Jump to content

First Game of 9th thoughts


Lyraeus

Recommended Posts

Played my first game of 9th vs @Inquisitor66. It was a good game. I got really lucky early on and then my orks do what they always do once the hill of units is crested... they avalanche into a win. My warboss did get squished against a Venerable Dreadnought though which was funny. 

Overall, Secondary selection is important. If you ever tried ITC it is very similar to that but cranked up multiple notches. 

Since you dont need a kill every turn missions can be pushed towards getting things done instead of wiping your opponent off the board. 

Transports are annoyingly good. Tough units that can capture objectives are vital. So terminators and the like are going to be see more often. As an Ork player I may try out some Meganobs but they are expensive. 

 

Played an Incursion level game and WOW! the board fey so small. a 44x30 board is insanely small and it made the game feel dynamic.

 

Overall it was a great game and I am curious as to how a Space Marine shooting army would deal with my orks, or better yet how I would deal with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve gotten two games in with my Custodes now, one crushing loss and one narrowly eked out victory.

Tough units that can hold objectives are vital, but I don’t think it is necessarily the case that you need to have tough units be the ones that take the objective. Everything in the Custodes list is tough, but I think other more normal factions would be well to practice having units operating in “sweep and keep” pairs. A fast moving, hard-hitting unit that can knock the enemy off of an objective followed up by a tough unit that can squat on it. Assault Marines followed by Tacticals in a Rhino; Plasma or Melta Vets followed by an Infantry Squad (or three); Biker Nobz backed up by a horde of Boyz...

But that’s just Primary Objectives. Proper selection and execution of Secondary Objectives is going to be the “x-factor” that will separate the top tier players from the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is vital to have tough units camp on objectives. If it is, drukhari are toast.

In my one test game, I found it was mostly about not letting the opponent score too many on their turn. Tough units aren't necessary for this. If, for instance, there was a squad of wraith guard squatting on an objective. Unless they had it surrounded to the point where I couldn't get anyone within 3", (which is highly unlikely due to the size of the unit that would require and the restrictive coherency that would force), then all I have to do is get a squad of 5 troops within 3" and my opponent doesn't score it.

That's a lot of points of wraithguard who did nothing on their turn but sit on an objective and got nothing for it. Big, tough units pinning themselves down on objectives is usually a good thing for me. Surrender that board control.

The early game seems to be about keeping the primary scoring tied at least. In the mid-to-late game, as units die and the board opens up, you can more easily get to objectives that the opponent just no longer has the resources to push you off of.

GW raised the price pretty severely on all Dark Eldar troops. They really want to discourage the inclusion of troops, so sending the small squads of 5 I have to take as tax on suicide missions to disrupt opponents' scoring is their only decent use. That or hiding on an objective my opponent just can't reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Munkie said:

I don't think it is vital to have tough units camp on objectives. If it is, drukhari are toast.

In my one test game, I found it was mostly about not letting the opponent score too many on their turn. Tough units aren't necessary for this. If, for instance, there was a squad of wraith guard squatting on an objective. Unless they had it surrounded to the point where I couldn't get anyone within 3", (which is highly unlikely due to the size of the unit that would require and the restrictive coherency that would force), then all I have to do is get a squad of 5 troops within 3" and my opponent doesn't score it.

That's a lot of points of wraithguard who did nothing on their turn but sit on an objective and got nothing for it. Big, tough units pinning themselves down on objectives is usually a good thing for me. Surrender that board control.

The early game seems to be about keeping the primary scoring tied at least. In the mid-to-late game, as units die and the board opens up, you can more easily get to objectives that the opponent just no longer has the resources to push you off of.

GW raised the price pretty severely on all Dark Eldar troops. They really want to discourage the inclusion of troops, so sending the small squads of 5 I have to take as tax on suicide missions to disrupt opponents' scoring is their only decent use. That or hiding on an objective my opponent just can't reach.

That is the other option as well but if your opponenet can shift ou off the objective because you dont have maybe a vehicle with infantry in it. Grotesques holding an objective, things like that. 

 

You play as you see fit but I am pointing out what I see. You will have to figure out how to keep a unit around long enough to score Primary points the next turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

You play as you see fit but I am pointing out what I see. You will have to figure out how to keep a unit around long enough to score Primary points the next turn.

It definitely is a tricky thing for the less resilient armies. I'm certainly not arguing against the value of a having tough bricks of dudes to squat on an objective--that is certainly the most direct way to benefit from how objectives are scored now.

Dark Eldar are definitely an extreme case the opposite direction, where that typically isn't a strategy we can employ. Grotesques are basically the only unit in the army that fits the bill as a tough objective squatter. I'm considering including them and may if I get desperate. 

Instead, my plan is to just minimize my opponent's scoring until I've minimized their footprint, then start scoring.

Imagine a 5 objective scenario, for instance. Opponent goes first and can probably put a unit on 3 of them. I can respond by moving onto the 2 open objectives, contesting one and pouring enough firepower into another to clear it.

Opponent scores 1 point. 

