What would you change about 9th ed?

[XeonDragon]

 

Simplify terrain traits and cover. "The benefit of cover" is such an awkward phrase - just say "in cover" if in cover, "obscured" if LoS is blocked, etc.

 

 

 

I like this idea! Something like: "in light cover" gives you +1 to save "in heavy cover" gives you -1 to hit, "obscured" blocks LOS etc, but also add standardised traits for units such as "hard to target" (-1 to hit when X" away and in cover (of any type), "stealth" (+1 to save when X" away and in cover (of any type), stacks with cover) etc. That could work. I'd also simplify terrain so that terrain that gives +1 save it applies to both shooting and melee, if for no other reason than to eliminate one more rule to remember and speed things up. 

[MegaVolt87]

Cover is fine and regardless of the complexity or lack thereof, it will never work unless you actually talk to your opponent about what is what on the board before you decide the mission, deploy etc. So many people don't do this pre-game and thats why there is needless headaches over cover. Rules will never fix a lack of pre-game discussion. 

 

Stratagems design is seemingly adding or removing more OP rules that are traditionally unit profile special ones like in the past. This way a units point cost doesn't need to be exorbitant because the more overbearing rule can only be performed a finite number of times- 2-3 CP abilities are usually the good ones and can't really be spammed as much. Variable cost stratagems should go to break up the MSU meta and encourage people to take larger units to make the CP sink worth it. CP regen, bonus CP added outside stock FOC on top and variable costs to stratagems are more gamey that the actual stratagems themselves IMO. The problem is, when GW makes units under the old system of unit special rules at a points efficient cost/ under costed while others are a lot of points but have stratagems to make them effective when it should be the other way around from a design perspective. This is either deliberate power creep or incompetence, however you chose to see it from the GW rules writers. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Eighth edition really cleaned up the game. No initiative really has helped armies like Necrons and Orks. That said all the fight first - fight last - oh guess what you don’t count as charging just makes the game overly complicated again.

[Valkyrion]

I simply don't think there needs to be so many rules.

 

All the statlines are the same - as in, they all have the same type of stats - thats good.

Same with weapon profiles - also good.

Everything has a points value.

Every/most army has several options per unit per battlefield role.

 

Forget stratagems and chapter tactics and ork kulturs for a minute - if i lined up my demi company of space marines and called out 6 ork players, I'd face 6 distinctly different ork armies and no battle would be the same.

 

Give each faction a special rule (ATSKNF, Reanimation Protocols etc), and give each sub faction a flavourful special rule and I think that's enough. 

 

Unit abilities, like whatever flavour of deep strike or infiltrate, or the ability to fight first, or shoot twice - all good, but remove the stratagem and command point system, remove rules that change turn by turn, and bring the game closer to a strategy game than an exercise in maths. 

 

The game isn't complicated, there's just too much going on that it's easy to forget to do stuff and a lot of that stuff can be game changing.

[OldWherewolf]

The game isn't complicated, there's just too much going on...

 

Reading most of these comments, it's like folks don't want to play 40K at all...

 

• drop every change since 3rd edition
• which make all units the same, remove any differentiating factors

 

I look at at the auras, strategms, objectives and secondaries etc. as layers in the game.  I like 9th, as I think it's the best edition since 2nd!  That being said, I do think it can still be improved. 

 

In the beginning (with crusade) the game is pretty simple.  Agendas are a lot easier than most secondaries.  You don't have to worry about individual points and min/maxing units, and you won't use strategms effectively.  But as you progress, you'll get into secondaries, switch to points, tune armies, and get better at strategms and when to spend CP.  You'll also start thinking deeper and deeper away from turn-to-turn tactics and get into game-wide & multi-turn strategies.

 

Thinking of the game that way, it's an "easy-to-learn" but "hard-to-master" game.  No matter what your competence level, there's still another step to take.  Secondaries & objectives provide a different experience every time you play it, as they change with each army you play against.  So the game goes past "model A kills model B ad nauseum". 

 

Auras & Strategms really make each army unique, so DG and Space Marines look and feel nothing alike.  Same for Eldar and IG.  After 30 years, every army is sooo unique, and it looks and plays as such.  Every battle is a different immersion into the GrimDark.

