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

With the aim of simplifying the game for those of us who bounced off recent 40k editions, is it possible to wholesale rip out parts of the rule system and still have a game that is vaguely balanced and playable for fun? (I'm not overly familiar with 9th edition, again because I bounced off the layered complexity)

For example - Reducing stratagems to only using the core rule book ones. Not using army formations/special construction rules outside of the basic army structure. Not using warlord traits. Not using unique special characters (probably overkill this one). Not using army-wide custom you-pick-it chapters/factions/whatever. Leaving mission objective structures at home (easy enough if players are just happy to play annihilation or king of the hill)

That sort of thing, anything to make the game quicker, smoother without so many codex-specific gotchyas. Can anyone help brainstorm which parts of this idea are possible? For those of us who 9th edition is too damned complex, yet One Page Rules is too simple...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/15 08:54:22


 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress





Pretty much everything you mentioned.
Most of my group has completely abandoned the use of all strats these days. Not even the core reroll strat. This alone has made games more enjoyable and quicker (for us).
Haven't gone so far as to cut the rest (yet) but you could easily drop all the warlord trait stuff and army subfaction rules.
Basically treat the game as you would for a newbie- just do what's on the data slate.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Pretty much everything you mentioned.
Most of my group has completely abandoned the use of all strats these days. Not even the core reroll strat. This alone has made games more enjoyable and quicker (for us).
Haven't gone so far as to cut the rest (yet) but you could easily drop all the warlord trait stuff and army subfaction rules.
Basically treat the game as you would for a newbie- just do what's on the data slate.


I suppose you could go the other way too, get rid of the core strats and ONLY allow codex strats, treating them as the limited use special abilities they are for spicing up units. Not *too* dissimilar from "one per game" unit special rules, sort of.

I'm thinking me and my mates will have to give a "simplified 9th" a go!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/15 11:07:45


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

What's the goal here? To have fast knowledge of all the factions or fast knowledge of the own faction? Because a player doesn't need to go thorugh everything in his codex, the vast majority of the options are to be flat out ignored after reading them the first time.

Pretty much everyone just use 1-2 chapter equivalents, a couple of relics, a couple of traits, a couple of psychic powers and no more than 7-8 stratagems. Sure stripping layers of rules and buffs speeds up the game but not really by much once these are familiar to you. Stratagems from the core book are typically completely ignored as they are super situational, except the autopass on morale which is super easy to remember and maybe overwatch, also easy to remember.

And gotchas are basically happening once per army. Once you've played a faction and get gotchad you'll learn from it and don't get surprised again.

I think it's better to start playing lower formats like 1000 points for new people, and then after mastering the edition and the army start playing 2000 points games.

For a complete different approach One Page Rules works better than simplified 40k I think.

 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus

 Blackie wrote:
What's the goal here? To have fast knowledge of all the factions or fast knowledge of the own faction? Because a player doesn't need to go thorugh everything in his codex, the vast majority of the options are to be flat out ignored after reading them the first time.

Pretty much everyone just use 1-2 chapter equivalents, a couple of relics, a couple of traits, a couple of psychic powers and no more than 7-8 stratagems. Sure stripping layers of rules and buffs speeds up the game but not really by much once these are familiar to you. Stratagems from the core book are typically completely ignored as they are super situational, except the autopass on morale which is super easy to remember and maybe overwatch, also easy to remember.

And gotchas are basically happening once per army. Once you've played a faction and get gotchad you'll learn from it and don't get surprised again.

I think it's better to start playing lower formats like 1000 points for new people, and then after mastering the edition and the army start playing 2000 points games.

For a complete different approach One Page Rules works better than simplified 40k I think.


It's still all "mental load" that must be remembered throughout a game and often tracked turn-to-turn, and not all players are equal in terms of learning and retaining game knowledge. So yeah just "git gud and don't look for a simplified 9th" isn't really a constructive answer
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Upstate, New York

You can rip out all the command point/strats
Chapter tactics/subfaction rules/doctrines
Relics
Warlord traits

Obviously some armies/units will be more impacted than others.

Crusade missions don’t use secondary objectives (you choose agendas for XP instead) but I’m not sure it’s better overall as a format if you are looking to keep the number of things to remember down. While you tend to use the same units from your roster, each one will gain battle honors/flaws as the campaign progresses.

