40k 9th Editon

Based on the game Skari put up yesterday in which he used all 9th edition rules we know so far, aircraft can come back on anywhere nine inches from the enemy. Doesn’t have to be close to a board edge.

It might have been mentioned earlier but wyches I think got slightly better as a tar pit unit, in our faction focus It looks like even using the desperate fallback stratagem opponents will still have to roll for the "No Escape rule" and with a shardnet its more in our favor that our opponent will have wasted the 2cp ... and another unit that might see a bit more action this edition is actually Hellions ... with the smaller table sizes and overwatch not being as big a thing, they could easily pull off a first turn charge, or an evicerating fly by, or ... because they have the D2 on their weapons and are "fly" units ... they could catch up to charge, and swarm enemy flyers, using Test of skill and either berserker fugue or precision killers they could easily take down bigger things, ... that and having units in this edition that can act after falling back is going to be huge, Hit and run might change to be "can act as normal after falling back"

Aircrafts has their own strategic reserves rules that was posted in another article, they can come down.

HERO wrote:

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.

I would assume that it counts the same as if you decide to deepstrike an aircraft in 8th edition (and I believe, other applicable editions prior); it counts as having moved its full movement.

krayd wrote:

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.

Understood. I just mean that you can have a second chance at it later in the game. Leave the board, say, turn 2, come back on turn 3 and shoot, block on turn 4 (and then probably die).

amishprn86 wrote:

Aircrafts has their own strategic reserves rules that was posted in another article, they can come down.

Good to know! phew

krayd wrote:

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.

No, they deep strike in, place them anywhere more that 9 inches from an enemy.

I see the raider detachment as a null benefit. It, literally, only works in 2000+ point games, and it is impossible to get the 6 detachments. It can be used in 50% of the available game sizes, and is less efficient in the 3000 point game. I'm hoping that our redone codex comes with something better to replace it. The other rules hack jobs do not provide enough to know how it will actually affect us, and points changes will be the ultimate determination on how this edition will work for us.

megatrons2nd wrote:

I see the raider detachment as a null benefit.  It, literally, only works in 2000+ point games, and it is impossible to get the 6 detachments.  It can be used in 50% of the available game sizes, and is less efficient in the 3000 point game.  I'm hoping that our redone codex comes with something better to replace it.  The other rules hack jobs do not provide enough to know how it will actually affect us, and points changes will be the ultimate determination on how this edition will work for us.

What? Its 3 patrols OR 6 patrols, 1,001+ games it'll work just fine. It is game changing for us and most DE players are going to be using it.

To me this was the funniest notion, highlighting the Reavers:" ...and large amount of mid-range firepower...".

To me this highlight was a waste of time. I feel like the other Faction highlights did a better job easing in how the faction would act in the coming edition. For us it felt more like: "Don't worry it'll be fine, take our word for it." A soothing tone without much to say. I have not given up hope but I have tempered it a fair bit.

Read the faction focus.

Good to know that the core rules that apply to everyone (except Tau, apparently) also apply to Dark Eldar. Maybe in our next preview we'll get to learn that Dark Eldar follow the normal rules for the shooting phase.

Also, good to know that Dark Eldar have a stratagem that they have. I suppose that saves me finding my codex and making sure that the relevant page hasn't wondered off on its own or been eaten by a stray jabberwocky.

It seems the sole piece of useful information is that the Raiding Force rule might actually be worth a damn. By which I mean it will at least bring us roughly up to par with every other army in the game. On the one hand, it's good that we won't be starting off on the back foot. On the other, it suggests that GW won't ever be reversing the monumentally stupid idea to split our already anaemic codex into 3 micro-factions.

Overall, I'm still not seeing anything here that makes me the slightest bit hopeful for Dark Eldar.

And before anyone comments that we are (or at least were) relatively strong in 8th, I don't care. And the reason I don't care is that DE currently bores my pants off. The list-building is boring as hell because we have so few options left to begin with, and many of those still aren't worth bothering with. And playing them is boring because there's just nothing interesting to do. We've got almost no interesting tricks, and the few that we do have are all Stratagems. Which are all as thrilling to me as pausing to have a game of monopoly. And, as someone who has a particular fondness for characters, ours are as bland and uninteresting as its possible to get.

I say this not so much as a complaint but by way of explanation. Because at this point I'm just not interested in stuff that makes us powerful. What I want is something that makes us fun. I didn't sign up for an army of space-pirates, mad-scientists, demonic-assassins, and vicious-gladiators to get an army that's bland-but-functional.

Lyijysiipi wrote:

To me this was the funniest notion, highlighting the Reavers:" ...and large amount of mid-range firepower...".

To me this highlight was a waste of time. I feel like the other Faction highlights did a better job easing in how the faction would act in the coming edition. For us it felt more like: "Don't worry it'll be fine, take our word for it." A soothing tone without much to say. I have not given up hope but I have tempered it a fair bit.

To be fair, the Craftworld focus was equally underwhelming... which was also written by the same guy.
I can only suppose that GW doesn't care much about teasing 9th edition since there is an evident lack of quality control.

For the meantime, I rather try to make the most out of 8th while it lasts and maybe get a game with my Wych Cult going.

Lyijysiipi wrote:

To me this was the funniest notion, highlighting the Reavers:" ...and large amount of mid-range firepower...".

I had a good chuckle about that too. Uhh...you know they have the same weapons as kabalite warriors, right? But cost 3 times as much. People don't take reavers much, but when they do, it's not for the mid-range firepower.

Silly writers.

I was kinda like "WTF" when they said along the lines of "with the smaller board size, your enemies will almost always be in range of your 36 inch range guns" and I was like..... Yeah that just means all OUR stuff is going to be in range of all of THEIR stuff, which means our speed will be even more useless than it was in 8th..

Something I missed before with regard to the Raiding Force rule: What is even the point of keeping the extra CP for 6 patrols when no game size permits that many detachment?

Aschen wrote:

I was kinda like "WTF" when they said along the lines of "with the smaller board size, your enemies will almost always be in range of your 36 inch range guns" and I was like..... Yeah that just means all OUR stuff is going to be in range of all of THEIR stuff, which means our speed will be even more useless than it was in 8th..

true... but on the other hand they are kinda right also that some armies that are supposed to be less shooty than us but have some ridicilous shooting ranges (36 is average, 48 and up is the "long range" really) do not have a huge advanatge over us

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Something I missed before with regard to the Raiding Force rule: What is even the point of keeping the extra CP for 6 patrols when no game size permits that many detachment?

Unless they've changed it for 9e there never was a rule preventing that many detachments. It was just a suggestion that, unfortunately, every TO decided to take as gospel, thereby screwing over our special rule almost as soon as we got our codex!

Count Adhemar wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Something I missed before with regard to the Raiding Force rule: What is even the point of keeping the extra CP for 6 patrols when no game size permits that many detachment?

Unless they've changed it for 9e there never was a rule preventing that many detachments. It was just a suggestion that, unfortunately, every TO decided to take as gospel, thereby screwing over our special rule almost as soon as we got our codex!

I fear they have indeed changed it for 9th. There are now strict limits on the number of detachments an army can field, based on the game size.

Even the largest game defined within the rules only allows a maximum of 4 detachments.

Incidentally, this also means that Raiding Force is non-functional in games below a certain point threshold, as they are limited to 1 or 2 detachments and even the 'lesser' Raiding Force requires exactly 3.

Yes, it appears we can only use the Raiding Force for 2k pts games, which sucks.

Luckily we can gain back CP with various Warlord Traits. I see our lists built off of Kabal battalions and a patrol of Coven/Cults in 9th. Not much difference from now, tbh

Edit: I do wish they talked about the changes to either Kabals or Covens, the Cult focus of the article did not interest me much

I honestly think our movement on the small board is a huge advantage for us. It has been difficult to get to those Thunderfire Cannons, Night Spinners, and other backfield units without overextending or chancing a long charge. Now, we can reliably get there T2 (Reavers maybe even T1) and with the new cover rules, get there in multiple pieces rather than in tatters.
I hear it on the range of our guns; we will be in range of everyone else, but they will be in range of us as well. Which is an advantage as there will be less hiding in the corners or in bottom floor of ruins. Our speed on the smaller board will allow us to use angle and find the sides of units.
Mark off a 44x60 board and see how our movement gets us around and see that how our speed will work to our advantage. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Still need to see point costs to judge how effective our movement will be.

I dont think that venoms that cost 120 pts will be easily sacrificed, regardless where we move them. Flip side being 70 pt venoms can be sacrificed all day long

I did a test game of 9th and the smaller tables are really noticeable. For me at least as something that uses movements and placements as a key part to win games. Don't believe anyone that says its not a big deal and you wont notice the missing space, no its noticeable lol.

I'll play more next week and do a quick report, this week was getting used to the new rules. PS we are not building lists to be hyper comp just taking different units and trying everything out for fun.

amishprn86 wrote:

I did a test game of 9th and the smaller tables are really noticeable. For me at least as something that uses movements and placements as a key part to win games. Don't believe anyone that says its not a big deal and you wont notice the missing space, no its noticeable lol.

I'll play more next week and do a quick report, this week was getting used to the new rules. PS we are not building lists to be hyper comp just taking different units and trying everything out for fun.

Did you find it noticeable in a good way for the movement or bad? When I did the same thing this week, I found it not only noticeable but very advantageous.

We did just Dawn of War with 4 Table Quarter objectives. We did 10" deployment zones to keep the 24" No Man's Land between armies. I played Nids and found that being able to zip around and go from terrain piece to terrain piece without having to Advance was very nice. Got to his Hive Guard who were hidden easily enough. He tried hiding Swarmlord but our mobility to go around buildings enabled me to snipe him first turn with Reapers (who don't suffer Move+Shoot anymore).

SCP Yeeman wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

I did a test game of 9th and the smaller tables are really noticeable. For me at least as something that uses movements and placements as a key part to win games. Don't believe anyone that says its not a big deal and you wont notice the missing space, no its noticeable lol.

I'll play more next week and do a quick report, this week was getting used to the new rules. PS we are not building lists to be hyper comp just taking different units and trying everything out for fun.

Did you find it noticeable in a good way for the movement or bad? When I did the same thing this week, I found it not only noticeable but very advantageous.

We did just Dawn of War with 4 Table Quarter objectives. We did 10" deployment zones to keep the 24" No Man's Land between armies. I played Nids and found that being able to zip around and go from terrain piece to terrain piece without having to Advance was very nice. Got to his Hive Guard who were hidden easily enough. He tried hiding Swarmlord but our mobility to go around buildings enabled me to snipe him first turn with Reapers (who don't suffer Move+Shoot anymore).

Our game was 1k (I played 900pts so i did play down). With Incursion it says 44x30, 4 larger pieces of terrain (5"h x 3"w x 5"l) and a few obstacles, nothing to muhc. But b.c its was 30" wide (A 10man unit can be 27" wide conga line out) there was almost no room to set up at all and it becames a rush face at each other and game down to almost no tactics at all. At 500pts that size table is fine but not for 1k.

I will try a 1750pt game next week for 44x60, but for the smaller tables there is no reason to play that small.

I had a 9 man reaver unit, if i wanted to i could turn 1 charge his WL that his army was relaying on b.c it was impossible to hide.

Table size is like this
[--10"--|----24"----|--10"--]
|
|
30"
|
|
[--10"--|----24"----|--10"--]

I started 24" away, +2" movement makes them 20", advance 8" gives them 28", he has 6" from me to the table edge. B.c there is only 30" wide to set up and he had 9 60mm bases on table of his 17 25mm bases he had no where to go.

I talked to him and told him i will not Advance and charge, he knew if i did it was auto lose for him turn 1. I legit could charge his full army. B.c of how cover is, if i went second he couldn't shoot me with 1/2 his army and if he did i would be -1TH/+1 save (-1/3+/6+++ on 9 Reavers) and at 900 ish points, thats not a lot unless you have lots of blasts.


So yes it is good for us until you see that Marines just got bikes with 2 Bolt rifles and 6 attacks, and new Troop melee Primaris with 6 attacks each.

I am wondering if 8th edition artifacts such as 'the limits of command' and 'the rule of three' will be removed for 9th edition, due to the changes in list-building and CP allocation possibly mitigating some of the issues that 8th edition had which gave rise to these additional rules.