 

There's always people who want an "I Win" button, and complain when they don't get it.  9th starts easy and gets hard.  It takes time to learn, which is hard on the casual player.  But that's true of almost everything nowadays.  I can teach you the basic box waltz in an hour, but don't expect to go on Dancing with the Stars.  I can teach you how to cut a piece of wood with a circular saw in 10 minutes, but don't expect to be building quality furniture anytime soon.  You get out of it what you put into it, and the people that do put a lot into it get better at it.  Unfortunately, a lot of us don't have that kind of time.   

[Noserenda]

I think casting people who want to improve the game as WAAC or stupid is certainly a bold choice... Not all complexity is good complexity, or even desirable in a game even if i broadly agree that auras and stratagems are good overall.

[phandaal]

I think casting people who want to improve the game as WAAC or stupid is certainly a bold choice... Not all complexity is good complexity, or even desirable in a game even if i broadly agree that auras and stratagems are good overall.

 

That's a bold move, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out!

 

9th Edition's "system stack" is made of core rules, stratagems, primary objectives, secondary objectives, auras, relics, datasheet stats, unit rules, army rules, and probably other stuff that does not come to mind right now.

 

Given that we live in the age of the Internet, it really is not about getting smarter when anyone can simply look online to find out what broken combo the latest system stack has bequeathed.

[LameBeard]

Chess is hard to master. With chess you get out what you put in. Chess can be hard on the casual player.

 

And yet Chess doesn’t need all those layers, it can be done with a very simple set of rules.

 

I get that some people like each army to play in a “unique” way, but when there are so many factions, the demands to create genuinely unique units, stratagems, relics etc for each of them is going to come at a cost of making it hard to balance (and hard to remember!).

 

I guess that’s why I don’t play 40k any more, so can’t really answer the OP. Except to say I still love to play other games set in the 40k universe.

[OldWherewolf]

Chess is hard to master. With chess you get out what you put in. Chess can be hard on the casual player.

 

And yet Chess doesn’t need all those layers, it can be done with a very simple set of rules.

 

I get that some people like each army to play in a “unique” way, but when there are so many factions, the demands to create genuinely unique units, stratagems, relics etc for each of them is going to come at a cost of making it hard to balance (and hard to remember!).

 

I guess that’s why I don’t play 40k any more, so can’t really answer the OP. Except to say I still love to play other games set in the 40k universe.

True, but if we wanted just 2 factions with identical sets of rules we'd just be playing chess.  Even chess isn't perfectly balanced, despite the "simple set of rules".

 

What we want is immersion into a GrimDark universe.  Yes, the price is balance, but that can be tweaked. 

[Brother Sidonius]

It’s great seeing so many different opinions being shared on this subject and I’m enjoying reading what different people enjoy most about the game :)

Although some of the suggestions are simply too big to add to 9th, I’ve collated some of the smaller changes that could be easily added. Let me know what you think :)

 

TLDR; Moral makes more sense, blast markers but they don’t slow down the game, units Fight simultaneously, no more random damage.

 

1. Moral Overhaul.

- If a unit fails Moral while in combat, it is ‘Broken’. Model’s don’t flee the combat, instead their defence slips leaving them open to additional loses. Use the Moral rules found in the 9th ed rulebook.

- If a unit fails Moral while not in combat, it is ‘Pinned’. Until the end of the next turn, each time an attack is made by that unit, subtract 1 from the hit roll. In addition, subtract 2 from the Move characteristic of that unit and Charge rolls made for that unit.

 

2. Shooting Phase

- Use Blast Markers to calculate the number of attacks for Blast weapons. Roll to hit and wound normally.

- Use Flamer Templates for flame weapons. They can’t target Super Sonic units (if you can’t charge it, you can’t flamer it).

 

3. Initiative Steps (Lite)

- 3 initiative steps: First, Normal, and Last (for units that Fight first, normally and last respectively).

- Casualties are removed at the end of an Initiative Step.

 

4. Marked for Death

- Weapons with random damage instead have two damage values: one for a normal wound and one for an unmodified wound roll of 6 (Marked for Death!).

