Switch Theme:

How many rules/systems can you "leave out" of 9th ed for simplicity?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus

Re- Old AP system was very all or nothing, which sort of necessitated various levels of cover saves as special invuln saves.

That being said, it's also true that a 20mm cannon frontal to a magic space technology tank shouldn't get a small bonus to chewing it's armour, it would be just as ineffective as a pistol.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/20 02:13:58


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






I think it's the pro hammer fan made rules over in general that actually had the coolest AP system.
Ap lower then armor, no save
Ap higher then armor save
Ap = armor save -1

I personally believe that the current AP system is that's the primary cause to a lot of issues In the game.
AP system lead to armor saves feeling really bad, so they gave out a bunch of multi wound models, but they were not dying so they made multi wound multi AP weapons more common, but then elite felt bad so then we tossed out a lot of invuln saves on a LOT of units and rules like can only be wounded on 4+, but then but guns felt bad, so now we ignore invulns.

I just feel like the current AP system was not built upon enough since 8th.

That or GW needs to basically make the armor saves that can go below a 2+ armor save

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Sedona, Arizona

Honestly, almost all of the codex based special rules (Docs, tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, relics, most unit abilities, ect ect) could be dropped.

That would, in all honesty, leave a pretty boring game behind. But it would also be a significantly simpler one; where you play entirely out of the BRB and codex' are there primarily to get stat blocks and point costs.

In turn, with the extreme amount of fat cut away, it would be easy to implement some more core rules which could allow armies to play differently and have identities based primarily on their states themselves, rather than on layers upon layers of special rules. Things like Suppression, pinning, and moral as more than just a "more things die" mechanic would all be good choices.

They're also all things which have existed in the pass, but been curbed by an extreme amount of fearless & functionally fearless factions.

The problem which lies at the core of 40k (imo) is that killing is the only way in which you interact with enemy units. Many other successful games have various mechanics which let you defeat your enemy in a variety of ways / with multiple factors. 40k is very much unique in that the only way to 'deal' with anything is almost always just to kill it. That, in turn, guts the tactical element into little than getting your units to shoot at their most efficient targets.

 welshhoppo wrote:

I like my Orks how I like my Emperor, dead.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Backspacehacker wrote:I think it's the pro hammer fan made rules over in general that actually had the coolest AP system.
Ap lower then armor, no save
Ap higher then armor save
Ap = armor save -1

...

That or GW needs to basically make the armor saves that can go below a 2+ armor save

Sincere non-confrontational question: do you mostly play marine armies? The AP system in the quote feels too much like ye olde AP system to me. Where guardsmen and guardians basically don't get saves against bolters, marine armor doesn't care whether it's getting hit by a lasgun or an autocannon, and 4+ saves are either almost as good as marine saves or as worthless as guardsman saves depending on what you're facing. And having armor saves that dip below 2+ sounds like a thing my mostly-aeldari armies probably wouldn't have much access to.

Personally, I think the current AP system is fine. If your gun is good enough at ignoring armor to have some amount of AP, then that translates over into a lethality boost against all armored targets. GW just overdid it by handing too much AP (especially AP-1) to too many things. Tau pulse rifles really probably don't need to be AP-1 in the upcoming codex, for instance.

morganfreeman wrote:Honestly, almost all of the codex based special rules (Docs, tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, relics, most unit abilities, ect ect) could be dropped.

That would, in all honesty, leave a pretty boring game behind. But it would also be a significantly simpler one; where you play entirely out of the BRB and codex' are there primarily to get stat blocks and point costs.

In turn, with the extreme amount of fat cut away, it would be easy to implement some more core rules which could allow armies to play differently and have identities based primarily on their states themselves, rather than on layers upon layers of special rules. Things like Suppression, pinning, and moral as more than just a "more things die" mechanic would all be good choices.

