A simple fix

[Plague _Lord]

This is a post about the state of the game and my take on how to fix it.

 

The state of the game

9th ed has become incredibly lethal - to the point where nearly every anti infantry gun has crazy AP values along with enourmous volume of fire, meaning that even tanks can fold to weird combos and power armour feels like it's made of paper. GW has recognized this to some extent by giving space marines the extra wound (cause their armour is near to worthless) but they also shoot theirselves in the leg by giving more ap out to everyone and their mother. Extra ap from strats and the added -1 damage defensive buffs to a lot of units have also made guns like plasma guns obsolete. This further pushes us into the meta of high volume, high ap guns.

 

The Fix

We really need to decrease the AP value on antiinfantry weapons and I mean really heavily nerf them. The ideal situation would be having most antiinfantry guns be ap 0 with only heavier guns like autocannons and heavy bolters have higher ap values. Sure we can keep the ap buffs from charachters and also army wide rules but they have to be hard capped at adding an extra point of ap. We need antiinfantry guns to be bad at taking out tanks. It's absurd that a squad of fire warriors can totally nullify main battle tank armour. 

 

"But tanks die too easily as well" - True to an extent. This is partially due to 2 factors - 1. The above high volume, high ap, low damage weapons are decent at doing a lot of chip damage to vechicles and 2. The prelevance of rerolls and buff stacking in the game. While most antitank weapons needed a buff as it was incredibly infuriating when a lascannon dealt 1 damage, I think GW didn't do a good job at balancing it out both points wise and buff wise or at least not in every codex. For example - Deathguard AT seems decently costed if not a bit overcosted - The PBC got a really potent gun (The entropy cannon) but it is balanced out by getting 0 buffs from any source. It will allways at most hit on a 3+ and at worst on a 4+ and it's sources of rerolls are really sparse. 1 single PBC won't take out an enemy tank in 1 go without extreme luck, 3 should on average take out any MBT but then again that's 1/4 of your army taking out a single enemy tank on average - balanced. If this were the case over all the codexes then tanks would be in a good place. The problem is that a lot of armies have access to AT that can be buffed to rediculous levels like say 5 Eradicators, double shooting melta, with full rerolls to hit and a +1 to hit. That probably kills any tank in the game and the investment isn't too high. Take away the rerolls and the unit isn't op anymore. We honestly wouldn't need -1 to damage buffs if AT was a) pointed accordingly and b) didn't get absurd buffs.

 

Fluffy idea - why not add armour facing back to the game but in a different way - if you hit a tank from behind, you get +1 ap - this would add some more tactical choices to the game and get rid of dumb facings where sometimes people set up their tank backwards to the enemy and it just looks bad... But I digress.

 

Implementation

We need 10th ed now tbh. Every new codex adds new whacky stuff and guns just get buffed so hard that the every new army becomes oppressive. GW sees this to an extent but just counters that with adding extreme defensive buffs (like custodes for example) and when you couple this with their inability to properly balance points costs (look at plague marines for the past few years) it adds to an unfun and unbalanced game where you sometimes can't get to use even half your army because they get nuked off the board turn 1. We need change fast and we need it done online, for free. GW should do a CA style weapons update book where they nerf AP across the board and also change points costs accordingly - this alone should balance things out but TBH we also need core rules updates. This is where 10th comes in. In my opinion the change that charachter auras work only on cores units was a step in the right direction but it should be consistant across the board and not the situtation we had at the start where marines got core on 30 units and necrons on 10 units... So the core keyword should be balanced and reworked a bit. Also stratagem bloat is a thing we have at the moment - I think if we had say 10 core strats any faction can use (for example let a unit shoot and perform action) and then add to that another 10 strats per faction it would be much easier to balance out. At the moment we have factions like orks with really bad strats and then TAU with amazing ones. The last step would be to nerf unit based buffs - If a unit has +1 to hit, full rerolls and exploding 6's - it's too much but 1 of those buffs would probably be fine.