- E.g. A Lascannon becomes Heavy 1 D3/6 for an average damage of 3.5.

[MARK0SIAN]

It’s great seeing so many different opinions being shared on this subject and I’m enjoying reading what different people enjoy most about the game :)

Although some of the suggestions are simply too big to add to 9th, I’ve collated some of the smaller changes that could be easily added. Let me know what you think :)

 

TLDR; Moral makes more sense, blast markers but they don’t slow down the game, units Fight simultaneously, no more random damage.

 

1. Moral Overhaul.

- If a unit fails Moral while in combat, it is ‘Broken’. Model’s don’t flee the combat, instead their defence slips leaving them open to additional loses. Use the Moral rules found in the 9th ed rulebook.

- If a unit fails Moral while not in combat, it is ‘Pinned’. Until the end of the next turn, each time an attack is made by that unit, subtract 1 from the hit roll. In addition, subtract 2 from the Move characteristic of that unit and Charge rolls made for that unit.

 

2. Shooting Phase

- Use Blast Markers to calculate the number of attacks for Blast weapons. Roll to hit and wound normally.

- Use Flamer Templates for flame weapons. They can’t target Super Sonic units (if you can’t charge it, you can’t flamer it).

 

3. Initiative Steps (Lite)

- 3 initiative steps: First, Normal, and Last (for units that Fight first, normally and last respectively).

- Casualties are removed at the end of an Initiative Step.

 

4. Marked for Death

- Weapons with random damage instead have two damage values: one for a normal wound and one for an unmodified wound roll of 6 (Marked for Death!).

- E.g. A Lascannon becomes Heavy 1 D3/6 for an average damage of 3.5.

I think that’s a good summary but I’d still worry about number 3. As long as one unit is going first, one normally and one last then the writers won’t be able to resist handing out a load of abilities along the lines of “This makes the unit counts as last for fighting” which is similar to where we are now with too many things that change the order.

 

Wanting units to fight simultaneously also stems from a desire that units don’t just get deleted without a chance to swing. Maybe instead, chargers could get some version of the old hammer of wrath attack to represent the charge hitting home which would be resolved before the normal fight.

[Special Officer Doofy]

 

 

 

The game isn't complicated, there's just too much going on...

Reading most of these comments, it's like folks don't want to play 40K at all...

• drop every change since 3rd edition
• which make all units the same, remove any differentiating factors

I look at at the auras, strategms, objectives and secondaries etc. as layers in the game. I like 9th, as I think it's the best edition since 2nd! That being said, I do think it can still be improved.

I for one just don't care for faction specific strategems or secondaries. It's one more thing GW has to balance and they can't balance their game/codexes if their lives depended on it. Don't get me wrong, if vehicle facings and templates became a thing again I'd walk away from the hobby again for sure.

[The Yncarne]

I'm taking a break from playing. This game is getting too complex for me to enjoy. The first thing I would change is dropping stratagems. 

[Brother Sidonius]

I think that’s a good summary but I’d still worry about number 3. As long as one unit is going first, one normally and one last then the writers won’t be able to resist handing out a load of abilities along the lines of “This makes the unit counts as last for fighting” which is similar to where we are now with too many things that change the order.

Wanting units to fight simultaneously also stems from a desire that units don’t just get deleted without a chance to swing. Maybe instead, chargers could get some version of the old hammer of wrath attack to represent the charge hitting home which would be resolved before the normal fight.

The balancing issue with everyone Fighting simultaneous is that combat that is already brutal becomes a bloodbath. To stop everyone just wiping each other out, you’d have to tone down the damage in melee and have the Moral phase pick it up. Buffing units that charged would exacerbate the problem so the only solution I see is to debuff units that are charged. The simple way to do this is to have a rule like “When a unit is charged, subtract 1 from the Attacks characteristic of that unit (to a minimum of 1)”. You’re guaranteed to be able to fight back but won’t be as effective

[Helias_Tancred]

Secondary Objectives. They're not very well done across the rules & factions. I'd gut the current system, and have it be a very limited thing that is covered on an army-specific basis, and found in their codex. 

I'm taking a break from playing. This game is getting too complex for me to enjoy. The first thing I would change is dropping stratagems. 