Very much agree with all this. I'm fine with cutting away strats, chapter tactics, doctrines, etc. But then I want to partially fill that void with some different (less lethality-boosting) rules. Crossfire, reaction options, maybe replace strats with something like SIgmar commander abilities, etc.

They're also all things which have existed in the pass, but been curbed by an extreme amount of fearless & functionally fearless factions.

That is the weird thing about moralre-related rules in 40k; most of the armies in the game have fluff that suggests they should be immune to such things. That's why I like the suppression mechanic I pitch in way too many threads; decent way of representing a unit having its groove thrown off rather than representing guys being taken out of the fight.


The problem which lies at the core of 40k (imo) is that killing is the only way in which you interact with enemy units. Many other successful games have various mechanics which let you defeat your enemy in a variety of ways / with multiple factors. 40k is very much unique in that the only way to 'deal' with anything is almost always just to kill it. That, in turn, guts the tactical element into little than getting your units to shoot at their most efficient targets.

Yep. It's tricky to solve. But again, replacing lethality buff mechanics with mechanics that create interesting choices and new game states could go a long way in helping with that.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Lebanon NH

I've actually played quite a few "stripped down" games at my local store, and I have to say it really is a blast.

You can have a 1000pt, patrol only, no strats, no warlord traits/relics, simple objectives, very few special rules type match in probably half the time it takes to have a "normal" 1000pt game.

Obviously, some factions have a harder time of this than others, but I feel that if a "quick play" option were included with each new codex (simplified faction rules etc) then the whole of the game would only be improved by it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[For clarification: our "few special rules" is basically that the unit rules are still there and whatever faction stuff exists is cut out entirely. So, no chapter tactics for example but a captain still has his reroll aura]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/20 18:27:28


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Nope I mostly play guard, knights, daemons and tsons for the record.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

My suggestion from a practical standpoint is to cut down on terrain rules. Make some pritty liberate terrain rules.

Also cut down on missions until you play better. Having only primary mission could be a thing. (Although the game would be very booring.)

Perhaps cut down on army special rules. Well, some.

I am not very happy about cutting stratagems because so much army balance is maintained by it.

Re-rolling charges is good for assault armies. (Of course all orks already do this for free.) Without it shooting armies are very favored.

Lile ice fragile armies (like GSC) are very hard countered by the interrupt fighting stratagem. Without it they would run rampant.

Also, all tyranid units are very bad for they cost on a general basis. The reason they are good are because tyranids have some of the best stratagems in the game, hands down.

Also, transhuman in general is very important for keeping certain armies floating.

Perhaps each player can focus on 7 stratagems pre-game, and only use those. Then you sort of learn the bread and butter of your army. I very rarely use any outside of a small core amount that works with my armybuild.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/20 20:31:39


   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Sedona, Arizona

 Niiai wrote:
My suggestion from a practical standpoint is to cut down on terrain rules. Make some pritty liberate terrain rules.

Also cut down on missions until you play better. Having only primary mission could be a thing. (Although the game would be very booring.)

Perhaps cut down on army special rules. Well, some.

I am not very happy about cutting stratagems because so much army balance is maintained by it.

Re-rolling charges is good for assault armies. (Of course all orks already do this for free.) Without it shooting armies are very favored.

Lile ice fragile armies (like GSC) are very hard countered by the interrupt fighting stratagem. Without it they would run rampant.

Also, all tyranid units are very bad for they cost on a general basis. The reason they are good are because tyranids have some of the best stratagems in the game, hands down.

Also, transhuman in general is very important for keeping certain armies floating.

Perhaps each player can focus on 7 stratagems pre-game, and only use those. Then you sort of learn the bread and butter of your army. I very rarely use any outside of a small core amount that works with my armybuild.


While your points about strats being balancing mechanisms isn't wrong, it is pretty misguided.

If we accept that 40k's bloat problem is due to codex's, and the layers upon layers of special rules which they introduce, while also accepting that the core rules are largely fine and functional (so if we accept the truth), then it becomes clear that strats and all of that garbage are no more than bandaids trying to cover self inflicted wounds.

