Jarms’ 9th Edition Codex Suggestions

[jarms48]

I know we already have a wish list thread, but I believe my document requires a thread on its own for community discussion. It’s currently 35 pages long with a parallel document for making custom regiments.

I’d love opinions on changes, maybe additions, any kind of criticism is appreciated.

Anyway, here’s both of the documents:
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-15z9-A9D9Bm3Y_TFDcKcC1iPIwYtu2NMgsGTWULd00/edit
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uS19278Sj3rdqdgRt-h1GEBy5b0W4wtDaN1hPF61FkE/edit

They both require more work. Also, the documents are best read in print view.

 

Update, here's the documents that were added below:

- Adjusting the Leman Russ to a 9th Edition Standard with 3 Options

- Adjusting the Other Codex vehicles to a 9th Edition Standard with 3 Options

- Experimental Rules for Adding Regiment/Tempestus Regiment Units to Other Factions

- Experimental Rules for Forge World/Legends Imperial Guard Vehicles (No Artillery Carriages)

Edited May 5, 2021 by jarms48

[OldWherewolf]

I like that it's a lot of small adjustments, the pro and con is that the army will play just like it does today.  I think where the changes are lacking is that (for the most part) it doesn't address the glaring weaknesses of the AM, and isn't the 'leap' all the new codices are taking.

• Too Many VPs given out for just playing the game  (Bring it down, Grind them down)
• Too much dice rolls for ineffective shooting
• Reliance on orders, but it's not worth taking the units that give out orders, and there's too many restrictions on giving out those orders

Examples:

• killing a Hellhound hull gives 2 VPs, Deathstrike is still totally ineffective, etc.
• Dakka wins games, while we 300 points of troops, that is 60+ dice per turn that is just not worth rolling.  Battle Cannons got slightly better, but would be better served by just being a flat D3 wounds (we have enough dice to roll).  Same thing for the demolisher cannon, just make it a flat D4, Basilisks D2, Manticores D3.
• The move of a Platoon Commander to Troops is good, but still only 1 order affecting 1 unit, and the add-on points to make him effective is prohibitive for throw-away units
• Regimental doctrines don't affect enough units.  For example, Dev Doctrine is +1AP to all heavy weapons.  So 'Armored Regiment' should grant 1 bonus to infantry and another to battle-line tanks.  +1 if the 2 abilities synergize (like they can overwatch/intervene while within 3")

 

Where you've gone in the right direction:

• I like the LR now has 14 wounds (+1), this is a direct survivability buff to our core unit.  If we're going to give 2VPs
• Heavy weapons squads have Dig In
• More units have Voice of Command (+1), but can we take enough VoC units to take advantage of orders?
• Conscripts accept orders on a 2+
• Sentinels get Emergency Plasma Vents

[jarms48]

Thank you for the comment. I did give hellhounds an extra wound to 12 to make them somewhat more resilient. I also reduced the basilisk, wyvern and hydra to 10 wounds so they only give 1 VP.

I think for the deathstrike I gave them an extra wound, a points drop and added a 1 CP strat that lets it double the turn number for shooting. I was thinking of changing it to something crazy like 3D6 S10 AP-4 DD3+3, then make vortex missile the sole means of mortal wounds.

The platoon commander is more of a tax in my eyes, though I was considering to make combined squad a pre-game stratagem. Basically 1 CP for any or all squads in a platoon to come together. That indirectly buffs the platoon commanders single order.

To be honest, I haven’t seen any of the new dexs yet so I’m unsure of how those doctrines work these days. So, something I was thinking is a planetary “super doctrine” so if all units taken don’t break the requirements they can get some kind of extra bonus. So a civilised world could be as simple as +1Ld, a high-tech world could have +1 AP on heavy weapons or rapid fire weapons, etc.

Edited April 6, 2021 by jarms48

[jarms48]

I've continued my brainstorming crazy, here's 3 more documents for anyone interested. 

 

- Adjusting the Leman Russ to a 9th Edition Standard with 3 Options

- Adjusting the Other Codex vehicles to a 9th Edition Standard with 3 Options

- Experimental Rules for Adding Regiment/Tempestus Regiment Units to Other Factions

- Experimental Rules for Forge World/Legends Imperial Guard Vehicles (No Artillery Carriages)

Edited May 5, 2021 by jarms48

[jarms48]

Had another shot at a quick fix for Guard after seeing the disappointing 26% winrate post dataslate. 

 

Astra Militarum Quick Fix Mk II

 

The idea is to try and push us back above 40% at least while being completely compatible with our current 8th edition codex. Think of this as something to tide you over until the 9th edition codex drops.

[TCC]

I liked the cost reductions and the 2+ saves on the bigger tanks, on the whole all changes seem good. 

[jarms48]

Thanks. Personally I like the detachment changes I proposed. List building is just as exciting to me as the game itself. Having more options in the list building step is always a good thing. Allowing named regiments to take a single custom doctrine really improves their viability especially the weaker ones (except Mordians, they just need to be completely changed) for example:

 

- Catachan with Slum Fighters, or Lord’s Approval, to really double down on their improved melee.

- Vahallan’s could take Gunnery Experts which would compliment their ability to double their wounds when determining brackets.

- Similar for Tallarn and Vostroyan as well, Gunnery Experts would compliment Tallarn’s unique tank order or Vostroyan’s unique stratagem.

 

The same could be said for Custom Regiments you could really improve your Guardsmen with having Agile Warriors, Disciplined Shooters, and Wilderness Survivors. Now if you MMM you can also reroll the Advance dice. Then when you’re not MMMing you have better rapid fire range and increased durability.

[Emperor Ming]

If it follows the 9th trend, then its more likely that guard get points increases with bonkers power creep, rather than points decreases

[jarms48]

Absolutely correct, but this document is purely a fix for our current codex and would be superseded entirely once our codex comes out.