40k 9th Editon

I hope we do get better, or at least stay the same..
but if our faction spotlight is the same inane drivel about how now Talos can be in strategic reserve, and our boats and monsters can shoot into combat, I think that will be a harbinger they did not put a lot of thought into us as a faction for the new edition. Yet.

Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.

HERO wrote:

I wrote a big ass article on meta predictions and Eldar ramblings:
https://lkhero.blogspot.com/2020/06/9th-ed-40k-and-how-it-affects-all-eldar.html#more

Since I've been negatively ranting on this thread for a bit, I figured it would just be better sit back, get all the data in front of us and present it a little better.

TLDR: We're not entirely shafted, but its gonna be weird in the future.

Interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

I generally agree with you about what the meta will look like. Monsters and Vehicles, especially Dreadnought-type walkers that can shoot and melee well are going to be big.

I'm a little more positive about Harlies than you are. If they don't get hit too hard with points changes, I think Harlies might be pretty decent after their excellent PA. They still have the best Haywire platform in the game, which will make them a good counter-meta list should Dreadnought spam start to dominate.

For DE/CWE, I think you're exactly right that the meat mountain lists will be really well suited to 9th. My go to DE list in 8th centered around 2 x 10 Grotesques and I don't see that changing in 9th. Wraithblades for CWE will also be strong as long as they don't get hit with the points nerf bat.

One DE unit that I think could be a bit of a sleeper is the Voidraven. With the ability to fly off the table (and I'm assuming) bomb targets as it flies off, there's no way for your opponent to screen a key unit out of bombing range anymore. Granted, they could put them in reserves, but if the games are going to be shorter, forcing opponents to hide their important units in reserve could be a boon for us to get ahead on board control, which seems to be even more important in 9th due to progressive scoring and the new secondaries.

FACTION FOCUS US
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/26/faction-focus-drukharigw-homepage-post-4fw-homepage-post-4/

Drukhari faction focus is up - it states that, since Patrol Detachments cost 2 CP, taking a Raiding Force essentially allows us to get them for free: the first being free with our Warlord, then Raiding force covering the cost of the other two.

Personally thought Patrols would be 1 CP, so we'd get a bonus from it, but I'm not complaining about getting stuff for free when other factions will have to pay for it.

I've needed a reason to try the Alliance of Agony again...

Edit: sniped!

Aircraft models do not need to fall back when disengaging from cc

Meaning even though units with fly can no longer shoot after falling back, aircraft still can

So the Raiding Force looks like the go-to for DE armies. Keeps options open for mixing kabal/cult/coven units in, or still leaves enough room to get 3 Ravagers (or 3 of whatever you want).
It also unlocks 6 Flyer slots for free, giving us great options there.

AzraeI wrote:

Aircraft models do not need to fall back when disengaging from cc

Meaning even though units with fly can no longer shoot after falling back, aircraft still can

for some strange reason i thought this was a given, even after they confirmed that flying units cannot shoot after falling back... but its nice to see that they confirmed this officialy lol

It definitely looks like our biggest advantage is going to be the listbuilding. Having 3 Patrols is more flexible than two batallions or a batallion and a Spearhead/Outrider. If you want to spam Taloi, you can just take two PoF Patrols.

I expect to see lots of 2 Kabal + 1 Coven detachments (or vice versa). Which personally sucks, since I used most my free time during 8th edition to build up a Wych Cult army. The only way I see Cult being relevant in 9th is if they get rules against vehicles or become dirt cheap. Neither of which I see happening. The "Cult" silver lining could be the Test of Skill obsession, even with the CP cost associated with it.


Also, does anybody know this "Matt Schuchman" guy? I was hoping that Lawrence from TTT would write this preview. Ultimately, we don't know much more than before but its nice to have the Raiding Party rule confirmed.

Edit: Damn, I forgot about the detachment limitations.

i dont realy agree, if anything the raiding force kinda restricts our lists
You cannot take an air wing for example to have 3 flyers with the same bonus, you have to spread your flyers to different detachmnets with different bonuses which is more of a pain to keep track of...
Or the classic black heart battalion with 3 ravagers and the babysitting archon, you now have to take 2 patrols of the same kabal to do that which restricts what you take on your 3rd patrol...
and if you want to go full talos spam you need 2 dedicated coven patrols
Dunno i might be wrong but i feel this limits us even more than actually helping us :/

Raiding Force restricts our ability to spam units, but rewards us for building well-rounded lists.

DevilDoll wrote:

Dunno i might be wrong but i feel this limits us even more than actually helping us :/

Look it at is this way: Other armies/factions could have to pay a huge premium on CP to get extra detachments or unlock a flyer wing. Yes it's more restrictive than what we had in 8th, but everyone else could have even harsher restrictions.

