What would you change about 9th ed?

[LameBeard]

When we played Kill Team 2018 edition, making all the stratagems “one use only” seemed to improve the game. I’m tempted to apply the same house rule to Kill Team 2021. It’s not just abuse it cuts down on, it also makes them feel a better part of the narrative.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

<p>

 

 

*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?

Without stratagems list building would change for marines losing transhuman and strategic reserves would make transports more important.

 

I think armies like guard would benefit alot from the lack of defensive stratagems.

 

The main army I can think of that is mainly viable due to stratagems is chaos space marines. Obilitrators with shoots twice are pretty key piece for most the armies that do ok.

[OldWherewolf]

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)

I think you're forgetting the downside of the 2nd edition Strategy Cards.  Some of them were "I win", like the strafing run, while most were generally useless.  So that random list didn't add anything to the game, it literally ended games before they began because of the luck of the draw.  The fixed list of what each army has is sooooo much better. 

 

The biggest problem with Stratagems is that they are supposed to be worth 30 points each, but are worth nowhere near that most of the time.  Vengeance for Cadia?  Way more than 30 points.  Take Cover on guard Infantry?  Waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy less than 30 points (it's more like 8 points).  Most -1 to hit are probably in the 30 point range and are probably in the range of what stratagems should be.  But the Admech MW strat on Infantry doing 15 MWs (before FAQ) to Mortarion was almost 300 points.   So stratagems aren't inherently bad, but the lack of balance in them is what's causing the problem.

 

That being said, the same could be true for the current 4 Dakkajet Ork list, with 36 shots each able to target pretty much anything on the board for 120 points a model.  Strats or not, it's the lack of the internal balance and playtesting that's the problem.  OP Strats, Dakkajets, D2 Drukari flamers and AdMech are just the symptoms.

[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)

I think you're forgetting the downside of the 2nd edition Strategy Cards.  Some of them were "I win", like the strafing run, while most were generally useless.  So that random list didn't add anything to the game, it literally ended games before they began because of the luck of the draw.  The fixed list of what each army has is sooooo much better. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not forgetting, you're just taking me too literally. I meant 2nd ed strategy cards as there was a set amount per points and they were one use only. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

And you could adopt the good bits and leave out the bad bits.

Maybe...

[Brother Sidonius]

Just found winters SEO gaping opinion on 9th edition, which includes some great ideas in my opinion. Not sure how to embed videos so here's the link to the video: https://youtu.be/5w40NRPE48w 

 

Basically, he wants the game to be more accessible for more people, which is also what I want, so I'm glad I found the video. Here's his summary of the changes he's like to make:

• Indexes for every edition [until the codices are released].
• Simplified rules AND less of them.
• If you want added complexity, add it to the tournament matched play mission pack.
• All the rules for a Codex is in the Codex.
• More ways to play.

 

 

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)

I think you're forgetting the downside of the 2nd edition Strategy Cards.  Some of them were "I win", like the strafing run, while most were generally useless.  So that random list didn't add anything to the game, it literally ended games before they began because of the luck of the draw.  The fixed list of what each army has is sooooo much better. 

 

The biggest problem with Stratagems is that they are supposed to be worth 30 points each, but are worth nowhere near that most of the time.  Vengeance for Cadia?  Way more than 30 points.  Take Cover on guard Infantry?  Waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy less than 30 points (it's more like 8 points).  Most -1 to hit are probably in the 30 point range and are probably in the range of what stratagems should be.  But the Admech MW strat on Infantry doing 15 MWs (before FAQ) to Mortarion was almost 300 points.   So stratagems aren't inherently bad, but the lack of balance in them is what's causing the problem.

 

That being said, the same could be true for the current 4 Dakkajet Ork list, with 36 shots each able to target pretty much anything on the board for 120 points a model.  Strats or not, it's the lack of the internal balance and playtesting that's the problem.  OP Strats, Dakkajets, D2 Drukari flamers and AdMech are just the symptoms.

 

 

The one use stratagems idea is cool. Perhaps Command Points become a currency that you spend on one use abilities before the game? For example, in a Patrol game you could buy the Orbital Bombardment stratagem when mustering your army and not have to worry about keeping track of Stratagems during the game.

