Warhammer 9th edition

[Rogue]

So for those who are not in the know, there is a new edition that has dropped for Warhammer 40K. That's right folks, we are now in the 9th edition. As what they did the previous edition they have produced a free PDF of the rules that you can find here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf

The new starter box set is going to be Space Marines of the Primaris variety(shocking I know) and Necrons. I have not fully read the rules so I am not going to comment on what I think about it.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Thank you! Been tied up for a couple of years, now trying to catch up!

[Rogue]

You and me both actually. Now that I have some time to myself I can finally get some painting done, when I am not on places like warseer.

[MadHatter]

well then then i shall be three. I am not sure I like all the changes. Especially since without Initiative my weak Banshees no longer get to strike first. And i am not sure how effective they might be on the table top.

I see the marines now have primus and have all kinds of flying stuff now. I have not seen thier new codex so i do not have any real judgement. But from a glance it just screams to me; Power creep so marines are the most powerful thing now. play nothing else.

[Rogue]

It's worse than you think for the marines. Only if you play "Primaris" do you get all of the cool new toys. "Firstborn" Marines(the old marines that you know and love) seem to have frozen themselves in time at around the 7th edition. So they have a few flyers that were added to their list, but that is it. I have two chapters of old school marines, Crimson Fists and a homemade chapter that I am fleshing out. I for one won't be going the primaris route at all. Their models don't appeal to me, I don't like the story line of them, and I don't like what I have seen so far from them game-wise.

As far as the Banshee's I would wait until you get a codex out on the Eldar first. Primaris Marines were not the be-all end-all, and I doubt that they will continue to be as well.

I did get a chance to read the rules a few months ago, and the best way that I can describe it is "watered down." That can be a good thing in that you don't really need to remember much for the rules, but if you are looking for more detail in your game, then you may be disappointed. I would prefer to get a few games to pass final judgement, whenever that happens. :rolleyes:

[MadHatter]

I agree. I am not a fan of the new primaries marines. And have no plans to add them to my marine army. And if the firstborn go the way of tome kings then I will stop buying marines.

I am still learning the 9th edition game. But I would prefer to return to the old school rules. lol I am sure that is the feeling of all the old timers.

[Rogue]

Playing previous editions is gaining in popularity these days. I for one refuse to play AOS and will only play the 6th edition of WFB, with a very few amended rules from the 7th.(See the link to classichammer in my sig for more details) As far as a previous edition of 40K, I prefer the 5th edition with again a very few amended rules from the 6th. As stated earlier, I really do want to play a few games of the 9th before I completely write it off.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

The new blast rules appear to be the result of the Big Gun GW honcho's rolling too many ones, and not wanting to spend money manufactoring and stocking templates again.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

The 5 inch vertical unit coherency/ engagement range, sounds like a defense against striking scorpions, wraithblades materializing on the floor above your troops!

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Hey Rogue, I'm curious as to how you work with eldar using 5th edition rules?

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Thanks for the link!

I gave up being "current" years ago, but I'm interested to see the state of the game.

One thing that immediately stands out is GW's continued tension between trying to simplify the rules while maintaining massive unit types, all of which have to be differentiated in some way from each other.

It sounds like they are trying to keep the "generic special rule" thing going and apparently two wound troopers are now a thing. Huh.

I'm not sure what the point of the morale rules are, other than to inflict additional "kills." There doesn't appear to be a rally mechanic, which is sad because it was always fun to have a unit rout early and then do a timely rally to help save the game.

I guess this means I'm now officially seven editions behind the curve. I started with 2nd, did the upgrade to 3rd but burned out before it became 4th and went back to 2nd.

Think of all the money I saved in rule books over the years!

[Thingol of Iyaden]

As some one who has kept buying them. You have saved close to $900 USD. The "General special rule" has been replaced with "Key words" and Stratagems,

[Thingol of Iyaden]

As an example; the Dark Reaper exarch still has the "Crack shot" ability, but can replace it with one of six others ( add 6 inches to range for the unit's reaper launchers, or exarch can target a character, etc), or pay 1 command point for the stratagem and once per battle, exarch can "Fast shot", just like old times!

