What would you change about 9th ed?

[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

[Warhead01]

 

 

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.

 

Definitely.  For me it's also viewed through the lenses of which ever army I was playing at the time, Orks from 3rd on till 5th using the 3rd edition codex. It's one of the main reasons I have such a low opinion of 5th. The 4th edition Ork codex and the main rules of 5th just hurt. But it is more than one factor for sure. 9th is a game of layers some of those layers are just not really to my liking. But again playing a different army and it's more palatable.  

 

I'd forgotten how transports worked in 4th. it's been a long time. The close Combat rules were fantastic after the Close Combat rules of 3rd. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

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.

id up it at least to T10

Then you can have S11 weapons that make sense

Fry everything T6 and under and still do work on T7+

 

Primarchs and the like can remain T8 with light vehicles being T7-8, MBTs T9 super heavies T10

[Valkyrion]

I think WS needs revamping too. Having everything hitting on 3+, often with rerolls, lessens the advantage of WS6+ from back in the day and makes a primarch only marginally better than a space marine. 

 

Why couldn't WS be like S and T? So, space marine with WS4 hits eldar with WS3 on 3+, but eldar needs 5+ to hit back. The exact same S/T table could be used - 6's always hit, 1's always miss, but things like phoenix lords and bloodthirsters aren't just hitting each other on 2's like they are now. You've just made things much more survivable too. 

[Schlitzaf]

Not to derail thread: Why not play Heresy or 7th? I’ll make my own threwd about why I like 9th. Later tonight. But alot of this thread reads about wanting 7th edition back

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

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.... 

 

What's interesting if you look at Goonhammers meta review for October they have a table showing the difference in primary scoring between the winners and losers per each mission. The average primary points for the winner is 37 compared to 22 for the loser. To me that suggests the secondary objectives already aren't as important. Most of the run-around-the-board-doing-stuff-hammer secondary objectives tend to be a reliable way to score 8 points (which is the average for all secondary objectives according to their data). That isn't going to be enough to get you back into the game from down 15.   

 

I think the bigger issue is that in the hold 1, hold 2, or hold more missions with 6 objectives, you can max the primary with only 1 turn of holding 3 objectives. I think that leads to stalemates because the game is so lethal now that neither side wants to commit first. In those missions I do think there is an emphasis on the running around the board secondary objectives, but I think the flaw is with the primary. Forcing armies to hold 3 to get 10 points does a better job of forcing the action.

 

I will admit that I do like the ideal of secondary objectives because they add another element to list construction. That said I don't think they're perfect the book keeping is a bit much, and I don't think units that enter from reserves should be able to do actions. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[phandaal]

 

 

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.

 

 

As a set of core rules, 9th edition feels really good to me. Issues come from the structure of some game types and the bonkers rules that come with individual codices. The actual foundation of the rules feels good though.

[lansalt]

Introduce a roster system like Kill Team. Players make a list of units valued at xxxx points, and for each battle they choose what they want to use at 2000 points or whatever.

Is a form of controlled list tailoring, but I think this could reduce a lot of the bad matchups or differences of power in the metagame.

[Valkyrion]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As a set of core rules, 9th edition feels really good to me. Issues come from the structure of some game types and the bonkers rules that come with individual codices. The actual foundation of the rules feels good though.

 

 

I think this is the most accurate description I've seen. 

The core rules are fine, it's the units and codexes that aren't. 

[MARK0SIAN]

Introduce a roster system like Kill Team. Players make a list of units valued at xxxx points, and for each battle they choose what they want to use at 2000 points or whatever.

Is a form of controlled list tailoring, but I think this could reduce a lot of the bad matchups or differences of power in the metagame.

I think the disparity in codexes/army power are just too great for that to work. For a start, although you could tailor your list better, they’re also doing the same thing to you. More importantly though, some factions just lack the tools to deal with some of the more outrageous stuff. Before the recent balance stuff you could probably have allowed a guard or tau player to literally see their opponents admech/Drukhari/ork list in advance and give them total free reign to design a list to counter it and I’d still put money on the AdMech/Drukhari/ork player. Edited November 10, 2021 by MARK0SIAN

[Noserenda]

I actually kinda like fixed WS from a realism perspective, barring extreme supernatural types (have a special rule) massed combat is a lot less about individual skill and more about leadership and morale (Assuming most things in 40k are extremely motivated to actually kill the enemy is a safe bet lol) its not like a duel or a movie, half the time you are beating on someone who has no clue you specifically are there and my experiences dont typically include things like pistols and grenades which are even less personal :D 

One on one or small group is a different matter ofc, but the challenge system is dead, long may it rot.

Design wise its neater that both types of attack (melee and ranged) use the same basic systems too. Verisimilitude can be a pretty personal thing ofc! 

[jarms48]

 

id up it at least to T10

Then you can have S11 weapons that make sense

Fry everything T6 and under and still do work on T7+

 

Primarchs and the like can remain T8 with light vehicles being T7-8, MBTs T9 super heavies T10

 

 

Going back up to T10 as the limit could work. As that also means weapons are capped at S20. 

 

The issue with that though, and the reason I assume GW are making T8 the limit, is that many factions best AT weapons cap out at S8. 

 

In saying that, I'd like to see weapons we triple a models toughness to be mortal wounds instead of regular wounds. So a lascannon into a Guardsmen should turn them into a red mist. An S12 weapon into a tactical marine should hurt, especially if it's multi-damage it should also turn them into a red mist. 

[techsoldaten]

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.

 

Thank you for the pointers. I appreciate you for pointing that out.

 

While I'd love to get into Open War, most people are doing matched play where I live. Getting a table at a FLGS is hard right now.

 

Would be great if there was just a way to say: matched, no secondaries. 

[OldWherewolf]

In saying that, I'd like to see weapons we triple a models toughness to be mortal wounds instead of regular wounds. So a lascannon into a Guardsmen should turn them into a red mist. An S12 weapon into a tactical marine should hurt, especially if it's multi-damage it should also turn them into a red mist.

It's a cool idea, but a problematic one because MWs carry over.  The current downside of a lascannon is that it can only kill 1 model.  If it got converted to MWs, and you rolled that 6 on damage, that's 6 dead models, and would encourage more heavy weapons. 

 

Even still, it would be stronger play into weak models (which have enough issues), upping the game's lethality, without really impacting a Str 9/10/11/12's primary target (tanks).  I think Eradicators and Multi-Meltas are sooo good right now because they are a threat against everything.

[RandomMarine]

Here are my thoughts

 

Bring back USRs but allow faction based modifiers to the them

 

Bring back the I stat

 

Bring back 8th edition overwatch but you have to pass a to-wound style roll against the charging units I stat before you can do it

 

I stat used to determine CC order if not a charging unit or affected by a special rule

 

Have weakish universal strats in abundance but few faction specific ones but the codex ones should be powerful

 

Secondary obs are roled for on a D6 there are 6 in the rulebook and 6 for each faction. You role for two, one from book and one from codex, rerolls cost 1/3 CP max of 2 rerolls

 

Named characters have the 30k rule "jealous command" to prevent herohammer

 

Special rules that change force org slots but used sparingly

 

Separate tournament and normal matched style play by having a official tournament rule set

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

id up it at least to T10

Then you can have S11 weapons that make sense

Fry everything T6 and under and still do work on T7+

 

Primarchs and the like can remain T8 with light vehicles being T7-8, MBTs T9 super heavies T10

 

 

Going back up to T10 as the limit could work. As that also means weapons are capped at S20. 

 

The issue with that though, and the reason I assume GW are making T8 the limit, is that many factions best AT weapons cap out at S8. 

 

In saying that, I'd like to see weapons we triple a models toughness to be mortal wounds instead of regular wounds. So a lascannon into a Guardsmen should turn them into a red mist. An S12 weapon into a tactical marine should hurt, especially if it's multi-damage it should also turn them into a red mist. 

 

 

I like this. Combined with a vehicle fix, MEQ infantry lists would be in more danger if they didn't take vehicles to tank AT fire. Such changes could bring us closer to the utopia of TAC lists approaching a semblance of balance. Instead of skew/gimmick/ death star(s) lists throwing everything out of whack. In 9th ed, many specialized lists lack a real serious punish/ effective counter/ risk to run, so there is no incentive to run a TAC list if a specialized one can't be effectively countered. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Revamp strats and all the ridiculous extra types of rules complicating everything

[sarabando]

Roll the game back to early third edition XD

[chapter master 454]

To be honest, depends on what I would be allowed to change really and what the reach on it would be.

 

On a basic level with no massive ramifications system wide, my main issue is secondaries. Some armies just wimper at needing to have them while others are so spoiled for choice they struggle to pick anything other than engage on all fronts, octarius data and whichever target is most available.

Mainly I would change most of the action objectives to being "at the start of your next command phase or end of game, whichever occurs first, this action is completed" as right now Octarius is basically a meme with most lists literally taxed into taking a deep striking unit to do the objective that is as cheap as possible or a unit that can just zip up the board in an annoying position and get it done turn 2. Very little risk to it for major gain not to mention planning out how you will do it isn't very difficult. Got a dead turn? Well just do one in one of your own quarters, set-up for the next turn.

Engage on all fronts is also a double dip into octarius data. I personally would think also that Engage should actually be 3 thirds and having units in all thirds attacking units within their own thirds (if none are applicable then targeting a unit in a neighbouring third counts but each enemy unit can only count for one third). After all, Battlefield supremacy should be about that, not just being able to say "by having a unit of rookies here that are extremely easily killed, one plane flying through this air space for no reason, that shows we are in control".

 

Again however, main issue is how easy actions are to complete with little to no interaction. Like the only option is being able to zone out the enemy completely from moving and that isn't really fun gameplay. "Yes...now we stare at each other like pawns in a game of chess...unable to advance but equally unable to attack". Make it should doing actions needs some element of covering the unit rather than..."Welp, they got the objective...no point shooting them now" because most Octarius token units aren't threats. Minor issues that can be cleaned later.

[sairence]

The reason a lot of lists are forced into the same old boring engage/rod combo is because there's no other choice. With Guard it's literally the only secondaries I can reliably pick most game, because a huge amount of the rest is either heavily dependent on my opponent and therefore often not applicable or impossible to achieve because my army doesn't have units capable of reliably doing them.

 

The first solution to this should be to balance secondaries no one picks to be more realistically achievable and to make it harder for armies to build good lists that simply are immune to most kill secondaries. After that you can look at nerfing the ones everyone always takes. But doing it the other way around will only make the gap between the spoiled and the starved even bigger.

[Dark Shepherd]

A lot of the solutions seem to fall under 'Make the Game Less Slow'

 

My Ideas

 

Less rerolls

Remove taking multiple relics and warlord traits

Make all strategems once per game

More fixed damage for weapons

Scrap morale phase, bring in a reverse reanimation protocols rule for mere mortals and fickle daemons

[MegaVolt87]

Just wanted to say, I love that new cross fire rule the GSC are getting. With a little tweaking, that would be a sweet rule to add in the core rules IMO. Would bring back some much needed importance in the movement phase as a setup to future phases/turns than we have now. Not to mention better play with deep strike, fly (keyword) units and outflanks etc. Pulling off counters and counter-counters are the more engaging games I find. 

[Valkyrion]

Just wanted to say, I love that new cross fire rule the GSC are getting. With a little tweaking, that would be a sweet rule to add in the core rules IMO. Would bring back some much needed importance in the movement phase as a setup to future phases/turns than we have now. Not to mention better play with deep strike, fly (keyword) units and outflanks etc. Pulling off counters and counter-counters are the more engaging games I find. 

 

Agreed. Things like this are tactically important and speaks to the ability of the human being in charge of the armies to position their units, on both sides, accordingly.

 

It's a much better system than 'it's turn one so I shoot better, it's turn two so I hit better' for example. 

 

It's got a nuance to it that goes beyond rolling so many dice, then rolling them again, that it's statistically unnecessary to roll any at all. 

[phandaal]

Roll the game back to early third edition XD

That would be rad.

[Doghouse]

Not to derail thread: Why not play Heresy or 7th? I’ll make my own threwd about why I like 9th. Later tonight. But alot of this thread reads about wanting 7th edition back

 

That looks like it's going to be an option in the not too distant future with 7th being cleaned up for Heresy 2.0.

 

My current 40k army I am building is based on 7th edition. 

 

While obviously the vast majority are going to be tied to 9th because it's the official way to play the game and is currently supported by the up to date rules and models there are other editions that still exist to try out with friends.

 

For me personally I won't touch 9th as it feels less to me like the game I loved and more like a familiar comfortable old computer game  that I could dip my toe into from time to time to have some fun that has now become swamped with DLC expansions, merch and constant game patches that you have to pay for.