40K 9th ed

[MexicanNinja]

On 7/1/2020 at 8:50 AM, Ish said:

 

The Command Benefit means you only get the CP rebate if your Warlord is in the Supreme Command Detachment which means he will not in the Brigade/Battalion/Patrol Detachment, in which case it still costs 4/3/2 CP. You don't get extra CP by having this detachment, you simply won't lose any... But it does meant Magnus, Mortarian, and Roboute won't necessarily spend Ninth Edition decorating your shelves.

I like the "must be selected as your warlord".

[VonVilkee]

1 hour ago, MexicanNinja said:

I like the "must be selected as your warlord".

Agreed

[blackvigil]

Hell yeah. If I bring Bobby G to the table, you better believe he's in charge.

[Ish]

I found it hilarious(ly sad) that the reaction from so many people on Reddit to the Supreme Command Detachment was anger that they couldn’t field Mortarian and Magnus in an army.

[Mulgrok]

I keep seeing people saying HQ are less valuable because they are more vulnerable in 9th, but in my Salamander army I already charge forward with them and use them to draw fire because they are durable.

[MexicanNinja]

9 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I keep seeing people saying HQ are less valuable because they are more vulnerable in 9th, but in my Salamander army I already charge forward with them and use them to draw fire because they are durable.

Its because those people were the people hiding swarms and scouts around the table (with no intention of using said units) while moving characters around with no care.

[MexicanNinja]

13 minutes ago, Ish said:

I found it hilarious(ly sad) that the reaction from so many people on Reddit to the Supreme Command Detachment was anger that they couldn’t field Mortarian and Magnus in an army.

Response "get good"

[Ish]

WH40k only really has two types of characters: “squishy wizards“ and “smashy barbarians.”

Squishy wizards, like Farseers and Company Commanders, should be vulnerable, but the player should also work to keep them safe and protected. They exist to hand out powerful buffs and your opponents should be rewarded if they can maneuver things so that they can assassinate them.

Smashy barbarians, like Warbosses and Chapter Masters, shouldn’t be especially vulnerable. They exist to charge forward, lead from the front, and beat face. But people got too reliant on the unintended quirks of 8th Edition’s character targeting rules and forgot that their smashy barbarian characters are supposed to be tough not immortal.

 

[Munkie]

Played my first game of 9th today. I'm sure we got a million things wrong but it was good!

Played against my friend's space wolves and rolled up the Scorched Earth scenario. 6 objectives and after you score the ones on your opponent's deployment edge, you can spend your entire turn destroying them for extra VP.

We decided to skip secondary objectives for now. With the rules being available for less than 24 hours, we wanted to focus on fundamentals and not worry too much about game result. As a side note, if you do skip the secondaries, all other scoring is divisible by 5, so you can just track clumps of 5 as 1 to keep the tallying down.

My main takeaways were:

-Resilience is key for holding objectives, obsec not so much. Troops are in a weird place.

-No stacking negatives is every bit as bad for Drukhari as I thought it would be. When suppressors deep strike in with their heavy weapons, why not fire at the aircraft? They're negative -1 to hit, so there's no penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons at them. Very counterintuitive. Limiting my ability to stack modifiers makes sense, eliminating consequences for moving heavy weapons or moving and advancing assault weapons doesn't. 

-MCs and Dreads are great. My Talos haywire blasted a wounded dread and then charged the unit of grey hunters he was protecting. Definitely dropping flyers for more Talos. And getting double liquifier guns on them. Flamer type weapons are going to be so good on MCs

-Unit coherency takes concentration. It was pretty minimal, because I only had 5 squads of 5, my opponent had only 2 squads numbering 6 or more. The very first time he moved one squad, he accidentally had one model trailing who would have died if we weren't doing givebacks. I would seriously consider movement trays for units larger than 5, because our usual movement habits will get models killed. 

-17 CPs per game is a lot of CPs!

