Building character(s) into an army

   To me, one of the best parts of the new 40k 9th edition is the army-building rules.  While I have some complaints and worries (check out my last post), the new detachment system is not one of them.  You see, 8th edition is easily my favorite edition but the army-building format was broken.  It encouraged people to take tons of troops, in MSU format, in order to stockpile Command Points for the 'good stuff' like elites and heavies.  In other words, it encouraged 'min-maxing' over army design.  That's not a good system. 

  The new system for 9th edition puts everyone on a more level field and encourages more unique army lists.  I mentioned in that last post that I want to build a daemonic Chaos Space Marine army without paying the troop and Huron tax and now I can- without losing access to the important Command Points to make it work!  Finally!!!  This also means that my son can play a pure Deathwing army, my wife can play an angelic Sisters army focused on Celestine and her flying friends, and even my Eldar may see a pure Biel-tan style for the first time in over a decade.  I really think that this new format of army-building is going to be so much more casual-gamer-friendly.

  All that being said, I do see a HUGE disadvantage to this newer system.  The problem is the opposite of 8th edition's issue- troops.  Where 8th basically requires troops to be included in armies (which totally makes sense), 9th can basically ignore them altogether in armies.  Elite armies will become the new norm.  Armies of Shining Spears or DG Terminators (arguably one of the hardest units in the game) will be present while the co-called 'Loyal 32' will be retired and never see the battlefield again.  It will be amazing to see just how unnecessary regular troops will become.

  There is hope, however.  Getting characters into an army under 9th will be a little more difficult.  The specialist detachments (Vanguard, Outrider, Spearhead) are all limited in how many HQs they can take (one required, up to two).  A Battalion, which requires at least three troops, 'unlocks' more HQ slots and becomes more attractive.  Otherwise, players will be forced to pay for multiple detachments and defeat the whole purpose of the new system (remember that the detachment including the HQ is basically free while others have to spend Command Points just to use).  This means that the equation for army-building in this new edition requires more troops to use more characters.  And that's the way it should be. 

  I'm very, very excited about the new army-building format of 9th edition.  I enjoy 8th edition so much that I'm actually willing to simply port over the new system and just keep playing with 8th's mechanics.  In fact, this almost makes me think that we didn't need a new edition at all and could have released a Chapter Approved update for adopting this new system into the current game.  But that's back to that old post I've already mentioned.  Moral of the story- you no longer need troops to build an army... unless you want characters!  That's awesome.

  Let me know what you think of the new army-building format in 9th below.  I'd be curious to see if I'm the only one that notices this or if I'm just diving too deep with this.  Otherwise, Happy Gaming!

There's a 9th Edition now?!?

  A few weeks ago, I wrote up a post expressing my opinions about the announcement of 40k 9th edition.  It was going to be the first post in a long time and I wasn't sure how I was going to pivot back into the hobby.  After all, isn't that what this blog is about?  So I dumped it.  I've been keeping up with everything going on with the new edition, including all the new models and vociferous conversations about all the revealed rules changes, so I'm definitely not without my own thoughts on it all.  And that's why we're here.

  That drafted post from a few weeks ago wasn't very positive.  You see, I actually really, really like the current (8th) edition of the game.  This is a very simple set of rules that actually helps people quickly learn it and get to playing.  To illustrate that point, I tried teaching my son how to play in 7th (and older editions when he was younger, so there was some foundation of understanding at least) and it was very difficult.  It wasn't fun for him.  When the rules [pamphlet] for 8th came out, it was easy.  My wife, who resisted for years trying to learn any of my games, actually learned to play and only finds all the specific army special rules (she plays Sisters, so...) complicated.  More, I invited my neighbor over one day and taught him how to play in only an hour.  So my experience being able to share 8th edition with people was positive.  Why change that?

Adepticon 2009

  I still can't be positive after all this time and learning about those very rules for 9th edition.  It seems that GW (and the tourney-bro playtesters) really wanted to add more rules to the game.  Now we have 'classes' of models back (vehicles and monsters ignoring the 'heavy' aspect and operating uniquely while engaged), complex engagement rules (why the 1" and 1/2" difference?), and insane new terrain rules.  In fact, let me digress into specificity for a moment:

SIMS 4 glitch, apparently

  While I don't have the rules in hand, I have watched a number of tacticas, battle reports, and listened to podcasts about the terrain and I am a bit more confused.  I love the concept of adding keywords and rules to the terrain, but this abstract concept of 'infinite height' and size 'bubbles' is too complicated.  In fact, I think it sounds (and remember that I'm just basing this on listening to other people go on about the subject) more complicated than even earlier editions!  And if I have this right (and I'm definitely confused on this point)- area terrain can block LoS unless you're touching it or in it, then you can see all around from the terrain.  Which means that if I have my marine behind the building, he can't be seen by the enemy, but as soon as he moves up and touches the terrain the marine can now see all around, through, and out of the building!  This sounds so much like a video game glitch turned into a game mechanic to me.    

