I know I haven't posted in a while, but I've also started two more jobs and that's kept me a bit busy. But not so busy that I haven't been able to play 40k...
Every weekend, my son and I throw down some models and toss about the dice using the new 9th edition rules. I've been more than clear about my opinion of the new edition so far and I will stand by it. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to play or even keep up with my most consistent hobby, so we've made a point out of getting a game in every weekend since release. And that gives me something to quickly blog about in between job shifts, so here we are!
My Necrons have battled against the Dark Angels under the new system and have had a great deal of success. Is this because of 9th edition's rules changes or just me figuring out how to play the army? A little of both, but more of the new rules on top of taking advantage of my son's lack of experience are certainly more to credit. See, the new rules change a couple of things that can really make a difference to scoring points.
First comes the table size and focus on terrain- the table is smaller, the terrain is more and more complicated. This means that I will often take advantage of advancing behind woods and ruins to either avoid or mitigate my opponent's changes to hit. Standing in a crater gives a better save against that shooting. And with so much obscuring line-of-sight and the already famous resilience of the space robots from space, this means that my opponent has less of a chance of wittling down my own withering firepower in return. This newer concept has certainly been something that I can take advantage of in a big way- I dread the day we play with little more than natural terrain and a generally open battlefield.
Second comes the modifier cap. The fact that Necrons have very few buffs to help them out while the Space Marines have tons means that the modifier cap in shooting is much more balanced. We've even run into the stacking modifiers not mattering because of this cap and it's been interesting. Woe betide the pointy-eared Eldar when they finally hit the table. It's not as big a deal as the terrain, but is coincidentally impacted by the terrain as well. Who needs a psychic power that gives a -1 to be hit when just crouching behind the trees will do the same thing?
Finally, it really comes down to objectives. This is where my love and hate of the new edition really coalesces. You see, previous editions rewarded you for killing the enemy and maybe holding some objectives once in a while. But this new edition actually allows you to choose secondary ways to score points while also providing a boatload of victory points for holding those previously-ignored objective points. And here's where the game becomes too 'swingy'.
If you hold one of the four-to-six objective points on the table, your army gains five points. If you hold two or more, you gain five more points. If you hold more than your opponent, you gain five more! And this happens every turn. The rub is the fact that 'alpha strike' is still a thing as your primary goal at the start of the battle is to move to take objective points and then destroy your opponent's units that can also move up and take objectives. Whoever has the first turn can literally 'cripple and conquer', while the player with the second turn is stuck having to force their opponent off with whatever units they have remaining. And if the first player doesn't strike hard enough, then the second player can easily just force the first player off the objectives and dictate the rest of the game. I've actually succeeded in both ways.
This objective-focus is further exacerbated with the choice of secondary objectives. Admittedly, my son is still not associating those secondaries with his army builds and overall strategies, but he's still young and hasn't played wargames all his life while I have. But it's really cruel to score points against your opponent because you killed more (while holding the most objectives), moved up the table quicker (to hold more objectives), and planted more flags or peed on some objectives (because you hold more objectives). This scoring system becomes a dynamo- the quicker you gain those points the more points you gain.
To illustrate (and I have to disclose that this is me versus my son, not versus some expert-level ITC gamer), here are the scores of our battles since we started playing this edition:
1. 48-24 Necrons
2. 10-72 Necrons
3. 37-9 Necrons (game called in round 3)
4. 50-14 Necrons (game called in round 3)
5. 33-68 Necrons (game called in round 4)
6. 49-21 Necrons (game called in round 3)
That's ridiculous. I'm not saying this is proof that the game is unbalanced or anything like that. But I was under the impression that this edition was designed to create more evenly-matched battles. Instead, I'm seeing even more lopsided victories than I saw in last edition! A complicated game that almost removes close battles? Hmmm...
9th Edition 40k is definitely different from 8th. I still have my complaints about the theoretical stuff, but now I can complain about the practical as well. I don't hate the edition, but I still find 8th to be more rewarding and simpler. Let me know what your thoughts are on this rant. Better, let me know what your experiences are with the new edition so far. Who knows- you may completely disagree with me or you may find similar issues. I'm excited to read what you think.
Until next post- Happy Gaming!
