What would you change about 9th ed?

[Brother Sidonius]

I'm on a Crusade to remove all derp and cheese from 40k and I'm starting with the Core Book itself. So the question I have for you is this:

 

If you could add/change/remove one thing in the 9th edition Core Book, what would it be?

[MARK0SIAN]

Secondary objectives! They either need reworking or removing entirely.

 

They result in a lot of tracking/work/book keeping during the game, they’re not particularly well balanced amongst themselves and I’m also just not a fan of players being able to dictate what success looks like in a mission. That should come solely from the mission itself.

 

Other than that, I think the core rules for 9th are a pretty solid base, not perfect but better than 8th. I think the problems have generally come from the codexes rather than the core rules.

[Karhedron]

I like the Secondaries myself. The problems come from codex-specific ones like Oath of Moment (I am sure about 90% of Marine players take this). The issue is code balance rather than the core rules IMO.

[Lord_Ikka]

The Morale Phase- needs to have something done to it. Morale is fairly useless now, I almost never feel like it has an impact in my games, no matter the army.

[tychobi]

insert damage phase a la apoc

[LinkStatic]

I like the secondaries but I think, the missiom specific one should be mandatory to select

[Brother Sidonius]

Secondary objectives! They either need reworking or removing entirely.

 

They result in a lot of tracking/work/book keeping during the game, they’re not particularly well balanced amongst themselves and I’m also just not a fan of players being able to dictate what success looks like in a mission. That should come solely from the mission itself.

 

Other than that, I think the core rules for 9th are a pretty solid base, not perfect but better than 8th. I think the problems have generally come from the codexes rather than the core rules.

 

I think secondaries have a place in tournament and competitive matched play but in your average games I agree they slow the game down and don't make much sense. Perhaps restricting non-competitive games to just 1 secondary? They'd act more as flavour and a tie breaker if it's a close game.

 

I like the Secondaries myself. The problems come from codex-specific ones like Oath of Moment (I am sure about 90% of Marine players take this). The issue is code balance rather than the core rules IMO.

 

Yeah I agree with the Codex specific secondaries wrecking balance. They certainly don't belong in tournament play.

 

 

The Morale Phase- needs to have something done to it. Morale is fairly useless now, I almost never feel like it has an impact in my games, no matter the army.

 

I don't disagree but I also don't know what balanced alternatives there are. What would you do to make the Moral phase relevant? I think the question to ask is what purpose does the Moral phase serve in the game. At the moment I think it's supposed to balance the use of large units that benefit more from stratagems by adding risk of Moral losses.

 

 

I like the secondaries but I think, the missiom specific one should be mandatory to select

 

I've never thought of that! I'm going to have to do some play testing to see what it's like

[MARK0SIAN]

Thinking further I’d also like to see some changes to the combat phase. Currently too much stuff is just a delete button for other units (even other supposedly tough or dedicated CC units) and the combat is simply decided by who swings first. This also leads to the absurdity of “this unit always goes first but not when this unit does that but then it does when the other unit does the other except when the other player does this etc”.

 

I’m not saying we should return to the initiative system but I think a system where both combatants swing simultaneously and chargers get some other kind of bonus rather than going first might be worth exploring. Expensive CC units might still get deleted but at least they’d get to swing back and both players would face a risk in combat.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I like the secondaries but I think, the missiom specific one should be mandatory to select

most of them are horrible.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’d like to see the elimination of things that negate things like a charging unit doesn’t count as charging, make a unit fight last, etc. These debuffs can be too huge of an advantage and aren’t balanced… nor can they be balanced.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Black Blow Fly

[Noserenda]

I kinda like the idea of everything in the charge phase going effectively simultaneously but i think that might have a whole load of knock on effects. 

Restricting down to one secondary sound good too, our group currently just ignores them entirely but i think the system can work if it wasnt so finicky, its just more effort than its worth right now. Similarly the Crusade agendas (not got my book to hand to check the name!)

Id be happy enough with the core 9th rules though, its the codexes where the rot has crept in. Most of the army wide rules can get in a bin and while i like auras my playgroup hates when you are tessellating 3 of them (my regular opponents nurgle daemons for example) and having to keep track of all the extra effects, so maybe look at limiting the practical number of buffs/auras any given unit will be effected by?

Ultimately we shouldnt need pages of cheat sheets or a damn spreadsheet to keep in our heads on top of the unit cards, stratagems and other misc gumph.

