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.

 UncleJetMints wrote:
I haven't gotten to play the new edition yet, how are primaris infiltrators with the new missions? I have like the idea of them since they released, but haven't gotten any yet.

OOO...one thing I forgot to mention, With the new table size, things arent s far away, and the back of the deployment zone doesn't go as far back, meaning that deep striking on the table can sometimes be a bit of a challenge, especially if the turn before you didn't open the hole you thought you were going to. I've played a few games where I have struggled to get my obliterators into position because I didn't think or just haven't adjusted to how much that small difference in table size really does make an impact.

So, that is to say, that the infiltrator's 12" bubble of no deep strike is potentially really strong for armies that want to use the deep striking rule a lot. Sometimes, because of terrain and table size, it can be difficult for regular deep strike, a 12" bubble is way worse to work around.

Slipspace wrote:
In general I think we're going to see a lot of bad armies and bad games for the next couple of weeks as people adapt to the new edition and new points. I'm taking literally everything with a grain of salt so far, both good and bad. I'm noticing quite a few battle reports where people are just taking 8th edition armies and trying them in 9th. That's understandable but I think we need to wait until we have more experience with the system to see what works and what doesn't.

I'm not yet convinced GW have got it right with the first turn vs second turn balance, but I think that's likely a fundamental issue of how lethal the game is. Terrain can help somewhat but that's reliant on players having a board that has the "correct" amount and types of terrain on it.

At least now we have an official meter of sort. It doesn't tell you all, because I can put 16 barrels on the table and that would be fine, but luckily the rulebook includes some examples of tables, so they cleared the intention other than giving the hard number.

That said, we are going to have to clear a lot of bad habits. For example, I have seen a lot of battle reports which put a big ruin in the middle of the table, which used to be useful in 8th. Now that ruin is completely useless in 9th, but becomes extremely effective if it is an industrial building.

Slipspace wrote:
In general I think we're going to see a lot of bad armies and bad games for the next couple of weeks as people adapt to the new edition and new points. I'm taking literally everything with a grain of salt so far, both good and bad. I'm noticing quite a few battle reports where people are just taking 8th edition armies and trying them in 9th. That's understandable but I think we need to wait until we have more experience with the system to see what works and what doesn't.

I'm not yet convinced GW have got it right with the first turn vs second turn balance, but I think that's likely a fundamental issue of how lethal the game is. Terrain can help somewhat but that's reliant on players having a board that has the "correct" amount and types of terrain on it.

I'm not sure that getting the first turn represents as much of an advantage as some have said. In the games of 9th I've played so far (4 now), going first gives an advantage in being able to grab objectives, but at the same time, a disadvantage in bringing firepower to bear due to terrain. I've won two games now by deploying conservatively, letting my opponent take the first turn and come closer to me without being able to shoot much, and then blasting them with all my shooting and assaulting onto the objectives. It feels to me like there is a real tradeoff now- but as you point out, this is very terrain-dependent.

Also very list-dependent, because I'm starting to realize the utility of melee in 9th. Shooting-only armies have a hard time regaining the initiative if they lose it, since they can shoot enemies off an objective but not actually seize it unless it's still clear on their next turn. Melee-capable armies can shoot to wear down enemy objective-grabbers, then charge to finish them off in melee, simultaneously clearing the objective and taking it. For this reason, I can see shooting armies desperately wanting the first turn so that they can be the first onto an objective, while melee armies are better-suited to counterattacking.

Grain of salt because you're right, this is all very new.

 McGibs wrote:
In the handful of games I've played so far, the -2" movement penalties from difficult terrain (ie, craters) has made a HUGE difference. In 8th, they only affected charge ranges (which most people forgot about), but the ability to cut down a third of an infantry squads speed is a massive change. Depending on what you're trying to get to (objective, enemy, cover, etc), if there's a crater in the way suddenly becomes a very real obstacle.

The rest of the terrain stuff is good once you throw out the GW examples and just figure out a standard set of keywords that works for your group.
Like, pretty much any piece of "standard" walled area terrain should have: Light Cover, Heavy Cover, Breachable, Scalable, Defensible, and Defensive Line.
Apply the other keywords where they're obviously applicable. If it's big and has little windows, give it Obscured. If it's completely full of holes, give it Dense Cover. If it's a crater or barbed wire or something, give it Difficult.
To keep Obscured buildings from getting stupid, keep them on the smaller size, and only use the footprint inside the walls to be "within" it.