As I’ve exclusively played that format in 9th, I’m not sure how the game would play without secondaries in matched missions. Would probably be simpler. Another option would be to use fixed secondaries that are easy to track.

   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






A Dakkanaut's way to simplify the game: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lqvq4J2euMNC1wPGH58Ng0m-iJDfRyqj/view

You could play Open Play, which bans a lot of rules like Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines. The game isn't balanced with the rules, balance won't be much worse off without them I think, it will come down to the individual list.

I don't use Super Doctrines for my army when I play 500 pt intro games with beginners, although I will usually encourage my opponent to use theirs. If my opponent has read the Stratagems in the core rules we'll play with those, I never want to use the Stratagems in the codex.

Is it balanced? No way, I'm using 450 pts, I'm skipping Command Protocols and I have played dozens of games, my opponent is using 500 pts, might have Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines and it's their first game. It's definitely not balanced the same way that Chess is and 40k is not going to be with GW writing the rules and releasing them by carrier pigeon.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







I don't think so. A lot of the systems in 9e are band-aid patches to make up for some math mistakes GW made writing the 8e Indexes (pretty much everything about the S/T and W/D relationship is badly-written, they assigned AP way too generously). If you took all the extra systems out of 9e to produce a simpler game I think you'd just end up with one where the things with better statlines still just win.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

If you wanted to super simplify the game, then just play 40k 3E with the RB lists.

They're balanced, and extensively playtested, specifically created to undo the excess of 2E (which was recreated 7E, and recreated yet again in 8E/9E).

All of the shiny stuff goes back to "count as", and that's that. Almost zero mental load for anyone involved.

As Jervis has said, it's how the designers would prefer to play among themselves. As opposed to every single model being a shiny, special snowflake with it's own half-page of unique rules.

   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






We basically just use the free core rules, datasheets and general army rules, like Reanimation Protocols, or Septs, maybe Warlord traits, but feth CP and strats once the game have started.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 RustyNumber wrote:


It's still all "mental load" that must be remembered throughout a game and often tracked turn-to-turn, and not all players are equal in terms of learning and retaining game knowledge. So yeah just "git gud and don't look for a simplified 9th" isn't really a constructive answer


It is when it's backed up and argued, and I think I've done that .

Once you decided to keep only the things you really need from a codex then the "mental load" isn't higher than what you needed to remember in older editions. Especially if you start learning the game mechanics by playing smaller and quicker games.

A 40k that is stripped af all its layers of rules isn't really that different from One Page Rules, and at that point why don't you play that set of rules, which is optimized ad carefully designed for people who want simple 40k?

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Upstate, New York

 Blackie wrote:
 RustyNumber wrote:


It's still all "mental load" that must be remembered throughout a game and often tracked turn-to-turn, and not all players are equal in terms of learning and retaining game knowledge. So yeah just "git gud and don't look for a simplified 9th" isn't really a constructive answer


It is when it's backed up and argued, and I think I've done that .

Once you decided to keep only the things you really need from a codex then the "mental load" isn't higher than what you needed to remember in older editions. Especially if you start learning the game mechanics by playing smaller and quicker games.

A 40k that is stripped af all its layers of rules isn't really that different from One Page Rules, and at that point why don't you play that set of rules, which is optimized ad carefully designed for people who want simple 40k?


If you start with the framework of 9th, but rip things out to make it easier to learn, you can add stuff back easier.

If you go back to an earlier edition, people will have to un-learn things, and then learn the new ones, instead of just learning a new layer.

This assumes the end goal is eventually play with the full set of 9th’s rules, and not just find a good system to push models round with.

If you went back to 3rd edition to get people up to speed with 40k they would have to forget things like rapid fire, the old wound table, how assault works, etc.

Why you want to trim the rules is a very critical point of this discussion. It’s a bloated mess, but not imposable to learn and quite playable. It has its flaws, but so does every other edition. For learning the game a lot can be left on the sidelines. And as it’s been pointed out, this will affect the balance. But it’s not like it was well balanced to start.

   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Nevelon wrote:


Why you want to trim the rules is a very critical point of this discussion. It’s a bloated mess, but not imposable to learn and quite playable. It has its flaws, but so does every other edition. For learning the game a lot can be left on the sidelines. And as it’s been pointed out, this will affect the balance. But it’s not like it was well balanced to start.


