Is 9th Edition the 'Tournament Edition'?

[Rogue]

Going second can be an advantage with some of the secondary missions - there's one where you score points for killing more units than your opponent within a battle round, for example, and the second player knows the tally they're trying to beat.

 

But that's quite specific, and applies to only a couple of the secondaries.

 

Going second can also be an advantage depending on your army composition, and the match-up you're facing.

 

I have chosen to go second with my Genestealer Cults in the past, when I had a very low chance of landing any significant first-turn charges. I did, however, have plenty of obscuring terrain to hide behind, and I knew that my opponent would need to move into the centre ground to claim objectives, at which point he'd be exposed to charges from multiple units.

 

Going second also means that you have last placement of reserves - by your turn three you know exactly what your opponent's reserves are doing; you may even know this by your turn two if the enemy reserves all arrive in their turn two. Knowing that your own reserves can deploy without being countered is a good position to be in.

 

So it's situational, but sometimes going second can be useful.

[chapter master 454]

Going second can be an advantage with some of the secondary missions - there's one where you score points for killing more units than your opponent within a battle round, for example, and the second player knows the tally they're trying to beat.

 

But that's quite specific, and applies to only a couple of the secondaries.

 

Going second can also be an advantage depending on your army composition, and the match-up you're facing.

 

I have chosen to go second with my Genestealer Cults in the past, when I had a very low chance of landing any significant first-turn charges. I did, however, have plenty of obscuring terrain to hide behind, and I knew that my opponent would need to move into the centre ground to claim objectives, at which point he'd be exposed to charges from multiple units.

 

Going second also means that you have last placement of reserves - by your turn three you know exactly what your opponent's reserves are doing; you may even know this by your turn two if the enemy reserves all arrive in their turn two. Knowing that your own reserves can deploy without being countered is a good position to be in.

 

So it's situational, but sometimes going second can be useful.

 

Yea, however it is a major shot call because if you don't consider it carefully and fully you may just get it used against you. However I would say you did miss one other thing second has over first: you get the last say on objectives. Games now end on turn 5, no more non-sense with extra turns which means turn 5, second player is the last moves, shots and charges of the game which means a desperate last run to an objective that normally would be death if caught is now just a sure-fire objective grab for points, even with just one trooper.

 

Its a fun shot call but certainly one not to be made lightly and requires extensive match-up knowledge and list familiarity.

[Rogue]

That's a good add, although with the caveat that it only applies to end-of-turn secondaries, as primary scoring comes to a close in the turn 5 command phase.

[Rik Lightstar]

The Open War card pack is a fantastic answer to these gripes.

 

Random deployment and missions, plus if you want to mix it up use the twists too.

 

Rik

[Special Officer Doofy]

9th is my favorite edition so far. Matched play should have always been more competitive. There is open, narrative and crusade if you want a less competitive, and less balanced match.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

....

 

My opinion of the new scoring system after seeing it in action is that it is garbage. any game where you can lock in the win condition by turn 2 or 3, even if you get tabled, making it impossible for your opponent to have any chance of a comeback by the end of the game is bad design. the great thing about previous editions, especially with random turn 6 or 7, is you never knew how it would turn out till the very end. giving you a reason to enjoy the whole game.

On turn 2 its incredibly difficult to "lock in your win condition". You can't score primary points on turn 1, and are limited to 15 points a turn out of the 45 point max for the primary. Your opponent can still score 10 (or more if you move off an objective for some reason). Depending on your opponents list you may be able to get a fair amount of secondary points but probably not enough to seal the game unless you blew them off the table, in which case how are you getting tabled?

 

On turn 3 I can start to see it because your at 30 primary points if your playing the mission hard and should be doing well on your secondaries if your going all in but they still have turns 4 and 5 to max out their primary. I just don't see it being likely that you can lock them out while being tabled unless they had picked awful secondaries.

[jaxom]

 

I just don't see it being likely that you can lock them out while being tabled unless they had picked awful secondaries.

 

I think that's the crux of it. Picking secondary objectives is a skill and designing a list to spoil certain secondary objectives is a skill. Those with practice at it will have an advantage until everyone has time and games to catch up.