[Noserenda]

Oh damn, Winters pretty much nailed it there. Though something ive observed is folk seem to be able to internalise Crusade OR Matched play systems, seemingly never both :D 

Especially the multiple types of matched play (His ideas being Pickup play, Maelstrom of War and then Tournament play) as a fair few casual type players want to stick to matched play as the "balanced" mode but bounce off all the extra mayhem hard..

[phandaal]

Winters is great. He has a lot of fun battle reports, feels like gaming at your friend's house.

 

Games Workshop does bill Matched Play as the most balanced way to play Warhammer 40k, which honestly got me to chuckle and shoot a little air out of my nose even while typing that. Between almost every mission being "hold one, hold two, hold more" and the Secondary Objective skew for some factions, Matched Play is anything but balanced.

 

Honestly, Open War seems to be the most balanced way to play as long as people stick to equal points values. Everyone gets the same shot at the same set of objectives and that is it.

[Interrogator Stobz]

More ways to play to create accessibility needs to be tightened up.

Not putting rules all over the place.

That in itself is a major issue for new players.

 

Have one set of thorough rules presented in a decent order and located in one place; and based on tournament rules to keep them tight.

 

Add narrative and campaign rules as options and keep complications like stratagems, traits, secondaries etc well away from the normal rules.

And bring back templates ;) :)

[jarms48]

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

 

I've got so many:

 

- Bring back Universal Special Rules into the main rulebook. We don't need deep strike or FNP by a dozen different names. Put the ability in the main rule book again so players can know what it is, then also leave it on the specific datasheets for units that have it. That way a player can say "I have a 5+ FNP" and the other player should immediately understand what they're talking about. Instead of "I have Fanatical Devotion or Augmented Mount."

 

-  Change some of the amount of slots in detachments. Patrols should only have 0 - 1 Flyer slots, down from 0 - 2. Brigades should get a 0 - 1 Lord of War and 0 - 1 Fortification slots in addition to what they already have.

 

- Fortification rules need to be tweaked. You should be allowed to swap terrain pieces in your deployment zone for any fortifications you brought. 

 

- Blast was a novel addition but now it barely does anything. It needs to work on each D3 or D6, that way it actually does something on 3D3 or 3D6 weapons. I'd probably slightly nerf D3 weapons to minimum 2 shots per D3 for units with 6 - 10 models. This makes them more reliable. 

 

- Linking to the above, but I wanted to make it a separate dot point cause this will be controversial. If you want to address MSU you could change minimum blast to 5 - 10 models. 

 

- Obscuring and dense cover rules need to be tweaked. GW need to change it from 18 wounds or more models to models from the Flyer and Lord of War Battlefield Roles. 

 

I've got a ton more tweaks but so little time.

Edited November 1, 2021 by jarms48

[Ielthan]

Controversial opinion here, but honestly as someone coming back into 40k after a really long break, I dislike 9th edition a lot.

 

It feels incredibly gamey, less about the models on the table and what they can do, and simulating a battle, and more about comboing strategems, abilities gained through list building (re-roll auras etc). In essence it feels like its a video game/card game brought to the tabletop, rather than a Wargame. If you watch a battle report on YouTube it requires around 20 minutes of explanation before the game even starts, it just seems crazy to me.

 

The changes to tanks. I get why they did it, getting rid of the AV system, but the binary nature of infantry and armour is sort of a key feature of modern warfare. The current way just feels incredibly unrewarding tactically and very unrealistic. Why don't flanks and rears matter? Firing arcs etc.

 

The scoring system and the objectives. It makes no narrative sense to me, its basically a MOBA game sort of like LoL or DotA. Why does it matter if you're standing in this place on this turn? How do you create a sense of narrative around this? There is no sense of story to the average game, not even just a straight up fight as it's so objective focused, but the objectives themselves are both meaningless and illogical. You're playing a game for points, not trying to win a battle or achieve some goal.

 

The changes to model profiles, I really dislike that there is no initiative stat, or anything else that can indicate a models agility or reflexes. The current profiles do such a poor job of describing what the unit actually is. It means a race like eldar or tyranids can only really function if they have a ton of special rules that are essentially exceptions to the core rules.