 

I can agree with that. I think the system needs to stay but be better designed, balanced, and more limited in use.

The game edition is already getting too bloated, stratagems as they currently exist is a big part of it.

[Valkyrion]

I also think melee should be simultaneous. 

 

2nd edition melee was very good, and very brutal, but also time consuming as one on one doesn't translate very well to squad level combat.

 

But if you had a system like - roll a D6, add the WS of the unit, and add the number of models in that unit to work out your combat score, and your opponent does the same and the side with the highest total causes that many hits on the enemy unit, then Initiative could be re-introduced as a tie breaker.

 

There's also the possibility of AA rather than IGOUGO.

 

But both of those things require fundamental changes to the game.

 

It really boils down to the stratagems, for me. 

There are two pages of faction specific rules in each codex, plus another for sub factions, then four pages of stratagems, then 50+ datasheets each with their own special rules and abilities on them. 

It's too much. Sometimes a cake has too many layers for you to fit your mouth around.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I think that’s a good summary but I’d still worry about number 3. As long as one unit is going first, one normally and one last then the writers won’t be able to resist handing out a load of abilities along the lines of “This makes the unit counts as last for fighting” which is similar to where we are now with too many things that change the order.

Wanting units to fight simultaneously also stems from a desire that units don’t just get deleted without a chance to swing. Maybe instead, chargers could get some version of the old hammer of wrath attack to represent the charge hitting home which would be resolved before the normal fight.

The balancing issue with everyone Fighting simultaneous is that combat that is already brutal becomes a bloodbath. To stop everyone just wiping each other out, you’d have to tone down the damage in melee and have the Moral phase pick it up. Buffing units that charged would exacerbate the problem so the only solution I see is to debuff units that are charged. The simple way to do this is to have a rule like “When a unit is charged, subtract 1 from the Attacks characteristic of that unit (to a minimum of 1)”. You’re guaranteed to be able to fight back but won’t be as effective

You’re right and for the record I’m in favour of toning down damage output across the board, the whole game is too lethal but that’s another issue that stems largely from the codexes rather than the core rules, although I will admit that the wound table plays a big part in that.

 

I think simultaneously fighting, coupled with an overall reduction in the lethality of units would be a good way to go.

[Domhnall]

I also think melee should be simultaneous. 

 

2nd edition melee was very good, and very brutal, but also time consuming as one on one doesn't translate very well to squad level combat.

 

But if you had a system like - roll a D6, add the WS of the unit, and add the number of models in that unit to work out your combat score, and your opponent does the same and the side with the highest total causes that many hits on the enemy unit, then Initiative could be re-introduced as a tie breaker.

 

There's also the possibility of AA rather than IGOUGO.

 

But both of those things require fundamental changes to the game.

 

It really boils down to the stratagems, for me. 

There are two pages of faction specific rules in each codex, plus another for sub factions, then four pages of stratagems, then 50+ datasheets each with their own special rules and abilities on them. 

It's too much. Sometimes a cake has too many layers for you to fit your mouth around.

 

 

It's a difficult balancing act with having so many factions, and keeping them all competitive. Simplistic rules are good, but when is it too simplistic? I roll, you roll, highest wins?

Rules with layers and depth are good, but not too many layers that it's difficult to keep track of what in the abyss is going on! Is my opponent play generic bad guys, or generic bad guys with poor dental hygene? 

 

It'll never be truely balanced, but each update hopefully brings it closer. 

 

As I've said previously, I played 2nd edition and didn't like the change in play style that 3rd edition brought (from my perspective it made it too simplistic). 

I liked the overly complex system of 2nd edition, but would agree it got bogged down when it came to actually rolling for things. 

 

And that was when they changed the armour saves and vehicle penetration rules (I think), so no longer did a chain fist have a -6 modifier on saves, but also to penetrate vehicles you rolled D20+D4+D6+10. 

Ah, good times!  