They have a chance to respond and can likely kick me off 2 as well, but there's probably something I can do to prevent getting kicked off all 3. Whether that's blocking LoS, killing things that can threaten it, or various defensive tactics and stratagems.

I score 1 point.

I'm okay repeating this pattern for the first 2 or 3 turns, generally speaking. Because as the game goes on, and the opponent loses units, they'll have a harder and harder time consistently clearing multiple objectives.

I don't think this question is Drukhari specific either, they just are an extreme case to illustrate that there essentially 2 different ways to score primary points.

Everyone should consider:

"Does my [unit/army/playstyle] steer me towards parking on an objective and daring my opponent to try to take it from me?"

Or

"Does my [unit/army/playstyle] steer me towards grabbing many objectives and daring my opponent to kick me off of as many as they can?"

The former option, I suspect, will net a consistent 1-2 primary points each turn, but will make the coveted 3 primary point turn less likely. The latter option, I suspect, will result in more 3 primary point turns than the former, but mostly 1 point otherwise.

So my goal is to let them have 1 point a turn, plan to score 1 point myself, and look for those sweet 3 point turns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Munkie said:

It definitely is a tricky thing for the less resilient armies. I'm certainly not arguing against the value of a having tough bricks of dudes to squat on an objective--that is certainly the most direct way to benefit from how objectives are scored now.

Dark Eldar are definitely an extreme case the opposite direction, where that typically isn't a strategy we can employ. Grotesques are basically the only unit in the army that fits the bill as a tough objective squatter. I'm considering including them and may if I get desperate. 

Instead, my plan is to just minimize my opponent's scoring until I've minimized their footprint, then start scoring.

Imagine a 5 objective scenario, for instance. Opponent goes first and can probably put a unit on 3 of them. I can respond by moving onto the 2 open objectives, contesting one and pouring enough firepower into another to clear it.

Opponent scores 1 point. 

They have a chance to respond and can likely kick me off 2 as well, but there's probably something I can do to prevent getting kicked off all 3. Whether that's blocking LoS, killing things that can threaten it, or various defensive tactics and stratagems.

I score 1 point.

I'm okay repeating this pattern for the first 2 or 3 turns, generally speaking. Because as the game goes on, and the opponent loses units, they'll have a harder and harder time consistently clearing multiple objectives.

I don't think this question is Drukhari specific either, they just are an extreme case to illustrate that there essentially 2 different ways to score primary points.

Everyone should consider:

"Does my [unit/army/playstyle] steer me towards parking on an objective and daring my opponent to try to take it from me?"

Or

"Does my [unit/army/playstyle] steer me towards grabbing many objectives and daring my opponent to kick me off of as many as they can?"

The former option, I suspect, will net a consistent 1-2 primary points each turn, but will make the coveted 3 primary point turn less likely. The latter option, I suspect, will result in more 3 primary point turns than the former, but mostly 1 point otherwise.

So my goal is to let them have 1 point a turn, plan to score 1 point myself, and look for those sweet 3 point turns.

 

In your first example the opponent would score 10 and if they shift you off then you get nothing. 

Typical scoring is Control 1 gain 5, control 2 gain another 5 control more gain another 5. 

Then you have secondaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyraeus said:

In your first example the opponent would score 10 and if they shift you off then you get nothing. 

Typical scoring is Control 1 gain 5, control 2 gain another 5 control more gain another 5. 

Then you have secondaries. 

Yeah, sorry, I was dividing by 5 since it only matters when factoring in secondaries. I wasn't clear about that. 

But anyway, in my first example they'd score 5. At the time they'd score (right after my 1st turn, basically) I'd be sitting on at least 2, so they would not hold more. I do realize that if they push me off of every objective after that, I get nothing. This is equally true if I contest all of their objectives

That's why I said "the plan" is to allow them one objective, plan on securing one, and waiting til the late game when I grab 2 and hold more. That plan, like the plan "tough unit holds objective because it's tough" can fail. 

I'm merely trying to provide an alternative path to victory. Speed and target saturation can be an effective alternative to natural resilience. Armies that can balance the two will probably be in a good position.

Again, though, I acknowledge the reliability of resilience. Writing a list with a "camper" unit or several gives a purpose to its inclusion and a known quantity to your battle plan. The alternative "hold as many objectives as possible with as many somethings as necessary to keep it" that I'm advocating is much harder to quantify.

It works if you work it, but it's certainly not easy to strategize around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold 1 contest 2 with what? How will you contest 2 since a by model basis?

Take orks or tyranids for instance. How would you contest vs 20 gaunts?

 

You would need to be able to invade close to your opponents board edge putting what ever units in danger.

 

I would need to check but I dont thing there is any odd number of objective missions. 4 is the common number and 6 is the rare amount.

Still, scoring is typically based off holding 1, holding 2, holding more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't, necessarily, unless you had to. If they have an immovable squad, then don't try to move it. That's the objective you ignore. Give them 1.

How you seize control from the passive player (ie the player who wins if you do nothing to stop them):

1) Identify the objective you either can't or shouldn't (because it's a bad exchange) take.

2) Spend minimum resources required to make sure you also hold 1, whichever is the hardest for them to clear. 