Tossing all of them out allows the core rules to be expanded in such a way which maintains a higher degree of simplicity, but also lets the game be created in such a way that armies do not need to be propped up with stratagems and massive amounts of extra buffs to their base stat line.

 welshhoppo wrote:

I like my Orks how I like my Emperor, dead.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Backspacehacker wrote:
I should probably clarify.

When i speak of the super special rules, im talking about them adding them AdHawk as answers to previously poorly written rules.

Example of a good specials rule, something like Brotherhood of psykers that gives units like t sons or gray knights a bonus to cast.

Example of a bad special rule, giving the next codex release a specific way to screw over something like that kinda of specials rule.

That said, i do think 9th right now just needs to have a lot of rules consolidated and things rebalanced, and as for taking things out? no i think more rules that effect all armies need to be put back in.

I personally thing the old AP system needs to be brough back, as IMO, the current AP system is whats leading to a lot of weird balancing issues in the game has is whats causing this rules arms race to where we are now where ignoring invuln is possibly going to be a more common thing.


The old AP system was much, MUCH worse. It was A. totally binary; either armor stopped everything or was completely useless, and B. Made it so that in practice only 3 levels of pen existed, AP 2, AP3, and AP-. No one even bothered to remember the exact AP number if it was worse than 3 because of how little it mattered.

The problem with the current armor system isn't inherent to the system, it's in GW giving out AP-3 and AP-4 like hotcakes and making bonuses to armor almost non-existant, especially for things like vehicles that desperately need it.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






ERJAK wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
I should probably clarify.

When i speak of the super special rules, im talking about them adding them AdHawk as answers to previously poorly written rules.

Example of a good specials rule, something like Brotherhood of psykers that gives units like t sons or gray knights a bonus to cast.

Example of a bad special rule, giving the next codex release a specific way to screw over something like that kinda of specials rule.

That said, i do think 9th right now just needs to have a lot of rules consolidated and things rebalanced, and as for taking things out? no i think more rules that effect all armies need to be put back in.

I personally thing the old AP system needs to be brough back, as IMO, the current AP system is whats leading to a lot of weird balancing issues in the game has is whats causing this rules arms race to where we are now where ignoring invuln is possibly going to be a more common thing.


The old AP system was much, MUCH worse. It was A. totally binary; either armor stopped everything or was completely useless, and B. Made it so that in practice only 3 levels of pen existed, AP 2, AP3, and AP-. No one even bothered to remember the exact AP number if it was worse than 3 because of how little it mattered.

The problem with the current armor system isn't inherent to the system, it's in GW giving out AP-3 and AP-4 like hotcakes and making bonuses to armor almost non-existant, especially for things like vehicles that desperately need it.


Which is why i would take the old AP system in a heart beat. And adopt the pro hammer rules for AP, if your AP = armor save, you just get your armor save -1. so even plasma against 2+ would give you a 3+

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Backspacehacker wrote:
Nope I mostly play guard, knights, daemons and tsons for the record.

Not to slip into ad hominem, but I can't help but notice that three of those factions have invulnerable saves on everything meaning that, in the old AP system, their saves only get so much worse. Which is interestingly similar to how the current system works. >_>

Also, guard tend to heavily emphasize vehicles, and knights are entirely vehicles. So in the pre-8th editions (the editions that use the old AP system), the meat and potatoes of your guard and knight armies would have used the AV system meaning they didn't have armor saves for AP to interact with in the first place. (Though granted AP 1 and 2 had other benefits against them.)

There's nothing wrong with preferring the old AP system, but is it possible that you might have been less bothered by its flaws because your armies mostly ignored them? Your daemons and knights never had their armor saves ignored. Your tzeentch marines basically just treated good AP as a -1 to armor saves (the modern equivalent of AP-1). Your guardsmen cared, but depending on your list, they may have just been a troop tax for the vehicles that carried them.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






And that's fine to see it that way but this is how I look at it.