[Rik Lightstar]

Morale is a tough one to fix, I like the idea of Pinned and Broken:

• If you Fail Morale Test you're Pinned
• If you Fail by more than your LD you're Broken
• If you are already Pinned, and Fail another Morale Test, you're Broken
• A Pinned unit gets penalties to move and to hit
• A Broken unit can't move or shoot, but gets +1 to its saves as they hide
• At the START of the Morale Phase in your turn you can make a LD test (same modifiers as usual), if passed a Broken unit becomes Pinned or Pinned unit Rallies. Importantly you'd still then be subject to whatever Morale Test you'd still be due to take
• Unit Special Rules that affect Morale such as ATSKNF and Commissars would take effect in the Command Phase of your turn, allowing units to Rally quicker

 

I don't feel that Stratagems and Command Points as a concept are necessarily bad, there are just too many and it needs streamlining:

• Increase the number of Universal Stratagems to include the ones that every army has anyway, including;
  • Extra Relic
  • Extra Warlord Trait
• Reduce the number in each Codex, they should all fit on a single page
  • Maximum of 10 that are available to all armies from that Codex
  • Maximum of 3 or 4 for each Sub Faction

 

Alternating Activations could be good, but I think that especially with MSU being a thing it gets hard to keep track of, so if it were to happen I'd like the following:

• Still keep the phase order as it is Command > Move > Psychic > Shoot > Charge > Fight > Morale
•  
• Have a fixed order that units activate in
  • HQ
  • Fast Attack
  • Elite
  • Troops
  • Heavy Support
  • Lords of War
  • As a Stratagem (once per phase) allow a Character to declare "With Me" that lets a friendly unit within 6" activate at the same time they do, and if it's a Charge you make a single roll for both.

 

 

I'm glad Templates are gone, and I don't have an issue with the Blast rules really, I've not seen a better suggestion made yet.

 

 

For the Flyers vs Flamers "issue" I just think that units with the Airborne should count as 12" further away from units without Fly, no more gunning down Planes with Flamers and Pistols.

 

 

Cover Rules could do with being simpler, the suggestions others have made seem pretty good.

 

 

Rik

[Domhnall]

 

<Snip>

 

Alternating Activations could be good, but I think that especially with MSU being a thing it gets hard to keep track of, so if it were to happen I'd like the following:

• Still keep the phase order as it is Command > Move > Psychic > Shoot > Charge > Fight > Morale
•  
• Have a fixed order that units activate in
  • HQ
  • Fast Attack
  • Elite
  • Troops
  • Heavy Support
  • Lords of War
  • As a Stratagem (once per phase) allow a Character to declare "With Me" that lets a friendly unit within 6" activate at the same time they do, and if it's a Charge you make a single roll for both.

 

 

<Snippity snip>

 

I like the idea of order of units, however, could I suggest that the Elites get to choose when they activate?* Thematically, as they as 'more experienced' or such they should be able to read the battlefield and hit when and where needed. 

 

 

* - Of course, this then complicates a simple rule structure. So yeah... 

[OldWherewolf]

I'm also really glad templates are gone.  There was a coolness factor, but most of the time they just slowed the game down as now every single unit on the board had to be positioned to minimized template damage, then you'd spend a long time trying to find the optimal position for the template, then argue whether something was wholly or partially under the template.  In the end, you'd get a couple models under it.  the d6 system just simplifies that whole mess and allows you to move on.

 

The biggest problem with melee is that it is just too lethal, where a unit gets "picked up" before it can fight back.  Well, that happens with shooting as well.  And should a really slow unit fight at the same time as a 10,000 year-old lightning-fast warrior?  Or a conscript the same time as a genetically engineered superwarrior with inhuman reflexes?  If melee was toned down a little, those problems would work themselves out, as there are 2 HtH phases for each shooting phase.  (In case nobody noticed, alpha-strike shooting is back on top in the meta with AdMech and Orks). 

 

The initiative steps of 1, 0 and -1 is what we have now, but the current wording is quite terrible. 

 

AA and IGOUGO have their own issues.  Number of units makes a huge difference, as I activate cheap screens to fill slots and screen you out, then once your done I activate all my killy units and obliterate my opponent while they can't respond.  Everything is a trade-off, with no panacea.

 

Totally agree on removing the random damage.  it just slows the game down, and doesn't add anything.  It also makes weapons like demo cannons so swingy that you're either over-killing everything, or under-killing so it's impossible to balance.  Agreed they need to go to fixed damage, or fixed+d3. 