 

Also flat to hit rolls in close combat just make no sense at all, how is it as easy to hit some lumbering dreadnought as it is to hit say a lightning quick dark eldar wych?

 

Smaller table size, bigger models. I already felt 6x4 was actually a bit cramped for the scope of 40k, it was far better suited to bigger tables. Now it feels positively tiny. How do flyers or artillery make sense on these small tables? It feels and looks more and more like a small skirmish game to me than a battle. I'm really into historicals that are generally played on much bigger tables, (I get it's not practical for everyone though), the spectacle of thing is magnificent, I feel this has really been lost with 40k, especially with everyone using 2d battlemats.

 

The game scales up really badly, like LotR badly. There's so much book keeping in a normal sized game, increasing it in larger games is a real issue. Factor in the activation system and the game just grinds to a halt.

 

Leadership doesn't really matter, why don't units fall back? Why aren't they pinned by enemy fire? These are some of the most basic elements of warfare, its baffling to me that they're not part of the game.

 

Lastly, it's all about space marines. I know they've always been the biggest seller, but now it's like one chapter of space marines is at least equivalent to an entire alien race in terms of focus. I find it really off putting personally as the diversity of 40k is what makes it so cool imo.

 

I know many of these changes were made in the name of simplicity, but if you go back and look at 3rd edition, it played far quicker, was much simpler, and represented a far more "realistic" battle. Also you didn't need to know every possible combination of strategems and special rules available to your opponent to play a game without a gotcha moment every turn.

 

I genuinely wonder, if they had released a 3rd edition type set of rules, with new models, and all their modern marketing reach, would it be as if not more successful than 9th edition?

Edited November 3, 2021 by Ielthan

[Interrogator Stobz]

^^^ 100% why I don't play 40k anymore.

GW have created many other fantastic rulesets, AT and KT are my favourites and play so very well but yep the main game doesn't scale well and has become bloated and feels automated.

 

And your thoughts aren't controversial BTW, they are just a valid opinion, just as valid as those that like to bits you and I don't. And that's cool too, at least we have options.

FWIW, I didn't really like 2nd Ed so would have preferred they emulated the simplicity and scalability of 3rd instead.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Interrogator Stobz

[Evil Eye]

Ielthan's hit the nail on the head. I feel like the biggest problem with modern 40k is the drift away from the simulationist/wargame roots of the game and towards a "videogame with miniatures" type of system, which I personally don't care for one bit. As someone who started in 5th (and also has the rulebook and a few Codices for 3rd), whilst I don't think that it was a perfect, harmonious golden age by any stretch, there were things I think those earlier editions handled better. Terrain, vehicles, unit types, WS-reliant to-hit rolls in CC, some of the wackier/fluffier rules, conversion-bait units (notably the various Apocalypse datasheets) etc.

 

I think a big part of the problem is that the game has simultaneously become dumber/shallower and also more complex and unwieldy, as bizarre as that sounds. Lots of the more "simulationist" rules got canned or grossly simplified in the name of accessibility, but thanks to the sheer amount of keywords, supplements, interacting auras, weapon profiles and so on and so forth, the game isn't actually any more fun or easy to play. It seems more user-friendly at first glance due to the reduced size of the core rules, but in practice it's just as hard to keep track of everything as it's always been, if not more so, but without the fun and fluffiness of earlier editions when the focus was on "simulate how the battle works and hope it's playable". I've heard people say the game needs simplifying, but I feel if you simplified the game any more it'd become glorified checkers. If anything, the core rules need to be made more complex and in-depth, whilst the various "Tabletop MOBA" elements (stratagems, secondary objectives etc) need massively cutting back. At present, 40K is a car with only a steering wheel, an accelerator and a brake- it might seem more simple to use to the uninitiated but if you take it out on the road you'll find that the lack of gears, handbrake etc makes driving a dangerous and unpleasant affair.