Quoted for truth. Especially for those of us with slower forces (footslogging plague marines say hello) a -2" can be absolutely brutal in the midgame crunch and I've often felt it hard in 8th while charging through craters or other pieces of broken ground. Glad to have more of that around the place. Dense will happen less often than the blanket -1 Cities of Death offered from obscuration, but I'll take it if that means more people will actually start to use their terrain in interesting ways (which you already could in 8th, but since they were optional rules... *sigh*).

 catbarf wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
In general I think we're going to see a lot of bad armies and bad games for the next couple of weeks as people adapt to the new edition and new points. I'm taking literally everything with a grain of salt so far, both good and bad. I'm noticing quite a few battle reports where people are just taking 8th edition armies and trying them in 9th. That's understandable but I think we need to wait until we have more experience with the system to see what works and what doesn't.

I'm not yet convinced GW have got it right with the first turn vs second turn balance, but I think that's likely a fundamental issue of how lethal the game is. Terrain can help somewhat but that's reliant on players having a board that has the "correct" amount and types of terrain on it.

I'm not sure that getting the first turn represents as much of an advantage as some have said. In the games of 9th I've played so far (4 now), going first gives an advantage in being able to grab objectives, but at the same time, a disadvantage in bringing firepower to bear due to terrain. I've won two games now by deploying conservatively, letting my opponent take the first turn and come closer to me without being able to shoot much, and then blasting them with all my shooting and assaulting onto the objectives. It feels to me like there is a real tradeoff now- but as you point out, this is very terrain-dependent.

Also very list-dependent, because I'm starting to realize the utility of melee in 9th. Shooting-only armies have a hard time regaining the initiative if they lose it, since they can shoot enemies off an objective but not actually seize it unless it's still clear on their next turn. Melee-capable armies can shoot to wear down enemy objective-grabbers, then charge to finish them off in melee, simultaneously clearing the objective and taking it. For this reason, I can see shooting armies desperately wanting the first turn so that they can be the first onto an objective, while melee armies are better-suited to counterattacking.

Grain of salt because you're right, this is all very new.

I agree with everything you have said. I was actually thinking about your post and mentally reviewing the games I've watched and played, and I 100% agree. The armies i have seen do best *so far* have been armies that are a bit more rounded and feature mobility as a key function of the army. Armies that I have seen do poorly are monophase armies. All shooting, all melee, all <insert skew here> have been struggling the most because there always seems to be one thing in the game, be it terrain, objective placement, secondaries, or something else that tends to get the best of them and limit their ability.

I also think, and again, I am no "40k master" that having some kind of repulsing or melee element to help your army gain back tempo in the game. will be incredibly important. I think that having one or two good melee elements will be criticaly, or at least, they have been so far, important to being able to grab and hold those objectives as you move through the game.

That sucks for armies that ARE all one-phase armies. GW! Give us the tools, please!

A daemons player.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That sucks for armies that ARE all one-phase armies. GW! Give us the tools, please!

A daemons player.

Take a battalion of CSM with some havocs to shore up the firepower need? I have a relatively large Khorne demon army and I'm going to soup it in with a world eaters army so I can get some firepower I need for some long-range hitting strength. (and Kharn, because, Kharn. if I need to say more you need to read more )

I'm not sure that getting the first turn represents as much of an advantage as some have said. In the games of 9th I've played so far (4 now), going first gives an advantage in being able to grab objectives, but at the same time, a disadvantage in bringing firepower to bear due to terrain. I've won two games now by deploying conservatively, letting my opponent take the first turn and come closer to me without being able to shoot much, and then blasting them with all my shooting and assaulting onto the objectives. It feels to me like there is a real tradeoff now- but as you point out, this is very terrain-dependent.

Also very list-dependent, because I'm starting to realize the utility of melee in 9th. Shooting-only armies have a hard time regaining the initiative if they lose it, since they can shoot enemies off an objective but not actually seize it unless it's still clear on their next turn. Melee-capable armies can shoot to wear down enemy objective-grabbers, then charge to finish them off in melee, simultaneously clearing the objective and taking it. For this reason, I can see shooting armies desperately wanting the first turn so that they can be the first onto an objective, while melee armies are better-suited to counterattacking.