[Brother Sidonius]

 

 

<Snip>

 

Alternating Activations could be good, but I think that especially with MSU being a thing it gets hard to keep track of, so if it were to happen I'd like the following:

• Still keep the phase order as it is Command > Move > Psychic > Shoot > Charge > Fight > Morale
•  
• Have a fixed order that units activate in
  • HQ
  • Fast Attack
  • Elite
  • Troops
  • Heavy Support
  • Lords of War
  • As a Stratagem (once per phase) allow a Character to declare "With Me" that lets a friendly unit within 6" activate at the same time they do, and if it's a Charge you make a single roll for both.

 

 

<Snippity snip>

 

I like the idea of order of units, however, could I suggest that the Elites get to choose when they activate?* Thematically, as they as 'more experienced' or such they should be able to read the battlefield and hit when and where needed. 

 

 

* - Of course, this then complicates a simple rule structure. So yeah... 

 

 

Following on from the activation idea, what if we simplified it to just Characters fight first? That would actually play closer to Oldhammer since Characters typically had higher initiative.

 

And with regard to stratagems, what if when mustering your army you also chose 7 stratagems as your 'hand' for the game. You can only play the Stratagems in your hand and the Core Stratagems, which would include an additional Stratagem you can play to alter your hand once you see your opponents army.  Battle Brother Abderus came up with this one and called it "No Plan Survives Contact with the Enemy".

[Noserenda]

Generally good stuff there Rik, but i think Alternating turns rather than activations is better for larger unit wargames like 40k, though perhaps some reactive abilities like AoS might help the folks who have problems with it? (Alternating activations is absolutely fine for skirmish games, or like AT, battle games with minimal activations.)

Blasts are essentially a deal breaker for me these days, they have the upside of being tactile but are slow, a needless  dispute point with some players and slow down almost all movement in the game to mitigate them. Id always just pose my troops to look cool/practical for years rather than max disperse them after some extremely tedious games with an Ork player. Now that punished the "making the game look cool" reflex and rewarded the "tedious optimisation" reflex, which is pretty poor i hope folks can agree? 

Plus you inevitably end up with hundreds of them after a few years...  

Again, its a system that can work in smaller games, (Mathing it out like, its gone 5" in a direction with nothing relevant, its missed, or its gone 2" its still hit speeds things up with few units on the board) or games where its strictly used for artillery and the like to give them an appropriate "oh :cuss" factor.

But yeah, no thanks to templates  

Tightening up/removing random damage is a good idea too but its also something GW seem to be gradually doing already.

Not sure a hand of stratagems really helps either, it just moves the problem to the planning stages, or what will rpobably happen is some lists of the "best" stratagems get out and everyone just uses those.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Noserenda

[XeonDragon]

*snip*

 

Not sure a hand of stratagems really helps either, it just moves the problem to the planning stages, or what will rpobably happen is some lists of the "best" stratagems get out and everyone just uses those.

 

Thought experiment:

 

• If stratagems didn't exist, how would it impact list building?
• Are there armies that would be more competitively viable (compared to now and compared to others) without stratagems? 
• Are there armies now that are only (or mainly) competitively viable because of their stratagems? 

Edited October 28, 2021 by XeonDragon

[Valkyrion]

If stratagems were more like 2nd ed Strategy Cards I think I'd be more on board with them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think back then you got one card per 500 points - extrapolate that out to one, two or even three cards per level (combat patrol, incursion, strike, onslaught) and, this is the important part to my mind, make them one use only and you've got a nice burst of flavour that cannot be abused*

(I think this is similar to 4th ed planetstrike, but that expansion was deliberately brutal)

 

Forget command points, maybe even forget FOC's and detachments. Who's to say that in the 5 minute snapshot you are playing, the battle isn't focused on five chaos knights wading mercilessly through an infantry platoon, or the 10 space marine masters of the chapter aren't valiantly defending Ultramar from the tyranids....if you make it so that only Troops count as scoring the players will find the balance themselves, provided annihilation remains/becomes an option.

 

 

*this is 40k in the age of the internet; someone will find a way to abuse anything...!