Previously when I paid for let's say t sons for example, my points went to the 3+ and the invuln save.

Now I got to enjoy the benefit of the 3++ unless there was an ap 1,2, or 3, at which point I fell back to the invuln as intended. That was fine

The problem in 9th is that because everything is loaded with -ap I never actually get to take my armor save I'm almost always using the invuln save.
This is the same.issue with knights, who only survive on their 5++ save. Out of all the games I have played I honestly can not recall the last time I took an armor save over my invuln save on a lot of my units because this current AP system is handing out -1 and -2 like candy. At this point you could honestly take off the armor save from knights and tsosn and you basically have the same chance of living any.more.

This is why I'm against the AP system of 9th, because of it, GW ended up handing out invulns to a LOT of armies that did not need to have them, and now we are seeing them do ignore invuln saves to counter all of this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 17:34:33


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Backspacehacker wrote:
And that's fine to see it that way but this is how I look at it.

Previously when I paid for let's say t sons for example, my points went to the 3+ and the invuln save.

Now I got to enjoy the benefit of the 3++ unless there was an ap 1,2, or 3, at which point I fell back to the invuln as intended. That was fine

The problem in 9th is that because everything is loaded with -ap I never actually get to take my armor save I'm almost always using the invuln save.
This is the same.issue with knights, who only survive on their 5++ save. Out of all the games I have played I honestly can not recall the last time I took an armor save over my invuln save on a lot of my units because this current AP system is handing out -1 and -2 like candy. At this point you could honestly take off the armor save from knights and tsosn and you basically have the same chance of living any.more.

This is why I'm against the AP system of 9th, because of it, GW ended up handing out invulns to a LOT of armies that did not need to have them, and now we are seeing them do ignore invuln saves to counter all of this.

I agree that they've given out AP-1 and -2 too freely, but I feel like that's a separate-but-related issue. In the old system, if I paid for a power armor save and my opponent paid for AP on a weapon, one of us was functionally not getting the benefits of what we paid for. An AP4 weapon was as bad at penetrating my power armor as an AP6 or AP- weapon. An AP3 weapon was ignoring the power armor I paid for as though it wasn't there.

Compare that to the current system where I'm getting something out of my power armor against anything AP-3 or less. Ap-4 too, if you factor in light cover.

Yes there's too much AP-1 and AP-2 floating around, but we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water; we can just get rid of doctrines, the pulse rifle AP buff, and maybe stop giving AP-1 to every melee weapon in the game.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






That's why I think the programmer suggestion is the best one I have seen and made the most sense.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

 morganfreeman wrote:
 Niiai wrote:
My suggestion from a practical standpoint is to cut down on terrain rules. Make some pritty liberate terrain rules.

Also cut down on missions until you play better. Having only primary mission could be a thing. (Although the game would be very booring.)

Perhaps cut down on army special rules. Well, some.

I am not very happy about cutting stratagems because so much army balance is maintained by it.

Re-rolling charges is good for assault armies. (Of course all orks already do this for free.) Without it shooting armies are very favored.

Lile ice fragile armies (like GSC) are very hard countered by the interrupt fighting stratagem. Without it they would run rampant.

Also, all tyranid units are very bad for they cost on a general basis. The reason they are good are because tyranids have some of the best stratagems in the game, hands down.

Also, transhuman in general is very important for keeping certain armies floating.

Perhaps each player can focus on 7 stratagems pre-game, and only use those. Then you sort of learn the bread and butter of your army. I very rarely use any outside of a small core amount that works with my armybuild.


While your points about strats being balancing mechanisms isn't wrong, it is pretty misguided.

If we accept that 40k's bloat problem is due to codex's, and the layers upon layers of special rules which they introduce, while also accepting that the core rules are largely fine and functional (so if we accept the truth), then it becomes clear that strats and all of that garbage are no more than bandaids trying to cover self inflicted wounds.