 

I understand any widespread changes are hard to implement but GW really need to go digital with rules updates - release all codexes, at the same time, online with 10th ed. GW will still get a lot of cash from hobby fans that will get paper codexes/crusade/warzone books for the fluff, artwork and so on but the gaming community really needs the rules to go digital.

 

TL;DR - ap needs to be nerfed across the board, rerolls and other buffs from charachters/strats need to be nerfed to not stacking with eachother/not working on all units. We need 10th edition with cutting of rules bloat.

[Emicus]

Barely done with the Great Reset and you want to start all over again! By the Emperor!

[Plague _Lord]

Barely done with the Great Reset and you want to start all over again! By the Emperor!

 

Yes and no. I don't want the core fundamentals of the great reset to be undone, just for it to be streamlined... and for rules to be digitally updated!

[phandaal]

We need someone stationed at GW HQ. Whenever a rules writer tries adding some bonkers new rule or buffing chaff units so they can delete a squad of elites, this person will take out a little water bottle and spritz them while saying "no! no!" like you would do to a cat trying to eat your houseplants.

 

That should keep things on an even keel once 10th edition clears out the rules bloat.

[Special Officer Doofy]

I agree, the codex creep is bananas. Every codex feels like it was made to out do the last one, not fall in line with the first one, which to me is my biggest complaint about GW. I wouldn't care about price increases, FOMO marketing, community posted errors, no digital rules and that kind of stuff people complain about if the game was more balanced.

 

I say this as someone who never has and never will play space marines, but the first codex of an edition should be space marines. They are the largest faction unit wise and player wise (and lore wise with books and games), probably by a good amount. They should be play tested by itself with all of the sub factions (chapters) and rules until the codex has good internal balance. And then every codex after should be made with the intent of being around a 50/50 win rate with different scenarios, board sizes and missions against marines (and other new codexes that have came out since). There will always be some paper rock scissors (Death Guard -1D is a hard counter White Scars +1D for example), but there definately can be better and healthier balance to this game.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Putrid Choir

[tychobi]

Historically lack of balance in 40k is a feature not a bug. If we want balanced 40k we probably have to do it ourselves.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Historically lack of balance in 40k is a feature not a bug.

No argument there frater! But it shouldn't be hahaha.

[Slave to Darkness]

We need someone stationed at GW HQ. Whenever a rules writer tries adding some bonkers new rule or buffing chaff units so they can delete a squad of elites, this person will take out a little water bottle and spritz them while saying "no! no!" like you would do to a cat trying to eat your houseplants.

 

That should keep things on an even keel once 10th edition clears out the rules bloat.

Dreadsock them, then dreadsock their neighbours pets if they do it again. 

 

 

[chapter master 454]

The issue is that you will always have people complaining one way or another. I mean, the game is so lethal yet one of the top tier lists was an army that was too bulky (the comically named "Thicc City" build for drukari). Mechanicus were running around with infantry blobs that were getting 2+ saves that would make custodes armour look budget.

 

One way or another, things go in various directions but the key issues are that Infantry are always too durable (comical I know) and tanks too squishy. Aspects of the game certainly don't sit well in some places and good in others.

 

My key gripe:

Blast should be per die, not per attack. This makes it so frag grenades benefit a lot from the rule while a thunderfire cannon doesn't ever benefit unless against a unit of 11 and more (and then the difference is just catastrophic. Goes from between 4 to 12 shots to just straight 12...). This means that if you want to benefit, a squad of 4 missile launchers using frag missiles benefit more than one thunderfire cannon, despite both firing 4 shots (if we go by lore...opps there goes the "mechanic does not need lore reason" group).

Also, D3 also needs mentioned and given it's own set...makes it benefit even more than it should, effectively getting max shots with only "half" benefit active.

