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.

We've had plenty of Theory-hammer, but I am curious about people's real-game experience with the new rules. I had a Patrol battle last night with the brand new download and the various drip feeds of rules. We played five turns in about 90 minutes, referring to rules as we went and I'm sure we got lots wrong - lots of death as well.

So far, the new terrain rules and the changes to vehicle shooting are the biggest changes for me. We caught ourselves a few times drawing LOS through Obscuring Terrain. Dense terrain with the -1 to hit was also impactful. I caught myself moving a unit onto a shipping container - no cover up there! Vehicles not having a penalty to move and shoot was liberating, as was shooting in close combat with a Taurox Gatling Cannon.

Coherency didn't come up for us as we had fairly small units - we'll try some larger squads for our next game.

How have your games gone?

I mean, the rules just came out yesterday during a global pandemic so it might be a bit before good data comes back.

There have been a lot of 9th edition battle reports with current point values on Youtube. People are still early on, making lots of tactical and strategic mistakes. Lots of people not playing to their secondaries, or screwing up the new Look Out Sir and getting characters killed.

Of the 4 or 5 ~2000pt games I've seen, the moment-to-moment gameplay is largely the same. Weird gimmicky model placement is gone (for now). No more conga-lines for buffs, no more characters standing out in the open. People are actually putting their models in terrain because it actually does stuff now. That's all tactical stuff that people are just going to get used to in a month or two.

The really interesting thing is how larger strategies are going to shake out. How do you build lists to maximize scoring in your metagame? How will the general metagame of the edition develop?

I played a single game with the first new Mission using 1800 points (in 8th Edition points) armies.

Purposefully played GSC vs. Guard with some larger units, to see how it goes.

A) Coherency wasn't as much of an issue as expected. Sure, you don't string out as much, but since you're planning for it as you move, it wasn't so harsh. Also the board is smaller.

B) Blast is BRUTAL!!! It's partly in the armies we played, but all those Leman Russes throwing around max shots, or even as little as, say, Plasma Sentinels getting 3 shots if they shoot at 6+ model-units just cranks up the firepower alot. Definitely going small units in 9th even harder than I thought (unless the Meta completely flips on Blast weapons, which I doubt, because many of these weapons are still useful without blast).

C) Screening Characters was surprisingly tricky. Sure, your characters will be within 3" of a tank or two, or another unit as you finish your movement, but you also want to spread out some (the Primary of all the Eternal War missions is holding several objectives) and if your opponent is clever killing the right tank or infantry unit (hello Blast again), it's surprisingly easy to suddenly have the odd character be outside of 3" of a screening unit while your opponent still has guns left.

D) The "Secondaries" in the book are pretty bad IMO. Some are super-easy and able to be maxed out in a turn or two. Others need you to achieve pretty hard things (like holding more than your opponent) every single round of hte game, or you're immediately down some points you cannot possibly recover. Some weirdly just give you a max of 6 or 9 points or so, thus you couldn't possibly ever get the 15 points you probably want from each secondary. I hope the GT Mission pack has more and better secondaries (if those missions use the same mechanic).

I can see attrition being easy 15 VP for some factions (not automatic though, can be counterplayed), but which other secondaries did you find easy? They seem all quite challenging.

Spoletta wrote:
I can see attrition being easy 15 VP for some factions (not automatic though, can be counterplayed), but which other secondaries did you find easy? They seem all quite challenging.

Bring it Down and/or Titan Slayers seemed comparatively easy (or at least a lot easier, than the "kill hordes" equivalent) if you end up facing it (or harder to get around).

While We Stand, We Fight is super-easy, if you build for it (e.g. Marine MSU Impulsor List, where your three most expensive models (not units!) are characters, same for an Eldar MSU list with some Spears, Nightspinner and the three most expensive are a Farseer, a Shadowseer or some such).

The new "Recon" is also achievable (though it might be a trap, if you spread out too much).

None are "super-automatic", but compared to things like First Strike or Warlord Kill or so, which max out below 10, or tricky stuff like Investigate Site, which requires the centre to be free of enemies in your command phase (i.e. before you do your movement, shooting, etc.. for every turn of the game, they seem a lot more achievable.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I can see attrition being easy 15 VP for some factions (not automatic though, can be counterplayed), but which other secondaries did you find easy? They seem all quite challenging.