Tossing all of them out allows the core rules to be expanded in such a way which maintains a higher degree of simplicity, but also lets the game be created in such a way that armies do not need to be propped up with stratagems and massive amounts of extra buffs to their base stat line.


I disagree. A stratagem is essentially something that breaks the core rules. While that can be integrated into datasheets the stratagems draw from the same source of limited resources and you have to balance that stuff. This leads to interesting subgames. Tyranids in particular can spend all 12 CP in the first turn no problem. But this is rarely the right desssion as you need to pace it out. Some even forgo double tapping hive guards entirely and instead focus on board controll and countering primaries. Suround a transports with hormogaunts so they can not move and not disembark comes to mind. (Nids have insane movement.)

The presence of transhuman means certain strategies are not optimal. Permanent transhuman (dark angels) are generally quite bad.

Remove all stratagems and I would love to play orks. Orks have the worst stratagems out of the new codexes. But they have strong inborn rules.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 RustyNumber wrote:
Old AP system was very all or nothing, which sort of necessitated various levels of cover saves as special invuln saves.


'All-or-nothing' was the entire point of AP - to remove dice from the pool. Same with automatic hits via Templates, Instant Death, and automatic wounds. These 3E-era rules were specifically designed to accelerate gameplay via automatic success. It's why the 3E-5E era is the best for actually playing the game.

3E forcing players with weak armor to use cover was a good design decision, because it makes sense if you can't tank small arms fire. 8E & Primaris basically ruined the entire thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 morganfreeman wrote:
Honestly, almost all of the codex based special rules (Docs, tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, relics, most unit abilities, ect ect) could be dropped.

That would, in all honesty, leave a pretty boring game behind. But it would also be a significantly simpler one; where you play entirely out of the BRB and codex' are there primarily to get stat blocks and point costs.

In turn, with the extreme amount of fat cut away, it would be easy to implement some more core rules which could allow armies to play differently and have identities based primarily on their states themselves, rather than on layers upon layers of special rules.

The problem which lies at the core of 40k (imo) is that killing is the only way in which you interact with enemy units.


As above, you would go all the way back to 40k 3E, when you played entire out of the RB because there weren't any Codices yet.

Once upon a time, morale mattered, but players didn't like failed morale, so here we are: a game about killing enemy models that can't be killed due to mechanics to keep them alive when they should be dead.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 22:42:46


   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus

To swing back around to the original wider topic - I feel generic special rules/unit types/individual unit special rules are all fine, they're as much the meat and bones of the game as statlines are. It's more the "floating" layers of rules that either change game to game (oh my SM army is custom X chapter, you only ever played against custome Y chapter so now you have to consider this whole new angle to my forces) or need to be tracked on top of everything else (command points, turn based rules that evolve during a game)

I'm a 5th ed player originally, so that concept of "learn how unit types interact, learn the core special rules, then all you need to learn is a smattering of special rules for each codex" is best for me, as opposed to needing to learn multiple warlord traits, stratagems etc on top of that which can very much skew how armies fight entirely.

As for the AP discussion, I wonder if they could ever simplify it further to something as simple as Light Medium Heavy, -1 -2 -3 for infantry respectively, but then applied to VEHICLES differently from infantry. After all a 37mm rapid fire cannon should probably be Heavy against infantry, but only Light against magic sci fi tech armoured vehicles. A -3 armour save even for elite spess mahreens should not still be an identical -3 to a Land Raider, unless it's a lascannon or something.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 02:50:03


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






To the point of the rules, thats how i went about it, majority of the rules could be found in the BRB, and then the army speical rules were in the codex.

In earlier versions of 40k that was not really a big issues because all i had to do 90% of the time was just ask my opponent, hey wants your warlord trait, and what USR do you have for your army (formations) that i need to know about?
Then bam i would know, i knew that Oh ok this thing has relentless i know that, this thing has fearless ok i know that i can find that in my BRB.
There was not a lot of "Gotchas" in earlier editions because any information you needed about an army could be found in the BRB or asking your opponent before the game.