[Commissar von Toussaint]

As an example; the Dark Reaper exarch still has the "Crack shot" ability, but can replace it with one of six others ( add 6 inches to range for the unit's reaper launchers, or exarch can target a character, etc), or pay 1 command point for the stratagem and once per battle, exarch can "Fast shot", just like old times!

Here again we see the tension between GW's need to sell ever more models and the difficulty of keeping the rules from becoming too complex for anyone to know if they work (let alone balance properly).

Looking back at 3rd as it transitioned to 4th, that was definitely a factor in my dropping out. It was (and still is!) possible to have a very good grasp of all six armies of 2nd edition. I was able to keep up with 3rd, but the new armies (Dark Eldar, Tau, fleshed-out Necrons) plus the sub-armies for the old Chaos, Imperial and Marines, made it really difficult to keep up with what was going on.

I like the use of armor save modifiers, and the system as a whole seems more intuitive, but there still seems a lot of needless dice rolling. Why not just double Advance (i.e. "running") movement rates? Why not test for a squad (two dice, one time) and they either stay or run?

GW seems oddly addicted to compressing as many dice rolls into the game as possible and I'm not sure why. Random doesn't mean fair, it means randomly distributed unfairness.

[Rogue]

Hey Rogue, I'm curious as to how you work with eldar using 5th edition rules?

Perhaps we need to setup an thread on playing 40K in older editions. To answer your question, I really need to review the book and see what I would add or augment. One of the rules that would help from the 6th would be Overwatch. Outside of that, I really don't know as Eldar was not an army that I played in the 5th. If you have any other ideas, I am all ears.

On a different note, I live in NC which is too far for the usual game, but I do(or did) end up in your part of the world from time to time.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Personally, feel that rolling dice for charge distance is done for two reasons: First, It panders to those who "test" their dice, and use only high rollers; Second, It keeps GW immune to copyright lawsuits. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense, but has persisted for so long.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Sorry, coffee pot is still perking away, but yes a separate thread for an "Ideal" 9th or 10th rule set. Might be wise!

[Thingol of Iyaden]

I like being able to purchase/ outfit my troops to match their opponent (2nd ed.). The Force org chart in the big rulebook should only apply to space marines and IG, all others should have one tailored to them, and example would be the craft world eldar supplement for 3rd ed..

[Thingol of Iyaden]

If eldar are to remain IG equivalent then 4th edition's treatment of warlocks. Specifically, as you purchase a unit of guardians or support batteries. You have the option to upgrade the unit with a warlock (ie, the warlock is apart of the unit cost). Note: Due to the usual forgeworld/GW interactions the wraithseer is a warlock equivalent.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

6th edition's Autarch's weapon list needs a ranger long rifle added. After all the rangers have a phoenix lord even thou not "Aspect" warriors. Next, undoing the multi edition wrongs such as, returning Maugen Ra back to being a harlequin phoenix lord, giving dark reapers a phoenix lord with a 60 inch range launcher, exodites and harlequins need their heroes/ leaders.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Rangers upgraded to pathfinder should be limited to 1/squad, "Kill" on 5-6 as opposed to 4-6, gain forward observer -2 to scatter roll (old), +2 to number of hits die per die (ie, 2d6+4 hits).

As I now have a garage to play in, March should bring warm enough temps to play, and over a month to recover from ostomey reversal surgery.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I like being able to purchase/ outfit my troops to match their opponent (2nd ed.). The Force org chart in the big rulebook should only apply to space marines and IG, all others should have one tailored to them, and example would be the craft world eldar supplement for 3rd ed..

The org charts were a crutch to help with the inherent unit imbalances because the points system was broken. Maybe it still is, I don't know.

But your point is a good one and I liked the old narrative-driven style of gaming that was replaced by a more sterile "tournament prep" mentality.

Going to your previous post, GW will always roll dice whenever possible, and not only is it an annoying mechanic, it chews up time better spent actually playing the game.

Because it involves what seems like a trivial activity, it's easy to lose track of just home much time rolling dice can take, but I've seen a number of solutions to try to speed up dice-rolling and game play is measurably speeded up.

[MadHatter]

I left the game with the sixth edition. I am just getting back into the game with the ninth edition. while I would love to go back and play second or fourth editions, there are few players willing to do so.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I left the game with the sixth edition. I am just getting back into the game with the ninth edition. while I would love to go back and play second or fourth editions, there are few players willing to do so.