[andes]

I'd like to see a return to relative Close Combat to-hit target numbers. The idea that Joe Guardsman hits a Poxwalker and Drazhar, Master of Blades the same percentage of the time is... distasteful.

Edited October 24, 2021 by andes

[OldWherewolf]

 

I like the secondaries but I think, the missiom specific one should be mandatory to select

most of them are horrible.

 

True, but those can be adjusted.  Secondary points should be based on how hard they are to achieve rather than just being free.  I think there are too many free 15-point secondaries. 

 

I'd like ground vehicles to get cover.  It's silly that a tank hiding behind a building doesn't get any cover, where most

 

Like Priority Targets shouldn't be 15 for holding your backfield objective, it should be like 8 at the most, or 12 if the objective is just outside your deployment zone.  The difficult missions secondaries should award 15.

 

I'd like the points of units to be more balanced. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I’d like to see the elimination of things that negate things like a charging unit doesn’t count as charging, make a unit fight last, etc. These debuffs can be too huge of an unadvantage and aren’t balanced.

 

I'd be fine with that and I play the marine fraction that would be most impacted (there is a reason every space wolf player takes Armor of Russ, the rest of our relics are lackluster).

 

To be honest I wouldn't stop there. I think I'd get rid of warlord traits, relics, heroic intervention, and stratagems. They are pretty horribly balanced in general, and add gotcha moments. Typing this makes me realize how much I would butcher my own chapter lol. I would leave upgrades like chapter command in because your paying points for those buffs. 

 

I like the secondaries but I think, the missiom specific one should be mandatory to select

 

I wouldn't mind that, but I'd probably add that in order to select your fraction specific ones your opponent has to have access to fraction secondary objectives as well.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’d like to see the elimination of things that negate things like a charging unit doesn’t count as charging, make a unit fight last, etc. These debuffs can be too huge of an unadvantage and aren’t balanced.

They always seem to do this, they create some game rules that exist for a reason (to create balance) but then they immediately start giving out the ability to ignore/change these rules. It’s made worse because it’s not like they’re even super strict about making these abilities rare.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Table sizes.

I’d add in victory points for each full unit destroyed as well to incentivize more aggressive play as well.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Codex specific secondaries are crap and hard to balance, so I second those. My same thought with strategems but there is no graceful way to get rid of them. GW already sucks at balancing their game (badly), everything that is faction specific like secondaries and strategems just makes it that much more imbalanced.

[XeonDragon]

I'd like to see cover and abilities that grant cover (e.g. Raven Guard tactics) stack. It makes no sense that super sneaky infantry that opponents find hard to target in the open get the same +1 to save in light cover as their blood thirsty cousins (*cough* Flesh Tearers *cough*) do. Cover is cover. Being super sneaky should give you additional benefits whilst actually in cover.

 

Melee is a mess. I like the suggestions of attacks being resolved at the same time, with some form of standardised bonus to units that charged in.  

[MegaVolt87]

Morale could be more dangerous by an opponent inflicting a morale check in their turn, if failed nerfs your unit(s) by -1 to hit in shooting and melee for your turn. Additionally, if you fail a morale check while in cover, you lose the ability to move or fall back from that cover until your next turn. Would also bring a drawback to balance out cover camping. I also have idea's about reaction fire, letting one shoot back at another player out of their turn. Still working on that idea, its not a simple equivalent shooting phase. 

 

Edit- also add- casualties suffered that exceed 25% or more of the starting units strength (rounding up), have a modifier of -1 Ld from the highest Ld score of the unit for each instance of a morale check taken as a result of actions in the shooting and assault phases. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by MegaVolt87

[Noserenda]

Actually had some thoughts about rethinking stratagems the other day, rather than a pool of largely generic powers they are nearly all tied into specific units and included on their datasheets and are essentially a power bump for that unit as a lot of stratagems are, like shoot twice, reroll saves or whatever. Keep the generic stratagems and a handful of army generic ones that speak to the general character of the faction, though id avoid subfaction ones as standard, keep them for when they are particularly appropriate.

Not every unit needs em, especially generic or expendable troops or characters and monsters that are always giving 100%. 

I think it fixes: 
1. Having a wodge of disconnected stratagems, half of which you cant actually play anyway.
2. Having to come up with 30 odd new stratagems every time as they probably become obvious when doing datasheets
3. Encourages unit diversity as you can still only do one of each stratagem per phase
4. Cuts down on rule flicking back and forth as its all on the sheet
5. Probably cuts down rules overall as some unit special rules become stratagems
6. I think feels a bit more intuitive. 