 

I'm not going to lay the blame solely at any one group's feet, because between obsessive WAAC types who will scrap their armies and scream about it online the moment the meta changes (whilst buying the new hotness to keep up with the curve of course), the whales who will buy literally everything GW makes and defend every decision they make, especially vocal individuals who will scream at the top of their lungs that everything GW does is terrible and they can literally do nothing right (all whilst refusing to offer any constructive suggestions on what they could do to actually improve), "normies" who don't actually care about 40K but want it to cater to them so they can be seen to be into something "cool", and of course GW's own incompetence, there's an awful lot of factors that are contributing to the problem.

But what can be done? Well, I have a few suggestions:
>Rework Stratagems to be more like actual strategic ploys and less like MOBA abilities (see my earlier post)

>Remove secondaries from the army list selection stage and change them to be rules you can use for scenarios; so you still have cool, fluffy objectives but they're only used where it actually makes sense.

>Bring back unit types, including vehicles having their own rules.

>Bring back terrain rules (special bonus points for terrain generator tables ala 3rd- bring back the cocktail stick cactus!)

>Either nuke the table size rules entirely or make it ULTRA SUPER MEGA CRYSTAL CLEAR they are just SUGGESTIONS and not ironclad commandments of how big a table has to be to be "valid".

>Rework keywords (IMO a cool idea that's been poorly utilized) to be more "general" and actually relevant to how a battle would work. So for example, BULKY units might interact differently with certain types of terrain, FLAMMABLE units might be more vulnerable to FLAME weapons (see below) etc.

>Also, reduce the sheer amount of individual weapons with their own lengthy special rules (not to say that none can exist of course but they should be reserved for relics and exotic weapons) and add keywords to weapon types. So FLAME weapons ignore cover, can set enemies alight (especially FLAMMABLE foes), etc.

>Exterminatus Metawatch and all such things that encourage/promote the idea that 40K is some kind of tabletop esport where all that matters is grinding your opponent to paste.

>Keep PLs around but either give everything points values or make an easy system for translating PLs to points.

>Include all essential rules for a faction in their codex, whilst keeping supplements around for cool/"nice to have" optional rules.

...Wew, I think that's everything!

[Ielthan]

Thanks Evil Eye! Yes the change in what the game is meant to be from wargame to tabletop video game is my main issue for sure.

 

I've very slowly been starting a sort of 3rd edition type project where I'm scratch building/collecting terrain for a city fight type table and rebuilding long since sold Eldar & Imperial Guard armies. Hoping I can find some players who are willing to give it a go with me.

 

I've been collecting various 3rd ed rules and codices, and there is just such a stark contrast with 9th edition, but I really prefer 3rd, especially with the chapter approved assault phase and vehicle rules (no rhino rush!). I was looking through the original rules for flyers published by forgeworld, and they're just so much better than anything that was released since in terms of realism. Basically flyers do strafing runs over the battlefield at extremely high speed then fly off, briefly exposing themselves to return fire, that's likely to be ineffective unless it's specific anti aircraft weapons. Not just some marauding helicopter gunships with incredible low speed agility.

 

I'm hoping a community can be built for 3rd in the way the various editions of fantasy have become fairly popular again (5th, 6th and 8th still have events).

 

It seems to me that 3rd appeals to a somewhat different gaming niche to 9th, so maybe others might be interested too, and they can still use their models in 9th so unlike WFB there's really no conflict.

 

I'll make a WIP thread with some basic pics soon.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Ielthan

[Noserenda]

Something that just occurred to me, what if, on top of the Stratagems list being smaller, you bought ones to use during the game, possibly with points, possibly based on game size, like Titanicus? 

Means you likely have 2-4 relevant, easy to explain and memorable stratagems to use but you can still tailor them a little to the army you are playing. 

Still mental load, but a lot less of it.

[Rik Lightstar]

Stratagems would be greatly improved if you bought a list of Stratagems pregame with your command points....

 

So before the game for example you'd say "I'm taking" :

1x Extra Relic

4x Rerolls

1x Change Doctrine

2x Transhuman

1x Only in death...

 

You could still have the full lists available but you commit at the start of the game.

 

Rik

[Schlitzaf]

Stop listening to folks who don’t play ninth and want to neckbeard. Now more seriously: Release schedule aside issues (which is #1 issue followed closely by “Units that exist but don’t). Is unimagination with subfactions or more specifically.