So, I really don't think it is over-stated. I do think they have (hopefully) fixed the traditional "Alpha Strike" problem, but going first is going to be really really strong. In my group's first session, everyone came with lists they thought might be decent for 9th (so essentially came to it with the mindset of throwing 8th out the window and starting over). After the first session two things became clear. Going first is key and fast units are incredibly important regardless of whether you go first or not.

An army built to go first, claim 2 objectives strongly and possibly a 3rd objective at least tenuously right on their first turn, combined with properly picked secondaries becomes incredibly difficult to beat. If that same army goes second, they still have the tools needed to at least challenge for those objectives, but they need to be aware that, if the opponent gets all three of those objectives, holds at least two of them through turn 2, and hits one or two secondaries, it becomes really really hard to come back from that. That's really it. You just need to last 2 turns in a lot of cases. Then you can get darn near tabled but still win. The scoring used here is similar to the kind of scoring Adepticon used years ago and has since moved away from. I think the missions are fine, but the secondaries need looked at and the way these are scored probably needs reconsidered.

Planning on setting up a "counter strike, I go SECOND" style army? Enjoy playing the game in hard mode. The smaller table size combined with the fact that the points increases didn't really have an appreciable effect on game size means that, while you may think you have a shorter distance for your reserves and deep-striking units to go, there can often be a very limited choice of deployment. You then HAVE to be able to remove a unit in one go and claim it because once you get behind on points it kind of snowballs. There are really only one or two strong secondaries IMO and they most benefit the person who grabs the objectives FIRST. Combine this with things like Phobos units that can dictate where you're able to come in, and things like Marine armies with the "Auspex Scan" strat and your job becomes even harder if you're going second.

I agree that a lot of the battle reports I've seen online involve people bringing bad lists for the new missions. I saw one the other day where a guy basically brought two weirdly small sized units of Poxwalkers and a giant block of foot slogging Plague Marines. He got crushed. Foot slogging anything is probably going to be a tough go, but foot slogging DG is frequently going to be auto-lose IMO. Ironically, I think DG are set up well to be really strong this edition. Put the PMs in Rhinos, claim those objectives and ring them with summoned Plague Bearers. So to your point, I have seen a lot reports using armies that aren't well suited to the new edition, but even when I HAVE seen armies that look good (so far) for 9th, the pattern of "He who first completes his Rhino Rush FIRST wins" is definitely legitmately emerging. I'm not saying it's auto lose if you go second, but it's become a lot harder than it used to be IMO.

Admittedly I haven't played a ton of games myself (about 11 I think?) but across three sessions with us talking a ton in between, the definite pattern is that if you go first, you have a pretty huge advantage. So much so, that I really think the first thing that gets changes in the first major FAQ for 9th is going to be how the missions get scored.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That sucks for armies that ARE all one-phase armies. GW! Give us the tools, please!

A daemons player.

Daemons have mobility, psychic and close combat. They're hardly a one-phase army in the same way a castled-up Tau army is, for example. I think mobility will be very important in 9th and can see some Daemon armies possibly doing OK. Plaguebearer spam might still be good, just for its sheer resilience and Slaanesh's ability to move quickly and engage enemy units in close combat while grabbing objectives with other units could make them useable. All conjecture at this point, though.

Daemons have mobility, psychic and close combat. They're hardly a one-phase army in the same way a castled-up Tau army is, for example. I think mobility will be very important in 9th and can see some Daemon armies possibly doing OK. Plaguebearer spam might still be good, just for its sheer resilience and Slaanesh's ability to move quickly and engage enemy units in close combat while grabbing objectives with other units could make them useable. All conjecture at this point, though.

So far, my Death Guard have had a lot of success using PMs in Rhinos to quickly get objectives, then having characters summon Plague Bearers around the claimed objectives. It's pretty strong. Playing again on Sunday (our group isn't LOVING 9th so far but we ARE having fun testing new play styles against it) and we've set up a team game.

I'm bringing Khorne and Nurgle Demons, and my friend is bringing mostly Slaanesh. Our theory is that we should be able to use his speed to claim things, then ring them with my Nurgle demons for a tough outer shell, while using Khorne Demons to disrupt the opponent. Who of course will be a double battalion with one player bringing Ultra Marines and the other bringing Iron Hands. I have my doubts but the THEORY is STRONG imo.

I don't think Demons are as bad off as they appear. Will report back with results ...