I've found it depends on the presentation and circumstances. For example, it is possible to get new people directly into playing 2nd because its books are so available (along with the Battle Bible) and the entry cost is so much lower.

The chief difficulty in my area is the COVID restrictions. I don't mean the specific rules, but the fact that I live in a college town that is largely deserted and the gaming scene is dead.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Happy New Year to All!

Throughly understand departing 6th ed after reading how all pistols were ruled (user str). If it had not been for escalation (and my owning a revenant). I really do miss the dangerous terrain rules.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Happy New Year to All!

Throughly understand departing 6th ed after reading how all pistols were ruled (user str). If it had not been for escalation (and my owning a revenant). I really do miss the dangerous terrain rules.

It's interesting to note that while there was reference to terrain, no rules were quoted in that .pdf relating to game play effects.

Terrain is one area where GW has been all over the map (so to speak). In 2nd it was a must to avoid Western Desert-style tank duels dominating the game, but it got downplayed ever since. The whole armor save OR cover save thing was terrible.

Curious as to the system now. I like that armor saves mods came back, is it too much to ask for "to hit" modifiers as well?

[Thingol of Iyaden]

Mods to hit and saves has always been my favorite way to handle it. However this time around what GW holds as terrain is very different from the past. Rivers, woods, 1 inch tall hills equal zero effect on game play. "Real (GW) terrain has traits like defensible, breachable, scalable, light cover. The terrain cards actually fall into tactical terrain and terrain(for narrative play), both have picture, description, category (ie area terrain feature), traits (as mentioned earlier), with tactical having a point cost (example 40 terrain points), and ability(ies). So their are 2 cards for each terrain feature. If you spend 40 pts for tactical with ammo storage abilities: reroll "1"s to hit, and half the models of a unit can throw grenades in the shooting phase, but for narrative play. You get all the fore mentioned plus resupply (if your infantry owns the feature, one of your vehicles can reload and shoot a once a game weapon again like IG/space marine hunter-killer missile. As not all factions have one shot weapons and not having to pay points for....Egads!!!

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Mods to hit and saves has always been my favorite way to handle it.

Agreed. It should go without saying that modifiers work best because they scale probability better than either/or systems. They also capture the truth that a guy wearing power armor behind a stone wall benefits from both.


However this time around what GW holds as terrain is very different from the past. Rivers, woods, 1 inch tall hills equal zero effect on game play. "Real (GW) terrain has traits like defensible, breachable, scalable, light cover. The terrain cards actually fall into tactical terrain and terrain(for narrative play), both have picture, description, category (ie area terrain feature), traits (as mentioned earlier), with tactical having a point cost (example 40 terrain points), and ability(ies). So their are 2 cards for each terrain feature. If you spend 40 pts for tactical with ammo storage abilities: reroll "1"s to hit, and half the models of a unit can throw grenades in the shooting phase, but for narrative play. You get all the fore mentioned plus resupply (if your infantry owns the feature, one of your vehicles can reload and shoot a once a game weapon again like IG/space marine hunter-killer missile. As not all factions have one shot weapons and not having to pay points for....Egads!!!

GW seems to have a thing with weird terrain rules. The irony is that I got into 40k in large part because I loved the cluttered battlefields, particularly the hive city set-ups. The notion of having jump troops sweep along rooftops while tanks pound it out in the alleys below captivated me. In fact, it still does.

The open-field emphasis of 3/4 Edition was a big part of what drove me away. My cool urban nightmare terrain was basically useless. City Fight tried to fix it, but the notion of having to do a supplement for what I considered a core part the game just grated on me.

GW also has this weird notion of using terrain as a bargaining chip. How about setting up a battlefield that's fun to play over? The old "one guy sets up, the other picks which side he gets" works great in most applications. Paying points is just weird, and reminds me of the old Herohammer "competitive terrain placement" strategy advice. :rolleyes:

[MadHatter]

I hate the pay points for terrain. Use it for objective for the mission would have been a better idea. I agree modifiers for both hit and Armor Piercing should be part of the terrain features.

Cities of Death rules made the game so much better. I am still not a fan of the 9th edition rules. but my area is mostly hooked on playing the current rules.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I hate the pay points for terrain. Use it for objective for the mission would have been a better idea. I agree modifiers for both hit and Armor Piercing should be part of the terrain features.