Bring it Down and/or Titan Slayers seemed comparatively easy (or at least a lot easier, than the "kill hordes" equivalent) if you end up facing it (or harder to get around).

While We Stand, We Fight is super-easy, if you build for it (e.g. Marine MSU Impulsor List, where your three most expensive models (not units!) are characters, same for an Eldar MSU list with some Spears, Nightspinner and the three most expensive are a Farseer, a Shadowseer or some such).

The new "Recon" is also achievable (though it might be a trap, if you spread out too much).

None are "super-automatic", but compared to things like First Strike or Warlord Kill or so, which max out below 10, or tricky stuff like Investigate Site, which requires the centre to be free of enemies in your command phase (i.e. before you do your movement, shooting, etc.. for every turn of the game, they seem a lot more achievable.

Bring it down and Titan slayer are indeed automatic against the right enemy, but they are there to avoid skewed lists I guess.

While we Stand, We Fight is super easy but you have to take your 3 most expensive models out of the game, which is a dangerous choice.

It's, literally and figuratively, pointless to do testing without the new point values, at least for anything beyond a general feel for how the game plays. Things like mission objectives we won't be able to get a real feel for until we know what our forces actually look like. The fact that Titan Slayer is relatively easy won't matter much if knights are 1200pts now.

ERJAK wrote:
It's, literally and figuratively, pointless to do testing without the new point values, at least for anything beyond a general feel for how the game plays. Things like mission objectives we won't be able to get a real feel for until we know what our forces actually look like. The fact that Titan Slayer is relatively easy won't matter much if knights are 1200pts now.

Well it does as it means that we have 2 codex's that are going tk be utterly unplayable.

Though apparently GW thinks Knights are better in 9th so probably going to be screwed.

Regarding 8th Ed muscle-memory, both my opponent and I found ourselves caught out by the Look Out Sir mechanics. Sitting behind three Aggressors is not quite as safe as it was before. A couple of "Oh crap!" moments. This will take some getting used to.

Game felt very similar against Iron Hands; all my stuff died and I only killed 3 units. Main difference was the secondaries. My list wasn’t designed well for the new ones while he got lots of points from just killing things.

I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Thank you very much for this mr Dedalus. Both reports were very enjoyable. Awesome to see how dynamic the games could be in 9th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Any chance of a brief summary, reveal of the surprise ending? I can't watch videos, my internet is essentially dial-up.

And here's one by Tabletop Tactics, Salamanders vs Necrons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blKv2JJ-N6I

 harlokin wrote:
And here's one by Tabletop Tactics, Salamanders vs Necrons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blKv2JJ-N6I

That space marine list is terrifying. Not because I think it's particularly GOOD but because it's made up almost entirely of units that are rumored to be amongst the largest point increases in the codex(impulsors, invictors, aggressors, etc) and it's STILL not as big of an increase as the GSC and Sisters lists they played earlier were.

NVM, not new points.

ERJAK wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
And here's one by Tabletop Tactics, Salamanders vs Necrons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blKv2JJ-N6I

That space marine list is terrifying. Not because I think it's particularly GOOD but because it's made up almost entirely of units that are rumored to be amongst the largest point increases in the codex(impulsors, invictors, aggressors, etc) and it's STILL not as big of an increase as the GSC and Sisters lists they played earlier were.

Not seen it yet

I was watching the SoB vs GSC yesterday, and if I recall correctly the Sisters 2'000pt list was roughly a 1'750 in 8th. Felt sorry for the poor Cult, they haven't come out well from the changes thus far.

Having a codex ment to work with mechanics, that got nerfed or made illegal, and ment for a different edition always ends bad. I know from personal expiriance.

I wish they are going to get a codex or a really big 9th errata/faq, or a good WD Index.

 harlokin wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
And here's one by Tabletop Tactics, Salamanders vs Necrons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blKv2JJ-N6I

That space marine list is terrifying. Not because I think it's particularly GOOD but because it's made up almost entirely of units that are rumored to be amongst the largest point increases in the codex(impulsors, invictors, aggressors, etc) and it's STILL not as big of an increase as the GSC and Sisters lists they played earlier were.