Anyhow, just a thought :) 

[Lord_Ikka]

 

 

The Morale Phase- needs to have something done to it. Morale is fairly useless now, I almost never feel like it has an impact in my games, no matter the army.

 

I don't disagree but I also don't know what balanced alternatives there are. What would you do to make the Moral phase relevant? I think the question to ask is what purpose does the Moral phase serve in the game. At the moment I think it's supposed to balance the use of large units that benefit more from stratagems by adding risk of Moral losses.

 

 

Honestly, I have no idea what would help it. It just seems very lackluster, which might be due to most players/armies defaulting their units to minimum size to avoid both Blast and Morale penalties. Another issue is that most stratagems that have different costs for unit size also penalize large unit sizes. 9th in general penalizes players for bringing large units and the Morale phase is just one part that suffers because of it.

[Evil Eye]

Stratagems bother me, personally. They seem overly "gamey". I know that sounds weird given it IS a game, but it feels like a sort of mobile game/MOBA "Click to activate your special ability!" thing. I can see how they could be implemented well (I remember Planetstrike having some cool, thematic and occasionally wacky analogues to Stratagems back in 5th) but at present, they both break immersion and have had detrimental effects on balance. The fact stuff that should be unit upgrades have become stratagems seems especially weird (for instance, feeder tendrils for Tyranids). Some things I can see making perfect sense for the stratagem system; calling in an artillery strike, for instance, so I wouldn't suggest removing them entirely. Instead what I'd propose is splitting stratagems into two three sections.

You'd have "strategic ploys" which would include things like artillery, comms jamming, warp shenanigans, that sort of thing- things that would make sense to need running up the flagpole to get done. These would work like they do now- expend CP and they go off. Then you'd have "special supplies" which would include stuff like melta bombs, medicae packs etc. These would be bought for the army- either from points limits or from a separate reserve- and you'd have finite supplies of each. Finally you'd have "army traits" which would basically be upgrades, extra relics, stuff like that, applied either on an individual or armywide basis depending on what they were. These would be limited to three, but would be "always on"- if you selected, for instance, a Slaaneshi trait that increased the damage of sonic weapons, you wouldn't need to expend CP to use it ("Oops! I forgot my blastmaster can go to 11!") for one turn, it'd just be a flat upgrade to the unit. Obviously, a bit more complicated and in depth than the current system but far more fluffy and immersive, and could also allow for better balance.

 

(Edited because I can't count apparently.)

Edited October 25, 2021 by Evil Eye

[XeonDragon]

I really like this idea of generic stratagems. I'm dreaming, but I'd like to think that a pool of generic stratagems plus a handful or two of army-specific ones and smaller pool of Battlefield Role (rather than unit) stratagems and then, an even smaller pool of unit specific stratagems for very "unique" or "iconic" units for that army. I'm thinking a stratagem for lightning-claw equipped vanguard veterans and another for eliminators for Raven Guard, one for chainsword units for flesh tearers and so forth.

 

But yeah, I really did the idea of generic stratagems being the main pool :D 

 

Actually had some thoughts about rethinking stratagems the other day, rather than a pool of largely generic powers they are nearly all tied into specific units and included on their datasheets and are essentially a power bump for that unit as a lot of stratagems are, like shoot twice, reroll saves or whatever. Keep the generic stratagems and a handful of army generic ones that speak to the general character of the faction, though id avoid subfaction ones as standard, keep them for when they are particularly appropriate.

Not every unit needs em, especially generic or expendable troops or characters and monsters that are always giving 100%. 

I think it fixes: 
1. Having a wodge of disconnected stratagems, half of which you cant actually play anyway.
2. Having to come up with 30 odd new stratagems every time as they probably become obvious when doing datasheets
3. Encourages unit diversity as you can still only do one of each stratagem per phase
4. Cuts down on rule flicking back and forth as its all on the sheet
5. Probably cuts down rules overall as some unit special rules become stratagems
6. I think feels a bit more intuitive. 

Anyhow, just a thought

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I just want stratagems gone at this point. I don't know how you put a value on some of them, and as long as that's the case its just gonna be really hard to balance the units against each other. It's a game within a game that isn't necessary, and to be brutally honest doesn't feel skill based with how random the power of them feels.

 

It also really slows things down. Simplifying the armies a bit would be good at this point.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I believe Geedub said one CP is roughly equivalent to 30 points. Would be interesting if you had to pay for them.