How to throttle down the rules bloat and cheese in your game

[Helias_Tancred]

I enjoy the hobby, painting, building, etc but I admit that I'm a bit unmotivated to play the game. At this state of 9th, for me, it's the rules bloat, glaring  codex imbalance, the amount of books needed, turning into a list building game based on a rules mechanic you spam, etc.

 

So anyways I'm trying to come up with ways or things to sorta throttle this stuff down in your games with friends. For example, my gaming group is very small and several are nearly refusing to play 40k with its current state in 9th edition :(

 

So I've been considering what I'd call the Rule of Cool game. For starters the only units that can be taken multiple times are troops. Maybe restricting secondary objectives to the core 9th edition rule book and anything in your army's codex?

 

I'm looking for more ideas in this direction.

 

I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this sort of post.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

I’d just straight up ban stratagems, secondaries and maybe even all the progressive army abilities if I was trying to radically streamline the game. Most of the cheese and bloat comes from those things.

[Brother Nathan]

iv been out of the hobby for a while wanna say 6thed? anyway some of the changes i like and others i dont.

 

command points are nice in a way but throw too many curve balls. several pages of strats is crazy. thinnking it down or a single strat per turn, rerolls etc for the rest could suffice but as is t somewhat is a speedbump.

 

objectives- 3 secondarys as well as turn ones... its more important to sacrifice units to get objective points than confront your opponent. you can win without lillig a single model. and you can wipe an opponent out entirely and still loose. wiped out should loose but gain no extra for doing so. 

 

unit costs... does anyone use these unit strength rules? i see too much inconsistancy in them compared to points and just leads to a lot of codex flipping... 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Keep strats, BUT, you have to choose them pre-game, and can't use them twice.

[Valkyrion]

Several ways to deal with stratagems, each will diminish power at differing levels to different armies and builds

 

Stratagem Issues:

All strats are 1 CP and you buy them whilst building your list, whilst allowing a single Command Reroll and Overwatch per turn

 

or

 

Ban all strats except Command Reroll and Overwatch but there is no limit on the number of times you can use each per turn until you run out of CP (not rerolling rerolls, obviously)

 

or

 

Ban all strats full stop, so no double dipping relics and warlord traits.

 

 

However, the main issue with speed is lack of knowledge of your own units and your opponents because you really need to know both in the interest of fairness.

If I say something that seems OP against your particular army then you're going to want to check, which takes time. Like telling Imperial Knight players that in the first turn I have bonuses to both strength and AP against your whole entire army because I'm yellow and it's turn one. The knight player is going to want to confirm that by flicking between various pages in two codexes to check that I am in fact an Imperial Fist and it's Devastator Doctrine on turn one.

If there is something equivalent for Tau, or Dark Eldar or Aeldari then I don't know it, so I'm going to need to learn it. 

 

This is my biggest bugbear, really. In order to adequately play against everyone I really need to buy every codex. In 2nd to 7th you really just needed the summary sheets for unit and weapon stats because you already knew all the USR's and there was little to no out of sequence interaction or army benefit changes between turns. 

[Noserenda]

Highlander restrictions are never the answer :D 

Stripping back stratagems, army wide bloaty rules and secondaries is a set of solid steps though.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 easy step

Remove stratagems and CP from the game completely

 

Limiting multiples to troops only would actually only increase the rules bloat in your games…

If I have 3 boltstorm aggressor squads that’s only 1 set of rules to deal with compared to if I have 1 aggressor squad, 1 VGV, and 1 terminator squad suddenly that’s 3 sets of rules.

 

The current victory point and objective system should go out the window.

Calculate VPs based either on total units destroyed, or total points destroyed.

 

Who ever owns the objectives T5 gets and extra 5 VP, or 200 depending on which method you go with.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Jings]

Keep strats, BUT, you have to choose them pre-game, and can't use them twice.

 

I like this idea, but instead of multiple uses, you select a 'hand' of strats with the amount taken tied to the game size, 2/3 per CP bump. 

 

Of course, I'd rather strats were just scrapped and rolled into Datasheets and USRs/Keywords, but alas. 

 

 

1 easy step

Remove stratagems and CP from the game completely

 

Limiting multiples to troops only would actually only increase the rules bloat in your games…

If I have 3 boltstorm aggressor squads that’s only 1 set of rules to deal with compared to if I have 1 aggressor squad, 1 VGV, and 1 terminator squad suddenly that’s 3 sets of rules.