Not seen it yet

I was watching the SoB vs GSC yesterday, and if I recall correctly the Sisters 2'000pt list was roughly a 1'750 in 8th. Felt sorry for the poor Cult, they haven't come out well from the changes thus far.

Sisters was 1693, the GSC list was closer to 1750.

NVM to all that, the marine V necron battle doesn't use the new points.

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Any chance of a brief summary, reveal of the surprise ending? I can't watch videos, my internet is essentially dial-up.

Dang dude.

Orc player is down considerably (30 or so points), but makes a turn 4/5 comeback to clinch it.

Initially, it seemed like his secondaries would be the downfall. Scoring on primaries was hotly contested.

Thanks for posting links to the battle reports out there! Here is some Canadian Content from the MiniWargaming team with their first "9th Edition" battle report between Space Wolves and Tyranids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3T6sU3dXG0

They are using 8th edition points and using some assumptions regarding rules, but it shows a good overview of how 9th will be different including the Detachments and CP system. Without spoiling the result, the players do say that they did not engineer their lists to be hyper-competitive. Key things that are brought are: the new terrain rules, coherency, transports (disembarking wholly within) and the VP system.

Cheers,

T2B

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Any chance of a brief summary, reveal of the surprise ending? I can't watch videos, my internet is essentially dial-up.

Dang dude.

Orc player is down considerably (30 or so points), but makes a turn 4/5 comeback to clinch it.

Initially, it seemed like his secondaries would be the downfall. Scoring on primaries was hotly contested.

Thanks for the summary! Sounds promising, and it looks like more games will be nail biters and just because someone establishes an early lead the game isn’t a write off and come-backs are possible! Exciting!

 harlokin wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
And here's one by Tabletop Tactics, Salamanders vs Necrons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blKv2JJ-N6I

That space marine list is terrifying. Not because I think it's particularly GOOD but because it's made up almost entirely of units that are rumored to be amongst the largest point increases in the codex(impulsors, invictors, aggressors, etc) and it's STILL not as big of an increase as the GSC and Sisters lists they played earlier were.

Not seen it yet

I was watching the SoB vs GSC yesterday, and if I recall correctly the Sisters 2'000pt list was roughly a 1'750 in 8th. Felt sorry for the poor Cult, they haven't come out well from the changes thus far.

Do you have a link to that? I've been looking for it on their channel and with some searchfu and all I'm seeing vs Sisters are Death Guard from a week ago?

The sisters vs GSC is on the TT premium site, and is not available on their Youtube channel. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Any chance of a brief summary, reveal of the surprise ending? I can't watch videos, my internet is essentially dial-up.

Dang dude.

Orc player is down considerably (30 or so points), but makes a turn 4/5 comeback to clinch it.

Initially, it seemed like his secondaries would be the downfall. Scoring on primaries was hotly contested.

Thanks for the summary! Sounds promising, and it looks like more games will be nail biters and just because someone establishes an early lead the game isn’t a write off and come-backs are possible! Exciting!

FWIW, the missions were designed to create the ability for nailbiter finishes and tense comebacks - things like the primary capping contribute to this. Glad to see the comment!

MVBrandt wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Any chance of a brief summary, reveal of the surprise ending? I can't watch videos, my internet is essentially dial-up.

Dang dude.

Orc player is down considerably (30 or so points), but makes a turn 4/5 comeback to clinch it.

Initially, it seemed like his secondaries would be the downfall. Scoring on primaries was hotly contested.

Thanks for the summary! Sounds promising, and it looks like more games will be nail biters and just because someone establishes an early lead the game isn’t a write off and come-backs are possible! Exciting!

FWIW, the missions were designed to create the ability for nailbiter finishes and tense comebacks - things like the primary capping contribute to this. Glad to see the comment!

???

They didn't seem so to me. Almost any progressive-scoring mission has the problem of being able to accumulate an insurmountable early lead where there's not enough points on the table to turn the game in the later turns, making them irrelevant. It's fundamentally at odds with the principle behind progressive scoring, which is to incentiveize early game aggression, increase the importance of holding a position as opposed to taking it in the last turn, and emphasize the importance of movement and position in the early game by moving points further forward in the game.
If it's possible to overturn a strong lead in the last turn, then it basically turns into an end-of-game scoring mission where what you do before the last turn position and scoring wise might as well not matter.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd really encourage people to watch TTT. Here's DG vs Orks. Be sure to stick it all the way through for the surprise ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NGKyw30l0

Any chance of a brief summary, reveal of the surprise ending? I can't watch videos, my internet is essentially dial-up.