Cities of Death rules made the game so much better. I am still not a fan of the 9th edition rules. but my area is mostly hooked on playing the current rules.

There's a big difference between "sub-optimal" and "objectively awful."

You can tolerate and even enjoy some of the former but the latter is unplayable. Warhammer 5th Ed. in its final, ultra-cheesy, beard-wearing incarnation fell into the second category. I reached the point where I was turning down gaming invites because laundry was more enjoyable.

Similarly, 3/4 ed. 40k achieved a level of counter-intuitive tactics that made me loathe it.

If 9th ed. 40k reaches the same plateau that 6th edition Fantasy did - flawed, but workable - I can see people getting back into it, particularly if they've got usable armies on hand.

[Thingol of Iyaden]

My protest is the constant support given to IG/space marines via terrain. In my last post note the reuse of one shot weapons- the only weapon that fits in eldar/Harlequin use is a star bola. Which is used from a jetbike! Jetbike units can't sit for a turn to rearm, lest we forget the star bola is used up close & personnel. Please note not all xeno armies have one shot weapons, although the orks have several. It's annoying that most of the terrain pieces sold by GW (not to mention the the whole wall of martyrs series) benefit only one race (even if they 30 flavors).
GW has dabbled with the tau gunline and some (mostly forgeworld) stuff. However, as some one who has gamed the 1939-40 Russo-Finnish war and 1944-5 polish front negotiating over terrain features and their deployment is rather common. All races have a need for fortifications and terrain features that can compliment one another, or rather in a campaign setting fortifications will be sited in complimentary terrain features. Which is where part of GW's "narrative style" comes from.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

My protest is the constant support given to IG/space marines via terrain. In my last post note the reuse of one shot weapons- the only weapon that fits in eldar/Harlequin use is a star bola. Which is used from a jetbike! Jetbike units can't sit for a turn to rearm, lest we forget the star bola is used up close & personnel. Please note not all xeno armies have one shot weapons, although the orks have several. It's annoying that most of the terrain pieces sold by GW (not to mention the the whole wall of martyrs series) benefit only one race (even if they 30 flavors).

That's interesting. The old story was that GW's favorite army (or should I write "favourite"?) was whatever they were pushing that month. The Imperium always had a prime position of course because they fought all comers (including their own side), which is great for sales. Can't have everybody collecting Dark Eldar and then wondering why everything's a civil war all of a sudden.

But to your point, yes, GW picks winners and losers and always had. I recall during 5th Edition Fantasy Chaos Warriors could win the game before it actually started! (Old timers know I do not exaggerate.)

For veteran 40k players, each edition new edition brings up a series of questions:

Is the imbalance of the new game within tolerable limits? (A balanced game is out of the question with GW.)
How expensive are all the supplements to get a minimum amount of armies back into use?
How much retrofitting will existing armies need? How much will it cost?

[Gen.Steiner]

I've got my hands on the rulebook recently, and am blown away by the production values of it. I really like the look of the Crusade concept, and will probably pick up the Codexes (only) as they are released. I'm not hugely interested in the Warzone stuff, but as my most likely opponents are going to be playing 9th I reckon I'll be buying into it.

Still mostly playing 4th and 2nd edition though!

[Rogue]

I've got my hands on the rulebook recently, and am blown away by the production values of it. I really like the look of the Crusade concept, and will probably pick up the Codexes (only) as they are released. I'm not hugely interested in the Warzone stuff, but as my most likely opponents are going to be playing 9th I reckon I'll be buying into it.

Still mostly playing 4th and 2nd edition though!

How is that going for you? The 4th and 2nd edition is of some interest to me. I would be interested in a bat-rep should you get one up somewhere. My current preference is for 5th,(with some house rules) but that is more due to what I am familiar with as that is where I started.

[Gen.Steiner]

I had a game with my son the other day to introduce him to 4th and dust the cobwebs off me after a good long while of not really playing. 2nd is even more intermittent, but I've played 4th and 2nd more than I have 8th and certainly more than 9th! :biggrin:

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I had a game with my son the other day to introduce him to 4th and dust the cobwebs off me after a good long while of not really playing. 2nd is even more intermittent, but I've played 4th and 2nd more than I have 8th and certainly more than 9th! :biggrin:

I'd love to get a game in. Sadly, it's not likely for the foreseeable future.

