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.

I think it’s making it more of a tactical game with more useful terrain and a real ‘take and hold’ feel. Some of those objectives I’m sure will be in cover where you gain defending bonuses.

Karol wrote:
I guess slow elite armies are in big trouble then. It is going to be even easier to pick off units that try to channel objectives if opponents can drop down 9"+ away from any side.

Don't forget that in the previewed scenario with the pylons there is a mission specific rule that prevents deploying from reserves within 9" of an objective:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

This probably isn't the case for all missions, but it is certainly will have an impact on how reserves are used.

True, can't really say much without seeing more of the missions. I guess that when now all armies get the rules my dudes have to pay for in points, the point rise in 9th isn't going to be that big. So there is that plus too.

 Bhazakhain wrote:
Yeah I hope it’s cleared up, because if your entire unit has to be within 1” of your board edge that would be quite situational as no enemy would go so close.

Your entire unit CANNOT be wholly within 1". Anything bigger than a grot cannot be wholly within 1" of anything! The base is bigger than 1".

In their Overwatch article GW said it would be a situational rarity that you’ll get this off but I guess we’ll know in time.

I think these new rules are going to have the biggest effect on the game, potentially ending alpha strike as a reliable strategy (or at least offering good counter play).

Will there really be an incentive to going first? If I can hide my allied knight off table along with my other big hitters and put infantry behind los blocking area terrain, then going first might be a real drawback.

I think people are underestimating the impact of this by only looking at dawn of war deployment. Think of the effect on spearhead, search & destroy or hammer & anvil.

Will be interesting to see how it'll shake out with the new missions and set maps.

9th is sounding better and better with each new tidbit.

Yeah I agree. I have a few ideas about Strategic Reserves and Wraithlords / distort cannons that could be fun.

 ewar wrote:
I think these new rules are going to have the biggest effect on the game, potentially ending alpha strike as a reliable strategy (or at least offering good counter play).

Will there really be an incentive to going first? If I can hide my allied knight off table along with my other big hitters and put infantry behind los blocking area terrain, then going first might be a real drawback.

I think people are underestimating the impact of this by only looking at dawn of war deployment. Think of the effect on spearhead, search & destroy or hammer & anvil.

Will be interesting to see how it'll shake out with the new missions and set maps.

9th is sounding better and better with each new tidbit.

Well that is nice for places were non dawn of war deployment was used in the past I guess. But it is kind of a like saying that the CA missions were great and a fix to all 8th problems. And maybe they were just that for people that played in places where those were used. It kind of a start to be a lot of things one is going to have to do to play 9th and have fun. Play a new updated army, on 9th ed updated tables, play 9th ed missions and use 9th ed optimised terrain. Doesn't sound much like fixing how bad 8th was, but just making a new edition, which will for sure have its own bucket of problems.

I mean if enemies can pop up from every side, it greatly buffs armies that can move fast and redeploy fast, armies with cheap or good transports, who are in general cheap themselfs. Before one could hope that knight or trio of Russus are going to poke out from cover somewhere, and that maybe 1-2 turns of shoting will hurt them. now they can waltz up from the side blow up your only anti option or hide behind terrain as long as it is 5" tall.

The good thing is that while this edition will require the average shop to be equipped with a lot more terrain elements, it also makes it much easier to have them.

Literally everything goes. You just need to decide which keywords they have.

Karol wrote:

Well that is nice for places were non dawn of war deployment was used in the past I guess. But it is kind of a like saying that the CA missions were great and a fix to all 8th problems. And maybe they were just that for people that played in places where those were used. It kind of a start to be a lot of things one is going to have to do to play 9th and have fun. Play a new updated army, on 9th ed updated tables, play 9th ed missions and use 9th ed optimised terrain. Doesn't sound much like fixing how bad 8th was, but just making a new edition, which will for sure have its own bucket of problems.

Not sure what sort of response you're expecting here. But if GW makes changes to try to improve or fix stuff, and your gaming environment doesn't use them, but continues to complain about stuff... Who's fault is that?

Yes, 9th edition will involve changes to army lists, missions, scenery, and just generally how you play the game. Every edition change does this. It is very much sounding to me like GW have listened to criticism of 8th edition and are making changes in 9th accordingly. I don't think anyone is expecting it to be perfect. I don't think every player would even agree on what would make it perfect.

Everyone complaining about Deep Strike stratagems being useless, please don't forget that those stratagems allow for placement anywhere on the battlefield, not "wholly within 6 inches of a battlefield edge"... which means they just got a little better, not worse.

With outflanking being so prevalent under the new rules, things that allow you to attack the middle of the table and get closer to hotly contested objectives is going to be worth a bit more than the generic strat that allows you to attack the edges.

Just my quick take on it.

Karol wrote:

 ewar wrote:
I think these new rules are going to have the biggest effect on the game, potentially ending alpha strike as a reliable strategy (or at least offering good counter play).

Will there really be an incentive to going first? If I can hide my allied knight off table along with my other big hitters and put infantry behind los blocking area terrain, then going first might be a real drawback.

I think people are underestimating the impact of this by only looking at dawn of war deployment. Think of the effect on spearhead, search & destroy or hammer & anvil.

Will be interesting to see how it'll shake out with the new missions and set maps.

9th is sounding better and better with each new tidbit.

Well that is nice for places were non dawn of war deployment was used in the past I guess. But it is kind of a like saying that the CA missions were great and a fix to all 8th problems. And maybe they were just that for people that played in places where those were used. It kind of a start to be a lot of things one is going to have to do to play 9th and have fun. Play a new updated army, on 9th ed updated tables, play 9th ed missions and use 9th ed optimised terrain. Doesn't sound much like fixing how bad 8th was, but just making a new edition, which will for sure have its own bucket of problems.

I mean if enemies can pop up from every side, it greatly buffs armies that can move fast and redeploy fast, armies with cheap or good transports, who are in general cheap themselfs. Before one could hope that knight or trio of Russus are going to poke out from cover somewhere, and that maybe 1-2 turns of shoting will hurt them. now they can waltz up from the side blow up your only anti option or hide behind terrain as long as it is 5" tall.

I am totally confused by this, it feels like you just want to complain no matter what - you don't like the way 8th plays but you're not playing with the latest missions and the core rules for deployment. You're not having fun now but a new edition comes along which fixes issues with armies, terrain, stratagems and missions - but actually you don't like change... how is there a solution to that problem??

Also, the new strategic reserves will massively benefit slow armies over fast armies - YOU can be the one popping up on every side and hiding your big hitters off the board. That's sort of the point of the game right, trying to outsmart your opponent?