Now every army has their own flavor of the same rule it feels like, you have stratagems in the game that i can only access if my opponent lets me see their codex, and even then i have no idea when they will be used. There is almost a new speical rule for every new unit that does not exist anywhere outside of that codex ontop of their warlord traits ect ect
The learning of the rules now is worse then ever before because they are just scattered across books and FAQs

To the point of AP, that system honestly just sounds like a new version of the existing AP system. Which personally i dont think a rending system works for ranged based games like 40k, the all or nothing was a better representation.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Backspacehacker wrote:

In earlier versions of 40k that was not really a big issues because all i had to do 90% of the time was just ask my opponent, hey wants your warlord trait, and what USR do you have for your army (formations) that i need to know about?
Then bam i would know, i knew that Oh ok this thing has relentless i know that, this thing has fearless ok i know that i can find that in my BRB.
There was not a lot of "Gotchas" in earlier editions because any information you needed about an army could be found in the BRB or asking your opponent before the game.

Now every army has their own flavor of the same rule it feels like, you have stratagems in the game that i can only access if my opponent lets me see their codex, and even then i have no idea when they will be used. There is almost a new speical rule for every new unit that does not exist anywhere outside of that codex ontop of their warlord traits ect ect
The learning of the rules now is worse then ever before because they are just scattered across books and FAQs

Agreed. The rules are just tricky to hold in your head (and learn) these days because they come in so many different flavors from so many different sources, and half of them are stratagems that are only in effects when your opponent activates them.

To the point of AP, that system honestly just sounds like a new version of the existing AP system. Which personally i dont think a rending system works for ranged based games like 40k, the all or nothing was a better representation.

Can you explain why you feel the bolded portion is true? For me, I found it frustrating when my AP3 power swords that treated power armor like wet paper were no more effective than combat knives and pointy sticks against terminator armor. It seems like a lascannon should be better at getting through terminator armor than a lasgun. The current system allows for that while the all-or-nothing system does not. Do you feel like 2+ armor is so good that it should treat a lascannon and a lasgun as equally bad at breaking through?

Edit: Keep in mind that an AP3 krka missile is theoretically designed to punch through the armor of tanks. Surely it should be similarly good at cracking (kraking?) through a marine's chest plate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/26 23:21:55


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Because it was an exchange of gun fire, and it made sense that laser gun weapons could be taken on 2+ or 3+ with out effecting pentation.

And in terms of ranged that worked because ranged let you apply that all or nothing AP at a distance which was represented in the point cost of the unit and the weapon that unit had with AP. For example if you paid points for a weapon that had AP3, then its points were pointed specifically because taht AP could be applied to SV3 at range, and to sv2 , that meant nothing, you had to pay for something that was AP 2.
Rend does not work well for range because that weapon that turned into AP-1 because it was AP3, is not applying its effects to sv2 where as before it never would have, and again, this is at range.

In melee it works a bit better because getting into melee is usually harder.

As for things like power swords and krak, its of my opinon, that GW should introduce Rending X, with x being the AP value of the weapon if you roll a 6 to hit.

I think power weapons like power swords and axes should have been rend 2, with a roll of a 6 giving it AP2, same with krak missles, i think chain swords should have been rend 3, along with heavy bolters.
That gives it the ability to deal serious wounds to sv2 while still having sv2 be able to take hits from it

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Play 9th edition with all the index stats. That was quite simple.

Don't play strategems at all.

Ignore all chapter/army/faction traits and protocols as well.

This would probably cut out almost all of the complexity and games would be pretty fast.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Eldenfirefly wrote:
Play 9th edition with all the index stats. That was quite simple.

Don't play strategems at all.

Ignore all chapter/army/faction traits and protocols as well.

This would probably cut out almost all of the complexity and games would be pretty fast.


