|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 9, 2020 10:27:04 GMT -5
So using TTS had my first initial game of 9th last night. And for what it's worth here are my quick takes from my first game:
- I friggin loved the base missions. Having the secondaries be able to be customized to what you're army's good at, and who you are facing, provides SO much tactical depth to the game that really was missing in 8th (the stand here and shoot you off the board with rerolls edition). Every turn I had to think about the mission, and even when stuff wasn't going my way (either through dice or just being outmatched in a combat for example), I could still do something every turn, I always had options.
- the -1/+1 cap is HARD to get used to... especially for my slaanesh units, who really depend on stacking modifiers to live. for example I had a keeper charge after giving the psychic power of -1 to hit, natively being -1 to hit in combat, and striking first with the witstealer sword to impose another -1 to hit. So what should have been essentially being only hit on 6's, turned into being hit on 4's... which SUCKS when you're facing a knight! lol... he got squished hard!
- the defender choosing first combat after the chargers are done is a welcome change, and came up a couple times whereas we had to really think about which combats to do first.
- the CP reroll restrictions are a bit to get used to... and it sucked on that damn explodes roll.... lol
- listbuilding is something I'm going to have to re-adjust to a bit. I initially thought "brigade so you don't have to spend any CP" but honestly, that just led to me fielding things that I didn't want, to try and save the 2 CP from just bringing along a patrol. Realized that with gaining CP every turn, there's a lot of opportunity to still have CP. So will be trying to look more of what I want my force to look like rather than just trying to not spend that initial 12.
- obscuring terrain is amazing. Static shooting armies are going to have to move now, and melee units don't just get erased first turn. Made for a MUCH more tactical game in the movement phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Jul 10, 2020 9:34:03 GMT -5
As Shannon's opponenet; I'll chime in as well. Mind you, we were using 8th ed points and 9th ed rules, so it wasn't a 100% test, but it got the point across for testing out the rules themselves.
- When I rolled for an objective mission I was sure that I was hosed. All knight army in objectives? HA! But, I was pretty pelased to find that even though Shannon was beating me soundly on primary, I was able to keep up through careful section of secondaries.
- Secrondary objectives being tailored to your enemy is really game-changing. Being able to on-the-fly swap out before a game is really, really cool. It adds a whole new depth to strategy and removes a bunch of the "auto win/loss" depending on matchups that used to occur.
- The new rules around max for stat bonus/degredation is really nice, no more stacking buffs/debuffs.
- I liked the flat roll off again, no +1 for finishing first, and no seize the initiative. You win the roll, you go first, end of story.
- Obscuring terrin, like Shannon said; is pretty cool. Mind you, it worked better for SHannon than myself, but it makes things FEEL more real. Of course you wouldn't be able to sneak shots through the windows of a building to get to the guys on the other side. It's a change that makes sense and again, adds a new layer to the game in a good way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 10, 2020 9:45:11 GMT -5
I will add I was INITIALLY winning on primary... however knights are still knights and a whole lot harder to take out with 12 CP available to them!, and I lost that edge by turn three...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by cmcd on Jul 10, 2020 13:50:17 GMT -5
What did you two end with in CP? Did you run out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 10, 2020 14:18:32 GMT -5
I still had a couple CP left, and Matt had about 5-6 left I believe... but we called it turn 3 because it got super late and the outcome was pretty much decided.
paying a CP for each exalted daemon, and now with having to pay for extra detachments, is going to severely limit the build... but I'm sure a new book will be inbound in about .... a year or two...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Jul 10, 2020 15:34:46 GMT -5
Yeah, I had in the 5-7 range; but like Shannon said, by the bottom of 3; it was pretty well decided. I had 2 wounded but alive big knights as well as a pair of untouched autocannon armigers remaining of the 3 big knights and 4 armigers I started with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 10, 2020 16:12:58 GMT -5
...and I had... a severely wounded bloodthirster, a pristine unwounded lord of change, and some troops which were easy pickings... so yeah, was not in doubt what would happen!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 12, 2020 15:43:14 GMT -5
Well second game of 9th is now complete, and I'm a huge fan of the changes to the game. The tyranids unfortunately were decimated by the deathwatch, however there was still alot that I was able to do each turn to try and turn things around (3 repulsors made short work of my monstrous creatures though!).
in 8th it would have been a rout by turn two at the latest... but the changes in 9th gave me a chance throughout the game.
new missions and terrain are great. We also had the fall back issue come up in this one, so the tank just stayed in combat and shot! (eep!)
|
|
|
|
Post by cmcd on Jul 12, 2020 16:35:00 GMT -5
This was my First game of 9th. I love it. It feels more like a tactical game. Super excited with what they did. The secondaries give it a good feel of control for you as an opponent. You are always doing something. Looking forward to my next game.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmcd on Jul 12, 2020 16:56:03 GMT -5
Also wanted to add, We tried playing on a smaller size table. I think it was actually better. And i was playing against the Nids. At no point did i say. oh this table is too small. It wasnt until after the game i did some reflection on it. The smaller table size and the obsucring terrain made the game more fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 12, 2020 18:39:36 GMT -5
oh yeah, good point Chris... we used the smaller table size, and yeah it made a difference. Didn't feel like I had to weather three turns of shooting to get mixed up in combat (I was playing Jormungdr so didn't have the speed of a kraken list) but at the same time it still felt that we had a lot of ability to move around still and make tactical decisions.
The terrain is probably the biggest thing...but there are a lot of little decisions in the rules that combine to a much more enjoyable game.
|
|
|
|
Post by raceygaming on Jul 14, 2020 8:25:14 GMT -5
Also wanted to add, We tried playing on a smaller size table. I think it was actually better. And i was playing against the Nids. At no point did i say. oh this table is too small. It wasnt until after the game i did some reflection on it. The smaller table size and the obsucring terrain made the game more fun. What size was it the 44" by 60" ? |
|
|
|
Post by raceygaming on Jul 14, 2020 8:27:35 GMT -5
oh yeah, good point Chris... we used the smaller table size, and yeah it made a difference. Didn't feel like I had to weather three turns of shooting to get mixed up in combat (I was playing Jormungdr so didn't have the speed of a kraken list) but at the same time it still felt that we had a lot of ability to move around still and make tactical decisions. The terrain is probably the biggest thing...but there are a lot of little decisions in the rules that combine to a much more enjoyable game. I saw you used the smaller table with Chris, did you use the 44"x 60" table? also as T.O for the area im sure it will come up at some point but what do you think of a table size compromise of 48" x 60". It lets you use the lovely nexus mats with a little piece of tape that cuts off the last 12" of the current 48" x 72". |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 14, 2020 9:45:55 GMT -5
we used the 44x60 size and it actually made a difference. I was not exactly pumped about the idea of changing table sizes when it was first proposed, mainly due to the huge expense Nexus incurred getting so many table mats for us, which would be of the old size. But I have to say it made a fairly significant difference. I think your compromise is a good idea for ease of use of the existing mats.... when we can play again that is
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 14, 2020 10:34:06 GMT -5
The more I read, the more I see the point of the new size. This seems to be a more fluid, tactical edition. Which suits me just fine. And a little (gently applied) painters tape can go a long way to preserving mats in the event we return to 4x6 in the future.
|
|