 

The current victory point and objective system should go out the window.

Calculate VPs based either on total units destroyed, or total points destroyed.

 

Who ever owns the objectives T5 gets and extra 5 VP, or 200 depending on which method you go with.

 

CP is a good currency system for relics and extra WLTs. 

 

Not so keen on the secondaries thing because of the extra bookkeeping, but making every game 'kill em all' would be boring as hell. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Jings

[Slave to Darkness]

Could always try the missions from 2nd ed for a laugh. Much easier to keep track of than the current ones and secondaries. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Keep strats, BUT, you have to choose them pre-game, and can't use them twice.

I like this idea, but instead of multiple uses, you select a 'hand' of strats with the amount taken tied to the game size, 2/3 per CP bump.

 

Of course, I'd rather strats were just scrapped and rolled into Datasheets and USRs/Keywords, but alas.

 

1 easy step

Remove stratagems and CP from the game completely

 

Limiting multiples to troops only would actually only increase the rules bloat in your games…

If I have 3 boltstorm aggressor squads that’s only 1 set of rules to deal with compared to if I have 1 aggressor squad, 1 VGV, and 1 terminator squad suddenly that’s 3 sets of rules.

 

The current victory point and objective system should go out the window.

Calculate VPs based either on total units destroyed, or total points destroyed.

 

Who ever owns the objectives T5 gets and extra 5 VP, or 200 depending on which method you go with.

CP is a good currency system for relics and extra WLTs.

 

Not so keen on the secondaries thing because of the extra bookkeeping, but making every game 'kill em all' would be boring as hell.

that’s why you have primary objectives that are worth significant amount of points, that get applied to whoever holds them when the game ends. If you just had a bad turn of roles for saves in T4 or T5 giving your opponent a nominal lead having a unit on more objectives could still win you the game.

 

Besides how does kill them all ever get boring? :P

 

Just make extra relics and WLTs cost normal points. Absolutely no reason for a second category of points for those.

Make them fairly expensive to prevent people just spamming them. Like 30-50 points each.

 

Also this way it naturally mimics secondaries like bring it down or slay the warlord.

Units killed, an HQ has fewer wounds than most troops units do, so you get ‘rewarded’ extra for targeting an HQ.

Straight up points removed from table, vehicles tend to cost more per W than infantry does so taking out a single vehicle in a points based VP system gives extra ‘reward’ for destroying vehicles.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Helias_Tancred]

Mentions of toning down stratagem use .... what about this?

 

"You do not regenerate or regain command points in any form or at any time"

 

 

Seems that would make stratagems used more carefully, also stacking all of those extra relic and warlord trait stratagems too might be curbed?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Also remove unit specific rules that aren’t thematically defining to the units.

So reduce damage by 1 on dreads? Gone.

Black rage on DC? Stays.

[Helias_Tancred]

Also remove unit specific rules that aren’t thematically defining to the units.

So reduce damage by 1 on dreads? Gone.

Black rage on DC? Stays.

 

That seems too subjective and an endless task lol.

 

I'd prefer to keep it to more black and white simple changes that can be enacted among friends playing. 

 

40k Rule of Cool Game Rules

 

1.     Only secondary objectives from the 9^th edition core rulebook and codex are allowed.

2.     A maximum of two of the same unit can be in a list, the exception being troops.

3.     You do not regenerate or regain command points in any form.

4.     You can choose a “hand” of stratagems per game size. 8 for 2k games, 4 for 1k games. They are one use only.

5.      

 

... a work in progress. 

 

and always up for critical analysis ;), ideas, etc

I like the idea of stratagems, but in the current form they're used way too frequently and multiple times. IMO they, GW, have really gotten away from the original idea for them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Also remove unit specific rules that aren’t thematically defining to the units.

So reduce damage by 1 on dreads? Gone.

Black rage on DC? Stays.

That seems too subjective and an endless task lol.

 

I'd prefer to keep it to more black and white simple changes that can be enacted among friends playing.

 

40k Rule of Cool Game Rules

 

1. Only secondary objectives from the 9^th edition core rulebook and codex are allowed.

2. A maximum of two of the same unit can be in a list, the exception being troops.

3. You do not regenerate or regain command points in any form.

4. You can choose a “hand” of stratagems per game size. 8 for 2k games, 4 for 1k games. They are one use only.

5.

