What would you change about 9th ed?

[templargdt]

I would like to see Armor facings come back.  Substituting T for AV is ok I guess, but I really enjoyed that aspect of the game, trying to maneuver for more effective shots.   

[Noserenda]

Armour facings are afairly easy fix, id just pinch the mechanic from Bolt action (paraphrasing) that you get +1 to wound shooting [VEHICLE] units in the back. Ofc then you may need to argue about arcs but if you are agreeing on house rules that should be straightforward :) 

[MARK0SIAN]

Armour facings are afairly easy fix, id just pinch the mechanic from Bolt action (paraphrasing) that you get +1 to wound shooting [VEHICLE] units in the back. Ofc then you may need to argue about arcs but if you are agreeing on house rules that should be straightforward :)

I’d flip it and make it -1 to wound when shooting the front arc. Might help make vehicles a bit more survivable if they’re less vulnerable to small and medium weapons.

[chapter master 454]

To be honest, facings were cool but unfortunately due to how basic 40k's movement system is it doesn't offer much really. All you get is tanks doing Fast&Furious skids into position as to keep front facing to any anti-tank guns and it just looks goofy. However the visual of Rhinos, Chimera's, Devilfish and Wave Serpents all going flat-out to the track "Gas Gas Gas" does make me giggle.

For that mechanic to be real and feel fun to use you have to make the movement phase its own tactical game beyond just "going X inches". Kind of like what Fantasy had where wheeling formations required you to use movement to do it. In 40k however we have a rather large issue in that while in fantasy it was easy to make exceptions because things like tanks were rare, our game likes to have monsters trading fisticuffs with mecha suits while Massive-super humans tank fire from tanks. There is a lot to cover there and also possible grounds for being weakened by a mechanic which just feels bad overall.

I mean, we already have complaints about rule bloat. Again I get the suggestion is simple but yet at the same time it can lead to arguments because "I am facing your side" "no, that's the front!"

I certainly like heavy movement mechanics, to me it is an important aspect of any game to make sure if you are the heavy guy you feel like it. For 40k however, I don't find it needed just because that would be asking for a game only I want really and to be fair, it wouldn't be about infantry!

 

I think if I were to take a look at 9th, lots of positive changes from 8th however I have a few changes I would do and some may not even be rules related but lets go (and this may not be my first post here...meh lets see how consistent I am!):

 

Blast. I would expand this just a little. It works now per DIE not per ATTACK as it currently means that multi-dice blast weapons actually get less benefit from the rule than single blast weapons do. I would also add a simple addition of how it works for both D3 and D6; Against 6-10 model units a D3 always gets a minimum of 2 attacks and D6 3.

Would likely reintroduce Template as a keyword but just change it to something different, namely spray; these weapons don't roll to hit when used as a ranged weapon as they hit automatically and they also act like blast weapons if they have a random number of attacks (however do not benefit from blast benefits if fired in engagement range). This is because "This weapon hits automatically" is becoming fairly regular and a keyword wouldn't be out of the question for it.

Speaking of keywords, certain other keywords may be made such as X Bane (X+), these weapons would have a keyword they work against and auto-wound on the shown result regardless of Strength Vs. Toughness (however does not stop normal wounding working though these weapons tend to be hilariously low strength). So things like Vehicle Bane (3+) could be seen or Non-Vehicle Bane (2+). Even just simple Monster/Vehicle Bane (3+).

I would move all Matched play materials that would be intended for Tournament scene to a free PDF online. This is for competitive players and due to that may need updated frequently as it would also include FAQs, Erratas and missions. Maybe even a reminder of how the pre-game setting up goes. I know, spicy out of rulebook style change but one I think would help, things like more casual materials aren't as important to "update" like competitive stuff is, they are meant to be fun, fast and loose with the players being the ones who decide what is allowed. Basically, I would monetise Crusade expansions like a mad-man while making Matched-play targeted stuff free. Look, you make bank from tournament players by them chasing the new hot top tier stuff (for Richard Siegler to just back-hand with mid-tier armies that were fresh from being nerfed). Casuals aren't as spend heavy on models and are looking for new ways to play with what they have.

 

Similarly I most certainly would have free points changes. Along with bringing back E-Pubs (Mark it up, how many days did we get before I mentioned this again?).

 

Would maybe add some spice to other detachments. Supreme Command has its place, Patrol, Battalion and Brigade have their place and so does the Super-heavy stuff along with fortifications detachment. However the specialist ones I feel are a little left out. Due to how important objectives are, I would maybe pull back on their CP cost (drop them to 2?) but also remove some of their options: only one optional troop slot and no other FO slots other than their specific one, something like 1 mandated HQ + 3 Mandated special FOS, 3 more optional of the same type then only 1 additional option troop slot. Maybe a bit spicy but hey, if competitive got broken by it my free rules update for competitive scene would be in a good position to fix it.

[MegaVolt87]

When an E-pub costs the same or close to as a actual OG book, I just buy the book itself. Stripped down codex, just rules in the app should have a small cost attached which is fine. Marked up E-pub is exactly why I ignore the format in the first place. While old codexes and rules hold little value, I would rather have a hard copy for the similar price.

[Emurian]

Release all the codexes at once. Pts changes for free on the website. Rip eveything rule related aside narrative missions from the campaignbooks. Put a prominent Black Library writer on it to flesh out the book properly, insert tutorials how to scratchbuild suiting terrain. Simply make the campaign books focus on lore rather then being a cheap way to sell 4 pages of rules. Look at the compilation of the Adeptus Titanicus Loyalist book, that thing equals the SM codex in volume for a good price so they can if they want to.

 

They should have sacrifised one edition to throw around the way their releasing codexes. This in my eyes is the main issue why the game never (will) feel balanced the way it should.

[tinpact]

Actions! When I was first reading the core rules I had to go back over that section so many times because it seemed bizarre that such a potentially expansive mechanic would be used for...scoring? Which is fine, but they have to be the least fleshed-out mechanic in the game by a long shot.

 

The new "plant/defuse bomb" objective is a step in the right direction, I think, and I'd like to see them integrated more closely into the game - actions with gameplay effects, or actions for non-scoring purposes. I think CSM/Daemon summoning is a good example of something that could fit in that space. Psychic actions are a joke, but they exemplify my issue with the system. It's a shame that the current choices for actions mostly boil down to "play the game, or stand there and look pretty for 3 VP."

Edited February 6, 2022 by tinpact

[Slave to Darkness]

I don't care for secondaries. I wouldn't way remove them so much as give players some option to win strictly by playing a main mission. Some way to adjust points for actively trying to fulfill the mission requirements. Secondaries are tedious. If anything they should be randomly determined for both players instead of letting players pick the optimal ones.  But opting out of secondaries should be an option.

I never enjoyed the itc format and don't enjoy it being forced on me via secondaries. I can't very well opt out when it's the only way games are being played, to opt out is to just not play. 

9th would probably be more fun with out secondaries and if games could go out to 7 turns. 

 

 

 

Thats the good thing about my local GW being unbearable to be in, we can drop stratagems and secondaries for a more enjoyable game without the manageress moaning that we are not playing it right, cant moan if we dont play in store. :tu:

[Commander Dawnstar]

Actions! When I was first reading the core rules I had to go back over that section so many times because it seemed bizarre that such a potentially expansive mechanic would be used for...scoring? Which is fine, but they have to be the least fleshed-out mechanic in the game by a long shot.

 

The new "plant/defuse bomb" objective is a step in the right direction, I think, and I'd like to see them integrated more closely into the game - actions with gameplay effects, or actions for non-scoring purposes. I think CSM/Daemon summoning is a good example of something that could fit in that space. Psychic actions are a joke, but they exemplify my issue with the system. It's a shame that the current choices for actions mostly boil down to "play the game, or stand there and look pretty for 3 VP."

 

They've started exploring Actions a little more in recent Codexes, even if they largely seem to be for things that might've just prevented a unit from moving in previous editions. The new T'au book uses them for Homing Beacons, Markerlights, the Stormsurge's anchors and probably some others I'm forgetting.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Commander Dawnstar

[Burni]

I know edition changes are a big sales driver for GW but what if something like the seasons could replace some of that? A big, new box every two years for the ‘super season’ with a media push but the core rules become something more like a living document.

 

Surely that would give more opportunity to get towards a balanced rule set. And the fact that codex’s could all be targeted to the same rule set rather than those close to the beginning or end of an edition being written with thinking from the previous or next edition.

[Karhedron]

Frankly one of the things I would change with the 9.5 marine codex (and as an faq for grey knights / death guard) would be to add -1 to the ap of standard bolters. Now shuriken and pulse weaponry has ap it makes no sense for bolters not to.

Shurican weapons always had one point of AP better than bolters back in 1st/2nd edition as well as a higher rate of fire. It was only when Gav Thorpe gimped Guardians in the 3rd edition codex that Shurican weaponry was nerfed down to bolter levels.

 

Even basic bolters get AP-1 for Turn 2 and Turn 3 (if desired) while Primaris flavours are even better. Autobolt rifle is better than Shuricats in Tactical doctrine so Marines are certainly not suffering on that front.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Karhedron

[War of the Eagle]

Get rid of moral and the current vehicle bracketing system, when a unit gose bellow half (rounded down) of its starting wounds -1 from BS and WS (to a minimum of 6) for the squad. If none MC or vehicle squad, can no longer preform actions. Vechicals and MC half movement speed.

 

Instead of people randomly running away, the squad losses disaplin, and crew lose focus.