What would you change about 9th ed?

[The Neverborn]

While there are many problems with the core rules that could be improved, but the main problem in 40k is where it has always been.

 

There are just some choices that are far too effective.

 

These can be secondary objectives, stratagems or points cost.

 

Adjusting these so there is no longer more effective choices or them to be to only the smallest amount possible.

 

The logic to what the changes need to be are simple, just adjust the costs or profiles of the above.

 

What these need to be is more complex. 

[Helias_Tancred]

1. I'm not sure about other factions but Space Marines need an across-the-board lowering of points for vehicles and tanks. Sizable adjustment.

 

2. GW really needs to curtail the "solo game player" styled secondary objectives that allows someone to rack up a considerable amount of points without having to interact with his opponent. I'd get rid of most of them tbh. 

[XeonDragon]

Re: point 2 above, I agree. Some tournament games that I have watched when insomnia strikes me it's almost like the players are simply doing their separate (secondary) things, and occasionally shooting or fighting over an objective. The number of games where both opponents score over 80 points appears to be increasing, and my perception of those games is that this reflects laser-beam focus on objectives and little incentive to do more than minimal interaction with the other player.

 

I'd love to see missions scored on primaries and either only one mission specific secondary with appropriate narrative flavour, or a mandatory mission secondary and one player-selected one (i.e. max of two secondaries). 

[Helias_Tancred]

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

[MegaVolt87]

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

 

Or only have secondaries count when there is a tie for the primaries to determine the winner. Secondaries should have a lesser weight on things, they should only really be needed in the event of a tie. Faction unique secondaries won't be even/balanced in competitive, the primaries should be what should mainly count. Objectives are the way, killhammer is garbage, don't want 40k to drift that way again. 

[Azekai]

 

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

 

Or only have secondaries count when there is a tie for the primaries to determine the winner. Secondaries should have a lesser weight on things, they should only really be needed in the event of a tie. Faction unique secondaries won't be even/balanced in competitive, the primaries should be what should mainly count. Objectives are the way, killhammer is garbage, don't want 40k to drift that way again. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that killhammer is braindead and awful. I am not a big fan of the 9th ed secondaries, BUT one nice side effect of secondaries is that it breathes new life into certain weird outlier units that would otherwise not have a role. Thanks to deploy scramblers/engage on all fronts, lictors (for example) actually can see the light of day. I would like to see reworked primary objectives that could be accomplished with the help of such weirdo units.

[XeonDragon]

I'm not sure killhammer is the answer, but nor is run-around-the-board-doing-stuff-hammer either. I think the focus should be on primaries. That would focus on taking, holding and flipping objectives. Secondaries should either be tie-breakers or a may to score more points, but should have less value than primaries.

 

For example, current the theoretical max value would be 60 points (4 x  15 points). If the primary "cap" was lifted to 60 points and the second reduced to 30 (2 x 15), then that would really shift the focus. Secondaries could get you over the edge in tight games, or keep you in the running, but if you fail at the primaries (or at least fail to stop your opponent) then it would be really, really hard to win the game. 

 

Hmmm.... 

[MARK0SIAN]

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

I would say they need to tone down the value and strength of playing to the SECONDARY objectives. They are, after all meant to be secondary. Playing to the primary objectives though is exactly what it should be about, if you play those better than your opponent you should win.

[jarms48]

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

 

Is this a joke? This was perhaps the best thing GW actually did. You try playing Guard right now in kill-hammer against Ad-Mech or Orks. Playing to the objective is the only chance you have, there's literally a 0% chance you'll wipe them. 

[OldWherewolf]

 

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

 

Is this a joke? This was perhaps the best thing GW actually did. You try playing Guard right now in kill-hammer against Ad-Mech or Orks. Playing to the objective is the only chance you have, there's literally a 0% chance you'll wipe them. 

 

 

Totally agree here.  Games that are just 'kill everything' get boring pretty quicky, and playing just for the primaries become kill fests

 

Secondaries change each game to be unique, as you'll pick different secondaries for the same mission depending on your opponent and even the same armies can require different secondaries depending on the army list.  They just need to be balanced so greater risk provides greater rewards.  There's just too many easy secondaries that are worth too much.

[Helias_Tancred]

 

They need to tone down the value and strength of simply playing to the objectives.

 

Or only have secondaries count when there is a tie for the primaries to determine the winner. Secondaries should have a lesser weight on things, they should only really be needed in the event of a tie. Faction unique secondaries won't be even/balanced in competitive, the primaries should be what should mainly count. Objectives are the way, killhammer is garbage, don't want 40k to drift that way again. 

 

 

Balance.

I should have clarified my response, yes I meant it has to do with secondary objectives.

[ThePenitentOne]

If secondaries are breaking the game for you, play Crusade. Agendas don't help you win the battle, they just provide experience for the unit that achieves them.

 

This may eventually lead to winning the war. But it takes a fair number of games to get to that point, and if your play style is to always go for the win and ignore agendas, you'll make up for a lack of XP with RP. And if you don't, there's always a Giant Killer bonus to help even out the odds.

