




This.
Once again, I refer you to simple logic:

There are 15 Objectives to choose from.
5 are trivially easy compared to the others. They all grant the same amount of VPs.
Why choose the other 10? Ever? Why not build your army list with the 5 easy Secondaries in mind, and choose them every time?

Maelstrom is doing this now.
ITC has been like this for years.
Life is a simulation.
Time is cyclical.



Castle up.
Rack Kill Points.
Maybe on Turns 4 and 5, whoever has been ravaged the least, can make some plays to eke out a Major Win, instead of a Minor.

The only new costs are the allies and detachments. Play a single monofaction brigade, and you don't lose any CP. Or even a battalion, depending on the army. For reserves, we know they are adding a universal stratagem to put stuff in reserves. There's no sign that normal reserves are being altered.

Of all the secondaries that we've seen so far, none of them are all that good. Maybe they'll have some OP ones where they can sit back and shoot, but I doubt it.

The difference between this and ITC is the ITC secondaries are worth the same amount of points as the primary stuff. I just played an ITC game where I lost 25-23. Nearly half of his points were from secondaries, and most of those he maxed out by turn 3. From what little we've seen, the primary objective is simply worth more points in 9th edition.

I agree with you, in that you'll always choose the easiest secondaries, which will usually be the same sort of thing for your army. I'm saying from the preview we got? All of those secondaries are hard to do. Like assassinate. 3 VP per character killed. Cool. And I'm only running 4, because I only have a single brigade because I don't want to spend the CP. Ok, thin your rank instead. Cool, I only have some 85 models because they are more expensive now. Alright take the weird psyker one instead. Cool, you now deal less damage, and ever time I successfully deny that power you lose 3 VP. And you'll only max it out if you manage to cast the power five times. And so on and so forth. The previewed secondaries suck.

In comparison the primary objective is easier and more rewarding. And doesn't prevent you from scoring your own secondaries for that matter. If you are playing an army that doesn't need to castle up, then hey you've got a leg up on the other guy.

[LansXero]

Going by my last opponent (Blood angels), they have no problem using their scout squads to try and cap objectives while the rest of the army rushed up to put pressure on my forces. Board control is very powerful.

Nor would Jetbike Eldar nor would current Marines; the issue is that this is no fix to the current gaps in haves / have nots of 8th, it might shift stuff around a bit, but overall is the same thing, except slightly more complicated with having to keep units durdling in special actions.

I disagree, mainly because I have been in those exact sort of games, and have built an insurmountable point lead while they stay castled up. Though, I typically play high mobility factions that don't need to stay grouped up for force multipliers.

Either the list was not flexible enough or the player didnt adapt enough. But also, the terrain paradigm is shifting with the edition change; Terrain is supposed to be more restrictive moving forward, not less, so its a crapshoot if it will punish going first or favor it. I'd say its too early to make a conclusion, but I feel there is enough precedent for a solid argument in favor of "both castles will potshot each other into boredom".

The only new costs are the allies and detachments. Play a single monofaction brigade, and you don't lose any CP. Or even a battalion, depending on the army. For reserves, we know they are adding a universal stratagem to put stuff in reserves. There's no sign that normal reserves are being altered.

Wonderful, I'll get to use all those amazing elites choices for Eldar, and 6 of our super amazing troops that do so much.

Of all the secondaries that we've seen so far, none of them are all that good. Maybe they'll have some OP ones where they can sit back and shoot, but I doubt it.

These are core rulebook secondaries, which mean they are the equivalent of core rulebook strats, warlord traits and relics. As in, likely trash. Wait for the faction ones of which there will be like a dozen with less than a handful to be repeated adnauseam as they are 'best', with 1-2 from the BRB making the cut. Which of course hard ****s on anyone stuck with BRB secondaries because they have no codex yet which is the same thing that happened during 8th with stratagems, traits, subfactions et al.

From what little we've seen, the primary objective is simply worth more points in 9th edition.

We've also seen mission specific secondaries which double down on the main objective, which is good, but there is also the bit where you play the army you play, and cant switch it for every single mission. So you have to build a list not for excitement, fluff or anything like that, but for safe plays and consistent results. Sure, that wont be everybody, and people might see success not doing it, but for the large majority of people having a consistent list will mean controlling the factors they can: their secondaries and their faction's strengths, and disregarding or minimizing what they cant handle, that is the randomly selected mission and its primary objective.

In comparison the primary objective is easier and more rewarding. And doesn't prevent you from scoring your own secondaries for that matter. If you are playing an army that doesn't need to castle up, then hey you've got a leg up on the other guy.

And then you roll the wrong mission or the wrong deployment type or the wrong terrain set up. Its all up in the air right now with only one mission being previewed, but since the stated goal is "you cant make a take all missions list", it follows that sometimes mobile armies will get to suck and sometimes static armies will get to suck. Which goes back to "play to your faction's strengths, forget trying to chase the dream of handling every mission because they made it so you cant".

[Cheesegear]

but I feel there is enough precedent for a solid argument in favor of "both castles will potshot each other into boredom".

