Since 9th edition has dropped, I have managed 13 games between lockdown and social distancing. I think if I am honest that I preferred 8th edition although 9th has some nice additions. One thing that bugs me a little is the new mission format and that is what I am going to discuss here both the good and the bad.
Table Sizes.
With the exception of patrol missions, where I can fully understand scaling down the table size, it feels unnecessary to do it for other game sizes. The new table sizes are there just to contain armies more and force them into a kill zone due to the mission requirements. No more gunlines. Everyone goes forwards. Because I have three boards that make up a 6' by 4' table we have played our games as the new table length but for ease we have kept the 4' depth and it doesn't make any real difference. I'm going to start seeing if my fellow gamers will be willing to just stick to 6' by 4' tables. The new scales are a minimum after all.
Objectives.
Objective placement is my biggest grumble about the new missions. There are certain rules for them that bug me.
Having them be a fixed placement means that a fixed table layout (something that I want to build) is impossible because each mission placement is different and they cannot be in terrain. Sure, you can move ruins and the like around but that defies the point of a fixed table. It also means that if you are playing a pick up game, you have to waste valuable playing time measuring out where they go before you even set up table terrain and start the game. When your club or local gaming store has limited play time of an evening (for example) that's not helpful.
It would be so much better, in my opinion, to have stuck with what we had previously, where players alternated setting up objectives so that they were X inches from a table edge and from other objectives. That worked so much better.
Also, why can they not be in terrain? Doesn't make sense to me. You don't send troops to occupy an open street or an open patch of ground. You occupy a defensible position or somewhere containing supplies you need or something like that.
I know that sounds like me grumbling about table layout and so on, but it just bugs me a little.
Secondary Objectives.
Every mission is now a objective holding mission. In a way I don't mind this as I was never a fan of the kill point missions as they tend to favour certain armies over others. It just lacks flavour. However, the addition of secondary objectives is what adds that flavour. Initially I didn't like them as they smack of the ITC format missions - something 9th seems to have unfortunately emulated. The problem is that many of them aren't worth taking. I tend to find that some are suited better to specific armies while many of the mission specific secondaries just are not worth taking.
...
What I really miss are the tactical objective missions where we used cards to determine the goals for battle. Sure, they were random are sometimes you didn't get a good draw but they gave you a mission with fluid goals which felt both more realistic and also meant that you wouldn't win just going for the kill. You actually had to play for the cards you were given. I seriously hope that they bring this format back at some point.
Ultimately the 9th edition missions aren't bad. I've had fun playing them but at the same time they could be better. The new mission format just doesn't feel as enjoyable as the old missions did. They are something that just needs adapting to but like nearly everything Games Workshop releases it could have been done better.