 

Possibly add damage carry over as a special rule for weapons that may make sense. While it is nice with mortals, it often means that high damage weapons can't do squat vs. infantry and thus since infantry is the best type in the game already not hard to see why tank guns are going out of fashion. Maybe make it a unique feature of blast weapons if anything else? Thus now high damage blast weapons could actually be infantry clearing beasts they are meant to be. Demolisher cannons may actually get some respect! (also not hard to understand why their wounds would spill over. It isn't a single bullet, it is literally in their name: Blast).

[phandaal]

I mean, the game is so lethal yet one of the top tier lists was an army that was too bulky (the comically named "Thicc City" build for drukari).

 

 

Wasn't the durability of Thicc City one of its main competitive advantages? Seemed like it was in line with defending against escalating lethality.

[Valkyrion]

There are far too many rerolls, remove those and the abilities that cause them and you immediately make the game less lethal, so high AP and damage become less of an issue.

 

The BS of a unit is supposed to highlight it's accuracy, the assault/heavy/rapid fire is supposed to account for rate of fire, and the points value of models is to account for the discrepancy in skill. 10 marines fire 10 shots, cost the same as 30 guard firing 30 shots, costs the same as 20 orks firing 40 shots. That was roughly the theory, at least, for editions 2 to 7. 

 

It should be a special thing, rerolling something, not a fundamental part of the game that you are expected to build your army around. 

[Plague _Lord]

The issue is that you will always have people complaining one way or another. I mean, the game is so lethal yet one of the top tier lists was an army that was too bulky (the comically named "Thicc City" build for drukari). Mechanicus were running around with infantry blobs that were getting 2+ saves that would make custodes armour look budget.

 

One way or another, things go in various directions but the key issues are that Infantry are always too durable (comical I know) and tanks too squishy. Aspects of the game certainly don't sit well in some places and good in others.

 

My key gripe:

Blast should be per die, not per attack. This makes it so frag grenades benefit a lot from the rule while a thunderfire cannon doesn't ever benefit unless against a unit of 11 and more (and then the difference is just catastrophic. Goes from between 4 to 12 shots to just straight 12...). This means that if you want to benefit, a squad of 4 missile launchers using frag missiles benefit more than one thunderfire cannon, despite both firing 4 shots (if we go by lore...opps there goes the "mechanic does not need lore reason" group).

Also, D3 also needs mentioned and given it's own set...makes it benefit even more than it should, effectively getting max shots with only "half" benefit active.

 

Possibly add damage carry over as a special rule for weapons that may make sense. While it is nice with mortals, it often means that high damage weapons can't do squat vs. infantry and thus since infantry is the best type in the game already not hard to see why tank guns are going out of fashion. Maybe make it a unique feature of blast weapons if anything else? Thus now high damage blast weapons could actually be infantry clearing beasts they are meant to be. Demolisher cannons may actually get some respect! (also not hard to understand why their wounds would spill over. It isn't a single bullet, it is literally in their name: Blast).

 

I think the 2 examples you gave are prime examples that GW don't have a clue at what they are doing. The Ad mech codex is the most rules bloated and convoluted codex there is. They gave out way too many special rules and didn't think about the implication when those rules started started to get stacked. I've played against admech where the player had to put counters, each with a buff on it next to his units. Some units had 3 buffs from 3 different sources on them and it was a hassle. Now if a scitarri unit gets a single buff like a cover save is it going to be OP? No, but if that same unit get's cover, +1 to cover saves, -1 to hit and so on it becomes obnoxious. It's all the fault of rules bloat and while I like stratagems, I think they should be heavily reduced in number and maybe less affect units and more effect the battlefield, more akin to the cityfight rules of old.

 

Thicc city on the other hand is an example of lack of perspective when balancing points - they were nerfing other units so they buffed the covens units and we went from a possibly well pointed unit to a too cheap unit that competitive people started spamming - Thicc city basically got around 90points more to play with and they started being good. It's the same with custodes at the moment - they are just too cheap. Durable units with low offensive power won't be oppresive if they are expensive enough.

 

The problem is with chaff nuking elite units without a problem and I think it's due to all the AP that GW is giving around.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

We need someone stationed at GW HQ. Whenever a rules writer tries adding some bonkers new rule or buffing chaff units so they can delete a squad of elites, this person will take out a little water bottle and spritz them while saying "no! no!" like you would do to a cat trying to eat your houseplants.

That should keep things on an even keel once 10th edition clears out the rules bloat.

This !!

[MARK0SIAN]

Nerf the AP, volume of fire and damage values of weapons definitely.

 

I think they should also introduce a new keyword called “Buff”. Every stratagem, relic, warlord trait and character aura would have this keyword. Then make it so that every unit can only ever be under the effect of a single “buff” in any phase.

 

It’s quite extreme but I’m so sick of all the buff stacking. That turns average units into god tier units.

[Evil Eye]

Historically lack of balance in 40k is a feature not a bug. If we want balanced 40k we probably have to do it ourselves.

I would agree with this to an extent- the difference being that in the past it was due to GW being more interested in putting out cool, fluffy rules, with "balance" as a secondary consideration operating under the basic knowledge that totally balancing a game with as many factions as 40K without more or less flattening the life out of the game would be impossible (as Jervis himself once said "We aren't playing chess here, it's Warhammer!"). Nowadays I think it's a bit more considered and underhanded, with a deliberate emphasis on "Make your opponent weep salty tears of rage with the new Primaris Defenestrators!" and possibly intentional Codex Creep with the aim of getting meta-chaser money. You can see this just by comparing what GW put out alongside their "main" rules- once upon a time we had vehicle design tables, Apocalypse datasheet creators and units that existed to encourage conversions. Now we have Metawatch, AKA "Buy this toy to dominate your games!".

 

I personally think that trying to make 40K even remotely "balanced" is a complete waste of time. Chess has people debating to this day over how much of an advantage white has over black in going first, and that's as "balanced" as a game can feasibly be. So when you have a game with as many factions, units and variables as 40K there is no way in the Emperor's holy dominion that you'll get it even CLOSE to balanced. To get it even remotely balanced you'd have to trim so many units and wargear options from the game that it'd basically suck every ounce of fun out of collecting and playing- and you'd still get powergamers abusing loopholes and slightly more optimal units.

 

That's not to say GW is doing a good job by any stretch. Myself, the video-game styled approach to the game with DLC, MOBA-style abilities masking as stratagems and "seasons" really grates my parmesan. But the solutions to make the game actually fun again (removing said video-gamey elements, ditching arbitrary restrictions intended to discourage conversions, etc) wouldn't necessarily make it more "balanced". If anything the game might end up LESS balanced than before. But it would be more fun.

 

I can't speak for how to rewrite the rules to make the game work better, but I do have ideas for improving the overall health of the game.

>Treat tournaments how they should be treated- as a containment unit for powergamers and WAAC types and nothing more. Make it crystal clear that no, tournaments are NOT the standard for the average game of 40K, and that anyone who goes into a regular pickup game or a narrative campaign or whatever with some horribly cheesy netlist will be subject to summary Dreadsocking.

>Work on undoing the videogamification of 40K- rework stratagems to actually make sense in the context of the fluff (because having to spend CP for a team to remember it has special ammunition is daft), stem the flow of endless DLC books, etc.

>Implement a "1 edition, 1 book" initiative- once a Codex is published, aside from actual mistakes/errata or clarifications, the rules and points values are final. No points adjustments, no sticking plaster adjustments- that's it. Of course this isn't to say we can't have expansions, but these should be treated as optional expansions with a wealth of extra content ala the Imperial Armour of old, rather than content cut from the Codex and then sold in a separate DLC book.

>Selectively listen to community feedback. By this I mean, by all means listen to actually helpful or constructive feedback, and implement new stuff based on community suggestions, but DO NOT allow pressure from vocal minorities of meta-chasers/"professional competitive gamers" to influence decisions.

>Send Eversor Assassins after the heads of rags like Spiky Bits and the like, making sure that anyone who tries to post "DESTROY YOUR ENEMIES WITH THIS WEIRD LIST BUILDING TRICK" articles is unable to.

[phandaal]

 

Nowadays I think it's a bit more considered and underhanded, with a deliberate emphasis on "Make your opponent weep salty tears of rage with the new Primaris Defenestrators!"

 

This is the part that gets me, because this type of playground mentality is very unhealthy for the casual game.

 

If someone tells me they are just going to squeegee my army off the table on Turn 1, I am going to help them skip the middleman by going and doing something else instead.

 

My free time is worth way more than that.

[jarms48]

10th edition is already in the works. Apparently it's releasing next year. 

[Slave to Darkness]

Still yet to have a game of 9th... 

[Halandaar]

10th edition is already in the works. Apparently it's releasing next year. 

 

It would be extremely tonedeaf of GW to release yet another edition of 40k and all the expensive trappings that come along with it next year. 9th was largely unplayable for the first year of it's existence due to pandemic social restrictions and multiple factions suffered delays to receiving their rules until much later in the edition than is normal (and presumably also later than GW intended) meaning the prospect of forking over for a new edition is going to feel even more oppressive than usual.

 

That said the business train stops for nobody and GWs entire medium-long term planning probably revolves around major surges in income from new editions that happen on a regular basis. 2023 would be "correct" in terms of sticking to the established 3-year cycle that's been in place for a while now so I suppose it's inevitable. The only thing that could make it more palatable is if it's more of a 9.5/consolidated ruleset which won't require every Codex to replaced yet again. 

[Valkyrion]

A new edition next year is virtually guaranteed.

 

The unfortunate thing really is that the rules don't need changing, I don't think. Maybe do something about blast weapons, as mentioned above, but the core rules are sound and probably the 'best' they've ever been. 

 

*gets drum out to bang again* it's the codexes that are the problem. I know it's less likely than Leeds United avoiding relegation (fnarr) but an edition refresh that keeps the core rules but reels in the codexes would suit me down to the ground.

[chapter master 454]

Know what, I agree with Valk here. I think the worst part of 9th isn't even the rules or balance: just the drip drip drip of codices and near enough next day supplements for said codices. Speaking as a Tau player, I already know that the Far'Sight Enclave is getting saved for that treatment because everyone loves far'sight because he actually does melee in tau (which should at this point be a thing at least for crisis suits proper).

 

Each 9th edition codex has been pretty good. Solid stuff. Each one let the faction rumble out onto the battlefield and do some serious work. Only one really tripping are the marines. Our codex is so bloated, packed and otherwises denser than relic terminator armour due to more redundant units than tzeentch has plans going the codex fails to deliver on anything as so many units ether compete for the same role or are just comical throw aways from a failed set (suppressors still waiting, Reivers want to be loved. Heck, we barely got a gravis captain proper now!).

I would say they need to tone back the books and get the release schedule squared up, rounded off and sorted. I get the pandemic put an evergreen in the works but at this point, time to tone down on supplements.

 

Not to say I don't enjoy a good bit of bonus stuff but...only when it was a nice extra. Not needed. I feel those things are prime locations to put crusade based stuff, campaigns and such but then again...how do you sell stuff? -sigh- it is hard...reality just doesn't stop kicking.

[Xenith]

Agree on the AP, though some units are just tough to delete. It's a mix of improperly converted vehicles to 9th, crazy weapons and abilities, and then changing the weapon also, to do stuff they're never supposed to.

 

Eldar guardians for example. Shurikens are supposed to be a hail of individually weak discs, that might occasionally find an eye slit or something. They've always been many shot, low ap weapons, with some bonus ability to rend etc. The finding an eye slit was represented by a marine failing a save. Now they've boosted the ap of it to -1, considering it's been ap0 for the best part of 20 years, and then as anything within 12" of the enemy is usually dead in 9th, they've boosted them to 18" range. Now we hav bolters that are worse at penetrating armour than stuff that's bad at penetrating armour.

 

The design team has, in their quest to make stuff relevant, gone off the rails and into rules that just aren't fluffy anymore. Marines are in a really rough spot now, as they boosted the wounds, then boosted the damage of *everything* to compensate, leaving marine sback where they were. 

 

At this point, we could just bake Transhuman into the marine statline, and the game wouldn't be more broken. 

[Petitioner's City]

Agree on the AP, though some units are just tough to delete. It's a mix of improperly converted vehicles to 9th, crazy weapons and abilities, and then changing the weapon also, to do stuff they're never supposed to.

 

Eldar guardians for example. Shurikens are supposed to be a hail of individually weak discs, that might occasionally find an eye slit or something. They've always been many shot, low ap weapons, with some bonus ability to rend etc. The finding an eye slit was represented by a marine failing a save. Now they've boosted the ap of it to -1, considering it's been ap0 for the best part of 20 years, and then as anything within 12" of the enemy is usually dead in 9th, they've boosted them to 18" range. Now we hav bolters that are worse at penetrating armour than stuff that's bad at penetrating armour.

 

The design team has, in their quest to make stuff relevant, gone off the rails and into rules that just aren't fluffy anymore. Marines are in a really rough spot now, as they boosted the wounds, then boosted the damage of *everything* to compensate, leaving marine sback where they were.

 

At this point, we could just bake Transhuman into the marine statline, and the game wouldn't be more broken.

On shurikens versus bolters, I think you might want to consider when shuriken weapons actually had fluff...

 

 

And compare that profile to a boltgun

 

 

I think you might have headcanoned the idea of shurikens not being "armour penetrating", but in 1st edition and (these examples in Wargear from 2nd edition) these were far better at piercing armour than the boltgun.

 

I find it's good to go to the sources, and check a statement, before you make it - yes third balanced boltguns and catapults as both ap5, but in doing so took some of that fluff away alas (as third did for all weapons):

 

 

It's nice this see this return, both in Necromunda and in 40k. But anyway, hope this is informative :)

Edited March 15, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[Valkyrion]

Yeah, Shuriken weapons were always supposed to be 'better' than bolters but were carried on a weaker platform. It was 3rd ed and onwards that made them equal/worse depending on your POV. 

 

The marine with bolter statline is supposed to be the baseline, since 2nd until now - all the 4's, more or less. Everything that was weaker had more bodies or worse weapons, everything that was stronger had less bodies or better weapons. 

 

Now what you've got is a situation where worse troops are made disproportionately better through rerolls. I don't have the time to find the mathhammer on it, but 5+ with a reroll is a 100% increase in accuracy, whilst 3+ with a reroll is 26% (or something similar). 

So if the same premise is true, that there should be or 2 orks to 1 marine, then those 2 orks have the effectiveness of 4 orks for the same points. 

Again, I'm just generalising, you don't need to point out the inaccuracies in my figures. By all means point out that I'm wrong, but rerolls grant a significant advantage to inferior troops, inferior troops have more bodies, they cost less points to field, ergo your average space marine is now comparably weaker. 

[Xenith]

I find it's good to go to the sources, and check a statement, before you make it - yes third balanced boltguns and catapults as both ap5, but in doing so took some of that fluff away alas (as third did for all weapons):

No need to be snippy Yes, that wargear book had them with better AP than a boltgun, but would you agree that for the last 23 years or so, Shuriken weapons have been characterised as high ROF low penetration projectile weapons that have the ability to score lucky hits, represented by the 6 to wound rule?

As we're going back to sources, check the differentiation between a shuriken weapon and a bolt weapon in the much more detailed and granular Inquisitor. A bolt weapon, will on average, punch through armour twice as thick as a shuriken weapon (bolters 2D10+5 = 15, while Shuricats' 2D6 averages 7).

As with everything 40k fluff related, every piece of information has an equal and opposite piece of information.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Xenith