When ITC decided that Ruins block LoS always, that kind of feels like what the <Obscured> Keyword is going to do.
Which means that Thunderfire Cannons and Wyverns make their way into the mainstream...And Eliminators and Dark Reapers will win games.

Which goes back to "play to your faction's strengths, forget trying to chase the dream of handling every mission because they made it so you cant".

As I said...Play the Secondaries for 3, 4 or 5 turns.
Whoever is ravaged less, tries to execute on the Primary objective in the late game.

Round 1 will still be the most important Round in the game, in terms of trying to cripple your opponent. Trying to achieve the Primary objective in the early game, is sacrificing your ability to deal damage to your opponent in the early game...Which also means letting your opponent deal more damage in the late game, too.
The only thing that will change is which Faction can do them using which units.

Everyone will quickly find out which are the easiest Secondaries to achieve.
The Faction that can execute on those easy Secondaries, the easiest, will be the best Faction(s).

[Wraith]

Castle up.
Rack Kill Points.
Maybe on Turns 4 and 5, whoever has been ravaged the least, can make some plays to eke out a Major Win, instead of a Minor.

Parking Lots and - if you're very good, picked one of the best armies and asked Santa nicely - Alpha-Strikes.

Ladies and gentlemen; welcome back to 5th Edition, now with nearly twice as much number in the title!

[Cheesegear]

Ladies and gentlemen; welcome back to 5th Edition, now with nearly twice as much number in the title!

Hit the nail on the head. ITC (and thus, 9th Ed., I guess) reminds me a lot of 5th Ed., and that's a big reason of why I hate the ITC's meta, because things like three Repulsors on a Skyshield (and three Thunderfires under a Skyshield) is actively encouraged.

The purpose of the Primary Objective isn't to win games. The purpose of the Primary Objective is to turn a winning game, into a win more game.

[Destro_Yersul]

We're going back to 5th? Maaan. 5th was the reason I quit in the first place.

Oh well, back to buying expensive plastic just for paint and display, I guess.

[Cheesegear]

We're going back to 5th? Maaan. 5th was the reason I quit in the first place.

As usual, I'm being pessimistic.
But, I see the direct influence of ITC all over the latest WC post.
It's possible, that ITC was only involved in Mission design.
Then again, Mission design quite literally is designing 'How to win games'...Which affects...Everything.

As always, I expect the worst from GW, and the lastest WC post has met my expectations perfectly.
That being said, it's only one post.
More information is required.

It's just that the information we've got...Is terrible (Sororitas Beta and Codex Previews, anyone? How'd that work out?).

Posted from phone.

[Requizen]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/...cZxvmx8hzQgV2w

More Command Point info. If your Warlord is in your Battalion detachment, it costs nothing. I bet there will be similar (though probably not identical) rules for other Detachment types. 1 CP per turn baseline, and an example of a new generic Stratagem.

[Squark]

Edit: Ninja'd. According to the post, it looks like Patrols, Battalions, and Brigades are free if your warlord is in them, and every other detachment costs CP.

[Avaris]

I was definitely hoping for a more steady flow of CP through the course of the game: one additional CP per turn is low.

[Blackhawk748]

.

I agree with you, in that you'll always choose the easiest secondaries, which will usually be the same sort of thing for your army. I'm saying from the preview we got? All of those secondaries are hard to do. Like assassinate. 3 VP per character killed. Cool. And I'm only running 4, because I only have a single brigade because I don't want to spend the CP. Ok, thin your rank instead. Cool, I only have some 85 models because they are more expensive now. Alright take the weird psyker one instead. Cool, you now deal less damage, and ever time I successfully deny that power you lose 3 VP. And you'll only max it out if you manage to cast the power five times. And so on and so forth. The previewed secondaries suck.

Ya, the kill one is difficult if you're the guy fighting the low model count army, but your 85 model army is now fighting my Green Tide Orks with 250 models or a the Big Carpet with 250 models.

You getting those extra VP is a cakewalk, and that's an issue, because unless there's a Secondary that the Hordes can score as easy as you can score that one, you will just have a leg up because you can easily get 2-3 VP a turn by just doing something you need to do anyway

I was definitely hoping for a more steady flow of CP through the course of the game: one additional CP per turn is low.

1 per turn is less than the Traits that give you CP gave, and it's way lower than I was thinking. Sure, at 1k points it might be ok, but at 2 or 3 you're gonna be out by turn 2 or 3 and the random 1 you get will be banked for a reroll

[LansXero]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/...cZxvmx8hzQgV2w

More Command Point info. If your Warlord is in your Battalion detachment, it costs nothing. I bet there will be similar (though probably not identical) rules for other Detachment types. 1 CP per turn baseline, and an example of a new generic Stratagem.

Wonder where is the balance point between bringing troops for a 0 CP detachment and just paying 1 for the specialist slot detachments. I mean, I like Guardians and Rangers to an extent, but just spamming Heavy / Fast Attack for 1 CP without spending 200+ points on troops feels tempting. This of course makes factions with decent troops better and is not exactly what was advertised. It super dunks on soup though, since you now pay for the detachment AND the ally; vigilus specialist stuff just became super expensive as well, as those 2 pre-game CPs are going to hurt more now.