Excatly.

In fact I believe that if the problem is learning how to master their own army (or armies) as soon as possible then I'd suggest starting smaller games but with all the rules; players would just use a fraction of them anyway. If the goal of simplified 40k is to get a very competitive game that doesn't involve gotchas, but only or mostly personal skills, then I'd suggest something completely different, like the One Page Rules edition. That's why I asked what was the OP's goal to find a version of simplified 40k in my first post, but didn't get an answer.

 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus

I like most of the 9th rules, ie damage system, vehicle rules etc. It's the "floating layers" that I dislike and find difficult to track and implement. To be able to simply use unit codex entries without the "ah but it has keyword Derp and my army is using the Herple Derple custom chapter rules so it actually gets a bonus fart attack in the movement phase" One Page Rules is fun but lacks enough crunch and granularity.

There might be players out there who hate vehicles or flyers and their rules, for *them* it's a pretty straightforward solution. Not being super familiar with 9th is why I'm asking what people think can be removed "safely" or easily

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/16 22:21:06


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 RustyNumber wrote:
I like most of the 9th rules, ie damage system, vehicle rules etc. It's the "floating layers" that I dislike and find difficult to track and implement. To be able to simply use unit codex entries without the "ah but it has keyword Derp and my army is using the Herple Derple custom chapter rules so it actually gets a bonus fart attack in the movement phase" One Page Rules is fun but lacks enough crunch and granularity.

This is a relatable sentiment. Here's what I think you can ditch pretty easily:

* Doctrines/Combat Protocols/Tides of the Warp/Sacred Rites/etc. The rules you get when your entire army shares <Keyword>. I've found these to be annoying to fiddle with and track. Plus, they don't really add much to the game experience or represent the narrative very well. They're mostly just an extra layer of generic buffs that largely break down to, "Kill more betterer." Possible exception to this: Power From Pain for drukhari. Some will disagree with this, but I find that many of the units in the book (especially coven units) don't really behave as intended without PFP. The buffs they care about most arguably should have just been baked into their datasheets rather than made into a high-concept mechanic. That said, PFP still isn't very fluffy, and drukhari are probably good enough to make do without PFP.

* Chapter Tactics/Obsessions/Craftworld Traits/etc. The rules you get for all units within a detachment sharing <Keyword>. I feel like these add more to the game and to an army's personality than doctrine-level rules, but they're pretty easy to drop if you're looking to streamline the game. I can't think of any army that "stops working" without its chapter tactic-level rules.

*Warlord Traits. Again, these can add some personality to your army and fun to your game, but you won't break anything by not including them. Special note on the drukhari again: the drukhari have lost almost all of their meaningful character customization options EXCEPT in the form of warlord traits and relics. So that faction specifically might be hurt more than most on a slightly intagible level. (Also, they repriced some of our HQs recently under the assumption that they'll be packing relic + trait combos.)

* Relics: See: warlord traits.

* Stratagems: Dropping these makes the game a lot simpler and less stressful to play, but doing so has a couple drawbacks to be mindful of:
A.) A lot of flavorful abilities and wargear have been turned into stratagems over the years. So an iconic ability you remember fondly might not be available without stratagems.
B.) Stratagems are paid for with CP, and CP is the main thing keeping you from taking allies in 9th. So dropping stratagems entirely may result in people fielding more allies. Which, honestly might not be that big a deal without all the synergies and complications that come from stratagems, chapter tactics, etc.

You could also do something to limit the number of stratagems you have to keep in mind during the game without ditching them entirely. You could, for instance, have each player gain a few stratagems at random pre-game. So you'd only be adding a couple special rules per player (which will theoretically only get used a handful of times due to the CP cost), but you partially avoid items A and B above.

* Units with litanies, war hymns, etc. I actually kind of like that they fleshed out these "psychic powers but not" mechanics, but they definitely add just one more layer of special rules to remember and track. So you may want to avoid using such units, or you may simply want to limit how many such units you can have in a given army. Ex: Maybe avoid taking librarians and chaplains in the same army so that you only have to track litanies OR psychic powers.