 

Renegades CSM is a fantastic subfaction as it creates and expands the faction in ways. For example three “subfactions” I’d add to the game would be:

Gue’vesa

Lost & Damned

Blood Brothers

 

Basically let AM replace (regiment) and Imperium with the relavent keywords.

 

Bring back 8th Edition Detachment system. Was honestly one of the best aspects. Fixed Specialty Unit Detachments to not be so punishing. But the new system painfully limits several units far more than old system. And with SuperDocs becoming universal soups are becoming less attractive.

 

While set based restrictions are fine. I’d do a little reworking for example. SBros instead of 9 or less only get 1 of each. Have it be 7 or less. That just makes more sense. Given you can buy 2 sets amd make 2 Castallens. Primaris Crusader instead of 2 CoolWeap per 10. 1 CoolWeapon per 5.

 

Scion Model for “Niche I exist but not really Armies” more universal”, Tzaangors, and Kroot for example. They don’t need to be strong nerf pls. A simple HQ Option for them. “Universal” Strategems should be just that universal. Notably Extra Relic could be in main book for example.

[Medjugorje]

at first - I see the changes from 8th to 9th edition in many ways as an great achievement and its clearly better. Especially the Detchments.

Then there are so many thing inside the books I really dont like - first comes to mind is that GW often buffs the best unit in a codex ( hive guard for example) although the 90percent rest of the book is insane trash and need a redone or buff much more. So this section to talk would filled 5 pages for each codex.

 

so lets talk about the core rules - things i would change:

 

*Stratagems like full cover for units which dont have first turn.

 

*Stratagems which improve the output cost double in first round.

 

*Ranges for many units will be reduced

 

* increasing penalties on moving units

- minus 2 on heavy weapons and not being able to charge

- loose range if moved on rapid fire weapons

- minus 1 for all shooting when target is more then 24" and +1 to hit wenn unit is within 12"

 

*increasing saves and statlines for most vehicles (all SM variants for example) and more use of Toughness 9, 10 etc... so boring that each vehicle has T7 and there is just a variety of 6 and 8. Land Raiders for example would have T9 and 20 wounds. 

 

*just one buff per unit ( no chapter master AND lieutenant buff)

 

*point adjustments over the whole board

 

*mission design overworked

- no cap on holding primaries

- 10 points for each marker you hold at the end

- secoundaries must be made very hard to achieve... should not be so easy to get.

 

*blast weapons can only hit the amount of models in the selected unit. ( d6 shots against a tank gives you d6  hit rolls but is reduced to one (like it was unit all editions before 8th). When shooting against units with 6 or more models you gain 2 additional shots and 4 additional shots against units with 11 or more models, 6 additional shots against 16 or more ..... 

 

*4CP Stratagem which disallow the opponent stratagem to use as core rulebook stratagem. This stratagem cannot taken against rerolls. ( Some abilities decide a game and some opponent can do nothing against it - sometimes in first turn )

 

*flyer changes to rules like in 6th and 7th edition. They are not on the table in first turn. They arrive on strategic reserves  but can be move more then 6" from the edge.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Medjugorje

[OldWherewolf]

at first - I see the changes from 8th to 9th edition in many ways as an great achievement and its clearly better. Especially the Detchments.

Then there are so many thing inside the books I really dont like - first comes to mind is that GW often buffs the best unit in a codex ( hive guard for example) although the 90percent rest of the book is insane trash and need a redone or buff much more. So this section to talk would filled 5 pages for each codex.

 

so lets talk about the core rules - things i would change:

 

*Stratagems like full cover for units which dont have first turn.

 

*Stratagems which improve the output cost double in first round.

 

*Ranges for many units will be reduced

 

* increasing penalties on moving units

- minus 2 on heavy weapons and not being able to charge

- loose range if moved on rapid fire weapons

- minus 1 for all shooting when target is more then 24" and +1 to hit wenn unit is within 12"

 

*increasing saves and statlines for most vehicles (all SM variants for example) and more use of Toughness 9, 10 etc... so boring that each vehicle has T7 and there is just a variety of 6 and 8. Land Raiders for example would have T9 and 20 wounds. 

 

*just one buff per unit ( no chapter master AND lieutenant buff)

 

*point adjustments over the whole board

 

*mission design overworked

- no cap on holding primaries

- 10 points for each marker you hold at the end

- secoundaries must be made very hard to achieve... should not be so easy to get.

 

*blast weapons can only hit the amount of models in the selected unit. ( d6 shots against a tank gives you d6  hit rolls but is reduced to one (like it was unit all editions before 8th). When shooting against units with 6 or more models you gain 2 additional shots and 4 additional shots against units with 11 or more models, 6 additional shots against 16 or more ..... 

 

*4CP Stratagem which disallow the opponent stratagem to use as core rulebook stratagem. This stratagem cannot taken against rerolls. ( Some abilities decide a game and some opponent can do nothing against it - sometimes in first turn )

 

*flyer changes to rules like in 6th and 7th edition. They are not on the table in first turn. They arrive on strategic reserves  but can be move more then 6" from the edge.

The limitation on blast weapons will cripple IG, while doing nothing to DE and almost nothing to AdMech.  But at the same time limit shooting against a 1st-turn charge (like BA Death Company or infiltrators charging on turn 1)

 

Overall, they hurt shooting armies while buffing Melee armies, without taking into account terrain or movement, so it's really an over-reaction to the current Ork/AdMech alpha-strike flyer spam.

 

I think we can accomplish some of this without being so extreme. For example, move the -1 to hit stratagem into the core rulebook, so it's available to all armies and all units. Same for Relics.  But I don't think (as others want) a strict list in the core rulebook.  Stratagems provide each army a unique flavor that I love.  We just need to tone down the "I Win" ones, as (IIRC) a 1CP strat is supposed to be worth about 30 points, while some are worth several hundred points.

 

I agree that Secondaries need to be more balanced.  The ones that are easy and don't require interaction with your opponent (like ROD and Priority Targets) should be capped at ~8 VPs.  Ones that are harder, like Engage on All Fronts could be capped at 12, while the harder ones capped at 15 (or more!).  Although I do like the primaries capped at 45, since that helps prevent runaway games. 

 

Please yes on the Points Adjustments.  Ork and Admech flyers need to be almost 2x their current cost, while IG could come down by 20% without batting an eye.  Even Necrons and SMs could come down by 5% pretty safely.  With the codex creep, it's almost like a 2% drop in cost per codex that is released. 

 

I think the total number of Mortal Wounds needs to come down.  For example, why does the DG PBC Disgusting Force strat need to cause MWs?  why can't it be hits.  the PBC is strong enough, so why couldn't that strat cause 1 hit against nearby units that cause 1 damage each? 

[Medjugorje]

 

at first - I see the changes from 8th to 9th edition in many ways as an great achievement and its clearly better. Especially the Detchments.

Then there are so many thing inside the books I really dont like - first comes to mind is that GW often buffs the best unit in a codex ( hive guard for example) although the 90percent rest of the book is insane trash and need a redone or buff much more. So this section to talk would filled 5 pages for each codex.

 

so lets talk about the core rules - things i would change:

 

*Stratagems like full cover for units which dont have first turn.

 

*Stratagems which improve the output cost double in first round.

 

*Ranges for many units will be reduced

 

* increasing penalties on moving units

- minus 2 on heavy weapons and not being able to charge

- loose range if moved on rapid fire weapons

- minus 1 for all shooting when target is more then 24" and +1 to hit wenn unit is within 12"

 

*increasing saves and statlines for most vehicles (all SM variants for example) and more use of Toughness 9, 10 etc... so boring that each vehicle has T7 and there is just a variety of 6 and 8. Land Raiders for example would have T9 and 20 wounds. 

 

*just one buff per unit ( no chapter master AND lieutenant buff)

 

*point adjustments over the whole board

 

*mission design overworked

- no cap on holding primaries

- 10 points for each marker you hold at the end

- secoundaries must be made very hard to achieve... should not be so easy to get.

 

*blast weapons can only hit the amount of models in the selected unit. ( d6 shots against a tank gives you d6  hit rolls but is reduced to one (like it was unit all editions before 8th). When shooting against units with 6 or more models you gain 2 additional shots and 4 additional shots against units with 11 or more models, 6 additional shots against 16 or more ..... 

 

*4CP Stratagem which disallow the opponent stratagem to use as core rulebook stratagem. This stratagem cannot taken against rerolls. ( Some abilities decide a game and some opponent can do nothing against it - sometimes in first turn )

 

*flyer changes to rules like in 6th and 7th edition. They are not on the table in first turn. They arrive on strategic reserves  but can be move more then 6" from the edge.

The limitation on blast weapons will cripple IG, while doing nothing to DE and almost nothing to AdMech.  But at the same time limit shooting against a 1st-turn charge (like BA Death Company or infiltrators charging on turn 1)

 

Overall, they hurt shooting armies while buffing Melee armies, without taking into account terrain or movement, so it's really an over-reaction to the current Ork/AdMech alpha-strike flyer spam.

 

I think we can accomplish some of this without being so extreme. For example, move the -1 to hit stratagem into the core rulebook, so it's available to all armies and all units. Same for Relics.  But I don't think (as others want) a strict list in the core rulebook.  Stratagems provide each army a unique flavor that I love.  We just need to tone down the "I Win" ones, as (IIRC) a 1CP strat is supposed to be worth about 30 points, while some are worth several hundred points.

 

I agree that Secondaries need to be more balanced.  The ones that are easy and don't require interaction with your opponent (like ROD and Priority Targets) should be capped at ~8 VPs.  Ones that are harder, like Engage on All Fronts could be capped at 12, while the harder ones capped at 15 (or more!).  Although I do like the primaries capped at 45, since that helps prevent runaway games. 

 

Please yes on the Points Adjustments.  Ork and Admech flyers need to be almost 2x their current cost, while IG could come down by 20% without batting an eye.  Even Necrons and SMs could come down by 5% pretty safely.  With the codex creep, it's almost like a 2% drop in cost per codex that is released. 

 

I think the total number of Mortal Wounds needs to come down.  For example, why does the DG PBC Disgusting Force strat need to cause MWs?  why can't it be hits.  the PBC is strong enough, so why couldn't that strat cause 1 hit against nearby units that cause 1 damage each? 

 

but then you can make other profiles for those tanks. Like 6  damage on this tanks and far cheaper.

 

And what I did forgot... change BS mofiier to +2 or -2 maximum.

With that changes of course it would need complete new point costs for each unit. 

We havent talk about codex rules ( of course ramshakkle must change ).

 

Explosions should not deal d3 MW but d6 normal wounds instead. Thats absolutely correct. Now an explosion doesnt hurt orks but dont let anything explodes nearby marines or custodes ... it can change the whole outcome of the game.... that should never be the case.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Medjugorje

[Guest Triszin]

Low slot should be open 0-1 in battalions and brigades. With a* saying the low does not gain army wide bonuses Edited November 7, 2021 by Triszin

[Medjugorje]

there we are very different. I would change LOW like Knights out of the balanced game and let them only able for fungames.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

*waves his 5th Edition rulebook in front the camera*

[Medjugorje]

I think the biggest problem is the amount of firepower we have. Melee units are just worth it if they are fast enough to reach combat from their hiding place. The amount of terrain we see on tournaments are just a result of the stupid killyness.

 

Even 10 Terminators with -1 damage are dead if they can be seen against a normal 2k point army. Too much rerolls, too much buffs. This would be okay if GW would not be so conservative with their datasheets. Think about... in f5th editon 30 orks with T4 and S3 was very powerful. Nowadays 30 orks with T5 and S4 are a JOKE!!!

[Subtleknife]

Move to AA

 

Move to D10 or 12.

 

Rework vehicles....not sure how exactly but they just dont feel right atm.

 

Use the new "to wound system", which I think is more efficient than the old table, for "to hit" in close combat. It irks me a guardsman needs the same roll to hit a pox walker and a space marine.

 

You need to pick strats when you build a list. They could cost points or something

 

Change d* damage to a fixed result with a rule that if you roll over two of what is required you do more damage. So let's say a lascannon requires a 3 to wound. A 3-4 would do a flat four damage. A 5-6 would do a flat 6 damage.