[MadHatter]

I've got my hands on the rulebook recently, and am blown away by the production values of it. I really like the look of the Crusade concept, and will probably pick up the Codexes (only) as they are released. I'm not hugely interested in the Warzone stuff, but as my most likely opponents are going to be playing 9th I reckon I'll be buying into it.

Still mostly playing 4th and 2nd edition though!


Those are my preferred editions as well. 2nd maybe more nostalgia now. But I do remember having the most fun with those editions.

[MadHatter]

So how are you guys faring in the 9th edition? It's been some months. Anyone change their minds on its playability?

Personally, I am still not a fan of the terrain. especially since my area is really hooked on the tournament layout. I have one opponent who is cool with actually setting up a dense table. but everyone else is purely as minimal as possible. and they do not get why I sigh. As an Aeldari player, I rely on the cover. so does my friend with the Tyranids.

I am not a fan of the core book rule layout either. why not just have all the dam rules in one section. no need to spread them out. it makes finding rules difficult during the game. so unless your willing to concede the point, you have to know the exact page its on or stop the game while you find it.

i have 1 victory out of a dozen games. not bad in my mind. not great either. but I generally have fun.

[Rogue]

I have not been out to get a game yet. For starters I am painting a lot of my army right now from years ago, so I am focusing on that. Hopefully, I will not have another setback like I did where I had a stray brush ruin a squad. Secondly, there is still a lot of stores that are not exactly open. For instance, all of the GW stores are not open for gaming in my area. I have a few FLGS's open for normal gaming and it is starting to get back to where you can get a pickup game. I think that I also need to get a current codex as well.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I have not been out to get a game yet. For starters I am painting a lot of my army right now from years ago, so I am focusing on that. Hopefully, I will not have another setback like I did where I had a stray brush ruin a squad. Secondly, there is still a lot of stores that are not exactly open. For instance, all of the GW stores are not open for gaming in my area. I have a few FLGS's open for normal gaming and it is starting to get back to where you can get a pickup game. I think that I also need to get a current codex as well.

For about 24 hours last month, I had made up my mind to get "current" in 40k, but it just seems too daunting. My army is built for 2nd ed. and though I continue to add to my armies, I most use out of print models, which often are very cheap. Trying to make that fit the current look and feel is probably a non-starter (and GW wants it that way).

On the plus side, things are looking up for a potential game in my chose edition, which is nice.

[Rogue]

For about 24 hours last month, I had made up my mind to get "current" in 40k, but it just seems too daunting. My army is built for 2nd ed. and though I continue to add to my armies, I most use out of print models, which often are very cheap. Trying to make that fit the current look and feel is probably a non-starter (and GW wants it that way).

On the plus side, things are looking up for a potential game in my chose edition, which is nice.

Certainly it is a plus side to get a game in on your preferred edition. I am sure that a bat rep on here would be appreciated.(hint hint) Likewise, ClassicHammer(link in my sig) would definitely appreciate it as well. It certainly is a bigger leap from 2nd to the current edition than say 5th, but I have seen people do it. Look and feel is one thing, actual function is another, and I have yet to see someone turn their nose on a well painted classic army in this hobby.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

It certainly is a bigger leap from 2nd to the current edition than say 5th, but I have seen people do it. Look and feel is one thing, actual function is another, and I have yet to see someone turn their nose on a well painted classic army in this hobby.

One of the big issues is that GW has seriously jacked around the fluff. I see all this stuff about "Primaris" this and that. Even back in 4th, the weapons were being altered so that earlier versions would be indecipherable to later players.

The size of the figures also continues to increase, further complicating backwards compatibility.

All of which was by design.

Obviously, since I'm still here, and an old timer, I'll be sharing my experiences. :)

As a teaser, I've been doing massive work bringing my long-neglected forces up to speed. My Eldar army is bigger than I thought it was - comfortably above 3,000 points without any characters or weapon options. It is entirely non-GW in composition, being made up of a grab-bag of VOID figures bought on clearance and some scratch-built vehicles and weapon platforms. More of these are under construction.