I think you've hit the nail on the head if you have been playing long enough to remember some of the oddball obsec spam lists and things from back in the days. Addapting to 9th and identifying going 1st as a huge advantage is easy.

Going first with an 8th edition list doesnt feel OP as your not maximising the opportunity to take a huge lead and dictate your enemies options for turn 1.

They either put everything into getting you off the obejectives and claiming them giving you 2 turns to neuter them or the try to counter punch at which point you VP lead becomes unassailable very quickly,Turn 3-4 often.

Tycho wrote:

Daemons have mobility, psychic and close combat. They're hardly a one-phase army in the same way a castled-up Tau army is, for example. I think mobility will be very important in 9th and can see some Daemon armies possibly doing OK. Plaguebearer spam might still be good, just for its sheer resilience and Slaanesh's ability to move quickly and engage enemy units in close combat while grabbing objectives with other units could make them useable. All conjecture at this point, though.

So far, my Death Guard have had a lot of success using PMs in Rhinos to quickly get objectives, then having characters summon Plague Bearers around the claimed objectives. It's pretty strong. Playing again on Sunday (our group isn't LOVING 9th so far but we ARE having fun testing new play styles against it) and we've set up a team game.

I'm bringing Khorne and Nurgle Demons, and my friend is bringing mostly Slaanesh. Our theory is that we should be able to use his speed to claim things, then ring them with my Nurgle demons for a tough outer shell, while using Khorne Demons to disrupt the opponent. Who of course will be a double battalion with one player bringing Ultra Marines and the other bringing Iron Hands. I have my doubts but the THEORY is STRONG imo.

I don't think Demons are as bad off as they appear. Will report back with results ...

You'd be summoning in turn 3 if the character is a rhino. Do you have some sort of speedier character out of a transport for that?

Personally I think 9th is great. The objectives and the way they are scored do the thing that a LOT of people were clamoring for in 8th, making maneuvering matter. I have said this several times on this forum already but gun lines are in trouble. Anyone who thinks that they can bring a big castle, sit in the back and shoot and win is going to be mistaken. In order to win in 9th you need to be trying to engage the objectives from turn 1. You can't simply ignore them until like turn 3 or 4 like in 8th. You need to be fighting to take or clear the objectives right out of the gate.

And as was mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe all of the "melee is dead in 9th" to be exaggerated. Shooting armies are going to need at least one or two melee-ish units to take objectives. Unless your shooting is so crazy good and the Terrain allows you to see every enemy on every objective, having your whole army sit back and shoot will not be effective. This also gives a reason for transports to exist. I think 9th will see a lot more Rhinos, Chimeras, etc. especially now that they can move and shoot without penalty, or shoot into combat if engaged. I think IG mechanized infantry is an actual viable list now, if not the better way to play IG. I was thinking of putting cultist units in Rhinos and using them similar to an IG mech force for grabbing objectives early.

Overall I have been liking the game. My only fear (which was stated by the TTT guys) is the missions being similar enough that they start to get stale, but I think GW will introduce more missions, and more secondaries which will really help.

That is my two cents.

Anyone expect to see Army specific secondaries? Have they brought up that possibility?

the_scotsman wrote:

Tycho wrote:

in my experience, it has an effect, it just doesn't have the effect it used to have of just guaranteed finishing off low model count armies.

The main effect now, in a normal game with no LD shenanigans, is to add a few extra casualties to infantry squads that get shot up.

Honestly, not even. The main effect now is that Morale is friendlier to hordes. They don't auto-fail as easily, and they don't lose as many off the bat when they do fail. That seems like the only change at this point.

It feels like the classic GW over-reaction. There was a time when you had multiple levels of things like "fear" and failing a morale test caused a lot of rules to kick in. This slowed the game down and could become un-fun. Rather than find a middle-ground, they've essentially eliminated it.

They autofail just as easily. That's actually my main problem with morale as it stands in 9th - it seems like it goes from a hyper-remote chance to a "anything but one" fairly quickly.

Unless you're playing space marines or MSU, in which case it's just never really a thing.

technically, they no longer auto fail at all, now there's always a minimum 1/6 chance of passing a check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That sucks for armies that ARE all one-phase armies. GW! Give us the tools, please!

A daemons player.