* Superheavies. Not so much because these are complicated as because they're just... kind of a bad fit for the scale of 40k unless both players build lists around their inclusion. Also, they might become significantly harder for some armies to deal with without stratagems, chapter tactics, etc.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

If the game is both poorly-balanced, and overly-complicated, then one should radically reduce the overall level of complication. The resulting game might still be imbalanced (in a different way), but at least it should be easy enough to play correctly and quickly.

Once that happens, any imbalance is then clearly visible, and therefore relatively easy to rebalance. Fortunately, 40k is a points game, so it's easy enough to say "Squats are OP, so their points cap is 11% lower" or "Orks are weak, so they get an extra 8% points to spend on Boyz."

The notion that people only play for rules only affects a small number of tournament players, so designing for them is the tail wagging the dog. A great many players play for Fluff, models, "cool" and/or theme, so the rules are largely irrelevant. You can find these people having a great time in the losers' bracket of any large tournament, shooting the gak and generally just being glad to play at all.

   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Does 9th still include the "all the important stuff condensed into 1 sheet of A4" bit in the rules? If so then you could probably just use that and cut out everything else.

I'm very anti-reduction though so would be really against removing anything else just for the sake of simplicity.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Seems easy.

Free rules available online (includes a basic default-mission .. table of any size and shape): https://warhammer40000.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ENG_40K9_Basic_Rules.pdf

The unit stats that come with the models in the box.

Done?
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






Sunny Side Up wrote:
Seems easy.

Free rules available online (includes a basic default-mission .. table of any size and shape): https://warhammer40000.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ENG_40K9_Basic_Rules.pdf

The unit stats that come with the models in the box.

Done?


Yup!
Can be a really relaxing way to play.
We add in Reanimation Protocols and equivalent rules.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Aus



Cheers, the kind of insight I was chasing!
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Valkyrie wrote:
I'm very anti-reduction though so would be really against removing anything else just for the sake of simplicity.


Why? If the core rules were on a 4-page pamphlet, and each army had its stats and unique rules all on a 4-page reference, why would that be a bad thing? You'd take 2 foldouts to each game, mostly for your opponent. None of the hobby, collecting, background or stories would change.

What's wrong with making 40k a game that is dead simple to play by a young child, and therefore plays quickly and correctly, and thus can seamlessly scale to huge battles if desired? It's not like Chess requires 100s of pages of rules, and it's the most heavily-promoted game for little kids across America!


   
Made in nz
Regular Dakkanaut




I find this post quite interesting.

Indeed i would agree that there is a lot of shaving to be had in the game. Yet if you put it down to it's bare basics the game fundamentally works just fine and is quick.

But in that same regard........ who here has played a simple 40k with no special things, no codexes,no match play,no extra terrain rules cause those are extra and no points rules cause that is extra aswell.

Everything bar the phases and the simple mission is all there already, and functionally it works as a game.

Yet people always want more.

It starts off small, like lets play with match play points, lets play basic strats, lets go with our codexes ect.

Each time you play you actually by our nature want more in our game, more units, more abilities, more everything.

So the question isn't how much rules can we shave that you have to be asking.

It's how much are you willing to give up

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




mchammadad wrote:

Everything bar the phases and the simple mission is all there already, and functionally it works as a game.

Yet people always want more.

It starts off small, like lets play with match play points, lets play basic strats, lets go with our codexes ect.

Each time you play you actually by our nature want more in our game, more units, more abilities, more everything.

So the question isn't how much rules can we shave that you have to be asking.

It's how much are you willing to give up


I mean, some of my fondest 40k memories are of playing 7th edition Combat Patrol where your armies are tiny, the game plays fast, and chapter tactics, strats, etc. weren't really a thing yet. Everyone will have a different level of complexity they're okay with, and that level may vary from day to day. But I do think there are some of us who would like our games to, more often than not, have significantly fewer submechanics rolling around than 9th edition currently does.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

mchammadad wrote:
who here has played a simple 40k with no special things, no codexes,no match play,no extra terrain rules cause those are extra and no points rules cause that is extra aswell.


-raises hand-

When I played 40k back in 3rd Edition, all we had was the stripped-down Rulebook lists. No Codices had been printed, and the entire previous crop of 2nd Edition Codices were invalidated. There was none of that extra crap, just clean, simple lists.