  Okay, enough with the rant about terrain, let me get back to the game rules...  So now Overwatch is removed because it 'had so little impact on the game' yet 'took up a lot of game time'.  T'au still get to Overwatch, so no worries there.  But to pull it off, a single unit will have to spend Command Points to execute that action.  Not the worst, but I don't think this should have been removed.  I really enjoyed Overwatch and felt that it added that little bit of fun to the otherwise pedantic charge phase.  That makes me sad.  

  Finally, in the less positive whinging on the rules, I'm not at all a fan of the return of alternating setup.  I really enjoyed letting my opponent set up their whole army so I could step out for a 'fresh-air' break.  I understand the immersion of having both players involved the whole time in the Setup phase, but I'm going to miss those little breaks.  I think that it also forces less experienced players to feel a little more stress because they don't have their rules or strategy completely figured out before they hit the table.  More experienced players may become more frustrated as they wait for the noob to figure out what the heck they're doing.  

  But that old post wasn't completely accurate.  I had no information regarding any of the rules or new models or anything other than a heralding of more money I was going to have to spend.  Now I'm a bit more happy with some parts of 9th- I really like the new Detachment format.  That is...  PERFECT!  I always had the dream of playing my Chaos Marines completely possessed, with Daemon Princes leading Possessed and Warp Talons backed up by Obliterators and Daemon Engines.  In 8th, I'm stuck with the 'battalion tax' just to have the Command Points that make the army work.  So far, it seems like the new system is exactly what I need to pull this army off.  I may even get back to painting those Word Bearers from last year.  

  There's also the controversial issue of the table size being reduced.  I love it.  I also love the fact that almost everything in the game is going up in points so that we're playing with less models on the tabletop.  I have been screaming the need for smaller games for years- it's more immersive, narrative, and often more balanced to play at that 1000-1500 point level!  I really want a return to the 'good old days' when the game was a platoon-size focus and characters were really cool.  From 4th on up to 7th and then later in 8th edition, we seemed to have morphed into this battalion-size game where characters are there to add buffs or survive the screens to wreck face; names didn't matter for these characters.  Now we may see a return to smaller games and that odd marine Captain developing a bit of a storyline throughout his battling career.  

  Finally, the most important positive point of all- the new models.  With everything about the rules, the terrain, and the army development covered, I figured it was time to talk about the new models on deck in the 'Launch Box' and releases soon after.  

  Remember that I'm rather beholden to the Necrons now after my family cunningly trapped me with some space robots as a gift.  I'm not happy that I only get one unit of Skorpek(?) Destroyers and their Lord.  Outside of that, the Necron side of the launch box is pretty basic (we all have Overlords, Crypteks, and Warriors).  I am happy, however, that the Necrons are getting some new units!  I mean, those four three-legged warriors of choppiness are really cool and that War-of-the-Worlds super-Cryptek is perfect for that xenos invader vibe.  Plus, close-combat troops introduced into a game focused on close combat?   Yes, please.

  The Space Marines, on the other hand, are a bit different for me.  I despise Space Marine bikes as I can't understand the juxtaposition of neural-interface powered armor and an up-armored Harley with some machine guns attached.  It's just ridiculous, that concept.  But those new Primaris bikes look soooooo cool!  It's too bad that my son plays Ravenwing and I'm donating those bikers straight to him.  The Judiciar looks ridiculous and needs a head swap at least, while the Eradicators are my dream come true in model form.  I mean, Gravis plus melta plus rules?  Sure!  The Assault Intercessors are to be expected yet unnecessary to my Ultramarine "shoot-em-all" style.  Finally, those Bladeguard Veterans- c'mon now!  I was enjoying the scifi being injected into my Ultramarines and now we're back to carrying skeletons around?!?  They look cool, but they absolutely do not fit the theme of my existing marine army and that's... disappointing.  

  Overall, I've shifted from total poopantsery at the announcement to some reserved excitement now these weeks later.  I'm still not happy that the game is being made more complicated but I'm happy the games are shrinking.  I'm very excited about the new models and the deal in that box is unbelievable.  Seriously- $200 is less than I'd spend on the new rulebook and some Necron models anyway.  I'm happy I didn't post that draft because then I'd have to eat some words...

  I'm curious to read what you think about the new edition.  The 'Launch Set' has just gone up for preorder and, remember, it's limited run.  Are you planning on getting a set (or two or three)?  What about the new edition do you particularly like or dislike?  Let me know in the comments below and thanks for letting me share my thoughts.