 

... a work in progress.

 

and always up for critical analysis ;), ideas, etc

 

I like the idea of stratagems, but in the current form they're used way too frequently and multiple times. IMO they, GW, have really gotten away from the original idea for them.

not really.

If you remove a rule like ‘reduce damage by 1’ from a dreadnought does it thematically change the dreadnought?

 

If you remove black rage rules from death company does it thematically change who/what the death company is?

 

Also I don’t get why you don’t like the rule of 3?

Edited April 3, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Antarius]

I would argue that Dreadnoughts are one of the few units that actually ought to have the -1 dam rule. I find it very thematic for Dreads to shrug off damage like that, so yeah, it is apparently quite subjective. Also, it would shift the power of a huge chunk of the units in the game dramatically - and not in a way that would probably tend to increase balance.

 

As for rules bloat etc. I’m somewhat tempted sto say something flippant like “play 4th edition”, but that’s neither helpful or particularly relevant, I guess. I mean, I actually felt (and applauded) that 8th was a sort of streamlining edition for a game that had basically grown too large for the flowerpot that was 3rd edition base rules with 4 more editions worth of ideas layered on top. I really liked the idea of 8th edition with just the indexes, as it provided a simple base game and a manageable amount of army rules and stratagems.

Unfortunately, it seems like the rapid fire approach to releases (and editions), while in many respects a positive thing, have managed to accelerate rules bloat quite a bit, even if many of the basic ideas such as stratagems and primary/secondary objectives etc. are pretty cool on their own.

 

Where am I headed with all this? Good question. I think the answer is that if you want to streamline the game, you’re going to have to cut stuff that isn’t necessarily bad on its own terms. The only thing I would caution against would be removing the importance of objectives. Kill’em all might sound cool but it usually makes for a pretty static game where armies are built to be able to, as far as possible, stand still and put out as much ranged damage as possible. The days where Tau and (to some extent) Eldar players only thought of objectives as traps that would draw enemy units to their doom weren’t exactly fun.

[Cleon]

I actually felt (and applauded) that 8th was a sort of streamlining edition for a game that had basically grown too large for the flowerpot that was 3rd edition base rules with 4 more editions worth of ideas layered on top. I really liked the idea of 8th edition with just the indexes, as it provided a simple base game and a manageable amount of army rules and stratagems.

 

That is the nuclear option. Just play 8th with the indexes.

[Evil Eye]

Having to select Stratagems pre-game sounds like a good idea. Likewise, booting secondary objectives (which are a cool idea but belong in scenario rules and not the base rules for the faction).

Honestly though, I think a lot of good can be done just by talking to your opponent pre-game and agreeing not to bring any broken nonsense to the table. I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful to the topic, but I find that nuanced discussion of this sort of thing usually works a lot better than concrete "rules"/blanket bans. Just my opinion anyway.

[Slave to Darkness]

 

 

As for rules bloat etc. I’m somewhat tempted sto say something flippant like “play 4th edition”, but that’s neither helpful or particularly relevant,

But stripping out rules means we aint playing 9th either, so we may as well play older editions by that point. But I see your point, having better previous editions doesn help the fact 9th is a mess. 

 

I cant wait to play my mate Guard vs Guard, base codex, no strats or secondaries. Two bog standard shovel swinging meatsack armies relying on the players skill not waiting for the 'gotcha moments with strats'. It will be glorious. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Slave to Darkness

[Schlitzaf]

Having to select Stratagems pre-game sounds like a good idea. Likewise, booting secondary objectives (which are a cool idea but belong in scenario rules and not the base rules for the faction).

Honestly though, I think a lot of good can be done just by talking to your opponent pre-game and agreeing not to bring any broken nonsense to the table. I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful to the topic, but I find that nuanced discussion of this sort of thing usually works a lot better than concrete "rules"/blanket bans. Just my opinion anyway.

Just to play slight devil’s advocate secondaries:

Secondaries have 3 Purposes -

1) Tie Breakers in Tourneys

2) Rewarding you for playing. The Kill Secondaries are not meant to punish lists, every list will give up one of rhe kill secondaries. But the point is rewarding the player for doing what they are already doing. Likewise with Field Control Secondaries. Intention are basically “enforcing” dynamic play but rewarding players actions.