If you take 2 BH patrols and a PoF patrol, that's enough slots for 3 Ravagers, 4 Planes, and 6 talos, plus troops and characters. Similar to a battalion, a flyer wing, and a spearhead.
This is close if 2k points in 8th, so would easily fill your army out in 9th.

AlCorps wrote:

DevilDoll wrote:

Dunno i might be wrong but i feel this limits us even more than actually helping us :/

Look it at is this way: Other armies/factions could have to pay a huge premium on CP to get extra detachments or unlock a flyer wing. Yes it's more restrictive than what we had in 8th, but everyone else could have even harsher restrictions.

If you take 2 BH patrols and a PoF patrol, that's enough slots for 3 Ravagers, 4 Planes, and 6 talos, plus troops and characters. Similar to a battalion, a flyer wing, and a spearhead.
This is close if 2k points in 8th, so would easily fill your army out in 9th.

yeah... thats true i see
but lets not pretend that the rest of the factions are in some kind of disadvanatage over us they can just go and take one battalion or even one brigade plus warlord and have everything they need as well for free, multiple detachments is for soup and for us now

Reavers were listed as one of the "key units." Yikes. Maybe they should've gotten a dedicated DE player to write this.

sweetbacon wrote:

Reavers were listed as one of the "key units."  Yikes.  Maybe they should've gotten a dedicated DE player to write this.  

you clearly don't understand what they are trying to do with the "key units". GW is a profit oriented company after all. They are trying to drum up sales of said reavers as opposed to them actually being better than any other unit in our army.

DevilDoll wrote:

AlCorps wrote:

DevilDoll wrote:

Dunno i might be wrong but i feel this limits us even more than actually helping us :/

Look it at is this way: Other armies/factions could have to pay a huge premium on CP to get extra detachments or unlock a flyer wing. Yes it's more restrictive than what we had in 8th, but everyone else could have even harsher restrictions.

If you take 2 BH patrols and a PoF patrol, that's enough slots for 3 Ravagers, 4 Planes, and 6 talos, plus troops and characters. Similar to a battalion, a flyer wing, and a spearhead.
This is close if 2k points in 8th, so would easily fill your army out in 9th.

yeah... thats true i see
but lets not pretend that the rest of the factions are in some kind of disadvanatage over us they can just go and take one battalion or even one brigade plus warlord and have everything they need as well for free, multiple detachments is for soup and for us now

Which is actually exactly the same as currently in 8th edition. So, no change really from that perspective. The restrictions we currently have just continue. I'm glad that they've addressed that at least somewhat with the change to allow for multiple patrols. Agree it's not a huge boost, it is just removing the negative that would otherwise have been there.

The boost to us I guess is that it's easier for us to get multiple obsessions, where other armies will have to pay CP for additional detachments to do so. (not the be all and end all, but thematically fits, and at least is a positive)

HERO wrote:

I wrote a big ass article on meta predictions and Eldar ramblings:
https://lkhero.blogspot.com/2020/06/9th-ed-40k-and-how-it-affects-all-eldar.html#more

Since I've been negatively ranting on this thread for a bit, I figured it would just be better sit back, get all the data in front of us and present it a little better.

TLDR: We're not entirely shafted, but its gonna be weird in the future.

Thanks for taking the time on this! It's a really well written and very balanced analysis.

The only thing I think may (or may not) be incorrect is the impact of capping the +1 to hit on harlequins. So far that cap has only been stated on shooting. If it was going to be a blanket cap, it would likely have been worded as such (as opposed to a modification to the shooting phase). So I suspect stacking leadership and invul buffs may still be a thing. (wouldn't surprise me if melee is capped too, but uncertain).

If they do cap invul modifiers, then your analysis is probably true. But I am not sure it's the automatic assumption.

Yo folks - One key line on the aircraft section, and I think its quite huge.

Whenever a model makes any kind of move..
..and it cannot end the move within Engagement Range of any enemy Aircraft models.

This to me suggests you can still use aircraft to manipulate enemy movement, affecting all models.

Use case: find out max charge range of say, Genestealers. Plop aircraft base in front of said target to stretch out some inches so the unit has to go around (1" bubble) and won't be able to end movement on top of the aircraft base. This allows you to deny the charge effectively as you can even stretch the base out to be vertical (in the case of Eldar flyers with Wings of Khaine).

Silverglade wrote:

HERO wrote:

I wrote a big ass article on meta predictions and Eldar ramblings:
https://lkhero.blogspot.com/2020/06/9th-ed-40k-and-how-it-affects-all-eldar.html#more

Since I've been negatively ranting on this thread for a bit, I figured it would just be better sit back, get all the data in front of us and present it a little better.