They would, but it also cuts out flavor.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
Play 9th edition with all the index stats. That was quite simple.

Don't play strategems at all.

Ignore all chapter/army/faction traits and protocols as well.

This would probably cut out almost all of the complexity and games would be pretty fast.


They would, but it also cuts out flavor.


It depends.

Blood angels still have their defining units like death company, sanguinery guard. So does deathguard and Tsons. The admech army units and totally different from anything else out there. Even different space marine armies usually have some distinctive unit that represents their book. Like space wolves have their wulfen and thunder calvary, and Dark angels have their dark talons and special plasma bikes.

The base stats in the index for those special units are all distinct and different.

It would probably be ok for most of the situations. Only thing is if you are trying to play a say ultramarines army vs a white scars army. (Both are literally using the same book). But Ultramarines have their special characters like Gulliman and white scars have their too. So I still think there would be some distinction.

Later on when they are comfortable with 9th ed rules and they want more, then they can consider moving on to the full ruleset or slowly adding on stuff like chaptor traits or strategems, or using the codex rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/27 01:33:10


 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus

The idea of giving ranged weapons a critical AP value is interesting, in conjunction with the all-or-nothing AP system. Perhaps at its simplest sixes give -1 armour save? So flashlights CAN slightly degrade marine armour for lucky hits.

I think the problem with the modifier AP system is vehicles. In fantasy it's never too much of a stretch, in grimdark an anti personnel weapon giving an equal -1 armour to both elite armoured infantry and magic armour plate space tanks is just odd, that's where the old penetration system would feel at home.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because it was an exchange of gun fire, and it made sense that laser gun weapons could be taken on 2+ or 3+ with out effecting pentation.

Hmm. Still not sure I follow you. Say I shoot at a glass window. A nerf dart will bounce off. A rock fired from a slingshot may go through the glass or merely crack it. A bullet from a gun will probably go through it pretty reliably. So the bullet has better AP than the rock, but the rock is still more likely to make the glass fail a save than the nerf dart.

And in terms of ranged that worked because ranged let you apply that all or nothing AP at a distance which was represented in the point cost of the unit and the weapon that unit had with AP. For example if you paid points for a weapon that had AP3, then its points were pointed specifically because taht AP could be applied to SV3 at range, and to sv2 , that meant nothing, you had to pay for something that was AP 2.

See, you're using the same evidence I am to reach a different conclusion. Which is fair enough. To my mind, a 2+ save being unaffected by an AP3 weapon is a great example of the AP3 weapon paying points for something and then NOT receiving a benefit for the point spent. Whereas the current system means that both the 2+ save and the AP3 cost point sand both grant their player a benefit. The AP-3 is making the target less likely to save, but the 2+ save means that the target is still receiving a better save than a model in worse armor would. The current system means that you can apply a points value to both the armor and the weapon and not render one or the other be wasted points.

Ex: Say you're fielding all-terminator GK and I'm fielding Thousand Sons with lots of rubricae. Every inferno bolt in my army costs me points, and every point spent on inferno bolts is wasted in the all-or-nothing system because you don't have any targets with a save for me to ignore.


Rend does not work well for range because that weapon that turned into AP-1 because it was AP3, is not applying its effects to sv2 where as before it never would have, and again, this is at range.

Which weapons went from AP3 to AP-1? Generally AP3 weapons seem to have become either AP-3 or AP-2. Now, there are a lot of weapons that have become AP-1 that probably don't need to be, and I think that's the bigger issue. Power swords turning 2+ saves into 5+ saves seems like much less of an issue than pulse rifles turning 3+ saves into 4+ saves.

In melee it works a bit better because getting into melee is usually harder.

Sure. Although I wouldn't mind if drukhari lost AP-1 on their hekatarii blades and haemonculus tools and Blade Artists while we're at it. Ditto ork choppas.