3) Reinforce/Promote a Faction Playstyle. Alot of Codexes have “Instant Take” Secondary ie Marines w/ Oaths. That is intended to reinforce how Marine Armies are supposed to play ie have a variety of weapon types, never fall back, and a hardy center.

 

Now I think secondaries failed in many ways. Espacially in Goal 2. But just wanted to add (that said if llaying casually ditching secondaries first thing I’d recommend)

[Helias_Tancred]

Having to select Stratagems pre-game sounds like a good idea. Likewise, booting secondary objectives (which are a cool idea but belong in scenario rules and not the base rules for the faction).

Honestly though, I think a lot of good can be done just by talking to your opponent pre-game and agreeing not to bring any broken nonsense to the table. I know that doesn't sound particularly helpful to the topic, but I find that nuanced discussion of this sort of thing usually works a lot better than concrete "rules"/blanket bans. Just my opinion anyway.

 

Oh but you're very right. Anytime you attempt something like this its very important in terms of who you play with. Honestly I never expected this to really be beyond something other than what myself and my several close 40k friends agree to do.

I think there is considerable room in 9th or 8th to make a house rules list that makes the game more enjoyable for you and your close circle you play with. Now if you're the sorta person that just grabs your army and heads to the local game store ... well ... you're sorta SOOL. ;)

[Jings]

Since we're toying with the Stratagem hand idea and there seems to be a general consensus on the one use per game aspect, how about (to keep things as similar to vanilla 9th as possible) you purchase your Stratagems pre-game using CP? Effectively operating like the Stratagem/Warlord trait purchases, you buy the Stratagem for its CP cost and use it as needed. Strats with various costs are only applicable to the price paid. Would mean it's not tied strictly to the list, allowing for the tactical flexibilty they're meant to give as well as establishing hard limits to the amount you can take tied to game size. 

 

Any CP not spent on pre-game strats or generated afterwards can only be used for the rulebook/mission stratagems (command reroll etc.) for extra flexibility that doesn't require knowing the strats for every faction to know what the shenanigans they can pull outside of their pre-selected hand of strats. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Jings

[Guest Triszin]

A few things.

 

1. Strategems.

1a. Core rule book as 20 universal strategies everone has access to.

--nothing broken.

2a. Faction books have 12 strategems unique to the faction.

-- you are limited to the number of faction specific strats you can take to a game.

(Ex. A 2000 pt game allows you to take 6 subfaction strats) (you must choose these at the start of the game)

 

2. Universal rules

2a. Expanded uses. Make gradients to them.

Transhuman usr with a gradient value based on S value of incoming

 

2b. We have many rules across factions that do basically the same thing. Replace them with 1 usr

[Claws and Effect]

Take the strategems that used to be abilities baked into a units datasheet and put them back there. That's the big one for me. So so many units used to have abilities that they decided to turn into strategems instead.

[Jings]

Take the strategems that used to be abilities baked into a units datasheet and put them back there. That's the big one for me. So so many units used to have abilities that they decided to turn into strategems instead.

 

I'm a huge advocate for this, with the caveat that some of the more powerful ones stick to the 'once per turn' to avoid potential abuse. 

 

I'd like a lot of things to be baked into wargear upgrades too. Space Marine characters/sergeants could return to buying equipment/upgrades like auspices, Marksman's Honours, Meltabombs etc. to grant situational abilities, like removing cover/targetting characters/mortal wounds to vehicles/monsters. Much more difficult to houserule those though. 

 

I'm still kinda baffled as to why they went down the Stratagem root in the first place. Is this a common approach in other large scaled wargames?

[Helias_Tancred]

Since we're toying with the Stratagem hand idea and there seems to be a general consensus on the one use per game aspect, how about (to keep things as similar to vanilla 9th as possible) you purchase your Stratagems pre-game using CP? Effectively operating like the Stratagem/Warlord trait purchases, you buy the Stratagem for its CP cost and use it as needed. Strats with various costs are only applicable to the price paid. Would mean it's not tied strictly to the list, allowing for the tactical flexibilty they're meant to give as well as establishing hard limits to the amount you can take tied to game size. 

 

Any CP not spent on pre-game strats or generated afterwards can only be used for the rulebook/mission stratagems (command reroll etc.) for extra flexibility that doesn't require knowing the strats for every faction to know what the shenanigans they can pull outside of their pre-selected hand of strats. 

 

Genius! I really like your idea!