Dang dude.

Orc player is down considerably (30 or so points), but makes a turn 4/5 comeback to clinch it.

Initially, it seemed like his secondaries would be the downfall. Scoring on primaries was hotly contested.

Thanks for the summary! Sounds promising, and it looks like more games will be nail biters and just because someone establishes an early lead the game isn’t a write off and come-backs are possible! Exciting!

FWIW, the missions were designed to create the ability for nailbiter finishes and tense comebacks - things like the primary capping contribute to this. Glad to see the comment!

???

They didn't seem so to me. Almost any progressive-scoring mission has the problem of being able to accumulate an insurmountable early lead where there's not enough points on the table to turn the game in the later turns, making them irrelevant. It's fundamentally at odds with the principle behind progressive scoring, which is to incentiveize early game aggression, increase the importance of holding a position as opposed to taking it in the last turn, and emphasize the importance of movement and position in the early game by moving points further forward in the game.
If it's possible to overturn a strong lead in the last turn, then it basically turns into an end-of-game scoring mission where what you do before the last turn position and scoring wise might as well not matter.

It's more the ability to catch up then the ability to overturn. Both players still have a cap on how many they can earn from each objective. One of the big flaws in most progressive mission design is, in fact, the absence of a point cap on criteria. Without the cap, games get out of reach well before they end, reducing scoring tension and creating a greater incidence of concessions at the Turn 3 or so point. IN this format, you incentivize early aggression for a lead, but it isn't the *only* way, expanding the variety of ways in which you can win a game, and thus expanding the variety of lists which constitute viability toward success.

That might have been the intention, and maybe it's partly using old points and partly the battle reps all being people rushing to bring out content but some of the secondarys seem to be almost auto discarded by a number of players and a number are automatically 15 points that doesnt sound like it is improving viability it seems like they just aren't well balanced against each other.

At the moment it kinda seems like their is a lot of impression of choice but that people doing well seem to have a number of secondarys incommon seems to say they may just have missed the mark on balance a tad.

So far the worst offender for broken seems to be kill.my 3 Chaplin dreadnaughts, because LoLs we spacemarines and we shall know No unfavourable rules.

Ice_can wrote:
That might have been the intention, and maybe it's partly using old points and partly the battle reps all being people rushing to bring out content but some of the secondarys seem to be almost auto discarded by a number of players and a number are automatically 15 points that doesnt sound like it is improving viability it seems like they just aren't well balanced against each other.

At the moment it kinda seems like their is a lot of impression of choice but that people doing well seem to have a number of secondarys incommon seems to say they may just have missed the mark on balance a tad.

So far the worst offender for broken seems to be kill.my 3 Chaplin dreadnaughts, because LoLs we spacemarines and we shall know No unfavourable rules.

If you're taking 3 chap dreads you have no other HQs unless you spend CP and possibly additional points on troops.

In any case those low score secondaries can be for someone who is playing a denial game and needs something that is more directly score-able. We'll get a better sense for the secondary layout with Chapter Approved though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
That might have been the intention, and maybe it's partly using old points and partly the battle reps all being people rushing to bring out content but some of the secondarys seem to be almost auto discarded by a number of players and a number are automatically 15 points that doesnt sound like it is improving viability it seems like they just aren't well balanced against each other.

At the moment it kinda seems like their is a lot of impression of choice but that people doing well seem to have a number of secondarys incommon seems to say they may just have missed the mark on balance a tad.

So far the worst offender for broken seems to be kill.my 3 Chaplin dreadnaughts, because LoLs we spacemarines and we shall know No unfavourable rules.

If you're taking 3 chap dreads you have no other HQs unless you spend CP and possibly additional points on troops.

In any case those low score secondaries can be for someone who is playing a denial game and needs something that is more directly score-able. We'll get a better sense for the secondary layout with Chapter Approved though.

2CP's and 1 Marine Troops units isn't exactly a bad trade for an automatic 15VP though especially if your trying to run smaller units of obsec anyway.