 

I've never played an ITC, ETC, LTC, BLT, whatever mission or had to consider picking mission objectives in the manner they contributed to 9th edition. I like throwing together a list based on the units I want to use and I consider what it can handle re: threat neutralization, mobility, durability in looking at whether it makes for a fun, competitive game (won't get blown off the board, won't blow another army off the board, etc). Now there's another layer, and depending on my local scene (N/A b/c social distancing) I may have to consider that much more. Is it okay to take three or four tanks as a Guard player or is that "giving up too many points" should my opponent take an anti-tank secondary? Is it okay for me to take "Oath of the Moment" if I'm not 100% sure I can get a kill while Devastator Doctrine is up?

 

I can understand, "Here's my secondary objective and I need to do it and that's there secondary objective and I want to try to prevent it." Just trying to follow the numbers is difficult for me.

 

 

You can't score primary points on turn 1, and are limited to 15 points a turn out of the 45 point max for the primary. Your opponent can still score 10 (or more if you move off an objective for some reason). Depending on your opponents list you may be able to get a fair amount of secondary points but probably not enough to seal the game unless you blew them off the table, in which case how are you getting tabled?

Is this a correct interpretation: Capturing points can net up to 15 points per turn. If you hold them for a total of three turns then you maximize your primary points (45). Your opponent can net up to 10 points per turn from secondary objectives. If they maximize those secondary objectives every turn they can score 50 points. It is unlikely the opponent actually gets all those secondary points while you get none of your secondary points so a final score of 45-to-50 is unlikely.

[Oxydo]

 

Is this a correct interpretation: Capturing points can net up to 15 points per turn. If you hold them for a total of three turns then you maximize your primary points (45). Your opponent can net up to 10 points per turn from secondary objectives. If they maximize those secondary objectives every turn they can score 50 points. It is unlikely the opponent actually gets all those secondary points while you get none of your secondary points so a final score of 45-to-50 is unlikely.

 

 

Primary scoring works like this in a pretty standard 5 objective game

If you hold 1 objective: 5 points

If you hold 2 or more objective: 5 points

If you hold more than your opponent: 5 points

 

If I hold 3 I get 15 pts, and as long as you hold 2 you get 10 and this caps out at 45. So if this state persists for the entire game I'm going to get 45 and you're going get 40 from the primary.

Secondaries are capped at 15 per secondary and since you have 3 at Strike Force level, they effectively cap out at 45 too in standard 1500-2k game.

So you only need to get 5 points more in total from the secondaries to draw a tie.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

What we have found is that with scoring being at the start of your turn, your primary points are out of your control after turn four - you are either on the objectives or you're not, and if your opponent knocks you off an objective in their turn five that's it - in your turn five you can only affect the game by scoring your secondaries, you no longer have the ability to deny primary points to your opponent in your last turn, which they can do to you in their last turn.

 

I hope I'm missing something fundamental here because one of my armies is Drukhari, and I used to choose to go second in order to have that last turn, but I'm not seeing the advantage any more.

 

Also, I take your point about not using the GW missions - and of course it's valid, just like choosing to play 8th/5th/whatever is valid - but we want to play the current edition of the game, not a homebrew.

 

 

Not having regular games I hadn't got a hang on the new scoring. I was thinking it was the end of the round not at the start of the command phase.

 

There is no 'current edition of the game' for missions. Half the rulebooks for the various editions don't even have missions in them and all of them have official missions outside of the rulebook.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I don't get this feeling at all. I haven't played a single matched game all edition. All of my games have been 500 or 1000 point Crusade games, and they are really good fun. I heartily recommend the system!

[Lord Marshal]

With the way they've been really been pushing Crusade I'd say "No", although tournament play is definitely a focus, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an edition revolving around it.

 

40k is still a joke of a ruleset for any kind of competitive/tournament game, no matter how desperately people try to make it work as such.

[Xenith]

Thanks for the input guys, definitely lots to mull over. I'll say I'm coming from a place of not having had a chance to play yet as my local places are still locked down, but it seems crusade is going to be the fun way to build up an army, and secondaries aren't as scary as they seem. 

[Reskin]

To answer the OP,

 

I hope so! If it is the tournament edition, that would imply that its balanced, and play tested to that degree. Hopefully with the intention of eliminating most of the cheese or broken builds.

Everyone wants more variety and to use the models they enjoy. So with a balanced edition the intention, that would mean that every unit is viable to an extent. quote on quote.

 

I also don't think the edition is too complicated. Look at 8th edition, when rules were so lax, there was no rules, then it becomes so confusing and there are so many grey areas. There needs to be common ground and clarification. There needs to be a precedent.

 

9th edition, is simple to understand, there are well established, easy to understand rules that clarify a lot of the "interpretation" of 8th.