[Mulgrok]

I watched some top players talking about how LoS is a problem with the new rules. I just wonder why they are going into the terrain instead of standing just outside it, if they don't want to be shot at.

Put objectives at the farside of the terrain, away from the opponent.  So you can stand outside the terrain, with no LoS, and still score objective.  This is not rocket science.

[Munkie]

10 hours ago, Mulgrok said:

I watched some top players talking about how LoS is a problem with the new rules. I just wonder why they are going into the terrain instead of standing just outside it, if they don't want to be shot at.

Put objectives at the farside of the terrain, away from the opponent.  So you can stand outside the terrain, with no LoS, and still score objective.  This is not rocket science.

The Eternal War missions use predetermined objective placement, so cleverness is off the table unfortunately.

Oddly, the game setup order does have you set objectives first, then terrain after. So I suppose you could try to place terrain features to give you an advantage, but I wouldn't count on this. Tournaments, for instance, are going to have preset terrain anyway, so the usual order of operations won't be followed (why they put it in that order knowing full well people won't follow it, I'll never know).

That said, I don't think LoS is a problem, it just takes some getting used to. Corner piece ruins, for instance, tend to have a triangular shape on their 2 remaining walls. The tallest point where the walls meet, and then the tattered walls barely and inch or 2 high on the edges. Well if the tallest point is 5", then you have to imagine the whole building as infinitely tall and solid, so those short areas can be very misleading with LoS.

Definitely doesn't make it a problem though.

[MexicanNinja]

@Munkie I fully agree with you on terrain.  I'm so excited to see terrain matter again.  These new terrain rules are going to add much needed dynamics to the game.

It's my opinion that a good majority of the people complaining about line of sight are the people who play gunlines, never want to manoeuvre, and think shooting assault armies off the table in 2-3 turns makes them good at the game.

Just by the leaks, it appears that 9th will be a nice balance between "kill lanes" and maneuvering around the board.

I greatly look forward to playing my BA and Orks in this edition.

[Ish]

The “infinitely tall” terrain bugs me a bit, because it means a unit on the roof of a 10” tall building cannot draw line of sight over a 5” tall building... Wha–?

I’m also a little confused on how catwalks, gantries, overhead pipelines, and bridges (all staples of a grimdark industrial battlefield) Consider something like the terrain set, below, that we’ve all seen a thousand times...

Can a unit standing on the table surface shoot under the bridge at a unit, also on the table surface, that is on the other side of the bridge?

[MexicanNinja]

22 minutes ago, Ish said:

The “infinitely tall” terrain bugs me a bit, because it means a unit on the roof of a 10” tall building cannot draw line of sight over a 5” tall building... Wha–?

I’m also a little confused on how catwalks, gantries, overhead pipelines, and bridges (all staples of a grimdark industrial battlefield) Consider something like the terrain set, below, that we’ve all seen a thousand times...

Can a unit standing on the table surface shoot under the bridge at a unit, also on the table surface, that is on the other side of the bridge?

That's a great question.  It's up to you and your opponent to determine terrain.

I'll use the terrain you provided as an example:

1) the left piece could be considered to fill the role of a ruin.

2) the walkway could follow the rules for a barricade.

3) The piece on the right could be treated like a woods.

4) Write down what each section is, prior to the game, and use that as your rules reference for the custom piece 

What I've gathered from 9th terrain rules is that GW defined GW terrain and its up to players to determine non-GW standard.

Another example is 'debri'.  Crates and barrels scattered around offer nothing, terrain rules wise.  However, if you stack the crates and place barrels in a line there is nothing stopping you and your opponent playing it as an obstacle.

[Ish]

I’m sure most of my questions about terrain will be settled by a proper read-through of the full rulebook... and I’m prepared to sacrifice certain levels of “realism” for efficient gameplay. 

 

[MexicanNinja]

41 minutes ago, Ish said:

I’m sure most of my questions about terrain will be settled by a proper read-through of the full rulebook... and I’m prepared to sacrifice certain levels of “realism” for efficient gameplay. 