It's a great experience, and more people should play that way!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JohnHwangDD wrote:
mchammadad wrote:
who here has played a simple 40k with no special things, no codexes,no match play,no extra terrain rules cause those are extra and no points rules cause that is extra aswell.


-raises hand-

When I played 40k back in 3rd Edition, all we had was the stripped-down Rulebook lists. No Codices had been printed, and the entire previous crop of 2nd Edition Codices were invalidated. There was none of that extra crap, just clean, simple lists.

It's a great experience, and more people should play that way!

That does sound kind of refreshing. I love having rules to customize my army, but all the extra stuff these days makes tracking stuff kind of stressful. I'm more than happy to embrace 40k as glorified mashing toy soldiers together and give up some of the extra depth to make that experience more chill. At least for a while.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






If anything rules need to be added, because with simplicity comes lack of uniqueness.
Less rules dose not mean more balanced, eventually it reaches a point where your game does not have enough rules to support any diversity in armies and as a result you end up with super special one off rules as a result, see tau getting ingnoreing invulns and such.

Simple =/= better.

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





Simple =/= better.

True, but simplifying the game by cutting out some of the layers of special rules does mean you have less to track and juggle in your head. For some of us, that means a more relaxed game experience. So while not necessarily "better" in general, it is "better" in the sense that your overall experience might be improved by making the game less stressful to learn and play.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If anything rules need to be added, because with simplicity comes lack of uniqueness.
Less rules dose not mean more balanced, eventually it reaches a point where your game does not have enough rules to support any diversity in armies and as a result you end up with super special one off rules as a result, see tau getting ingnoreing invulns and such.

Skimming the thread, I don't think anyone is arguing that simplifying the game would inherently improve balance. In fact, I see several people pointing out that you risk creating new balance issues. What you're describing seems to be a version of the game where so much has been cut out that it deprives armies of unique identities. Where exactly that line is drawn is going to be subjective. Personally, I don't really care for doctrines, combat protocols, etc., but I kind of like chapter tactics, dynasty rules, etc.

Additionally, it could be argued that...
A.) A better way to keep the game dynamic/interesting would be to create more universal mechanics that create new interesting choices. Many doctrines, combat protocols, chapter tactics, stratagems, etc. don't so much create interesting choices as they just up the raw offense or defense of units.
B.) Adding on more layers of buffs in the way GW has been doesn't really add to "uniqueness." Look at litanies, war hymns, whatever the Thousand Sons ones are called, etc. There's a lot of crossover between these, and even more crossover if you also compare them to psychic powers, stratagems, etc. Personally, I've started to feel like armies are becoming MORE homogenous rather than less as many of the layered-on buffs in one codex strongly resemble the layered-on buffs in another.

...you end up with super special one off rules as a result, see tau getting ingnoreing invulns and such.

If uniqueness and niche protection are your goals, does it really matter whether the rules that facilitate that are located in the main rulebook, as an army-wide rule in the codex, or as a unit-specific rule in a datasheet?

Respectfully, who is your comment directed at? It sort of feels like you might have unintentionally constructed a straw man.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




space marines. Could get rid of all space marines.

Would help a lot with the bloat.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If anything rules need to be added, because with simplicity comes lack of uniqueness.
Less rules dose not mean more balanced, eventually it reaches a point where your game does not have enough rules to support any diversity in armies


That is flat out untrue, and the 40k3 rulebook lists are proof of that.

40k8+ "snowflake" rules merely prove Syndrome was right: when every army, every unit, every model, and every weapon are special snowflakes... none are.


Wyldhunt wrote:
Skimming the thread, I don't think anyone is arguing that simplifying the game would inherently improve balance..


I argued that simplifying the game inherently improves the opportunity for more rigorous balance:
any imbalance is then clearly visible, and therefore relatively easy to rebalance. Fortunately, 40k is a points game, so it's easy enough to say "Squats are OP, so their points cap is 11% lower" or "Orks are weak, so they get an extra 8% points to spend on Boyz."

The fewer variances that exist, the easier it is to evaluate them, and the easier it is to balance them amongst each other, simply because there are fewer things that can break whatever nominal balance is created, assuming that balance is desired.

For me, the primary benefit is correctness, then completeness. That is, a simpler game that is always played correctly and completely is inherently superior to a game that so complex that it introduces play errors due to inability to comprepend the complete ruleset.

   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






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.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: