Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

I’m with you, I’m not saying she needs to stay cheap. I’d much prefer she was a little higher and a little better.

ursvamp wrote:

albions-angel wrote:

I am still not sure she will be the supreme commander for us. I dont know who will be. I dont know if we will get one

Yeah, it would be exceedingly weird if she became our supreme commander. Both from a story perspective and, as Skulnbonz brings up, stats-wise.

Just wanting to point out that Shadowsun is the supreme commander for T'au and statwise she is also not on the same level as the other supreme commanders. But from a story perspective I agree, even though again having Shadowsun as a supreme commander leading a farsight army is also weird, but legal. Still I think for Vect we have to wait for the 10th edition or later.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Well each to their own but I’m not interested in comments like “boring”. Do you even like the game anymore?

Not even slightly.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m 38 years old, I don’t get “excited” about any character/unit in the entire game. I just like the game overall. What’s so interesting about Lelith anyway? She’s a melee specialist. How interesting can you make that??? She kills stuff. Simple.

Here you see, as I mentioned earlier there are two types of people that are into 40K.
One plays the game and do not care about the fluff, the other cares about the fluff.
A lot.
Let's face it, probably too much.

I use the 40K rules, or any game systems rules for that matter, to tell stories.
If the rules are bland, boring, contradictory, illogical, breaks the fourth wall or hinders immersion in any way, the stories will not be engaging and the reason to play the game in the first place falls away.

Everybody wants something from the games that they choose to play.
It differs from person to person, but if you want something that captures the imagination, then boring = bad. Even if it kills stuff.
I think that might be part of what other people here are complaining about.
They just want something else from the game.

Scrz wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Well each to their own but I’m not interested in comments like “boring”. Do you even like the game anymore?

Not even slightly.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m 38 years old, I don’t get “excited” about any character/unit in the entire game. I just like the game overall. What’s so interesting about Lelith anyway? She’s a melee specialist. How interesting can you make that??? She kills stuff. Simple.

Here you see, as I mentioned earlier there are two types of people that are into 40K.
One plays the game and do not care about the fluff, the other cares about the fluff.
A lot.
Let's face it, probably too much.

I use the 40K rules, or any game systems rules for that matter, to tell stories.
If the rules are bland, boring, contradictory, illogical, breaks the fourth wall or hinders immersion in any way, the stories will not be engaging and the reason to play the game in the first place falls away.

Everybody wants something from the games that they choose to play.
It differs from person to person, but if you want something that captures the imagination, then boring = bad. Even if it kills stuff.
I think that might be part of what other people here are complaining about.
They just want something else from the game.

Then frankly speaking where is the value in this debate? If they had a commentator at a sports match saying this is all a bit boring but then I don’t like this sport anyway then the fans would be asking wtf are you doing here?!

Also I think your comment on there being two types of players is a little off. There are players like me who like the game, like the fluff, and love the models. I haven’t always liked the game. I thought 7th Ed was bloody awful...but I’m a realistic person as well with a pretty balanced expectation.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Scrz wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Well each to their own but I’m not interested in comments like “boring”. Do you even like the game anymore?

Not even slightly.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m 38 years old, I don’t get “excited” about any character/unit in the entire game. I just like the game overall. What’s so interesting about Lelith anyway? She’s a melee specialist. How interesting can you make that??? She kills stuff. Simple.

Here you see, as I mentioned earlier there are two types of people that are into 40K.
One plays the game and do not care about the fluff, the other cares about the fluff.
A lot.
Let's face it, probably too much.

I use the 40K rules, or any game systems rules for that matter, to tell stories.
If the rules are bland, boring, contradictory, illogical, breaks the fourth wall or hinders immersion in any way, the stories will not be engaging and the reason to play the game in the first place falls away.

Everybody wants something from the games that they choose to play.
It differs from person to person, but if you want something that captures the imagination, then boring = bad. Even if it kills stuff.
I think that might be part of what other people here are complaining about.
They just want something else from the game.

Then frankly speaking where is the value in this debate? If they had a commentator at a sports match saying this is all a bit boring but then I don’t like this sport anyway then the fans would be asking wtf are you doing here?!

Also I think your comment on there being two types of players is a little off. There are players like me who like the game, like the fluff, and love the models. I haven’t always liked the game. I thought 7th Ed was bloody awful...but I’m a realistic person as well with a pretty balanced expectation.

The sports analogy would only make sense if the fans used to like soccer, but now the rules have changed to only give the teams points based on how long they stand around in the corners of the field. Used to be fun, now it is not.

Sure there can be a blurred line between the two types of players, but I find that people put their main emphasis in one or the other camp. If the rules do not bother you overmuch we are clearly not in the same camp.

7th ed was not the same game. But for what it is worth I think Nuhammer is bloody awful and I'm a realistic person with expectations that GW will not be making a 40K version that I can use to play the types of games that I want.

I was just trying to point out that it seems like people are talking past each other because they are not understanding that they value the game based on different criteria.

Scrz wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Well each to their own but I’m not interested in comments like “boring”. Do you even like the game anymore?

Not even slightly.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m 38 years old, I don’t get “excited” about any character/unit in the entire game. I just like the game overall. What’s so interesting about Lelith anyway? She’s a melee specialist. How interesting can you make that??? She kills stuff. Simple.

Here you see, as I mentioned earlier there are two types of people that are into 40K.
One plays the game and do not care about the fluff, the other cares about the fluff.
A lot.
Let's face it, probably too much.

I use the 40K rules, or any game systems rules for that matter, to tell stories.
If the rules are bland, boring, contradictory, illogical, breaks the fourth wall or hinders immersion in any way, the stories will not be engaging and the reason to play the game in the first place falls away.

Everybody wants something from the games that they choose to play.
It differs from person to person, but if you want something that captures the imagination, then boring = bad. Even if it kills stuff.
I think that might be part of what other people here are complaining about.
They just want something else from the game.

Yeah, that kinda feels insulting.

I do care about the lore. I want us to be faster, hit harder, potentially weaker, and have ways to win games based around killing things (because we dont care about objectives). I want Wyches to be our melee focus and have a good way of getting across the board and into combat. I want webways to be wargear we can drop like Sylvaneth Wildwoods, acting as a spawn point or an access point for reserves. I want it to work WITH screaming jets, not instead of. I want mandrakes that can redeploy and that can better guarantee a charge when they do. I want charging after disembarking, and disembarking after moving. I want poison to have fairly good AP vs non-vehicles because that is currently a flaw in our style. I want archons that are able to buff units across the board. I want a court that is bound to the archon, rather than scattering around. I want Incubi as part of a court. I want a hex-rifle sniper team. I want WAY LESS FOCUSE on coven (seriously, you care about the lore? What about the lore where Haemies barely ever leave their labs? Urien goes out, what, once every 100 years to seek something that causes him pain?). I want WAY MORE FOCUS on beasts. Where are all our tyranids? What about our weird daemon hybrids?

But, I also want to play games with my friends, and have fun zipping around and, hopefully, removing their models from play. And I would like to be able to attach a "win" to those games every now and then. I want to roll lots of dice, I want to see the pieces fall, I want to feel like I lost because I made a bad play, not because I was doomed from the start by army comp or because I should ignore the enemy and focus on 9ths weird point scoring.

AND I want to paint my models, and kitbash them, and make them look good.

My friends and I are moving to either using the Open War cards, or using 9th rules, maps, armies, but with 8th scoring and objectives. That solves my issues with 9th. And honestly, I was consistently losing to them before, but only just (in terms of models removed and board control). So minor upgrades are actually fine with me.

I am not happy with everything I have seen, but I am not massively unhappy with it. I think I interpret Leliths lore differently to others (to me, gladiators are not necessarily duellists. Many of the deadly gladiatorial battles in the Roman Empire, for example, were more brawls, or mass executions - a handful of trained gladiators vs a hoard of unarmed slaves and prisioners. There were duels between trained gladiators, but historians are unsure they were all that deadly - gladiators were expensive - also throwing to the lions was extremely rare, staged hunts were not. In Rome, they could even flood the arena to stage mock sea battles!). To me, shes more about wading through blood, putting on a spectacle. If you imagine Hunger Games or Battle Royale, shes not a competitor - shes one of the traps. Everyone else is running, trying to hide, and shes picking them off one by one in spectacular fashion. Shes a Xenomorph or a Predator, not a Maximus Decimus Meridius (commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next). Yes, she should be capable of duelling characters, and I hope she has an ability for that, but I am fine if she becomes an obsec grinder.

I am disappointed by poisons lack of AP. I wish venoms were faster. But while it is lore breaking to have a SM transport be faster than our fastest transport, its not SOO damaging to my enjoyment of everything that I am going to give up playing with my friends.

Maybe its because I am a D&D vet, and I am used to playing the rules for a bit, and them starting to homebrew extensively. But I dont expect things to be perfect. Its disappointing we are, once again, not a focus in this edition, and we desperately need to be. Our models are starting to be quite old now, and I agree that maybe the fact they made us sooo able to be kitbashed hasnt damaged scope for new models, which was then compounded by the "we dont like making rules for models we dont also make". No incentive for new sculpts, and thus no new rules to be made, and on the flip side, they could make new rules we could kitbash for, but that opens then up to third party sculpts. But I am happy to make do with what we have, and tweak some of the rules with my friends to make the game more enjoyable.

I do kinda take issue with the idea that I only like playing and dont care about the state of our army. That feels (and hopefully it wasnt intended like this) that the comment almost had a gatekeeping aspect to it.

Am I in the minority if I prefer the 9e objective-based game? Kill point games in previous editions were largely decided by who has the army with the most efficient damage to survivability ratio. Now there's all kinds of ways to disrupt the enemy's scoring while eking out points for yourself even if you're up against a force that would otherwise just shoot you off the board. My games are all a lot closer and hence more exciting now, because I'm always in the game even if my killing ability is being outclassed. For me, losing to a more efficient codex was boring. Using a lone surviving kabalite to deny points to a blob of terminators is exciting. If we play smart then we can compete, which wasn't the case (to the same degree) as with kill points.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Am I in the minority if I prefer the 9e objective-based game? Kill point games in previous editions were largely decided by who has the army with the most efficient damage to survivability ratio. Now there's all kinds of ways to disrupt the enemy's scoring while eking out points for yourself even if you're up against a force that would otherwise just shoot you off the board. My games are all a lot closer and hence more exciting now, because I'm always in the game even if my killing ability is being outclassed. For me, losing to a more efficient codex was boring. Using a lone surviving kabalite to deny points to a blob of terminators is exciting. If we play smart then we can compete, which wasn't the case (to the same degree) as with kill points.

I like 9th too. I really don’t want the game to only be about killing things. The scoring system needs a bit of a tweak but I think once all armies have a codex they may use the rules from those and be happier.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Am I in the minority if I prefer the 9e objective-based game? Kill point games in previous editions were largely decided by who has the army with the most efficient damage to survivability ratio. Now there's all kinds of ways to disrupt the enemy's scoring while eking out points for yourself even if you're up against a force that would otherwise just shoot you off the board. My games are all a lot closer and hence more exciting now, because I'm always in the game even if my killing ability is being outclassed. For me, losing to a more efficient codex was boring. Using a lone surviving kabalite to deny points to a blob of terminators is exciting. If we play smart then we can compete, which wasn't the case (to the same degree) as with kill points.

I like 9th too. I really don’t want the game to only be about killing things. The scoring system needs a bit of a tweak but I think once all armies have a codex they may use the rules from those and be happier.

In theory, I dont mind a general shift towards main and side objectives. I do have an issue with the scoring time, which heavily favours one side over the other, usually due to turn order. And I find it frustrating that again, the way the points are held, and the phases are played, massively favours whoever currently holds the point, regardless of who scores next. Once you hold a point, especially if you face a shooting heavy army, even if you get shot off the point, you have generally denied the enemy any change of scoring it. Scoring at the start of the round, rather than the end, also sucks as if you wernt able to get on any new points in your turn, then the enemy not only scores theirs, but gets to shoot you off any of yours, and you cannot respond. Scoring at the end of the round, every round, would be better, as you could make those plays to ensure you were in place to deny or gain points.

The secondaries need rebalancing. Some armies (like ours) are, by default, bad at holding points except in a few very specific builds. You would think, therefore, that we should be able to pick secondaries to match our strengths. But if I take an anti-vehicle build, even vs AdMech, the points NEVER match up to deploy scramblers.

I get you guys dont want killing games. The problem seems to be that older editions were essentially only shooting games, while the new edition has swung so far the other way that killing your way to victory is impossible. Leading to some unsatisfying losses (and unsatisfying loss? Are all losses not unsatisfying? Well, no. I dont mind losing if it FEELS like I lose. But tabling my opponent and still losing on VPs - sometimes by a lot - because I picked the killy secondaries and they simply dont match up seems bonkers).

With the secondary system, 9th really could have made it so armies that were glass cannons could win by EITHER grabbing positional secondaries OR by killing, while tanky armies could win by going after the primaries out in the open. They didnt do that.

I like that they took a step away, arguably a brave step, from the old status quo. But to my mind, it failed in a couple of ways. I am not sure why it isnt just a slightly modified version of AoS. By all accounts, its pretty well loved.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Am I in the minority if I prefer the 9e objective-based game? Kill point games in previous editions were largely decided by who has the army with the most efficient damage to survivability ratio. Now there's all kinds of ways to disrupt the enemy's scoring while eking out points for yourself even if you're up against a force that would otherwise just shoot you off the board. My games are all a lot closer and hence more exciting now, because I'm always in the game even if my killing ability is being outclassed. For me, losing to a more efficient codex was boring. Using a lone surviving kabalite to deny points to a blob of terminators is exciting. If we play smart then we can compete, which wasn't the case (to the same degree) as with kill points.

Nah, its why ITC was so popular, now I AM in the minority b.c I like Maelstrom the best lol.

albions-angel wrote:

Scrz wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Well each to their own but I’m not interested in comments like “boring”. Do you even like the game anymore?

Not even slightly.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m 38 years old, I don’t get “excited” about any character/unit in the entire game. I just like the game overall. What’s so interesting about Lelith anyway? She’s a melee specialist. How interesting can you make that??? She kills stuff. Simple.

Here you see, as I mentioned earlier there are two types of people that are into 40K.
One plays the game and do not care about the fluff, the other cares about the fluff.
A lot.
Let's face it, probably too much.

I use the 40K rules, or any game systems rules for that matter, to tell stories.
If the rules are bland, boring, contradictory, illogical, breaks the fourth wall or hinders immersion in any way, the stories will not be engaging and the reason to play the game in the first place falls away.

Everybody wants something from the games that they choose to play.
It differs from person to person, but if you want something that captures the imagination, then boring = bad. Even if it kills stuff.
I think that might be part of what other people here are complaining about.
They just want something else from the game.

Yeah, that kinda feels insulting.

...

I do kinda take issue with the idea that I only like playing and dont care about the state of our army.

I would caution against taking insults from comments not directed at you. Especially if your reply pretends it was directed at you.

It's quite clear the Scrz was explaining why "boring=bad" to some players.

But he expressly said everyone wants something from their game, and it differs from person to person. Some things matter more to some players than they do to others.

How you could be insulted by that quite reasonable and perfectly true sentiment is beyond me.

I think you're trying really, really hard to find offense where there is none to be found.

Yeah the start of turn scoring heavily favours durable units which heavily incentives coven, which is a shame because that’s my least favourite sub faction. And I haven’t played enough games yet to judge whether the turn 5 change has fixed that at all.

I’d love to see some ways for us the mess with primary scoring in the new book, like granting/denying obsec, and by giving us helpful secondaries (like maybe vp for killing units near objectives).

sekac wrote:

albions-angel wrote:

Scrz wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Well each to their own but I’m not interested in comments like “boring”. Do you even like the game anymore?

Not even slightly.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m 38 years old, I don’t get “excited” about any character/unit in the entire game. I just like the game overall. What’s so interesting about Lelith anyway? She’s a melee specialist. How interesting can you make that??? She kills stuff. Simple.

Here you see, as I mentioned earlier there are two types of people that are into 40K.
One plays the game and do not care about the fluff, the other cares about the fluff.
A lot.
Let's face it, probably too much.

I use the 40K rules, or any game systems rules for that matter, to tell stories.
If the rules are bland, boring, contradictory, illogical, breaks the fourth wall or hinders immersion in any way, the stories will not be engaging and the reason to play the game in the first place falls away.

Everybody wants something from the games that they choose to play.
It differs from person to person, but if you want something that captures the imagination, then boring = bad. Even if it kills stuff.
I think that might be part of what other people here are complaining about.
They just want something else from the game.

Yeah, that kinda feels insulting.

...

I do kinda take issue with the idea that I only like playing and dont care about the state of our army.

I would caution against taking insults from comments not directed at you. Especially if your reply pretends it was directed at you.

It's quite clear the Scrz was explaining why "boring=bad" to some players.

But he expressly said everyone wants something from their game, and it differs from person to person. Some things matter more to some players than they do to others.

How you could be insulted by that quite reasonable and perfectly true sentiment is beyond me.

I think you're trying really, really hard to find offense where there is none to be found.

Honestly, that isnt the read I got off that comment. I read it as a "there are 2 types of people on this forum. Those that like to play, and dont care about the army, and us others who care about our army 'too much'". And it came at the end of a lot of discussion which became more and more heated, more and more aggressive, concerning members of the forum "disbelieving" that anyone could like the recent unit previews, and that those that did were either blind fans of GW, or were in some way incapable of thinking clearly (innumerate being the latest insult in that chain).

Scrz may not have meant that. And in isolation, perhaps I would not have read it like that, but combined with comments spread across all the pages of this thread, some of which echo this sentiment in more or less subtle phrasing, its hard not to take offence. Scrz just posted the latest iteration of it, and so drew my reply - a reply I have been thinking about in general terms for a number of days.

This thread, and others, have also had comments which appear to marginalise the wants of casual players (like myself) because "We can win, just ignore the other side".

And I admit, I am guilty myself of generally splitting comments down a different line - those people that want to do well in their local and larger tournaments, vs those who just play with their friends - and my own biases affect that - I believe the "just friends" group is the larger of the 2 factions when it comes to Warhammer players, and rules should be aimed at that, rather than streamlining for tournament play and balance.

My response was intended to lay out my concerns without provoking overt hostility. Even if Scrz didnt intend it to come across as a dispersion of players who might view the recent reveals more favourably than others, or even if it was meant like that but only directed to one person, I felt it was time to address some of my issues with the phrasing and perceived tone.

I think we can all remember times in the recent past where this forum has gotten a little heated, and threads have become very insulting, and even politically charged, leading to mod action. All of us stepping forward once in a while to say "Hey guys, Im not looking for an apology, I am assuming it wasnt intended as this, but this comment made me feel uncomfortable and here is how" would probably lead to a more positive experience for everyone.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Am I in the minority if I prefer the 9e objective-based game? Kill point games in previous editions were largely decided by who has the army with the most efficient damage to survivability ratio. Now there's all kinds of ways to disrupt the enemy's scoring while eking out points for yourself even if you're up against a force that would otherwise just shoot you off the board. My games are all a lot closer and hence more exciting now, because I'm always in the game even if my killing ability is being outclassed. For me, losing to a more efficient codex was boring. Using a lone surviving kabalite to deny points to a blob of terminators is exciting. If we play smart then we can compete, which wasn't the case (to the same degree) as with kill points.

I quite like 9th so far too. In 8th I definitely preferred maelstrom too. I liked the variety in my games it created. At times a bit random, but i still liked it.

9th i find much more tactical than prior editions.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Yeah the start of turn scoring heavily favours durable units which heavily incentives coven, which is a shame because that’s my least favourite sub faction. And I haven’t played enough games yet to judge whether the turn 5 change has fixed that at all.

I’d love to see some ways for us the mess with primary scoring in the new book, like granting/denying obsec, and by giving us helpful secondaries (like maybe vp for killing units near objectives).

The problem isn't Hintercessors type units, its there are no secondaries to counter them but there are ones to counter literally every other thing in the game.

amishprn86 wrote:

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Yeah the start of turn scoring heavily favours durable units which heavily incentives coven, which is a shame because that’s my least favourite sub faction. And I haven’t played enough games yet to judge whether the turn 5 change has fixed that at all.

I’d love to see some ways for us the mess with primary scoring in the new book, like granting/denying obsec, and by giving us helpful secondaries (like maybe vp for killing units near objectives).

The problem isn't Hintercessors type units, its there are no secondaries to counter them but there are ones to counter literally every other thing in the game.

Do you mind expanding on this a touch? I think I get what you are saying, and I think I agree, but you usually have a far better grasp of the rules than I do, so I would love to read your take on it.

Ah this thread makes me feel nostalgic.

Speculations, doom and gloom, bright eyed optimism in the face of inescapable mediocrity of another forgettable codex

The only thing missing is TeenageAngst

I think people forget that in a vacuum anything is crap compared to pretty much anything Space Marines has to offer. The Drukhari wins by playing the objectives and by being a good strategical player. If you want to alphastrike or slice 10 marines with 1 character I know of better factions for you. Yes, we won't ever live up to the fluff in the game but we are a good faction if you play well.

Silverglade wrote:

9th i find much more tactical than prior editions.  

What I have found in my small gaming group is that both players need to be playing with a 9th edition mindset or the game is very... unusual. I'll use our Tau player as the best example- he's quite happy staying behind cover in his deployment zone unleashing hellfire on the opponent and avoiding melee, as that is how he is used to playing with his army. I mentioned during one game, after calculating the current VPs for that round, that he needs to charge my Grotesques with his Fire Warriors to contest/claim an objective or he'll lose the game. His response was "Why? You're better in combat and I'm better at shooting". Both games have ended with me having lots more VPs and barely any models left and him having most his army, and he walks away feeling much better about the game because he annihilated me. I'm not sure there is any point to the game if both players aren't on the same page as to what game you're playing.

In my experience with Crusade, it's the exact opposite. The bonuses for winning a game by playing the objectives don't come close to the benefits of just killing enemy units and staying alive if you're trying to boost your army in a campaign.

Hanga, I totally agree!

I think Amish was saying that there aren’t any secondaries that reward the killing of heavy infantry, while simultaneously those units are good at holding points. Vehicles and monsters give up Bring it Down, psykers give up Abhor the Witch, and hordes give up Thin their Ranks (?).

Oaka wrote:

Silverglade wrote:

9th i find much more tactical than prior editions.  

What I have found in my small gaming group is that both players need to be playing with a 9th edition mindset or the game is very... unusual.  I'll use our Tau player as the best example- he's quite happy staying behind cover in his deployment zone unleashing hellfire on the opponent and avoiding melee, as that is how he is used to playing with his army.  I mentioned during one game, after calculating the current VPs for that round, that he needs to charge my Grotesques with his Fire Warriors to contest/claim an objective or he'll lose the game.  His response was "Why?  You're better in combat and I'm better at shooting".  Both games have ended with me having lots more VPs and barely any models left and him having most his army, and he walks away feeling much better about the game because he annihilated me.  I'm not sure there is any point to the game if both players aren't on the same page as to what game you're playing.

In my experience with Crusade, it's the exact opposite.  The bonuses for winning a game by playing the objectives don't come close to the benefits of just killing enemy units and staying alive if you're trying to boost your army in a campaign.

Honestly, this rings true for me too. AdMech dont seem to have had to shift their playstyle much for 9th, so my friend has had a better time of adapting than I have. For my part, I have not enjoyed the shift, so I continue to play with 8th strategies. I table him, or trade with him, he wins regardless. I feel good for about 5 minutes, then bad that I lost by so much. If I try 9th, I do better, but actively dont enjoy the game.

Your tau friend sounds like me. Enjoyed the army for what it was, finds that it cant be that AND perform well in 9th.

Its interesting. By all accounts, 9th didnt change much. It wasnt a restart like 8th. It was an incremental shift. Yet its forcing an entirely new playstyle across the board, which some people seem better at adapting to, some prefer, and some dislike/find it harder to adapt to.

What I wonder is, how did you feel about that game? Regardless of the VPs, did you feel like you aught to have won with so few units left? My experience is my friend feels he shouldnt win in those situations, and so even he does not get enjoyment from those games. What we do both enjoy is either deleting a unit in spectacular fashion, or rolling crazy saves in the face of impossible odds.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Hanga, I totally agree!

I think Amish was saying that there aren’t any secondaries that reward the killing of heavy infantry, while simultaneously those units are good at holding points. Vehicles and monsters give up Bring it Down, psykers give up Abhor the Witch, and hordes give up Thin their Ranks (?).

Yeah, thin the ranks and attrition are good vs weak hoard armies, bring it down are good vs vehicle heavy armies, and abhor the witch is good vs psyker armies, but there is nothing for low model count armies.

But in addition to that, the points values for each of those secondaries is WAY below the points available for Deploy Scramblers and Engage on All Fronts in most games.

albions-angel wrote:

What I wonder is, how did you feel about that game? Regardless of the VPs, did you feel like you aught to have won with so few units left? My experience is my friend feels he shouldnt win in those situations, and so even he does not get enjoyment from those games. What we do both enjoy is either deleting a unit in spectacular fashion, or rolling crazy saves in the face of impossible odds.

It's definitely not as enjoyable for me. The games used to be me rushing across the board, taking heavy casualties, but if some models made it into his lines that is when it gets fun for me. Now my army screeches to a halt at the center and hangs out on ammo dumps and comm relays in order to 'win' the game.

What I need to do is retrain my thinking of why I am playing. For some reason I think these casual games are training for an imaginary hardcore tournament that I know I will never enter. I really need to learn that these games should be a way to utilize my free time in an enjoyable manner. Fortunately the game itself has always been the least important part of the hobby for me. My friends and I get a lot more out of showing off new conversions or paint jobs, and that aspect is as strong as ever.

AzraeI wrote:

Ah this thread makes me feel nostalgic.

Speculations, doom and gloom, bright eyed optimism in the face of inescapable mediocrity of another forgettable codex

The only thing missing is TeenageAngst

That brings back memories.

Yeah that's an interesting point Albion. My opponents rarely take bring it down against me, but I regularly have 2 or more monsters and 5 or more vehicles, which would be 14+ points (plus 1 more point for each time I take a raider over a venom). I guess it's just that EoaF and DS are scored entirely within your own turn and can't be interfered with very easily, so they're very consistent.

For what it's worth, I have the exact opposite take on enjoyment in 9e to some of you. And I don't mean for a second that my take is better! No judgement

Scoring points (so, winning games) in 9e is a puzzle to be solved. "How can I best use my available resources to deny/score points?". And I bloody love puzzles, so for me a big part of the enjoyment is pulling off a big point-swing with an unexpected move / movement block / well-timed stratagem / surgical application of force.

But I've definitely noticed that the killing power of my models has fallen off a cliff in some places, so if your jam is a high-intensity (and at least relatively equal!) bloodbath then I totally understand and sympathise with your disappointment with the new edition.