As for things like power swords and krak, its of my opinon, that GW should introduce Rending X, with x being the AP value of the weapon if you roll a 6 to hit.

I think power weapons like power swords and axes should have been rend 2, with a roll of a 6 giving it AP2, same with krak missles, i think chain swords should have been rend 3, along with heavy bolters.
That gives it the ability to deal serious wounds to sv2 while still having sv2 be able to take hits from it

I think I'd be okay with something like that. Technically, some weapons were basically that in 7th edition; decent AP that becomes better on a to-wound roll of 6. Definitely make Rend trigger on 6s to wound and not 6s to hit though. 6s to hit would force you to split up your dice pools at the to-wound step.
   
Made in au
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster





Melbourne

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. Still not sure I follow you. Say I shoot at a glass window. A nerf dart will bounce off. A rock fired from a slingshot may go through the glass or merely crack it. A bullet from a gun will probably go through it pretty reliably. So the bullet has better AP than the rock, but the rock is still more likely to make the glass fail a save than the nerf dart.


That's not really how weapons and physics of work.

For a given gun, firing a given type of ammunition, the force applied at impact will be pretty consistent. A given type of armour will either be penetrated or not by that amount of force.

Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Wyldhunt wrote:

Sure. Although I wouldn't mind if drukhari lost AP-1 on their hekatarii blades and haemonculus tools and Blade Artists while we're at it. Ditto ork choppas.



Ap-1 on regular close combat weapons on units that actually know how to fight is quite needed. Otherwise the game would be too shooting oriented and in close combat we'd roll tons of dice for no to little result. Ork units wielding choppas are already bland, even with AP-1. AP modifyers that are added for free like Blade Artist or Doctrines might go instead, they're not necessary.

 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Baragash wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. Still not sure I follow you. Say I shoot at a glass window. A nerf dart will bounce off. A rock fired from a slingshot may go through the glass or merely crack it. A bullet from a gun will probably go through it pretty reliably. So the bullet has better AP than the rock, but the rock is still more likely to make the glass fail a save than the nerf dart.


That's not really how weapons and physics of work.

For a given gun, firing a given type of ammunition, the force applied at impact will be pretty consistent. A given type of armour will either be penetrated or not by that amount of force.

That's not how physics work. A given gun firing a given type of ammunition will have a different impact based on range and weather and a given type of armour will provide more or less protection depending on where the bullet hits.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
 Baragash wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. Still not sure I follow you. Say I shoot at a glass window. A nerf dart will bounce off. A rock fired from a slingshot may go through the glass or merely crack it. A bullet from a gun will probably go through it pretty reliably. So the bullet has better AP than the rock, but the rock is still more likely to make the glass fail a save than the nerf dart.


That's not really how weapons and physics of work.

For a given gun, firing a given type of ammunition, the force applied at impact will be pretty consistent. A given type of armour will either be penetrated or not by that amount of force.

That's not how physics work. A given gun firing a given type of ammunition will have a different impact based on range and weather and a given type of armour will provide more or less protection depending on where the bullet hits.

Probably a bad example on my art. Still, it seems like armor penetration isn't necessarily a binary thing. It seems like a weapon could reasonably be good enough at getting through armor to be good at rapidly eroding the protection offered or piercing weaker portions of the armor, but not so good that it's guaranteed to punch straight through a marine's breastplate head on. I can believe that a dark reaper's reaper launcher is good enough at getting through power armor to be an effective counter to it but not so good that the marine never survives a glancing hit. A marine doesn't want to get hit by a plasma weapon, but I buy that his armor is so darn thick in some places that the hit might not be lethal; but that doesn't mean the plasma is *bad* at getting through his armor.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






I think your example was fine Wyldhunt, an in-universe example could work as well. A chainsword can go through the eyes and joints of power armour. A power sword can go through the armour on the thighs and arms. A chainfist can go through the armour on the pauldrons and chest and calves. 9th is definitely not a functional game if you take out Range, S, AP and/or Damage.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: