A simple fix

[MARK0SIAN]

The problem with the vast majority of units/wargear/abilities is that they really only have one main metric on which they can be judged and that’s how effective they are at killing.

 

It means that to be considered good or worth taking every unit has to be really good at killing. A lot of players seem to have this expectation that even their army’s basic troops with their basic weapons should be able to deal out significant damage to things like marines, hence the increase in shots and AP we keep seeing. Now obviously no one likes feeling like their troops aren’t worth shooting with but that’s because the designers haven’t really worked out a way to make units shine at different roles other than just killing. They’ve tried with things like objective secured etc but haven’t really nailed it yet.

[Emperor Ming]

Power creep this ed has really got out of hand, a new ed could be the only way to curb it

[Valkyrion]

Power creep this ed has really got out of hand, a new ed could be the only way to curb it

 

I don't know what they could do to curb it without releasing new codexes too, so the cycle just begins again.

As said before, the core rules don't lend themselves to abuse more than any other ruleset, it's the codexes that create issues and it was bound to given the number of overlapping rules the designers have forced. 

 

It's an interesting question though;

if all codexes are released in 9th, and no codexes are released in 10th, what could the 10th ruleset do to offset the current issues?

[Petitioner's City]

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.

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

I was trying not to be snippy - sorry it came that way, I just think we too often headcannon than not - and it's not like people tend to quote or reference in general (leading to too much unintentional misinformation). But I'd take text foremost as saying what these weapons do, rather than the profiles - the rules are inconstant in that regard. I did actually look at the inq rulebook, as it sits beside wargear and my 3rd edition book, but didn't compare with the bolter - silly me

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Power creep this ed has really got out of hand, a new ed could be the only way to curb it

I don't know what they could do to curb it without releasing new codexes too, so the cycle just begins again.

As said before, the core rules don't lend themselves to abuse more than any other ruleset, it's the codexes that create issues and it was bound to given the number of overlapping rules the designers have forced.

 

It's an interesting question though;

if all codexes are released in 9th, and no codexes are released in 10th, what could the 10th ruleset do to offset the current issues?

That is an interesting question but to be honest, for the rules to still work with what’s in the codexes I don’t think you could change enough about the core rules to curb the creep.

 

One thing I would change though is the wound table. Make it harder or even impossible to wound things that are noticeably tougher than the weapon attacking them. It’s ludicrous that something needs to get all the way to T10 (which doesn’t exist) before an S5 weapon only wounds it on a 6. That’s right, a heavy bolter has a 33% chance of wounding a 5000 point warlord Titan.

 

Other than that I suppose you can add more keywords and errata them into the codexes. Something like “power armour” which means any model equipped with power armour reduces the AP of all attacks by 1. I think you’d just end up with a confusing mess though.

 

The best way is to hard reset it with indexes for all like they did in 8th. Then add some discipline to the rules writers to keep everything reasonable.

[Valkyrion]

 

 

Power creep this ed has really got out of hand, a new ed could be the only way to curb it

I don't know what they could do to curb it without releasing new codexes too, so the cycle just begins again.

As said before, the core rules don't lend themselves to abuse more than any other ruleset, it's the codexes that create issues and it was bound to given the number of overlapping rules the designers have forced.

 

It's an interesting question though;

if all codexes are released in 9th, and no codexes are released in 10th, what could the 10th ruleset do to offset the current issues?

That is an interesting question but to be honest, for the rules to still work with what’s in the codexes I don’t think you could change enough about the core rules to curb the creep.

 

One thing I would change though is the wound table. Make it harder or even impossible to wound things that are noticeably tougher than the weapon attacking them. It’s ludicrous that something needs to get all the way to T10 (which doesn’t exist) before an S5 weapon only wounds it on a 6. That’s right, a heavy bolter has a 33% chance of wounding a 5000 point warlord Titan.

 

 

 

Changing the wound table is a great example. 

S = T 4+ to wound, always has been, always will be

S one lower than T is 5+, always has been

S two lower than T is 6+

S three lower than T cannot wound

 

I'd like that change to come back. You could create a special rule whereby if 10 shots or more from one unit hit they count at least as a 6+ to wound, so that a guard squad still has a chance of wounding something T6 or T12 if it existed, for example, so massed fire against <insert foe> could still work, to a degree. 

 

Yadda yadda Imperial Knights I know.....!

[Lord Raven 19]

I'd like to see toughness not capped at 8 for anything smaller than a titan. I don't understand how a leman russ battle tank, and a baneblade are the same toughness. (Actually, with current rules, the russ is tougher as it has a 2+ save, but that's a whole other kettle of fish)

[Schlitzaf]

I'd like to see toughness not capped at 8 for anything smaller than a titan. I don't understand how a leman russ battle tank, and a baneblade are the same toughness. (Actually, with current rules, the russ is tougher as it has a 2+ save, but that's a whole other kettle of fish)

 

Same reason that Leman Russ ironically had Better Armour at some points when it was 14/13/10 to a Baneblades 14/12/10

[Xenith]

 

 

 

Changing the wound table is a great example. 

S = T 4+ to wound, always has been, always will be

S one lower than T is 5+, always has been

S two lower than T is 6+

S three lower than T cannot wound

 

 

I like this, but I also like the S= half toughness = 6+. I'd say if strength is less than half the toughness can't wound instead (and conversely, S= more than double T = auto wound), allowing for stuff like boltguns to be able to get shots through vision slits etc, while lasguns are useless vs T7 dreadnoughts. T7 would actually be a suseful breakpoint then! 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Xenith

[Halandaar]

 

Changing the wound table is a great example. 

S = T 4+ to wound, always has been, always will be

S one lower than T is 5+, always has been

S two lower than T is 6+

S three lower than T cannot wound

 

I like this, but I also like the S= half toughness = 6+. I'd say if strength is less than half the toughness can't wound instead (and conversely, S= more than double T = auto wound), allowing for stuff like boltguns to be able to get shots through vision slits etc, while lasguns are useless vs T7 dreadnoughts. T7 would actually be a suseful breakpoint then! 

 

I'm really in two minds about this kind of change. 

 

I guess my issue isn't so much to do with shooting attacks, where you probably have other targets you can fire at if your S3 Autogun was incapable of damaging a T7 Dreadnought, but with melee. If your S3 Cultists end up getting charged by a Dreadnought then not only are they completely useless against it in combat, but falling back with whatever survives in your next turn also means you aren't shooting at anything or charging next turn either, so you're effectively locked out of the game for a full turn with that unit (unless you have a rule or stratagem to mitigate that obviously). Stuff like that could feel a little obnoxious.

 

Maybe it would necessitate a new version of the old "Our Weapons Are Useless!" rule, or even a "charge reaction" stratagem (like Overwatch) which allows you to fall back from an incoming charge.

[Firedrake Cordova]

I'd like that change to come back. You could create a special rule whereby if 10 shots or more from one unit hit they count at least as a 6+ to wound, so that a guard squad still has a chance of wounding something T6 or T12 if it existed, for example, so massed fire against <insert foe> could still work, to a degree. 

2nd Edition/Necromunda had the concept of hitting on 7+ or worse (basically needing a 6 followed by a 4+) - I suppose you could adopt a similar mechanism for wounding to give a very limited chance of success?

[OldWherewolf]

The problem isn't the 6+ to wound, the problem is the availability of 5+ to wound, especially with 2D and 3D weapons.  S5 wounds T6/7/8 on 5s.  T8 pays a premium in points because it's the breakpoint from S4, but in reality, a +1S power sword on a S4 model is worth far more that T8 premium.

[Halandaar]

 

I'd like that change to come back. You could create a special rule whereby if 10 shots or more from one unit hit they count at least as a 6+ to wound, so that a guard squad still has a chance of wounding something T6 or T12 if it existed, for example, so massed fire against <insert foe> could still work, to a degree. 

 

2nd Edition/Necromunda had the concept of hitting on 7+ or worse (basically needing a 6 followed by a 4+) - I suppose you could adopt a similar mechanism for wounding to give a very limited chance of success?

 

Yeah I thought about that too, but spending even more time rolling even more dice isn't a particularly elegant solution. It would support the case for bringing D10s into the game though, which has been suggested in other conversations on how to improve the granularity of outcomes.

[Firedrake Cordova]

Yeah I thought about that too, but spending even more time rolling even more dice isn't a particularly elegant solution. It would support the case for bringing D10s into the game though

True - the workability depends upon how common an occurrence it is and how common re-rolls are generally, due to the cumulative effects on gameplay. Rick Priestley's recent games (Gates of Antares and Warlords of Erehwon) are D10-based, and work rather nicely.  (although I find you can't roll as many D10s at once compared to D6s)

[Plague _Lord]

The problem isn't the 6+ to wound, the problem is the availability of 5+ to wound, especially with 2D and 3D weapons. S5 wounds T6/7/8 on 5s. T8 pays a premium in points because it's the breakpoint from S4, but in reality, a +1S power sword on a S4 model is worth far more that T8 premium.

Good point. S5 weapons shouldnt wound super heavies or for example land raiders on a 5+. Maybe the exception should be hitting stuff on rear armour for example but then again we would need armour facings again. Maybe toughness facings? But then again we have greater rules bloat if we have to remember 3 toughness values for each vechicle unit...

[Schlitzaf]

Remember point removinf facings was removing Non-Games before dice were even rolled. And any new “equation” should be explainable to a new player with ease:

Current formula is “If double use 2+/6 if not dbl’s use 3+/5+“.

 

A “if difference js 2 or less uss 3+/5+. Anything greater use 2+/6+). Now this does result in funnt memes with T2 and T1 specifically. And makes T6 “break point”. Words:

 

Any chance try to remember tou have two lines to explain. And their should not be a non-game simply because an army cannot even touch their opponent

[Jings]

Honestly I think a slight return to the old AP system would be the main fix - give units an additional stat that determines whether or not they are affected by AP. Space Marines having ignore AP-1, but AP-2+ affect them and just throw that across the board. Then you can go wild with the AP, but if you don't, say, upgrade that AP somehow then it's not going to punch through. 

[phandaal]

 

 

Power creep this ed has really got out of hand, a new ed could be the only way to curb it

I don't know what they could do to curb it without releasing new codexes too, so the cycle just begins again.

As said before, the core rules don't lend themselves to abuse more than any other ruleset, it's the codexes that create issues and it was bound to given the number of overlapping rules the designers have forced.

 

It's an interesting question though;

if all codexes are released in 9th, and no codexes are released in 10th, what could the 10th ruleset do to offset the current issues?

Cannot do much to address issues without hitting the codexes, unfortunately. 9th could probably use some tweaks (i.e. getting rid of mortal wounds as a core rule), but it is the codexes themselves that break things.

 

Problem is, the people who would be responsible to fix things are the ones who broke things in the first place, so the best thing would be a total simultaneous codex refresh. Or near enough to simultaneous that the rules team does not have enough time to escalate to bonkers levels.

 

That way we can get everything out there, see what is stupid or broken, and fix it so people can enjoy the hobby in peace for a couple of years.

[Schlitzaf]

Part of the problem of codex creep is that is there “isn’t” creep. To put it another way; almost all 9th ed book broke something on “release”. And then had to be brought into the fold via nerfs.

 

Every Codex I believe is playtested cocurrently. Are balanced againsy each other. Or put it another way. A reason codex “creep” exists because of rje asinine codex release structure:

 

Espacially given the fact how fast Edition turn over. If pattern holds. This is the last year of 9th. We release final codexes now. Next year back to Stage 1. Then we have staggered codex releases etc. Which results in the issue of “balance” where whatever newest books are OP nerf pls. Then the later books come out. Franklg speaking we should see 2 Codex Drops + 1 SM Supplement a month. Mininum.

[Halandaar]

Much as I agree that the Codexes are the problem rather than the core rules, we really don't need to be handing GW the all-clear to hit us with brand new Codexes for every single faction for the third edition in a row. We need to push them to fix the most egregious rules offenses via errata and balance updates, not by selling us yet more dead trees.

[Kenzaburo]

But Schlitzaf is not wrong here. The fast 3-year edition change combined with a staggered codex release schedule causes quite a few problems for the game per se. And don't even get me started on the probable new practice of releasing 2 astartes codices in one edition where you need to buy 3 dexes in a span of 3 years (edition start, edition end, followed by the next edition start).

 

We've been discussing the problems with 9th in several threads now, and I agree, the core rules of 9th were good. The real rules layering and crazyness as well as the stratagem overload started with the codices. And even on the more narrative side of things, meaning crusade, the codices or rather their release schedule were a problem. My regular opponent is a nid player who basically had no real crusade support for most of this edition, might get one now for a year, before 10th drops in summer of 2023. 

 

Right now edition churn is driven by economic factors first and foremost, I feel, while the game itself suffers for it. It has always been the case (or at least we assume that, when we feel that nerfs and buffs to units are to up sales for products). But the edition churn is a problem, even more so, if a majority of an edition was affected by a global pandemic.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Much as I agree that the Codexes are the problem rather than the core rules, we really don't need to be handing GW the all-clear to hit us with brand new Codexes for every single faction for the third edition in a row. We need to push them to fix the most egregious rules offenses via errata and balance updates, not by selling us yet more dead trees.

I want new codexes with new editions... Editions just need to last longer and codexes come out quicker.

[phandaal]

How about indexes instead of codexes? i.e. something put online rather than a new book for everyone so soon after the newest codexes.

 

And there definitely is creep. Look no further than the humble Space Marine Bolter or Necron Gauss weaponry being outclassed by Tyranid chaff units' beetle flingers. Or lascannons dealing 1-6 damage while similar weaponry deals 4-6 damage.

 

Do not doubt that there is some internal balance that codexes are tested against, but they also seem to get a boost to convince people to buy the latest thing.

[Valkyrion]

Given GW's broadly no mini no rules policy (e.g, parasite of mortrex has come back to life, but no tyranid warriors with wings) would folk accept a simultaneous month 1 codex release for every faction which included datasheets for unreleased models but precluded their use until general release?

 

The reason codexes are staggered is to coincide with model releases so if you take the models out of the equation temporarily then everyone gets updated rules together. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

Given GW's broadly no mini no rules policy (e.g, parasite of mortrex has come back to life, but no tyranid warriors with wings) would folk accept a simultaneous month 1 codex release for every faction which included datasheets for unreleased models but precluded their use until general release?

 

The reason codexes are staggered is to coincide with model releases so if you take the models out of the equation temporarily then everyone gets updated rules together.

I rather all the codexes come out in year 1 and release the models in years 2-4 with campaigns, mission packs and what not, and then the following edition put the new sheets in the new Codex. Muuuuch rather have that. Poor chaos marines are still at 1W this late in the game because world eaters are splitting from chaos marine codex and they are each getting models.