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.

So, first off the "Actions" concept looks to be something we've never seen in 40K before. If I understand correctly using an "Action" sacrifices your ability to take any other actions later that turn, right?

Where I get interested is that the primary of the mission below is 15 points total. With 3 secondaries that are also 15 points each that means the primary score is a lot smaller part of the pie and actions are potentially quite important.

Look at the mission below - you can score your full primary points on turn 2 if you hold two objectives and hold more than your opponent. Why is this (potentially) great? Well, if you are facing a strong shooting army you can score those points more easily. Then it is up to your secondaries. This Siphon actually looks fairly tough to achieve. It takes 5 turns holding only your own side to complete. That means static armies will have a harder go of it. A late game siphon with enough scraps of units on the table can net you significant points though.

I can't tell you exactly how all this is going to play out, but to me it seems very, very interesting.

Very cool concept for missions, not sure how it is going to work when the game becomes even more lethal.

The way i read it, you can get 15 per turn, not 15 in total.

Would make sense that a secondary objective maximum value is equal to one turn of total dominance.

Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.

Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. That makes is 75 possible points for primary and 45 for secondary. With scoring before movement we'll see a lot of scoring units get pushed and with secondaries scoring "mid-turn" you'll see those become more reliable.

Oh I just noticed no more dropping units onto objectives (for this mission). Interesting.

This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.

Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.

It's only 45 if you assume you get to select 3 Secondaries. Remember, you have the mission secondary as a choice, it's not automatically given.

Aash wrote:
This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.

Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.

It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.

Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. That makes is 75 possible points for primary and 45 for secondary. With scoring before movement we'll see a lot of scoring units get pushed and with secondaries scoring "mid-turn" you'll see those become more reliable.

Oh I just noticed no more dropping units onto objectives (for this mission). Interesting.

Why 45 for secondaries? Maybe I missed it, did they say you get 3 secondaries?

Also, I agree it looks like you can score up to 15 per turn for the primary.

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.

Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. That makes is 75 possible points for primary and 45 for secondary. With scoring before movement we'll see a lot of scoring units get pushed and with secondaries scoring "mid-turn" you'll see those become more reliable.

Oh I just noticed no more dropping units onto objectives (for this mission). Interesting.

Why 45 for secondaries? Maybe I missed it, did they say you get 3 secondaries?

Also, I agree it looks like you can score up to 15 per turn for the primary.

They haven't said how many Secondaries you get to pick.

 Imateria wrote:

Aash wrote:
This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.

Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.

It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.

I saw that it avoids specific table size, but I was extrapolating. Given that they’ve already said that missions will be army size specific and there will be recommended amounts of terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have recommended sizes of tables too.

Rereading the primary mission rules, the scoring in your own command phase is interesting. I missed that at first glance.

Aash wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Aash wrote:
This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.

Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.

It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.

I saw that it avoids specific table size, but I was extrapolating. Given that they’ve already said that missions will be army size specific and there will be recommended amounts of terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have recommended sizes of tables too.

Nah, this is written exactly like the AoS missions are and those are specifically designed to be table size agnostic.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Aash wrote:
This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.

Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.

It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.

I saw that it avoids specific table size, but I was extrapolating. Given that they’ve already said that missions will be army size specific and there will be recommended amounts of terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have recommended sizes of tables too.

Nah, this is written exactly like the AoS missions are and those are specifically designed to be table size agnostic.

I haven’t played AOS, knowing that now, it does seem unlikely they’ll have recommended table sizes. I’m
A bit disappointed by that tbh.

Apocalypse did have recommended table sizes for different game sizes, why not here. The studio guys also said on twitch that these missions will now come in packages that are aimed for different sized games as well as different game styles, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had a general recommendation table in the book for each.

Regarding the "action" action, that's great. It gives weaker infantry a proper role in taking ground and doing things while your heavy elements do the killing, instead of simply acting as speed bumps in front of said heavier units. The narrative cockles of my heart are warmed by this.

It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.

Terrain looks like it is going to be garrisonable. Both apoc and AoS have this, so based on the previews i woud take it as a safe bet.

If you can garrison near objectives, objective secured becomes extremely important.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.

I’m hoping that troops will still have a place. Looking at the mission it seems that troops aren’t required, but to perform the siphoning “action” it seems that you give up any other actions that turn, that’s a pretty big sacrifice for an expensive elite unit, while a cheap troops unit is probably better suited to it.

 Platuan4th wrote:


They haven't said how many Secondaries you get to pick.

On the stream they said 3 - each 15 points - no selecting the same type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.

They won't and they will. Like mentioned above - cheap garbage units are great to use for wasting their shooing on an "Action" instead.

I think the important part is that you "can't" make an army that solves the whole puzzle, so, aim for elites and elite secondaries, but you may suffer elsewhere.

Aash wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.