Their opponents will be the Tyranids, which is very much old-school in its look and feel. Funny how OOP carnifexes and hive tyrants (let alone genestealers) are so cheap these days! (Okay, they were cheap 2 years ago when I bought them. Everything's higher now.)

Anyway, the Hive Mind is in a frenzy of activity, ordering the entire force base-coated after years of inactivity. So it has been done. A genetic analysis has determined that "Buff" is the best color for claws, besting White, Deck Tan and Yellow-Green in the Tamiya palette. Mass reproduction will shortly take place.

Happiness is readying a 40k army for imminent action, and I've got two of them to work with, so I am doubly fortunate.

[Rogue]

I cannot stress to you how much I Loathe the "Primaris" addition to 40K. My theory is that Gee Dubs is trying to protect their IP from them loosing cases like GW V. Chapterhouse lawsuit again, and thus a newly named and sculped Space Marine was born. Once that was in place everything got the change hammer to fit into the new paradigm that GW wants and thus you have things like Rynn's world being invaded a second time, but this time with Daemons instead and these new marines being their saviors, among a whole bunch of ham fisted stories to make the cannon sort of work. Of course the apparent rule of GW is that "If you want something to sell make it awesome and kill everything on the table: If you don't want something to sell, let it languish" is in full effect these days. For me, I will be playing my Space Marines either in an edition that I can play them in, or I will be playing an older edition. Last time that I checked, they did not use magic erasing ink on my books, so they are in fully working order.

Totally right about the increase in size. You may have gotten away with taking your beakies from way back when, and add them to your models from the 4th or 5th, but those days are long gone.

Ironically Eldar and Tyranids are two of the most stable factions out there, and our friend on the board Captain Brown seems to be getting some use out of his older Eldar models located here:
https://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?422967-Captain-Brown-Paints-Craftworld-Eldar-Alaitoc-(from-very-very-old-models)

Please do get some games in if you can, especially of an older edition. I always like to see a bat rep of them when possible.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Of course the apparent rule of GW is that "If you want something to sell make it awesome and kill everything on the table: If you don't want something to sell, let it languish" is in full effect these days.

It's been that way for 20 years or so. The only edition where there seemed to be an effort to maintain parity was 2nd, which was of course incomplete. Everyone knew that a revision was necessary to streamline the rules, but no one expected GW to dump the baby down the drain along with the bath water.

The campaign I'm looking at is Eldar vs Tyranids. The Eldar are converted VOID figures; the Tyranids are super cheap 2nd ed. models no one (but me!) seems to want.

This week was a mess, but hoping to get rolling next week. I'll keep you posted.

[Rogue]

Whenever you can. In addition to posting here, feel free to copy and paste into www.classichammer.com as well. I happen to know the proprietor of the site.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Tonight we did a small, 500 point battle. The scenario was an Tyranid scouting force testing the defenses of an Eldar outpost.

The army selections were ridiculously simple. The Eldar fielded 5 Dire Avengers, 5, Swooping Hawks and 3 Dark Reapers, all led by a Dire Avenger Exarch. I will note that this is technically in violation of the 2nd Ed. Eldar Codex, but it is completely consistent with the widely accepted reforms to 2nd Edition rules developed on Portent (https://www.ahlloyd.com/2016/12/warhammer-40000-2nd-edition.html).

The Tyranid force was simplicity itself: two broods of genestealers, one with 7, the other with 8 models, plus a genestealer patriarch.

The Eldar mission was to Engage and Destroy; the Tyranids were using The Assassins (bonus points for killing leaders) mission card.

The battle went rather simply: the 'nids swarmed forward and - without the need to use cover - the Eldar dumped everything they could at them. In the end, the 'nids were wiped out at the cost of 2 Swooping Hawks.

This may seem a dull, uninspired scenario with obviously imbalanced forces, but it was in fact a "training game" to initiate a new player on game mechanics. In that respect it was fully successful. More to follow.

[Rogue]

Training games need to be done as well.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Training games need to be done as well.

The first rule of getting someone into gaming (or back into gaming) is to let them win. If you curb-stomp them, it's harder to get them to come back.

An additional factor in my gaming philosophy is that I like to build a narrative campaign. Twenty years ago I would settle for pick-up games at the local shop, but now my spare time is more valuable.