 

My favourite part of 9th is that 2k matched is such a small part of what is actually available. IMHO, focusing exclusively on how to improved 2k Matched is ignoring literally EVERYTHING that makes 9th great.

 

Edit: I know that some people feel like I'm telling them how to play when I make comments like this. My concern is that the things people suggest for fixing 2k Matched could break everything else... And everything else is far more of the actual game than 2k matched. Kinda like getting a nose job which ends up breaking the rest of your face.

 

I don't really care about how broken 2k matched is. I already fixed it... By playing the rest of the game instead.

Edited November 9, 2021 by ThePenitentOne

[MegaVolt87]

If secondaries are breaking the game for you, play Crusade. Agendas don't help you win the battle, they just provide experience for the unit that achieves them.

 

This may eventually lead to winning the war. But it takes a fair number of games to get to that point, and if your play style is to always go for the win and ignore agendas, you'll make up for a lack of XP with RP. And if you don't, there's always a Giant Killer bonus to help even out the odds.

 

My favourite part of 9th is that 2k matched is such a small part of what is actually available. IMHO, focusing exclusively on how to improved 2k Matched is ignoring literally EVERYTHING that makes 9th great.

 

Its not unreasonable to improve the most accepted + popular competitive format, especially for pickup games with strangers. Narrative/crusade/open is fine for tighter communities + friend groups, more transient/  tighter play ones need the competitive format. 

[ThePenitentOne]

I agree... the difficulty is that the ways people suggest fixing 2k matched have the potential to break everything else.

 

People suggest doing stuff like having you choose all your strats before the game and pay for them with points. Now if you do that to 2k matched, I'm not going to care, because I don't play that version of the game.

 

But if you do that to Crusade, I'm gonna scream so loud you'll hear it on the other side of the world.

 

Same if you suggest cutting strats, or losing subfaction rules, etc, etc.

 

I think that there is so much to the game that to meaningfully suggest improvements, you almost have say which game type you are trying to improve. Looking for a blanket set of improvements that work for all sizes and types of games is almost impossible. Maybe the thing that would make me less apprehensive of people's suggestions is to change the thread title to "What would you do to fix 2k Matched" or even just "Matched at any size." 

 

I just really get the idea that this is what everyone is actually writing about anyway, but they're writing it in such a way that the thing that I love and think of as damn near perfect is under threat. The truth, of course, is that there is no threat- I doubt GW actually takes it's cues from forums... Though you never know; any of us could be an undercover GW operative datamining the brain trust of B&C.

[MegaVolt87]

I agree... the difficulty is that the ways people suggest fixing 2k matched have the potential to break everything else.

 

People suggest doing stuff like having you choose all your strats before the game and pay for them with points. Now if you do that to 2k matched, I'm not going to care, because I don't play that version of the game.

 

But if you do that to Crusade, I'm gonna scream so loud you'll hear it on the other side of the world.

 

Same if you suggest cutting strats, or losing subfaction rules, etc, etc.

 

I think that there is so much to the game that to meaningfully suggest improvements, you almost have say which game type you are trying to improve. Looking for a blanket set of improvements that work for all sizes and types of games is almost impossible. Maybe the thing that would make me less apprehensive of people's suggestions is to change the thread title to "What would you do to fix 2k Matched" or even just "Matched at any size." 

 

I just really get the idea that this is what everyone is actually writing about anyway, but they're writing it in such a way that the thing that I love and think of as damn near perfect is under threat. The truth, of course, is that there is no threat- I doubt GW actually takes it's cues from forums... Though you never know; any of us could be an undercover GW operative datamining the brain trust of B&C.

 

Narrative/open/Crusade are frankly not on anyone's radar in most talk of 9th ed improvements. Competitive has the most issues so most of the talk is about that. Even if there is a stratagems cull for example there will be something else in narrative formats to compensate. Its in GW's interest to have the separate formats be largely separate, they appeal to different types of people. Back to the stratagems example, I'm sure those that want them gone from matched couldn't care less if they were still in narrative formats because the issue is no longer an issue in their absence from matched. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by MegaVolt87

[phandaal]

 

 

If secondaries are breaking the game for you, play Crusade. Agendas don't help you win the battle, they just provide experience for the unit that achieves them.

 

This may eventually lead to winning the war. But it takes a fair number of games to get to that point, and if your play style is to always go for the win and ignore agendas, you'll make up for a lack of XP with RP. And if you don't, there's always a Giant Killer bonus to help even out the odds.

 

My favourite part of 9th is that 2k matched is such a small part of what is actually available. IMHO, focusing exclusively on how to improved 2k Matched is ignoring literally EVERYTHING that makes 9th great.

Its not unreasonable to improve the most accepted + popular competitive format, especially for pickup games with strangers. Narrative/crusade/open is fine for tighter communities + friend groups, more transient/ tighter play ones need the competitive format.

Would say it honestly should be the opposite. Open groups and new players should be trying out non competitive formats first.

 

It is not unreasonable to assume that most people get into this hobby because they want to paint spacemen and make them go pew pew, and the competitive side of things comes later - if ever.

 

Pushing groups of strangers into the most competitive format of the game is a mistake, because it leads to this mindset that the only thing 40k has to offer is obliterating your opponent with power combos or retrieving your 1000th Octarius servo skull.

 

People who already know each other can choose to play matched, and the portion of the community that goes to tournaments already knows what they are getting into.

[MARK0SIAN]

I think the issue with using something like crusade for new players is that there’s actually even more to learn and get your head around than matched play.

 

Crusade feels like it should be a good way to get people into an army or the game because it starts small and you can build up your force over time. The problem is the rules don’t start small. It’s still a normal game using the normal rules but you’ve also got to learn and keep track of the RP/XP and various other crusade specific systems.

 

I’m not saying narrative or non competitive ways are a bad introduction for new players but I don’t think crusade itself is a good introduction.

[phandaal]

Yeah, Crusade is probably better once people get some games under their belt.

 

Start with Open War, or playing Crusade missions in an Open War format without all the Crusade rules.

 

Many (if not most) Crusade missions can be played just with their baked-in objectives and nothing else, and are some of the most thematic missions GW has made for 9th edition. That is a great introduction for a new player.

[ThePenitentOne]

These are good thoughts- if I had a total gaming n00b, I'd play a non-battle-forged 25 PL game first. Then another open game with battleforged armies.

 

If someone has gaming experience- be it table top, CCG or RPG- a 25 PL Crusade game is pretty simple. For some context here: my 25PL Deathwatch Crusade is 12 infantry models- a Watch Captain and a 5 man Proteus team and Kyria Draxus with 5 man  Fortis Team. Not much tracking with a force that small. Mapping a 3.5 D&D Feat tree through a 20 level character that multiclasses is WAY more complicated, as is building an MtG deck.

 

Certainly if you start at 75-100 PL, or even 50, it might be overwhelming for some. Either way, I agree that Open is still the best starter game.

[Snazzy]

Restore the old S v T charts.  Bolters and Lasguns should not have an equal chance of wounding a Plague Marine, or Ork Boy.

[techsoldaten]

Were it me, I'd remove secondaries. They take away more than they add.

 

On the one hand, more games are decided on secondaries than I'd like. Feels like playing a game within a game, I don't particularly enjoy the experience and would prefer something more straightforward.

 

It's not that there's no room for secondaries, it's that sometimes I just want to play kill points. But secondaries are so tightly bound to the core game other players have trouble stepping back. Would rather it be an option than a requirement.

 

OTOH, there's the whole issue of "lethality." I've had enough of the discussions about how killy everything is and the tweaks they think will address them.

 

My hunch about part of what's driving it: players are making choices (in their list and in the game) to achieve certain secondaries and it's leading to funny results. Have seen too many examples of weird lists where someone justifies a unit by saying he's there to get X secondary.

 

It's not that this is the root of all problems, but I see where people's focus is being split. Units are already more expensive, each one has to do more than it did in 8th. I'd rather keep the reason for building a list as simple as possible.

[phandaal]

Open War is basically Matched Play without secondaries and with a little more variety in primaries. At this point I am a broken record - but you can also run Crusade missions in Open War using their baked in primary objectives. Games Workshop did a great job making them feel thematic and different.

 

Feels like playing a 40k game rather than playing collect-a-skull or servitor corner camping or whatever.

 

People are also more chill when they do not think they are playing the "competitive" game mode.

 

Open War is the main way I play 9th edition for just these reasons.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Drop strategems.

Bring back templates.

Drop bubbles.

Bring back joining characters to units, but make the unit die first.

Drop character targeting rules.

Drop secondaries.

Drop overwatch.

Bring back CC skill comparison tables.

- Edit in support of Cheex below:

Fix terrain rules.

No flamers hitting planes.

Damage like Kill Team is awesome.

Use more variable Toughness stats.

oh yeah removing the T8 cap is a big one.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Definitely.

 

I would like to see vehicles with much higher T so only dedicated AT weapons can reliably wound them. Much like the real world.

And unlike some other frater I'd like to keep their W predominantly as is and have AT weapons do heaps of D vs vehicles.

Much like the real world, once your projectiles' molten juice gets inside the armour the contents rue the consequences.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Interrogator Stobz

[Antarius]

 

I can agree. 9th it self isn't really a bad rule set. None are ever perfect, 4th was my favorite.  

 

I feel much the same way. I don't *mind* 9th (although I don't really feel the urge to play large-scale games anymore), but 4th was my favourite, even though it, too, had its flaws (one that springs to mind is how riding in a transport was basically suicide ).

 

I don't think it's possible to arrive at a perfect ruleset and I don't necessarily think earlier rulesets were, strictly speaking, "better". But I do miss morale impacting troop movements rather than just removing them outright, more "regular" troops having more of an impact and characters being able to join units.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Antarius