TLDR: We're not entirely shafted, but its gonna be weird in the future.

Thanks for taking the time on this!  It's a really well written and very balanced analysis.

The only thing I think may (or may not) be incorrect is the impact of capping the +1 to hit on harlequins.   So far that cap has only been stated on shooting.    If it was going to be a blanket cap, it would likely have been worded as such (as opposed to a modification to the shooting phase).    So I suspect stacking leadership and invul buffs may still be a thing.   (wouldn't surprise me if melee is capped too, but uncertain).

If they do cap invul modifiers, then your analysis is probably true.  But I am not sure it's the automatic assumption.

Hmm, I don't think I stated capping invuls. But without the negative hit mods, I think they're in trouble for sure.

HERO wrote:

Silverglade wrote:

HERO wrote:

I wrote a big ass article on meta predictions and Eldar ramblings:
https://lkhero.blogspot.com/2020/06/9th-ed-40k-and-how-it-affects-all-eldar.html#more

Since I've been negatively ranting on this thread for a bit, I figured it would just be better sit back, get all the data in front of us and present it a little better.

TLDR: We're not entirely shafted, but its gonna be weird in the future.

Thanks for taking the time on this!  It's a really well written and very balanced analysis.

The only thing I think may (or may not) be incorrect is the impact of capping the +1 to hit on harlequins.   So far that cap has only been stated on shooting.    If it was going to be a blanket cap, it would likely have been worded as such (as opposed to a modification to the shooting phase).    So I suspect stacking leadership and invul buffs may still be a thing.   (wouldn't surprise me if melee is capped too, but uncertain).

If they do cap invul modifiers, then your analysis is probably true.  But I am not sure it's the automatic assumption.

Hmm, I don't think I stated capping invuls. But without the negative hit mods, I think they're in trouble for sure.

no worries.  I must have misread

This was the sentence I was referring to:  "The durability of Harlequins has always been around stacking mods and improving their invul saves. With modifiers being capped, Harlequins just lost a HUGE chunk of their survival rate. "

Anyway, as I said.  It was a really good read and well written.  Kudos.

Good point on the aircraft above by the way. With all the talk of them no longer being able to move block, it's good to see that there is still a way to do it. Just not as easily

HERO wrote:

Yo folks - One key line on the aircraft section, and I think its quite huge.

Whenever a model makes any kind of move..
..and it cannot end the move within Engagement Range of any enemy Aircraft models.

This to me suggests you can still use aircraft to manipulate enemy movement, affecting all models.

Use case: find out max charge range of say, Genestealers. Plop aircraft base in front of said target to stretch out some inches so the unit has to go around (1" bubble) and won't be able to end movement on top of the aircraft base. This allows you to deny the charge effectively as you can even stretch the base out to be vertical (in the case of Eldar flyers with Wings of Khaine).

Yeah I was looking at that as well. You can easily cut off 6 or 7 inches of movement for smaller base models. The larger the model, the easier they are to block.

And since aircraft can now leave the battlefield and come back, they can reset position for a block later in the game too.

I may have missed a (very early) errata, which wouldnt be unusual for me, but my copy of the 8th rule book says a patrol detachment can have up to 2 heavy support units. People are talking as though 3 ravagers will be difficult with 2 kabal patrols. Did I miss something? My by count 2 Kabal patrols should be up to 4 Ravagers.

albions-angel wrote:

I may have missed a (very early) errata, which wouldnt be unusual for me, but my copy of the 8th rule book says a patrol detachment can have up to 2 heavy support units. People are talking as though 3 ravagers will be difficult with 2 kabal patrols. Did I miss something? My by count 2 Kabal patrols should be up to 4 Ravagers.

I think that the complaint is more due to the fact that you will need to take 2 kabal detachments in order to get 3 ravagers.

sekac wrote:

And since aircraft can now leave the battlefield and come back, they can reset position for a block later in the game too.

Though blocking on the return might be much more situational; as I understand, when the aircraft returns from strategic reserves, you have to set it up near one of the board edges. So you can't just have it fly onto the board with its full move, as you could in 6th/7th ed.

I love it honestly. Its an option for us that actually helps us for once.

The Raiding Force giving us more options + the same CP in a 2K game effectively gives us better ways splash in Meat Mountain/Hybrid forces with vehicles. So yes, this is a good chance for us without us taking a hit on CP.

As for the Reserves and aircraft, aircraft that fly off the board follow the same rules as Strategic Reserve when coming in, so yeah no movement.



Although.. lol. If there's no movement but count as being moved, does that mean your plane auto-crashes because it didn't min-move 20"?

lol GW rules writers man, 20 years for me this year, same crap.