3) Contest/clear their contestable/clearable objectives.

4) Position on open objectives with enough resources to make your opponent have to work to clear/contest it.

By doing everything you can to accomplish those 4 items each turn, you put the pressure back on the army with fewer, larger squads. They have to work each turn to chop the superior number of objectives you control down to the inferior number their large squads are controlling. 

They're forced to become the active player while utilizing squads designed to be passive. That's a workable edge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objective Secured, or whatever your codex calls it these days, is helpful with the contesting. But, no, it’s not a plan you can use every game...

“[N]o plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.” –Field Marshal Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke, ‘On Strategy’ (1871) years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Well I am more than willing to see if your Drukhari can pull that off against something like mt orks.

That's a matchup that always scares me. 

Between those guns that auto-hit and auto-explode my vehicles, blobs of orks, and some impressive speed it's definitely a fraught first 2 turns. If I can't break up the main thrust in 2 turns, I'm almost always toast.

I don't expect that razor's edge to be any duller in 9th.

Speed is bad for me. Speed and resilience is worse. My buddy is starting White Scars and I'm terrified of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't tend to take Traktor Kannons. Too expensive and only useful every now and then. Though they make come back. I want to try the Kustom Mega Kannons first which are more expensive but such high strength. 

 

I guess you would need to see how I play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty excited to go back to launching my whole army at objectives... Use pods to screen small squads and force those shooters to move to even get a bead on my objective secured troops, lots of them...

 

Target saturation with a single model able to control objectives, now that is attrition based warfare in the forty-first millennium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new terrain guidelines are one terrain feature per square foot of table space and everyone seems to think the suggested minimum table sizes are the required maximum table sizes... So it might be tricky to use a lot of drop pods given how dense the table is gonna be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ish said:

The new terrain guidelines are one terrain feature per square foot of table space and everyone seems to think the suggested minimum table sizes are the required maximum table sizes... So it might be tricky to use a lot of drop pods given how dense the table is gonna be.

Just can't open all the doors as easily anymore, which is a good thing imo. Also with that much terrain it'll be tough if not impossible to completely screen off sections of the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ish said:

The new terrain guidelines are one terrain feature per square foot of table space and everyone seems to think the suggested minimum table sizes are the required maximum table sizes... So it might be tricky to use a lot of drop pods given how dense the table is gonna be.

When they show the amount of terrain, I think big buildings or the obscuring and dense terrain are the terrain feature per section. Smaller pieces like barricades, dangerous terrain, the small stuff you can scatter that around for a bit of interesting fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I glued mine shut anyway to block Los, lazy painting and just play better...

So going first might matter to get on the ground. I planned on throwing them all down ASAP anyway! Progressive scoring and all.

I'm writing lists all mounted in pods I've got 8 painted from 5th Ed.

Blocking off sections of the battlefield was always questionable as once you've landed there isn't allot of mobility... It is one chance to be where you need to be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ish said:

The new terrain guidelines are one terrain feature per square foot of table space and everyone seems to think the suggested minimum table sizes are the required maximum table sizes... So it might be tricky to use a lot of drop pods given how dense the table is gonna be.

Where did you get the terrain guidelines? That means you need about 18 pieces of terrain for a new 2000 pt game. CRAZY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PumpkinHead said:

Where did you get the terrain guidelines? That means you need about 18 pieces of terrain for a new 2000 pt game. CRAZY

I haven’t seen it in anything official, but various reliable sources like Goonhammer and the like have been repeating it whenever discussing the impact of terrain on a new edition.

18-24 pieces of terrain isn’t that bad, when you remember that this counts everything from a 1” tall bit of barbed wire on a popsicle stick to a 16” tall ruined gothic hab-block. But the general push does seem to be towards denser tablescapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More about the angles of shooting and play. More negatives from cover, more bonuses to saves, more difficult terrain that hamper movement.

 

As for the minimum table size, I like those sizes. Smaller tables means that you have a bit more combat going on. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

As for the minimum table size, I like those sizes. Smaller tables means that you have a bit more combat going on. 

But it means that maneuver isn’t as important. GW seems to be pushing for a close-up, in-their-face, chainswords a’swinging style of game... and if that’s the goal, they‘ve nailed it. I’ve had a lot of fun with the two games of Ninth-ish Edition I’ve played and am looking forward to many more.

But I kinda liked small platoons of infantry stalking each other in the gothic ruins of Space Stalingrad... Or figuring out the best path for my tanksand IFV squadrons to advance into the enemy’s trenches without getting too hammered by their artillery.

Ahh well, I guess I’ll just need to continue to wait for them to bring back Epic 40,000 for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maneuvering is key though. staying out of heroic intervention range, taking objectives and planning movement turns ahead to get to your goal for that turn, etc. 

Tabletop Titans had a good game of Harlequins vs Ad Mech and the Maneuvering was essential and it lost the Ad Mech player the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You played on a small table Tuesday and had a low model count. Sure Maneuvering wasn't as important but you were both fighting armies throwing units at each other but terrain helps with that.

Hell if there was a central large spire that blocked LoS and such it would of been great

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...