Daemons have mobility, psychic and close combat. They're hardly a one-phase army in the same way a castled-up Tau army is, for example. I think mobility will be very important in 9th and can see some Daemon armies possibly doing OK. Plaguebearer spam might still be good, just for its sheer resilience and Slaanesh's ability to move quickly and engage enemy units in close combat while grabbing objectives with other units could make them useable. All conjecture at this point, though.

An immobile tau castle indicates a bad player, not the inability for tau to move at all.

The key part of the tau castle is how effectively it can position itself midboard and blast everything while atop the objectives.

Also the tau are the best race in an opponents charge phase XD

 Eldarain wrote:
Anyone expect to see Army specific secondaries? Have they brought up that possibility?

Some playtesters have mentioned it as a "possibility". I expect it will be, essentially replacing the army-specific tactical objectives of 8th.

 Eldarain wrote:
Anyone expect to see Army specific secondaries? Have they brought up that possibility?

They will come in the 9th edition codex's it's specifically called out in the GT missions. Unfortunately it looks like having a 9th edition codex will be an automatic victory against 8th edition codex's though.

Daemons psychic is unreliable - they have exactly as many psychic buffs as Imperial Guard do. No smite changes, only one power chart to select from (per detachment at least), etc.

Daemons have mobility, but so do Tau, so I dun get it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Daemons psychic is unreliable - they have exactly as many psychic buffs as Imperial Guard do. No smite changes, only one power chart to select from (per detachment at least), etc.

Daemons have mobility, but so do Tau, so I dun get it.

Demons have fantastic psychic if you lean into it.

But you play a slaanesh army, so you're lacking the triple changers that make the psychic shenanigans work.

The nice thing about new morale is that failure means a lot less.

In my last game, I lost 11/20 plague marines in a single phase (took a harlequin death star to the face). In 8th edition that would have led to an additional 6 models running away on average. I lost two.

delete

You'd be summoning in turn 3 if the character is a rhino. Do you have some sort of speedier character out of a transport for that?

Winged DP for the win. Have also tried a game where my only HQs were a Winged DP and cheap as chips Chaos Lord who's only job is to run, hide and summon. It was kind of funny to play TBH.

Tycho wrote:

You'd be summoning in turn 3 if the character is a rhino. Do you have some sort of speedier character out of a transport for that?

Winged DP for the win. Have also tried a game where my only HQs were a Winged DP and cheap as chips Chaos Lord who's only job is to run, hide and summon. It was kind of funny to play TBH.

I used to toy with summons. Took a Fluxmaster in an aux. Summoned Horrors with Thousand Sons. Brought a Mutalith. S5 Horrors with 60 shots.

I might try it again since Horrors can get their Flickering or Gateway to go off now.

My FLGS was open for gaming today (lots of protocols), so I was able to arrange a 1500 game against an opponent outside of my house. For some reason I had bought the 6/7th Ed starter set at the sunset of 8th Ed, so I used them as my core. So it was my non-Primaris Dark Angels against Drukhari. We played Four Pillars and we took two common Secondaries (Siphon and Attrition) to help prevent our brains from melting and one unique to each (I took the table quarters one).

I won the roll and went first, but the Obscuring Terrain meant that my fire was only able to target his Flyers. His movement out from behind cover and resulting fire was devastating against my Devastators...My Deathwing assault was, however, charged by every CP I could squeeze out of my list and tore a huge hole out of his army (surrounding transports - you can only use the emergency disembarkation once in a phase). I built an early lead on Primary Objective points and by the fourth turn it was clear that the Dark Angels held the field (but minus a bunch of dudes...)

Impressions: Terrain is still the biggest single single change. Terrain that looks like terrain (no magic boxes) means something now. Army building and CPs is also a big change. Both of us were both helped and hindered by this. I really wanted four HQs, but I knew my list needed CPs so I went with a single Battalion. Transport rules were a big deal (wholly within 3"). Not being able to reroll "Explodes" was meaningful to both of us! Going first seems to be a benefit, but this must be accompanied by moving into no-mans land aggressively as opposed to just shooting from your deployment zone.

Its early, but I am certainly seeing this Edition as a positive step forward from 8th without abandoning the accessibility of that edition. I hope that we can run with the GW missions for a while to determine how they work.

p.s. I realized two hours before the match that my Drop Pod was not really up to snuff for Battle Ready. I got it there, but not before getting Khorne Red on my white T-Shirt (which was from our last FLGS club champs). I took this as a good omen.

I just finished a 2k game with a buddy. He played templars, and I played Black Legion and a battalion of Khorne Demons.

My list was
Abbadon
Chaos Lord, the mark of Khorne, Zaal, plasma pistol

3 CSM squads:
10 man, leader with power axe, 2 plasma guns, bolters
5 man, leader with the power axe, plasma gun
5 man, leader with a maul, plasma gun

2 squads of Khorne berserkers:
9 berserkers, powerfist on the leader, 4 chain axes, 5 chain swords
10 berserkers, powerfist on the leader, 5/5 chain axes and chainswords
2 Rhino

Exalted Blootthirster of insensate rage
Exalted Wrath of Khorne bloodthirster
3 units of bloodletters
15 bloodletters
14 bloodletters
10 bloodletters


His list was an absolute boatload of rhinos and templars with chain swords. He took Helbrecht and the champion, and a unit of veterans with lightning claws.

The game was an absolute bloodbath. the end of the game ended with him outscoring me 7 to 6 (played a basic mission from the core free rules) as I failed to kill just a few basic templars with 8 chain axe attacks!

Point is this: The transports were really important, obviously, but more shocking was just how good basic marines were. Having bodies you could throw at objectives and the ability to ferry them up relatively quickly was definitely powerful. We all already knew this, so no new news there.

What struck me as being pretty cool was after the game was over, and we were going through and talking about the things we did well and didn't do well, we both identified several critical points in the game where a decision was made that could have fundamentally changed the game and every one of those decisions revolved around terrain and their placement relative to the objectives.

Going first wasn't a huge advantage for either one of us, and the more games I play, the more I am becoming convinced that going first isn't the immense advantage that it is being touted to be. Going first can be great if you are shooting up the table, but with good terrain on the table, long-range firepower had some kill zones, but it couldn't dominate the table. Defensive terrain, obscuring terrain and dense terrain all made extremely significant differences to the game. For once, I was able to deliver not one, but BOTH bloodthirsters to the battle and the insensate rage killed Helbrect and the Champion in one turn of combat!

I know I am probably just repeating things that everyone has already heard a million times already, but I am having a blast with this new edition and love the fact that it feels like I have a much wider range of models to choose from to construct my army list and it feels like I have a chance.

Hope you all are enjoying it too!

Going first is primarily an advantage in scoring the objectives in the matched play missions.

If you aren't playing matched play missions, then obviously, going first is not as big a thing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Daemons psychic is unreliable - they have exactly as many psychic buffs as Imperial Guard do. No smite changes, only one power chart to select from (per detachment at least), etc.

Daemons have mobility, but so do Tau, so I dun get it.

tbh I think Slaanesh daemons may actually be pretty brutal in 9th with good use of obscuring and dense terrain. the new morale system is extremely good for armies that didn't have good sources of fearless and didn't see large point hikes on their light infantry, I think you'll be surprised by how much more durable your stuff feels. And "always fight first' went from an ability that rarely matters to an ability that makes you an absolute nightmare to try to fight with melee units.

I don't think you'll win by just taking 100% melee units and just sprinting straight at the enemy, but IMO slaanesh daemons are very interesting in the new terrain system, mission structure, and point costs. Heck, I'm even Soul Grinder-curious now that they move and shoot and shoot into melee (though tbf that is with looking at them in Tzeentch where they get a 4++ and distract from shooting my chicken. I have no clue if they'd be usable in mono-Slaanesh)

 catbarf wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
In general I think we're going to see a lot of bad armies and bad games for the next couple of weeks as people adapt to the new edition and new points. I'm taking literally everything with a grain of salt so far, both good and bad. I'm noticing quite a few battle reports where people are just taking 8th edition armies and trying them in 9th. That's understandable but I think we need to wait until we have more experience with the system to see what works and what doesn't.

I'm not yet convinced GW have got it right with the first turn vs second turn balance, but I think that's likely a fundamental issue of how lethal the game is. Terrain can help somewhat but that's reliant on players having a board that has the "correct" amount and types of terrain on it.

I'm not sure that getting the first turn represents as much of an advantage as some have said. In the games of 9th I've played so far (4 now), going first gives an advantage in being able to grab objectives, but at the same time, a disadvantage in bringing firepower to bear due to terrain. I've won two games now by deploying conservatively, letting my opponent take the first turn and come closer to me without being able to shoot much, and then blasting them with all my shooting and assaulting onto the objectives. It feels to me like there is a real tradeoff now- but as you point out, this is very terrain-dependent.

Also very list-dependent, because I'm starting to realize the utility of melee in 9th. Shooting-only armies have a hard time regaining the initiative if they lose it, since they can shoot enemies off an objective but not actually seize it unless it's still clear on their next turn. Melee-capable armies can shoot to wear down enemy objective-grabbers, then charge to finish them off in melee, simultaneously clearing the objective and taking it. For this reason, I can see shooting armies desperately wanting the first turn so that they can be the first onto an objective, while melee armies are better-suited to counterattacking.

Grain of salt because you're right, this is all very new.

This has broadly been the experience of nearly all playtesters once they reach enough reps to entirely change their army design approach. It will be very hard to draw firm conclusions about first turn advantage until the "meta" changes from building ITC-facing / 8th-ed-facing armies to building armies they feel confident can win whether they go first or second for the substantial changes in the new edition and a set of missions that bear no more than aesthetic similarity to ITC/NOVA missions in their conceptualization (esp. WRT secondaries). Given the fact GW has clearly taken inspiration and feedback from the competitive community, seeing people adjust to and "beat" the missions will be the sensible approach to seeing them continue to evolve over time; GW has also shown via CA / etc. a willingness to make changes to parts of the game that prove out - beyond mere theorycraft - to be "Wrong" in one way or another. Certainly my own list decisions and concepts have changed dramatically, and the games I'm doing best in use lists that would fall flat on their face in 8th.

Embrace the change and game on!

So we tried that demons vs marines game I mentioned earlier. It ... was not pretty. lol The first game we (the demons) went second and got crushed, but honestly, I'm used to using demons as a summoned force to support Chaos marines, so on top of going second, I and my partner pretty much did everything wrong. Everything. So we threw that game out the window and played again.

Rather than roll-off, we just decided to go second again to see if we could fix our mistakes. As a reminder, the opposing team was Ultras/Iron Hands, and our army was Slaanesh, Nurgle and Khorne demons. We lost the second game too, but honestly, most of it was still lack of experience with the army. I think I can see room for Slaaneshi demons to be pretty strong this edition (in the hands of someone who isn't terrible with them). We felt like we had the most trouble finding a decent home for the Khorne stuff, but over-all, the second game was pretty close, and again, I think if a few die rolls had gone differently, and if we had had just a bit more experience with the army, it could have been different, so that's a good sign I think.

Edit:
Just wanted to add - I also got to watch my buddies play "Creations of Bile vs Black Legion". Wow. IMO they really nailed the Creations of Bile strats. Seems like they're all, not just good, but good RIGHT WHEN YOU NEED THEM TO BE. I feel like whomever designed those was in rare form that day. Provided the rules for them remain relatively unchanged in 9th, I feel like that army is going to be real contender once folks figure out the optimal list. Looked fun as hell to play too. I feel like they finally got Bile "right".

Here's my crazy 9th ed khorne daemon army:

Patrol Detachment (Khorne Daemons)

Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury 240 (Exalted -1CP, Hellfire-Wrought Armor. Relic: Armor of Scorn)
Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury 240 (Exalted -1CP, Blood-Blessed. Relic -1CP: G'rmakht The Destroyer)

Bloodletters x30 240 with Instrument 10 and Icon 15 (Banner of Blood -1CP, Deep strike -2CP)

Flesh Hounds x20 360
Furies MoK x5 45

Bloodcrushers x5 225 with Icon 10
Bloodcrushers x5 225 with Icon 10

Soul Grinder MoK 190
Soul Grinder MoK 190

Start the game with 7CP. furies hide on the backfield objective if there is one, Grinders move up to sit on midfield objectives, everything else charges the enemy. You've got 2x Fight Twice strats in you, 3 if you're really thrifty with your 1cp per command phase.

Blunt. Bloody. Puts a ton of pressure on your opponent to castle up and allow you to control the board.

secondary thought for pure DoK is to do a battalion with exactly 20-man letter squads, spending 2cp each to give them banner of blood+deep strike them, since at exactly 8pl it only costs you 1cp. You're betting on greatly limited overwatch to allow them to stay just above the 20-model threshold the turn they charge in.