I’m hoping that troops will still have a place. Looking at the mission it seems that troops aren’t required, but to perform the siphoning “action” it seems that you give up any other actions that turn, that’s a pretty big sacrifice for an expensive elite unit, while a cheap troops unit is probably better suited to it.

Seems like a huge punishment for armies without any cheap options.

Karol wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.

I’m hoping that troops will still have a place. Looking at the mission it seems that troops aren’t required, but to perform the siphoning “action” it seems that you give up any other actions that turn, that’s a pretty big sacrifice for an expensive elite unit, while a cheap troops unit is probably better suited to it.

Seems like a huge punishment for armies without any cheap options.

Maybe, but it might be balanced against the new blast mechanic to deal with hordes so that cheap troops have a downside too. Or something else yet to be revealed. Just have to wait and see I guess.

yeah. my army is elite and doesn't have any blast weapons.
The soon and wait for something, is not an argument that makes me feel good, after what happened in 8th.

I would of course love for GW fix it somehow.. It would be great if they did. I just don't trust them, one bit.

I mean GK pay in pts for their ability to deep strike unit, and now all armies are going to get the option just by using reservs.

But who knows, maybe the CP and scoring system will somehow fix it. Maybe elite armies are going to be earning and losing points different, then non elite ones.

What exactly did you ever expect?

You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.

I mean, I'd squat them. So GW is doing better than that for you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What exactly did you ever expect?

You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.

No one told me that when I was started. And for long time I thought that something like that would be fixed, for all elite armies. GW seems to claim they are going to help elite armies, but with those changes I fail to see how it could be possible.

And from what I have been told GK in the past were really cheap and had troops that cost under 20pts per , GW could give back that.

I mean, I'd squat them. So GW is doing better than that for you.

Then I hope you army gets the worse rules possible.

These latest reveals have actually made me very excited for ninth edition. Especially the moving points up - specifically calling out that this would make the game more accessible is for me a soft tonic for them announcing this reveal in the middle of a period of economic hardship for a lot of people. It looks like it is learning from ITC format without reducing every game to tarpits.

If I were to make a wish, it would be that the matched play games give you enough tools so that you can work with your opponent to decide what kind of armies you want to play and what mission provides you the best balance for both. That's totally possible now, but it requires more of a formal agreement and can't really scale up to a local league and pickup games. Maybe this edition will allow different playstyles at higher tables - or at least at San Diegan tables!

That said, when they say "everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army[,]'" I think we can all agree that is wishful thinking. I'm sure Very Good Combos will be there for exploiting no matter what they try and do. Nobody's expecting it to be perfect, GW, but it looks like you're actually trying pretty hard right now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What exactly did you ever expect?

You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.

People choose armies that speak to them. It's the reason I play eldar and harlequins. If GW doesn't plan on making elite armies like GK or Harlequins viable, then that needs to be messaged to the consumers. Very easy to sit there and say "sucks to be you, should have known better," when it's not your investment that's being potentially rendered obsolete.

"Then I hope you army gets the worse rules possible."

They already do. I'd welcome my army being squatted. There's too much power armor. The snowflake marines are very expendable.

Bring some characters or small units as buff bots, have them power the pillars. Mono Knights are not going to work, and Custodes may have trouble, but not sure about anyone else.

The corner deployment is interesting, as it will allow someone with fast aggressive units to go claim 3 towers, and get the 15 points straight off, plus potentially another 6 if they are happy to abstain on doing anything (advance move) while your opponent sits in a non-moving castle.

In practice I suspect the battlefield will tend to split half and half, with everyone earning 13 and then there will be an attempt to push one pillar once they are sufficiently weakened/straight away if you are a fast/aggressive faction.

Basically everything they've said sounds good. More focus on the mission, less focus on "just kill them and win" (which tbf never goes entirely and tends to peak late expansion due to creep). Quasi-addition of ITC secondaries.

All in all moving to cautiously optimistic from cautiously pessimistic on the first "X things we love" video.

Tyel wrote:
Bring some characters or small units as buff bots, have them power the pillars. Mono Knights are not going to work, and Custodes may have trouble, but not sure about anyone else.

The corner deployment is interesting, as it will allow someone with fast aggressive units to go claim 3 towers, and get the 15 points straight off, plus potentially another 6 if they are happy to abstain on doing anything (advance move) while your opponent sits in a non-moving castle.

In practice I suspect the battlefield will tend to split half and half, with everyone earning 13 and then there will be an attempt to push one pillar once they are sufficiently weakened/straight away if you are a fast/aggressive faction.

Basically everything they've said sounds good. More focus on the mission, less focus on "just kill them and win" (which tbf never goes entirely and tends to peak late expansion due to creep). Quasi-addition of ITC secondaries.

All in all moving to cautiously optimistic from cautiously pessimistic on the first "X things we love" video.

Killing still prevents the execution of missions, however.

Ermahgerd. Martel and Karol complaining. Stahp pls.