 

I think GW did the terrain thing correctly when using GW terrain. It also, coincidentally, looks to easily adapt to front line terrain as well.

However, I do believe it's great that we have the tools to give our own terrain keywords to other terrain pieces made by different manufacturers.

Here's a quick and simple breakdown for 9th terrain from Good Ole Winters.

 

[Mulgrok]

I think mobility will key this edition.  Probably why all of the Primaris Marine transports have "fly" keyword.  Use the terrain to block LoS and fly over it to the objective. Impulsor going to be very powerful by hiding then deploying troops after moving.

[MexicanNinja]

3 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I think mobility will key this edition.  Probably why all of the Primaris Marine transports have "fly" keyword.  Use the terrain to block LoS and fly over it to the objective. Impulsor going to be very powerful by hiding then deploying troops after moving.

I'm glad I purchased my two Impulsors for my intercessor squads when i did.

[Ish]

“Alexa, order me two Coronus Grav Carriers on Amazon.”

”Okay, Google: How do I sell my own kidney?”

[Munkie]

10 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I think mobility will key this edition.  Probably why all of the Primaris Marine transports have "fly" keyword.  Use the terrain to block LoS and fly over it to the objective. Impulsor going to be very powerful by hiding then deploying troops after moving.

Yeah Fly is still incredibly good, just in a very different (and much more intuitive way). Fly and shoot always seemed like a lazy way to make fly relevant in an edition where it otherwise wouldn't matter.

But now that models can only move over terrain pieces 1" high or less, fly matters a ton for getting over the walls of ruins to charge the people within. 

We had a standoff in my test game between my succubus and some grey hunters. There was a corner shaped ruin between us and neither had enough movement+charge range to get to the other around the ruin. However, we also couldn't move any closer, because the other would possibly be able to charge if we moved up.

With a fly unit, you can more freely move up and use ruins defensively. Hide in a corner of a ruin where you can't be shot, and you can hop over and out on your next turn. You can position to threaten footsloggers who cannot, in turn, threaten you.

Fly operating as a way to enhance mobility and board control makes way more sense than as a way to enhance shooting.

[Mulgrok]

Having a Reiver squad with grappling hooks is looking mighty appealing now.

[WestRider]

19 hours ago, Munkie said:

-No stacking negatives is every bit as bad for Drukhari as I thought it would be. When suppressors deep strike in with their heavy weapons, why not fire at the aircraft? They're negative -1 to hit, so there's no penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons at them. Very counterintuitive. Limiting my ability to stack modifiers makes sense, eliminating consequences for moving heavy weapons or moving and advancing assault weapons doesn't.

I remember this being an issue with the Snap Shot rules in 6th and 7th as well. Invisible Airplane? Might as well move my Havocs to a better position while shooting it, it's not going to make things any worse.

I'm trying to figure out how I would word it to make it so that it's at most a +/-1 from each side, so if the target had a -1 and the shooter had a -1, it would go to -2, but you couldn't get there just by stacking defensive buffs.

[Ish]

So many little quirks of GW’s games could be solved if they’d just switch to a d10 based system.

[Mulgrok]

Use Phobos Librarian to Temporal Corridor Reivers with assault rifles then a warlord with "Shoot and Fade" allowing them to move again after firing.  It could allow them to shoot of whatever is holding the objective and then move onto it or hit-and-run.

[Dusldorf]

  

35 minutes ago, Munkie said:

But now that models can only move over terrain pieces 1" high or less...

They still can over larger stuff, just with a penalty equal to the up/down distance

Quote

We had a standoff in my test game between my succubus and some grey hunters. There was a corner shaped ruin between us and neither had enough movement+charge range to get to the other around the ruin. However, we also couldn't move any closer, because the other would possibly be able to charge if we moved up.

The "breachable" keyword is there for a reason, and can be applied to ruins. That you guys chose not to make your ruins breachable is surprising and the only reason for this standoff.