That means not every game is a evenly-balanced engagement. In fact, most of our little campaigns start of with restrictions that fit the scenario. In this storyline, the Tyranids have just dropped on an Eldar-inhabited world and are trying to figure out who they are dealing with.

I enjoy those kinds of narratives. Some years ago we did a campaign where Chaos Marines made their first contact with Tyranids and it did not go well for them at all. In most 'normal' games, you don't do stupid stuff like attack clearly superior troops in close combat, but how would guys stuck in the warp for centuries *know* they are superior?

Putting otherwise arbitrary (but dramatically consistent) constraints on the forces also makes it more interesting even if the games are technically fair.

I'm not sure what the next engagement will be, but it will be larger and a little more balanced.

[MadHatter]

Training games need to be done as well.

I found one of the best ways is to play team games. this gives a new player help and if they lose due to dice rolls it's not so brutal. And after the game, you have someone who was involved in the game who can share in the excitement of the game you all just played. If you are a good friend or just the like the new player you can let them borrow some of your own models to help balance their own forces.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I found one of the best ways is to play team games. this gives a new player help and if they lose due to dice rolls it's not so brutal. And after the game, you have someone who was involved in the game who can share in the excitement of the game you all just played. If you are a good friend or just the like the new player you can let them borrow some of your own models to help balance their own forces.

I've tried the team approach in a variety if situations and it left me cold. The problem is that the new player either gets a quiet sector, or they get one that matters. In the former case, they don't do much, and in the latter case they don't want to be the one who loses the game, so have to ask for advice, which reduces them to remote control.

If there's a mega-game, I've found a better approach is having them be an "observer/referee." This lets them see everything that's going on, so they can sit with one side, hear their plans, then cross over to the other.

The nice thing is that while they have no forces, they know more about the game than anyone else, and are free to ask questions about mechanics, troop types and so on. To be clear, it's more than just a fly on the wall, or someone saying "hey guys, what's that?" and being allowed to watch - they are still a part of the experience. It's a good way to get a new player to experience a battle that would otherwise be beyond their grasp.

I freely admit that others may have different experience, but in the time and place where I got into gaming, the environment was very competitive, doubly so in dealing with GW games where the tournament mentality and WAAC philosophy were very prominent. Different areas may have a different vibe.

For that reason, I like the small one-on-one approach best because you can control the tempo or scope better - and also ensure that they win, which is important. :)

I'm old enough that winning is something of an afterthought. The important part is the social interaction and if I'm with a clearly inferior opponent, I'll experiment with high-risk strategies to keep things interesting or make moves that boost the story line but aren't necessarily wise.

Do I still do an old-fashioned curb-stomp? Sure, but only against people who deserve it. :evilgrin:

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Our campaign had an "operational pause" as we dealt with various things like vacations and school getting ready to start.

I estimate we won't get playing for another week or so, partly because I want to get more painting and assembly done. My Eldar are mostly non-GW, but if GW stuff is cheap enough I'll use it. I've seen some inexpensive Vypers and Jet bikes on ebay, so I'd like to add them to the forces available.

The scenario is that having wiped out the 'nids, the Eldar are determined to see how big the infestation is. Accordingly a mobile force will press forward to seek out addition information. Mission Card in play will be Dawn Raid, which gives bonuses to intact vehicles and squads in the enemy deployment zone. Actual force mix will depend on what I can get, but the rule is that all Eldar forces need a base movement 8 or greater. This means grav tanks, jet bikes, reptile cavalry, swooping hawks and dreadnoughts are on the table. Since grav tanks can carry troops, they are also permitted.

The hive mind is in a bit of disarray after their defeat, and are scrambling to produce more advanced critters. Their goal is inflict casualties and protect their breeding chambers, so they will use Engage and Destroy. They are not permitted to use Support units because these are not yet available.

If the Eldar win, the bugs will mount a final stand - again without heavy support choices. If the bugs win, the Eldar will have to withstand the counterattack. The battle will decide how we implement these options.

[MadHatter]

that's fair. I cannot argue that we all have a different experiences. my problem is I worked for GW and had to run the intro games with the rule of 4s. and had to always lose to get them excited to buy the starter box. it would work for kids. but most of the adults were not that stupid. and on more than one occasion they called me and my co-workers out on it.