I speak from experience, we had 2 of our gaming group play a mini 3 game round robin tournament, 1000pts. They hadn't played a game of 40k at all. The other 6 of us had played 1 or 2 games of 9th edition. Everyone had fun, and there was no drama at all.

 

If you are diving into 2000pt games as a beginner you are asking for trouble. To remember all of your different unit abilities and rules, let alone your army wide rules, and stratagems for each unit and situation, its going to be a mine field.

 

Start small, learn the fundamentals of your army and stratagems, then expand. I haven't played more then 2 games in the last 5 years because GW made GK and the game terrible. I've come back to 9th, played.. 6 games? and I'm still struggling to remember all my stratagems. The rules are simple. My army is complicated.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Reskin

[Snazzy]

I liked the idea of Primaries and Secondaries creating multiple paths to a win,  and some more minutia in the victory conditions.  Lately, i've run into a problem specific to tournament structures.  The overall winner is usually determined by total objective points across all games (my last tournament was 4 games).  This leads to a certain resentment of objective denial if you have little chance of holding onto that objective.  I've been told, with absolute seriousness that unless i had the intention of holding an objective i should not try to claim it with ObSec.  The underlying idea being that denying points in one game hurts the opponent in overall rankings.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Snazzy, I wouldn't pay attention to anyone who tells you not to contest an objective. They're basically asking you to let them win more, that isn't cool.

[NemFX]

I would say it's too complicated, yes.

 

The new rules honestly feel like I'm reading something a programmer wrote. "If X then Y, but if X + Z = H." kinda logic going on. There's a lot of buffs, debuffs, and other stuff all clogging up what used to be an already slow game. I hate to sound like the old guy in the room, but I was honestly hoping for things to go back to a more.. third edition style? Where the rulebooks are straightforeward and relatively effortless to parse. They went the opposite way.

 

But yeah. If they took the current rulebook and made it into a videogame, they wouldn't have to change much. It feels like how you'd plan out rules for a computer game, not so much a tabletop. Honestly at this point, I feel like I'm collecting for collecting sake. Nobody at my local game stores seems to understand how to play the game anymore, so we're using the current models, and trying to substitute the old 'how to play' from older versions instead.

[Reskin]

Snazzy, I wouldn't pay attention to anyone who tells you not to contest an objective. They're basically asking you to let them win more, that isn't cool.

 

100%

[Reskin]

I would say it's too complicated, yes.

 

The new rules honestly feel like I'm reading something a programmer wrote. "If X then Y, but if X + Z = H." kinda logic going on. There's a lot of buffs, debuffs, and other stuff all clogging up what used to be an already slow game. I hate to sound like the old guy in the room, but I was honestly hoping for things to go back to a more.. third edition style? Where the rulebooks are straightforeward and relatively effortless to parse. They went the opposite way.

 

But yeah. If they took the current rulebook and made it into a videogame, they wouldn't have to change much. It feels like how you'd plan out rules for a computer game, not so much a tabletop. Honestly at this point, I feel like I'm collecting for collecting sake. Nobody at my local game stores seems to understand how to play the game anymore, so we're using the current models, and trying to substitute the old 'how to play' from older versions instead.

 

Are we playing the same game?

 

Buffs and debuffs all over the place? It's the complete opposite of 8th, removing auras is evidence of the fact, taking away reroll auras, therefore less dice rolled in each players turn, is effectively speeding up the game?

 

regardless of the debuffs applied or circumstances, I'm -1 to hit. That's hella simple. Instead of counting terrain, weapon type and debuff on my unit.... I've lost count already.... no wait, its -1 to hit.

 

The fact that there are rules... to use your terminology X = Y is simplifying the game, there's no longer ambiguity. No matter the circumstance, you now always know that X = Y. There's no grey area. 

[McElMcNinja]

My 2 cents, whether I'm playing in a tournament or a pickup game, we are playing the same missions. I've been in pickup games against good players and when I ask them if they've thought of going to tournaments, I get various responses. Now I should add when I play in tournaments, I don't go in expecting to win it all, I just like the opportunity to play multiple games against different opponents. So anyway, I've convinced people to go play in local tournaments because it's basically 3-6 pickup games. Afterwards they've said they've enjoyed them for the simple fact that it is no difference then playing a pickup game and they've learned a lot. So I for one like that we are all playing the same game (so to speak).

[mughi3]

I would say it's too complicated, yes.

 

The new rules honestly feel like I'm reading something a programmer wrote. "If X then Y, but if X + Z = H." kinda logic going on. There's a lot of buffs, debuffs, and other stuff all clogging up what used to be an already slow game. I hate to sound like the old guy in the room, but I was honestly hoping for things to go back to a more.. third edition style? Where the rulebooks are straightforeward and relatively effortless to parse. They went the opposite way.

 

But yeah. If they took the current rulebook and made it into a videogame, they wouldn't have to change much. It feels like how you'd plan out rules for a computer game, not so much a tabletop. Honestly at this point, I feel like I'm collecting for collecting sake. Nobody at my local game stores seems to understand how to play the game anymore, so we're using the current models, and trying to substitute the old 'how to play' from older versions instead.

Seconded!

 

The amount of record keeping and over-complicated rules really slows the game down. but it started in 8th about halfway through. they started 8th with a streamlined approach to counter all the problems they had with formations in 7th. then they went right back to it with a resource management system that control (hundreds of)  buffs/debuffs. 

 

 

I play with a group that still uses 5th edition and we can get through a full game of 6 or 7 turns in the same amount of time the guys at the tables playing 9th take to get through 2 or 3 turns. 

[Xenith]

 

I would say it's too complicated, yes.

 

The new rules honestly feel like I'm reading something a programmer wrote. "If X then Y, but if X + Z = H." kinda logic going on. There's a lot of buffs, debuffs, and other stuff all clogging up what used to be an already slow game. I hate to sound like the old guy in the room, but I was honestly hoping for things to go back to a more.. third edition style? Where the rulebooks are straightforeward and relatively effortless to parse. They went the opposite way.

 

But yeah. If they took the current rulebook and made it into a videogame, they wouldn't have to change much. It feels like how you'd plan out rules for a computer game, not so much a tabletop. Honestly at this point, I feel like I'm collecting for collecting sake. Nobody at my local game stores seems to understand how to play the game anymore, so we're using the current models, and trying to substitute the old 'how to play' from older versions instead.

 

Are we playing the same game?

 

Buffs and debuffs all over the place? It's the complete opposite of 8th, removing auras is evidence of the fact, taking away reroll auras, therefore less dice rolled in each players turn, is effectively speeding up the game?

 

regardless of the debuffs applied or circumstances, I'm -1 to hit. That's hella simple. Instead of counting terrain, weapon type and debuff on my unit.... I've lost count already.... no wait, its -1 to hit.

 

The fact that there are rules... to use your terminology X = Y is simplifying the game, there's no longer ambiguity. No matter the circumstance, you now always know that X = Y. There's no grey area. 

 

 

Apparently not, e.g.I charge, I go first unless you interrupt with a strat, but then I have a strat that nullifies your strat, unless you spend more CP, but you have a model that always strikes first but I have one that makes you always strike last.

 

Your captain example is also one that doesn't support your point, you say they removed auras, patently untrue, they are still there but changed to be less straightforward. It used to be a flat 'everything within 6" including self", now it's specific units, meaning a rule check, slowing the game down (They should have just said auras dont affect the person emanating them).

 

NemFX's experiences mirror my own. I think progressive scoring would have been ok in isolation, but the addition of strats just adds another level of book keeping that deters the casual player. 

[MegaVolt87]

Just picked up the necron and marine codexes. Still hasn't changed my view of the 9th core rules are fine, but the faction rule design of the shifting of unit rules to strategems and vice versa is just a complete mess. Either pare down the special unit rules and shift to strategems, or drastically cut strategems and roll most of them back into the factions and the relevant units they effect + adjust points to fit. Feels like that I'm you but better meme when some strats just make a more general rule, well better when it could just be there in the first place. Its actually way worse now in 9th than it ever was in 8th ed. Also I am very concerned with the very obvious stand out best in slot units like eradicators, bladeguards etc. Its a worrying trend blatantly honey potting 40k players this brazenly and shamelessly. Sure its no 5th ed GK busted, but its close, maybe worse because even the offenders will have little time to enjoy their ill gotten gains like before. If subsequent codexes are either more saucy or shift to plain and not maintain the flavour/quality standards of the first two codex releases, 9th ed will give the 40k game and community food poisoning if the chefs aren't careful basically. 

[Reskin]

I need time to research my rebuttal. In the meantime, I concede the point Xenith 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The games I’ve played so far are much faster.

[Xenith]

The games I’ve played so far are much faster.

 

Good to know - did you find a particular aspect that has been sped up by 9th? Less random damage for me seems to be the only real speed up (e.g. powerfists, encarmine blades).