Switch Theme:

9th Edition Rework - Initial Outline for Discussion  [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 us
Dakka Veteran






Over the past many months I've been developing ProHammer (see my signature) - which has been an effort to make my idealized version of "classic" 40K by enhancing the core 5th edition ruleset. I feel like that was a successful project, and the playtests have bene overwhelming positive within my group.

Now, I'm interested in seeing what I can do with 9th edition.

There is no shortage of complaints about 9th. The prevailing attitude seems to be that "it's not even worth trying to fix 9th edition because it's so broken you might as well start over." I don't think that is the case. I think there are some tangible ways that 9th edition can be improved in order to provide a "better" experience for more people, and to allow a greater range of models and lists to have a reasonable chance for a "good feeling" game.

As a general principle, I feel that rule modifications work best when they still allow people to use their normal and current codex book. This is really important IMHO. The moment you start trying to convince someone to try out alternative rules... AND you also tell them they have to ignore the $50 codex they bought and use this other thing I invented out of thin air is the moment you will loose most of the people that might have been willing to try some house rules. So my approach is to rely on modifying the core rules and where absolutely critical provide a FAQ describing any codex specific considerations relative to the new rules.

As a second principle, I feel that any changes to a ruleset are going to change the relative strength and weaknesses of different units and armies. I also feel like the balance, right now, can't get much worse than it is, and that the balance between the strongest and weakest factions vary as much as between as they do between different editions of the same faction. Which is to say, I'm interested in fixing big picture balance issues, e.g. vehicles being across the board too weak, assault being too strong/weak, alpha strike being too effective.

General design objectives for 9th edition rework:

  • Allow use of 8th/9th edition codexes with no statline adjustments needed.
  • Emphasize table-level tactics over list-making. Make a broader range of list types competitive, while also using more standardized force organizations for matched play.
  • Add fidelity to the mechanics where it improves the logical and intuitive flow of the game.
  • Increase the number of meaningful tactical choices available to players and incorporate more tough decision points into the gameplay.
  • Elevate the importance of position, maneuver, and use of terrain over list bulding


  • The section below is an outline for the areas and ranges of changes I'm considering for 9th edition. I'd love to get some feedback going on the specific areas that need improvement and/or reactions to any of my rough proposals.

    ====================================================================


    MOVEMENT RELATED

    Revise difficult terrain rules. Make it so that a MODEL (not unit) in difficult terrain spend 2” of available movement per 1” moved while in difficult terrain. Pretty easy fix.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAKING ATTACKS (aka Fixing Lethality)

    The majority sentiment seems to be that 9th edition is too lethal. Being too lethal means that units don't stick around long enough to give the player choices about how/where to use them. It emphasizes alpha strike and makes the gameplay more 1-dimensional. Being too lethal means there is no room for a back-and-forth dynamic.

    I think the heart of this lies in how "Making Attacks" are handled in 9th. So I have a number of suggestions on this front:

    #1 - Use the old (pre-8th edition) wound table.

    This means that higher toughness models (monstrous creatures and vehicles) are going to be either immune or far less likely to be wounded by small arms fire. It also means that marginal differences in strength vs. toughness matter more. In some cases, this can improve lethality (i.e. T4 vs. S6/S7 would wound on a 2+ instead of a 3+), but for bigger high toughness models I think it's an important change. For example, a T7 model right now can be wounded by a S4 weapon on a 5+. It's easy to spam S4 shots. In the old table, it would only wound on a 6+ (which is a 50% decrease). T8 would be impossible to wound with a S4 weapon.

    #2 - Revise the Attack Allocation Process

    ProHammer painstaking developed what I think is both the fairest as well as a reasonably fast way of allocating wounds. All attacks made by one unit towards another unit are resolved with batch rolls (you never roll for attacks one at a time). In effect, you do this:

    (1) All shooting models in a unit shooting at a given target roll to hit
    (2) All hits roll to wound (use the target units majority toughness)
    (3) Defender allocates all wounds evenly among "viable" pools models (those are within within range and LoS of at least one attacking model)
    (4) Make saving throws by pools, with a pool being models that have the same net saving throw (same combination of armor and/or cover save)
    (5) Unsaved wounds are applied within each pool. Unsaved wounds must be applied first to already damaged/wounded models, removing whole models first.

    There is more specificity that needs to be spelled out, but the basic flow is presented above. This lets individual models take advantage of cover or not, while giving the defender some flexibility over which exact models are removed, preventing models outside of LoS or range from being removed, etc.

    #3 - Rework Saving Throws + Cover Saves

    I'll say it right now - I don't like 8th/9th saving throw system. I think the old AP system was better. I think a hybrid approach could work in 9th edition - although it will add a little rule overhead.

    My thinking is this

    Step 1 - translate all AP -X into an equivalent AP(Z) value. AP -1 becomes AP5, AP -2 becomes AP4, AP -3 becomes AP 3 and so on...

    Step 2 - New armor save chart works as follows:

    If the AP(Z) value equals your armor save, you save on a 6+ (which is essentially the same as it is now, e.g AP -3 vs. 3+ save means you save on a 6+)
    If the AP(Z) value is exactly one point higher (i.e. worse) than your save, you take a -1 to your save (e.g., AP -2, which is now AP4, versus 3+ save means you save on a 4+)
    If the AP(Z) value is more than one point higher, you take your save as normal with no modifier
    If the AP(Z) value is lower (i.e. better) than your save, then you don't get an armor save at all (which is essentially the same as it is now).

    Step 3 - Re-work the cover save system.

    I'm not entirely sure how I want to handle this yet. One option is to just have cover provide an alternate save option (like pre-8th). Another might be to just provide an additional level of cover, something that provides a +2 to cover.

    The key here is that cover needs to walk a line between how it impacts 2+/3+/4+ armor saves versus 5+/6+ armor save models. In olden days, 3+ armor meant that cover generally was irrelevant when facing weak AP weapons, because the unmodified armor save was better. Currently cover is better for everyone, and yet also isn't that good. I think there are improvements to make here.

    Vehicles should get cover saves. Details to be worked out, but shooting through sufficiently tall cover and/or having the visible “plane” of a vehicle obscured by X% or more should confer cover or hit modifiers.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SHOOTING & TARGET SELECTION

    The whole dynamic around shooting and target selection doesn’t support making interesting tactical choices. Two things I’d do here:

    #1 - Remove automatic split firing.

    In 8th/9th, as you know, each model can shoot at whatever it wants. I’d limit this to the unit only being able to shoot at a maximum of two different units. This could also be tied to having to make a leadership test (ala ProHammer). This change also goes along with the revised wound/hit allocation process (above) to speed things up. Since you’re at most shooting at two targets, you only have two batches of hits to roll instead of “gaming the system” by rolling hits one at a time.

    #2 - Require declared fire for all units before resolving shots

    People crap on this idea without really ever trying it. But it makes a WORLD of difference to the power of shooting attacks and injects a nice dose of tactical decision making. It shifts shooting from being an optimization puzzle/exercise where you can squeeze every last ounce of efficiency out of your shots into something where you have to make some bigger gut level decisions and which better simulates simultaneous fire. I really, really enjoy playing this way. There are some nuances and edge cases to consider, but it’s good change.

    #3 - Revise LoS determination

    For non-vehicle units, trace LoS from the model’s head to its target. If the head is unclear, from the center of its base and mass. On the target end, you must be able to see some portion of the head/body/upper arms/upper legs. No shooting banner poles or antenna, or hands, or feet.

    For vehicles, LoS should be traced along the barrel for weapon mounts. No more vehicles shooting “through” itself anymore. Likewise, you have to be able to see a part of the hull or turrets of the vehicle. No more shooting barrel tips, random fins, antenna, etc.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASSAULT PHASE

    Random charges suck. Especially how GW implemented them. I’d much rather have a consistent (even if potentially shorter) charge range. Infantry models should either charge 6” or up their movement stat. Bikes and the like could charge half their movement distance (i.e. SM bike would move 14” plus charge 7” - 21” charge is still pretty damn good!)

    This will probably necessitate some re-working to the deep strike rules.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VEHICLE RELATED

    Vehicles behaving like non-vehicle units isn’t, IMHO, very fun or thematic. I think there are opportunities to add a little flair to <vehicles> that doesn’t require stat line changes and the like.

    #1 Vehicle Facing

    I think an element of vehicle facing can be re-introduced in a way that makes vehicles a bit more durable when attacked from a frontward direction.

    An easy way to implement this would be to imagine an imaginary line perpendicular to the central axis of the vehicle, and centered midway along its length. Attacks originating forward of this line would suffer some sort of penalty when damaging a vehicle. These could be one of some combination of the below:

    Vehicles take 1 less damage (down to minimum of 1 - and/or 1 damage weapons would only apple 1 damage for every two total inflicted on it)
    Vehicles gain +1 to their armor save
    Vehicles gain 1 toughness (probably too much!).

    I could see a combination where you take less damage from the front (or get extra armor save) AND possibly lose a point of toughness from the rear. This would make vehicles tougher from the front, but relatively weaker from the rear, encouraging players to maneuver behind vehicles more - especially if they want to damage them with smaller arms fire.

    #2 - Vehicle Shooting

    Contrary to how the rules are, vehicles shouldn’t be able to shoot ranged weapons at units/models within their engagement range. Logically, how is a tank supposed to be point it’s cannon at a model standing next to it. It physically can’t. I propose that vehicles should ONLY be able to shoot models outside of their engagement range, at all times.

    Vehicles can automatically split fire - each weapon may fire independently at a target within their firing arc.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MORALE PHASE

    #1 - Failed morale tests

    I’ll be direct - I think the current morale system is stupid. The penalty for failing morale being that you simply lose more models isn’t fun for anyone. It’s a positive feedback loop on the lethality problem. I’d much rather see something else done.

    This thread had some interesting discussion on the topic:
    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/794525.page

    What seemed like an interesting idea is to have units that failed a morale test be unable to benefit from strategame, commands, auras, or other non-unit intrinsic benefits until the end of your next turn.

    I’m not opposed to reinstating some sort of forced fallback “option” or “go to ground” like rule as well.

    #2 - Pinning & Suppression

    I think this should be a thing in the game. I could see an approach where if a unit takes X-wounds (before saves) then it needs to take a pinning test. For example, if it takes more wounds (before saves) than the unit’s current total wounds, then it would take a pinning test. Failing a pinning/suppression test would force units to go to ground (or optionally move towards cover).

    Base game stratagems could be added to the game to allow a unit to ignore a pinning test and press on, etc.

    #3 - Losing Close Combat

    Units that fail morale tests when engaged with enemy units should break and run. Victorious units should have a choice about whether to pursue or consolidate. Something needs to happen here.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    STRATAGEMS

    One idea is to limit the pool of CP’s available to player once the game starts, and thus diminishing the ability to fire off a pile of stratagems on the first round. The basic idea is that before the first turn, after spending CP’s on deployment or game-long stataratgems, etc. you take your remaining CP’s and divide these by 5 (based on 5 game turns) rounding down. Remaining CP’s would be allocated 1 per turn.

    For example, say you had 8 CPs available at the start of the turn. 8 / 5 = 1.6, rounded down to 1 per turn, with 3 left over. Those remaining 3 would get added one per turn to the first three turns. So your CP gain would be thus (for example):

    Turn 1 = +2 CP
    Turn 2 = +2 CP
    Turn 3 = +2 CP
    Turn 4 = +1 CP
    Turn 5 = +1 CP


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MISSION STRUCTURE / OBJECTIVES

    There are a few big picture issues to address in the mission structure and design:

    #1 Reserves
    Being able to get all of your reserves on the table at the same time, automatically, on turn 1, is kinda crazy. I’d really like see a more nuanced system where, for example, you can start rolling for reserves on turn 2+ (4+ chance ot enter). Units that become eligible to enter must be brought onto the board, or you can defer a turn by spending a CP. This creates an interesting dynamic where you might be strategically deferring reserves until you a get a critical mass ready to deploy - but of course this would be on a later turn. I think it would help the flow of the battle quite a bit.

    #2 Secondary Missions

    Per this thread...
    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/794892.page#11017933
    … there is quite a bit of angst about the way secondary missions impact the gameplay. What I’ve been testing is a few changes:

    #1 - Primary objective scoring escalates based on game turn. Instead of 5 points per primary objective met per turn, the point award equals the current game turn.

    #2 - No secondary objectives are used - at all - except for the mission specific one, which is required and also uncapped so it can be be above 15 points.

    Long-term, I think a new set of secondary missions should be made that don’t have overlap and are more focused on accomplishing tasks intrinsic to the army itself. Perhaps the codex/army specific secondaries will handle this well enough, and the approach would be to just take 1 secondary from your codex-specific list, along-side the mission-specific secondary.

    #3 Force Organization

    This is another big one IMHO. I feel that the “standard” for force organization should use an approach that mandates a more balanced, troop-choice centered army list. More consistently in the types of lists being run makes forces somewhat more more symmetric, which in turn reinforces table level play over list building.

    For example: what if in matched play players must use either a single Patrol or Battalion or Brigade Detachment (depending on the size of the game being played of course). No multiple detachment lists. Sorry lords of war - you are out.

    Additionally, I would impose some % requirements for different categories units. For example:

    * Troops must be at least 25% of your total points
    * HQ’s cannot be more than 25% of your total points
    * No single other unit category (elite, fast attack, heavy support, flyers) can be more than 50% of your points.

    I think it’s ridiculous that people can build a list with 150 points of troops and then be able to take all sorts of other shenanigans.

    Obviously, if people are building more niche lists and both players agree to open up the FOC requirements, that is of course allowed as an option.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BIGGER CHANGES / TURN ORDER / REACTIONS

    Other things implemented in ProHammer that might be worth considering as a Phase 2 for 9th Edition re-work would be adjusted turn order structures and/or unit reactions. I don’t want to dig into this until I feel better about the preceding changes.

    ====================================================================

    So there we have it. It’s a pretty big swath of adjustments to work through, with plenty of details to sort out. I do know that rectifying these changes against codex-level rules will be a tricky undertaking.

    I’m envisioning an approach where I might need to identify certain classes of rules (i.e. special rules that impact morale tests or “combat attrition tests”) and have a set of universal rules that says “these 10 special rules across the codexes all work like THIS now”. Wouldn’t be that terrible to have a layer of universal special rules anyway, instead of all the uniquely-named but otherwise identical codex rules.

    Thoughts? What’s missing? What are the critical flaws? What else could be considered? I’d love to get some more feedback and input. I’ll work to keep the OP updated as things evolve.

    Cheers!

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/30 18:46:26


    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    The critical flaw here is that you're trying to add bloat on top of an already horribly bloated system. When the attack sequence is already too slow because you need to do hit roll/hit reroll/exploding hits roll/exploding hits reroll/wound roll/wound reroll/save roll/FNP every time you attack and on top of that you're adding this long wound allocation process I'm worried that a game is just going to end up taking an incredibly long time.

    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
    Dakka Veteran






    The point of the ProHammer wound resolution system is to speed up play. You CAN'T resolve hits one at a time like you can in normal 9th. Everything is done sequentially in a batch which should speed things up.

    One could also just... not use stratagems at all. Period. Take them out of the game. That would eliminate a lot of the bloat.

    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    I'm sort of lost here. Your goal is to retain the 9e Codexes, but you're happy to say "yeah, cut out this five-page chunk of your Codex that's very central to how your army works and may be propping up a lot of unplayably bad units"?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Mezmorki wrote:
    ...You CAN'T resolve hits one at a time like you can in normal 9th...


    What do you do if you shoot a unit with a FNP with a large number of d3-damage attacks?

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/30 22:55:51


    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




    I stopped reading when you talked about the old AP system being better. The all-or-nothing was fething garbage and made TONS of weapons not worth taking because of bad AP or how cover worked in conjunction.

    CaptainStabby wrote:
    If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

     jy2 wrote:
    BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

     vipoid wrote:
    Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

     MarsNZ wrote:
    ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
    I stopped reading when you talked about the old AP system being better. The all-or-nothing was fething garbage and made TONS of weapons not worth taking because of bad AP or how cover worked in conjunction.


    I'm sort of torn on this one; I liked the implementation of the old AP system better in a more controlled play environment where high-T didn't automatically mean the best save possible (T6/7 with 3+ from older MCs and the Legio Cybernetica, T5/4+, that kind of stat bracket that power creep erased by 6th) and where AP wasn't handed out as generously as it was later (when AP3 was special and AP2 showed up on expensive anti-tank and Terminator-killer weapons rather than the endless AP2/3 blasts and templates of 7th). It doesn't really mesh with the way 8th/9th assign stats.

    The closest thing to a programmatic/automatic/universal-across-all-Codexes improvement to 9th I can think of is to delete Combat Doctrines and reduce the AP on every gun that has it by a point. The save stat isn't anything like as valuable as GW thinks when they're also making it easy to get AP-4/-5, and it'd make intermediate-stat guns less anti-everything (particularly against targets in the good save range where adding a point of AP can double the number of wounds going through).

    (I'd have to do some math and get back to you on both the S/T table question and the AP range question.)

    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




     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
    I stopped reading when you talked about the old AP system being better. The all-or-nothing was fething garbage and made TONS of weapons not worth taking because of bad AP or how cover worked in conjunction.


    I'm sort of torn on this one; I liked the implementation of the old AP system better in a more controlled play environment where high-T didn't automatically mean the best save possible (T6/7 with 3+ from older MCs and the Legio Cybernetica, T5/4+, that kind of stat bracket that power creep erased by 6th) and where AP wasn't handed out as generously as it was later (when AP3 was special and AP2 showed up on expensive anti-tank and Terminator-killer weapons rather than the endless AP2/3 blasts and templates of 7th). It doesn't really mesh with the way 8th/9th assign stats.

    The closest thing to a programmatic/automatic/universal-across-all-Codexes improvement to 9th I can think of is to delete Combat Doctrines and reduce the AP on every gun that has it by a point. The save stat isn't anything like as valuable as GW thinks when they're also making it easy to get AP-4/-5, and it'd make intermediate-stat guns less anti-everything (particularly against targets in the good save range where adding a point of AP can double the number of wounds going through).

    (I'd have to do some math and get back to you on both the S/T table question and the AP range question.)

    Doctrines aren't a problem because they're all temporary in some manner, BUT Super Doctrines are the problem more than anything. If you deleted those I'd guarantee more than half the talk about Doctrines would stop.

    CaptainStabby wrote:
    If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

     jy2 wrote:
    BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

     vipoid wrote:
    Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

     MarsNZ wrote:
    ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    AP-1/-2 small arms and spammable -3/-4 is pretty problematic already. Army-wide +1AP, no matter how temporary, is an incredibly strong free buff. Fixing AP allocation for everyone else and still letting Space Marines get spammable AP-4 isn't a fix.

    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




     AnomanderRake wrote:
    AP-1/-2 small arms and spammable -3/-4 is pretty problematic already. Army-wide +1AP, no matter how temporary, is an incredibly strong free buff. Fixing AP allocation for everyone else and still letting Space Marines get spammable AP-4 isn't a fix.

    Man, if you think that's bad, wait till you see the constant AP Immortals have on their guns.

    Yeah, no. People were mad about both bonuses stacked up, but if you get rid of one the problem pretty much goes away. By ridding Super Doctrines, in how many Marines were starting to do their lists to begin with via mono Codex, you get rid of the problem at the source.

    I mean, didn't you notice all the complaints revolved around each Super Doctrine to begin with? Extra AP on Repulsors was but a speck on the map of endless posts complaining about rerolls.

    CaptainStabby wrote:
    If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

     jy2 wrote:
    BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

     vipoid wrote:
    Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

     MarsNZ wrote:
    ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
     
       
    Made in us
    Regular Dakkanaut




    New Mexico, USA

    It's not a bad start but I think you really need to go further to fix 40k.

    Remove all strategems, relics, and warlord traits. They're too fiddly, there's too much to remember, most have no serious impact on the game, and others are game-breakingly good. There's nothing worth saving. And then of course you have to fix all the units that are only viable due to being constantly buffed by these things...

    Reduce ranged weapons' number of attacks across the board. Basic rifles should have a maximum of 2 shots and only under certain conditions. Machine gun type weapons should top out out at 3. Gatling gun weapons maybe 5.

    Require line of sight to be drawn to and from a model's base, body, hull, head, or turret, and nothing else. No antennae, gun barrels, arms, wings, exhaust pipes, lugnuts, etc.

    Reverse wound inflation. Basic infantry models shouldn't ever have 3 or 4 or 5 wounds. Characters shouldn't have 6 or 7 wounds. It's absurd. Infantry characters should have 3 wounds max. I would even bring back the Instant Death mechanic and remove Mortal Wounds.

    Remove or reduce randomness in damage. There should never be a time when an anti-tank missile fails to kill an infantry model that it wounds and that fails its armor save. Every anti-tank weapon should be Damage D6+3 at a minimum, to ensure this. Alternatively just bring back Instant Death for infantry.

    Eliminate the mechanics of re-rolls and exploding dice. Entirely. They slow down the game for little real effect.

    Remove all super-heavy and almost super-heavy vehicles (e.g gorkanaut/morkanaut) from the base game, because they cause anti-tank weapon inflation that results in non-super-heavy tanks getting wiped out instantly.

    Eliminate the "feel no pain" type rule. This rule brings the number of opportunities for a model to survive being attacked up to five: hit roll, wound roll, armor save, FNP roll, multiple wounds. FNP models could just have more toughness or another wound.

    Bring back Tank Shock and Death or Glory type actions to make tanks feel more like tanks.

    Remove the Advance rule, at least for infantry as a universal thing. Infantry are too fast in 40k, which makes transports useless.

    Prevent infantry from firing heavy weapons on the move entirely, to reduce speed and make vehicles more special.

    Make cover actually offer decent protection for infantry as it should.

    Make flamer type weapons ignore cover bonuses. Jesus I can't even believe this is a thing.

    Reduce the number of weapons that models are equipped with. These days tons of even basic infantry model seem to have two guns and two close combat weapons. And lots of them are unique special snowflake weapons that no other unit has. And lots of them have multiple shooting profiles too. It's too much! Who can remember all this stuff? Even when I was 13 and obsessed with memorizing game rulebooks, I wouldn't have been able to remember it all. How does anyone actually play a game in under 6 hours with all this non-impactful minutiae to remember?

    I could go on. But after a certain point you've ripped out the guts of the rules and you're just writing your own game.

    This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/01/01 14:51:35


     
       
    Made in us
    Dakka Veteran






    Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

    Doctrines aren't a problem because they're all temporary in some manner, BUT Super Doctrines are the problem more than anything. If you deleted those I'd guarantee more than half the talk about Doctrines would stop.


    What do you mean by "super" doctrines?



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Pointed Stick wrote:
    It's not a bad start but I think you really need to go further to fix 40k.


    This seems like a pretty thorough list as well. I'm game for trying to incorporate many of these, baring those that would definitely require changing unit / weapon profiles.

    The thing is, any ruleset is going to be advantage to certain types of units, and I'm under now disillusion that these changes will affect what units are better/worse than others. It WILL impact unit effectiveness differently for each unit.

    What are people's thoughts on how to make cover better? It seems like heavy cover should provide +2 to your armor save whereas light cover provides +1. Or something.



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     AnomanderRake wrote:


    What do you do if you shoot a unit with a FNP with a large number of d3-damage attacks?


    Couldn't you switch it around, so that you don't roll FNP for each individual wound, but rather against the entire wounding shot. If FNP is successful, it negates ALL the damage from the wounding hit, like a second saving throw essentially.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/03 14:29:33


    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in at
    Not as Good as a Minion





    Austria

    one point:

    Allow use of 8th/9th edition codexes with no statline adjustments needed.

    this is not going to work well

    one big problem with 8th that continues with 9th is that the statlines were never adjusted to the new rules
    so without reverting the "to wound" table and changing the AP System, you need to adjust the stat lines to fit the new core rules

    GW started doing it by giving Marines 2 Wounds as with the new system, Toughness and Armour was replaced by number of wounds
    there are more solutions to the problem, like increasing wounds, reduce AP overall, have high AP only on single shot weapons etc.

    Thougness and Strength need to be adjusted as well, has the values in the middle are kind of useless as you pay points for no real benefit while other weapons/units are clearly better because of being above the new treshhold


    Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
       
    Made in nl
    Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






    your mind

    I like just about everything, especially the declared fire rule. I would like to see chits used for this as well as for old style overwatch, taking cover and other common orders.

       
    Made in gb
    Battleship Captain





    Bristol (UK)

    I think it's important to decide what you want from this.
    If you believe Prohammer is the ideal of 40k rules (and in many ways I agree), just changing all of 9th's rules to echo Prohammer results in a better game, but wasted effort.

    I believe you mentioned in a previous thread this was to appeal to people loyal to/familiar with 9th edition?
    To do that I think changes should be minimal. Take the core issues and change those, only. AP and cover works fine, could be better, but it works.
    Stratagems however, I hate. I'd like to see them scrapped or greatly reduced, along with CP.
    Adeptus Titanicus does this, you only get a few CP to use on stratagems, so can only use 1-2, and often they're less decisive than a lot of 40k ones. It's a much better system imo.
       
    Made in us
    Dakka Veteran






     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I think it's important to decide what you want from this.
    If you believe Prohammer is the ideal of 40k rules (and in many ways I agree), just changing all of 9th's rules to echo Prohammer results in a better game, but wasted effort.

    I believe you mentioned in a previous thread this was to appeal to people loyal to/familiar with 9th edition?
    To do that I think changes should be minimal. Take the core issues and change those, only. AP and cover works fine, could be better, but it works.
    Stratagems however, I hate. I'd like to see them scrapped or greatly reduced, along with CP.
    Adeptus Titanicus does this, you only get a few CP to use on stratagems, so can only use 1-2, and often they're less decisive than a lot of 40k ones. It's a much better system imo.


    This is good food for thought.

    I also must admit that I haven't played many games of 9th, so I'm probably better off making some smaller changes and seeing how they go.

    If I had to prioritize things a bit...

    ====================================================================
    Phase 1: "Common sense" refinements: - implement/test right away
    ====================================================================

    These changes are going to affect the game pretty uniformly and across the board for all factions. Doesn't seem like it will require much codex-level considerations to implement.

    * Fix basis for determining LoS from/to models (e.g. from head for non-vehicles and gun arc/barrel for vehicles, to hitting the body/head/upper limbs of non-vehicles and the hull/turret of vehicles).

    * Tone-back shooting power. This includes: basic infantry only shoot 1 weapon per turn, no automatic split fire, use declared shooting.

    * Use ProHammer hit/wound allocation (faster and more precisely handles batch rolling)

    * Primary Objective scoring - score points equal to the current turn (up to max of 5). Add a final round of scoring after the last player turn (both players score once more).

    ====================================================================
    Phase 2 - Numerical Adjustments - implement/test right away or shortly after phase 1
    ====================================================================

    These are changes to the number systems used in the game - and will likely impact the balance between factions differently, and require soe more careful codex-level considerations when implemented.

    * Make cover stronger: add +2 save modifier for heavy cover (in lieu of -1 to hit?), let vehicles take advantage of cover if 50% obscured)

    * Add vehicle facing - extra protection against shots in the forward arc (+1 to armor save seems easiest)

    * Wounding - use the old wound table (easy enough to implement)

    * Command Point flow - tone down the number of command points and/or dole them out overtime to make them a bit less overwhelming.

    * Secondary Objectives - All players must take the mission specific secondary and may then select ONE other secondary.

    ====================================================================
    Phase 3 - Game System Reworks - continue to think through these, don't rush into implementation
    ====================================================================

    These changes are to entire game systems, and will require some degree of realigning or translating unit abilities / codex-level rules to work correctly with these changes.

    * Rework Morale - remove loses from failed morale / attrition. Have it impact ability to benefit from commands/auras and/or force fall back moves. More to work out here. Can include pinning/suppression concepts.

    * Rework Reserves

    * Rework Mission Objectives and secondaries

    * Rework force organization to use a standardized detachment with some flexibility built in. Perhaps incentivize troop choices by having the grant extra CP's?

    ====================================================================

    Seems like the above might be a nice way to step into changes incrementally.


    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/04 17:12:42


    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in gb
    Battleship Captain





    Bristol (UK)

     Mezmorki wrote:

    ====================================================================
    Phase 1: "Common sense" refinements: - implement/test right away
    ====================================================================

    These changes are going to affect the game pretty uniformly and across the board for all factions. Doesn't seem like it will require much codex-level considerations to implement.

    * Fix basis for determining LoS from/to models (e.g. from head for non-vehicles and gun arc/barrel for vehicles, to hitting the body/head/upper limbs of non-vehicles and the hull/turret of vehicles).

    * Tone-back shooting power. This includes: basic infantry only shoot 1 weapon per turn, no automatic split fire, use declared shooting.

    * Use ProHammer hit/wound allocation (faster and more precisely handles batch rolling)

    * Primary Objective scoring - score points equal to the current turn (up to max of 5). Add a final round of scoring after the last player turn (both players score once more).


    The problem with only allowing basic infantry to shoot one weapon is that all the new stuff has been made with firing multiple weapons in mind.
    Take Aggressors - if they can only fire one weapon, they lose like 2/3rds of their damage output. Yes it'll reduce their lethality, but a lot of models won't be affected at all and you'll just make Aggressors useless.
    I'm quite far out of the competitive loop atm, but I know Eliminators are the bees-knees. They won't care that they can only fire one gun, they only have one gun. 90% of infantry already only has one gun, and the rest are specifically designed to fire more than one gun.

    I also don't see how your wound allocation system would improve things.
    You can speed roll stuff up until the saves step already, so there's no speed to be gained there. But you need to roll damage one-by-one when it's random damage. As the example given earlier, a barrage of damage D3 weapons vs 2W models.
    The only other time you need to roll saves one by one is if saves change mid-attack, eg if there's one guy out of cover and once he dies everyone else gets cover. Your system may marginally speed up this interaction. But I think overall taking the time to allocate the wounds around before taking saves will be slower.

    I like the idea of objectives being worth more as time goes by. I'm not sure an after-game scoring round is necessary though, certainly for the player who got first turn. It would be nice for the player that went second though.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/04 14:52:56


     
       
    Made in us
    Dakka Veteran






    Regarding number of shots...

    It would be easier to add a caveat that models armed with two of the same weapon can fire them "akimbo" style or whatever to account for a few of the edge cases.

    ====================================

    For random damage and multi-wound models ... let me think this through.

    Say we have 5 marines (2W) hit and wounded (failed armor save) by three D3 hits.

    In the current rules, you allocate and roll those one at a time, because you might roll a 1 on the first roll, and then since that model is already wounded, the second attack would have to be allocated on it (killing it), and then the third could go to any of the remaining models. Correct?

    You could, I suppose, simply roll for the three D3 damage rolls all at once and allocate them from among the models that failed the saves (in case of certain models benefiting from cover or different saves, etc.) such that you apply damage to remove whole models to the maximum extent feasible.

    E.g, if you rolled a 3, 1, 1 for damage, you'd apply the 3 damage to a model and kill it (excess damage lost) and then you'd have to apply the two 1's to the same model in order to remove it.

    EDIT: Might stipulate that you need to allocate wounding hits in order of their damage. So, in my 3, 1, 1, example, if you had 3-wound models (e.g. Heavy intercessors), you'd have to remove 1 model first (from the 3-damage hit) and then apply two wounds to a single remaining model.

    Seems pretty straight forward.

    ====================================

    The after game scoring is, IMHO, pretty important to help even out first tur advantage. Right now, the second player's last turn, with respect to primary objectives, is 100% irrelevant. Nothing they do will change their score. You might as well not even play it.

    Similarly, giving just the second player a bonus round of scoring starts to undermine the first player's last turn a bit. If they don't get a chance to score once more as well, they would be incentivized to abandoned their own hold on objectives (since they can't score again) and spent al their effort trying to just eliminate their opponent's army with no regard for their own safety. Having first player able to score again prompts them to make a choice about how well to try and defend their held objectives (or not).

    This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/01/04 15:49:07


    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in gb
    Battleship Captain





    Bristol (UK)

    But what units are you intending to target with the one-weapon restriction?

    Most infantry units already only have one weapon. Most units with multiple weapons aren't Infantry, and if you then give exemptions for the few units it still affects, what does this even achieve?

       
    Made in us
    Dakka Veteran






    Maybe that rule isn't needed at all then.

    I was (incorrectly) thinking that units with pistols + other weapons could fire both, but forgetting that pistol weapon description says you can't fire a pistol alongside other weapons.

    So I suppose it doesn't matter at all and can be purged for heretical intents.

    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    In days of more open armouries the one-weapon restriction caught: characters who decided to buy two ranged weapons, bikers with additional weapons, heavy weapons troopers (Guard heavy weapon teams, for instance, where the extra guy's supposed to be acting as loader instead of firing an extra lasgun but the team's still got the lasgun for if they need to move), and troops with pistol and rifle (Tactical Marines from 5e on). Today wargear list restrictions and the pistol/grenade restrictions have mostly replaced it.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Mezmorki wrote:
    ...For random damage and multi-wound models ... let me think this through.

    Say we have 5 marines (2W) hit and wounded (failed armor save) by three D3 hits.

    In the current rules, you allocate and roll those one at a time, because you might roll a 1 on the first roll, and then since that model is already wounded, the second attack would have to be allocated on it (killing it), and then the third could go to any of the remaining models. Correct?

    You could, I suppose, simply roll for the three D3 damage rolls all at once and allocate them from among the models that failed the saves (in case of certain models benefiting from cover or different saves, etc.) such that you apply damage to remove whole models to the maximum extent feasible.

    E.g, if you rolled a 3, 1, 1 for damage, you'd apply the 3 damage to a model and kill it (excess damage lost) and then you'd have to apply the two 1's to the same model in order to remove it.

    EDIT: Might stipulate that you need to allocate wounding hits in order of their damage. So, in my 3, 1, 1, example, if you had 3-wound models (e.g. Heavy intercessors), you'd have to remove 1 model first (from the 3-damage hit) and then apply two wounds to a single remaining model.

    Seems pretty straight forward...


    So a substantial buff to d3-damage weapons there. You'd still need to allocate damage/roll FNP rolls one model at a time, though.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/04 19:46:58


    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
    Dakka Veteran






     AnomanderRake wrote:
    So a substantial buff to d3-damage weapons there. You'd still need to allocate damage/roll FNP rolls one model at a time, though.


    You could do it the other way of course. If the sentiment is that attacks are too damaging / lethal (which is I think the popular opinion), just let the defender decide what order to allocate the wounds. This means your D6 = 5 damage dealt melta shot could get allocated after the two 1's, in which case only one 3W model would get removed (per the prior example). I guess it's a balancing decision.

    Regarding FNP, don't you roll for the FNP after you armor save occurs but BEFORE rolling the damage result? I was under the impression that FNP negates the entire wound (and all of it's damage), but maybe I'm wrong on that.

    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    FNP in 8th/9th is worded as "if this model loses a wound...", it negates individual points of damage, not the whole hit.

    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
    Dakka Veteran






    Hmmm, well, that could be changed. Rolling for FNP as a second save would streamline things.

    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    Or just delete FNP. It's not that interesting of a mechanic, particularly without the ID bar of past editions ("you get this extra save, but only against lighter weapons!"), and it slows down/clutters up the game quite a lot, particularly when you've got army-wide FNP6+ as a faction trait.

    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
    Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





    Out of my Mind

    FINALLY, a potential reasonable discussion on addressing the issues with Nein-th edition. I support this and I wish you nothing but luck with this endeavor. I've been thinking about this for a while and read your post a few times. So many complaints can be eliminated we'd scrap the 'Matched Play' system, or at least give the players something competitive. This is going to be fun.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    #1 - Use the old (pre-8th edition) wound table.

    I initially disliked this when it was first introduced. What made me change my mind is that it loosened up the requirement to diversify lists. Someone can put all Lasguns on the table and can still play. Knights exist and going back to this would put the game back into a state where a majority of the force is just going to move around flailing their arms while they try to reduce the number of models that get stepped on. I remember games where Eldar players focused on eliminating any threats to the 3 Wraithlords then watched the game boiling down reducing the amount of damage before the game ends. No, it's not going to be optimal and players should take some tank Killers in lists, but as the rule is, it leaves that choice in the players hands and freedom to bring what they want.

     Mezmorki wrote:

    I'll say it right now - I don't like 8th/9th saving throw system. I think the old AP system was better. I think a hybrid approach could work in 9th edition - although it will add a little rule overhead.

    I'm on both sides here. I do like the old AP system better as it was a simple yes/no 'Do I get an armor save' check and the game moved on. With the current system, the game slows down as players try to figure out what they need to roll to pass a save before rolling. This causes it's own problems which only slow the game down even more. Playing my Necrons I have to keep track of which of my Reaper Warriors are Ap -2, Ap -3 for being under half Range, then modify the AP for the entire unit when I roll a '6' while the protocol is active which only gets worse if the opponent is in cover or I pop a Stratagem. On the receiving end it's the same. I got told repeatedly in one game that my warriors got hit with Ap X weapons and that my 5's rolled on my INVUL save were invalid. First turn it's understandable, but by the 4th turn I had to question my opponent failing to remember that I have that I still have 5++ while trying not to dismiss his hope that he might actually kill models.

    I think the current AP system works if you just roll dice and then apply all the modifiers instead of having a 30s discussion every time a unit shoots/gets shot at. The two problems I have are first, that they gave it out too much which contributes to the lethality as guns in general now reflect how painful it is to get shot. The second problem I have is that GW still hasn't figured out how to point models based on weapons they carry as easily as they were under the old system. This will change as the game advances and we only need to wait for CA instead of the next codex. I agree that it's not a very well thought out mechanic especially when an alpha striker goes first. I don't have any real fixes other than maybe try out a global reduction of all weapons AP by 1.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    #1 - Remove automatic split firing.
    #2 - Require declared fire for all units before resolving shots
    #3 - Revise LoS determination

    Auto Split firing is fine as long as players don't try to wait and see what the first part of the unit is doing before committing the second part to the same unit. On point #2, players are kind of already doing this just not the way you're resolving this. They have the movement phase to position what target he wants to kill, and will often have a second unit there to clean up. The order that he chooses to fire the units affects the other units anyways. How many times have all of us shot with a unit out of order preventing a more lethal unit from getting a bonus, or even being able to shoot? All declaring all shots before rolling is going to accomplish is punishing the shooting player for a bad roll and remove the option to expose units to address multiple threats and leave their clips full from not shooting a dead unit. LoS seems it's always going to be an issue. I miss the Cylinder method for it's simplicity, but I don't find too many players saying that I can't shoot a unit back something that shot me, especially after I get a movement phase. I'm just not seeing the 1-way doors. Where this would be an issue. Haven't had an issue with Vehicles able to shoot through themselves either. A Battle is dynamic the weapons simply shoot at an opportune time rather than their current real time position.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    Random charges suck. Especially how GW implemented them. I’d much rather have a consistent (even if potentially shorter) charge range. Infantry models should either charge 6” or up their movement stat. Bikes and the like could charge half their movement distance (i.e. SM bike would move 14” plus charge 7” - 21” charge is still pretty damn good!)

    This discussion comes up every edition, especially after WHFB/AoS implements a change and think that it would work better in 40k. Fixed Charge distances don't give a sense of risk of performing an assault should the unit fail to make it there. I did have a group that tried it in earlier editions and it simply made it easier to avoid Assaults with pre-measuring. The only issue I've seen come up are the few players who would tell me I'm out of Rapid Fire charge in my shooting phase, then claim that a combined 11" move from their movement (Terrain is usually involved to slow them), and assault roll would somehow make it in.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    VEHICLE RELATED

    Vehicles joining the standard profile of the rest of the game is still a new concept for GW. I agree that there are issues and I miss the days where I could remove the threat by killing the weapons or simply immobilizing them for the game. I do agree that the biggest issue is that they can't seem to point them correctly. A Leman Russ can take out a Repulsor, but it'll probably take 2 Repulsors to take out a Leman Russ. Whatever magic formula that they use to assign point values needs to be scrutinized when models have 8-10+ wounds before they can address any of the issues you've suggested IMO. Yes, I'm saying they need to fix the cost of vehicles across the board, and no I don't think all problems can be solved by points adjustments. It's just where I feel they need to start before they can adjust any rules surrounding them. Having Stratagems that remove any penalty for the damage they take isn't helping in that area as well.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    #2 - Pinning & Suppression

    I think this should be a thing in the game. I could see an approach where if a unit takes X-wounds (before saves) then it needs to take a pinning test. For example, if it takes more wounds (before saves) than the unit’s current total wounds, then it would take a pinning test. Failing a pinning/suppression test would force units to go to ground (or optionally move towards cover).

    I'd be happy to see more of this along with Snipers gaining the ability for inflicting a single wound / Casualty.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    STRATAGEMS

    One idea is to limit the pool of CP’s available to player once the game starts, and thus diminishing the ability to fire off a pile of stratagems on the first round. The basic idea is that before the first turn, after spending CP’s on deployment or game-long stataratgems, etc. you take your remaining CP’s and divide these by 5 (based on 5 game turns) rounding down. Remaining CP’s would be allocated 1 per turn.

    Again, still a newish concept and it's gotten much better already. I do agree that it's still problematic, but I'll mention that down below on a different point.

    I don't really have an issue with the currently, but I remember reading somewhere that it was suggested that we switch to managing the resource on a Turn basis instead of a Game wide one. Think Warmachine. We'd get X CP per Turn on a use it or lose it system. The amount would be based on the size of the game, and you could still get bonuses for having the Warlord, etc. Players would be limited from blowing the pool early game because they'd still have more units that stratagems. Late game, the struggling player would still have more options to keep the game interesting until the end. Doing this could also remove the 1 Stratagem per phase restriction, as well as allow for the implementation of more powerful Stratagems with higher CP Costs.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    MISSION STRUCTURE / OBJECTIVES

    There are a few big picture issues to address in the mission structure and design:

    THIS is where I believe most of the complaints about nein-th originate from. I have some VERY strong opinions on 'Matched Play' so I'll try to leave those out. It really does need to be scrapped, and re-written from the ground up to be playable, let alone competitive. The upside is that we have the 'Open War' Mission pack which addresses quite a few of the problems that exist with the 'Matched Play' Mission, so players have an alternative without dealing with all of the additional restrictions of 'Matched Play'

     Mezmorki wrote:
    #1 Reserves

    I absolutely miss the random rolling for reserves and agree that all reserves coming in on T1 is nuts (outside of paying for it, like Drop Pods) I've been trying this edition to look at what it's currently doing, and I believe that GW and even the Tournament scene is trying to sort out what they want reserves to do tactically. Right now it's main purpose is to prevent prize units from being shot should the player go second but doesn't offer a penalty for putting them in reserve if a player goes first. So a 2nd turn penalty would be the first place to start. After that a '1/2 of the units' restriction would probably fine. Anything more than that though you'd really start to screw up the CP investment to do it, or that some armies have ways of interrupting the flow of the game to address Deep Striking.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    #2 Secondary Missions

    This one is going to be a bit more in depth.

    First, We don't have Secondary Objectives any more. This is the first edition where we have a dual Primary Objective mission and it doesn't work. The static 'Primary mission' is a throwback to everything that we left behind back in 3rd edition, and it shows the age of the game that the players have forgotten that going after static objectives that don't make any sense with no apparent reward for doing dead ended the game. We're just one step away from going back to straight VP's to determine who wins a game. At this point in the game, even that would be an improvement over the Matched Play mission because it would at least allow players to bring what units they want. Yes, it would boil the game back down to which units have the highest damage output for their investment. At least GW would have accurate feedback on what units truly need to be fixed, either points, stats, or rules.

    That said, I feel I need to stand up for the Secondary Objectives. 9th is our first introduction to them and I like the concept of being able to pick objectives based on your lists strengths and weaknesses, and that those are more flexible based on who you are playing. This would be great in a competitive environment as it addresses the age old debate of having army bonuses or themes that don't fit why they're in a mission. I remember seeing players play armies with bonuses that didn't apply to the mission. Why have bonuses to destroy fortifications when there aren't any? What good are bonuses to firing Overwatch against an opponent who isn't charging you?

    I've spent a ton of time reading that thread and others like it, but I'm not giving up on them just yet. Armies getting updated and not having to rely on the generic ones are going to remove some of the complaints. CA could easily release some more Generic ones, or update the existing ones to be on par with the Dex ones. I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how they develop. If they're going to be saved sooner than later without removing the Matched Play section entirely then I can only think of the following steps.

    1 - Replace the Primary Objective with the Secondaries. I agree with removing the VP limits of how many you can score per turn. You could even allow the Mission specific Secondary as an additional one to the 3 the players choose so that there would be at least 1 shared objective between both players that could have it's VP adjusted accordingly if need be. Convert the current Primary into a true Secondary mission where you only score it at the end of the game. This would open up players bringing lists (not armies!) to be built around objectives that fit their playstyle, or pick objectives based on lists with units that they actually want to play.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    #3 Force Organization
    Additionally, I would impose some % requirements for different categories units. For example:

    * Troops must be at least 25% of your total points
    * HQ’s cannot be more than 25% of your total points
    * No single other unit category (elite, fast attack, heavy support, flyers) can be more than 50% of your points.


     Mezmorki wrote:
    This is another big one IMHO. I feel that the “standard” for force organization should use an approach that mandates a more balanced, troop-choice centered army list. More consistently in the types of lists being run makes forces somewhat more more symmetric, which in turn reinforces table level play over list building.

    I've got these flipped for response reasons, but I'm on the opposite side of this chasm, but for the same outcome. Out of all the changes to each edition, I still believe that 3rd had the biggest impact with the Standard FOC. So many players complained about this change and quite a few left. Games started becoming really easy to play as a pick-up. Tournaments became easier to manage and list check. We didn't have to fiddle with the % restrictions that existed back in 2nd and it started the min/max concept that still exists today. I vaguely remember that someone tried to implement a complicated 'Army Composition' rubric around 3.5-4th which tried to bring back the % from 2nd ed., which only impacted the overall standings. It didn't stick because much like the current Matched Play system, you are going to perform better by being forced to take units you might not be a fan of (For whatever reason!), in order to succeed.

    Towards the end of 3rd and into 4th then up through the next few editions we had a bloat of armies that FOC modifying rules. From Iron Warriors being able to take a 4th Heavy in addition to gaining access to a Basilisk, to taking Rangers/Wraithguard as Troops. Even Deathwing/Ravenwing had it's own FOC in the dex to allow them to be fielded at one point. The creation of the FoC's we have now removed a lot of that bloat by allowing players a way to bring what they wanted without being forced to take what they don't. So I have a different opinion on restricting the FoC, and simply allowing players full access to the Detachments to show off their hobby how they like.

    As it is, we're almost back to the standard FOC. The only changes to the Standard FOC from back in the day are that the slots open up based on the size of the game, and additional HQ slots are added to accommodate the current character rules. The upside is that Patrol games aren't going to see 3 of an OP unit which was a problem back in those editions. The downside is that Battalion and Brigade are cut off by the Rule of 3, so as the games get larger, players then become forced to diversify their lists.

    The solution is to create a functional competitive environment. Something that the current Matched Play rules are set on preventing players from doing, or even succeeding if their army happens to fit into the restrictions. It's just too much work at this stage of the game as long as players still believe that the current system is functional, let alone playable. Under the current system you need to find a list that can accomplish the Primary objective since that's static. Once you've got that down, you can then pick Secondary Objectives that fit the list you've created. You'll get an edge if you're able to be flexible on picking, but there are most likely 2 that are good for most lists, with a 3rd being based on who you're playing. After you have done that you gotta hope that the army you picked does it better than the army your opponent picked.

    It's really just easier to just used the Open War Mission pack until we get a replacement. Hoping we don't have to wait too long for Maelstrom.

     Mezmorki wrote:
    Thoughts? What’s missing? What are the critical flaws? What else could be considered? I’d love to get some more feedback and input. I’ll work to keep the OP updated as things evolve.

    - Removing the 'Rule of 3' and Fixed Objectives (go back to player based ones)
    - CP refund to ANY of the Detachments that contain the warlord. I understand refunding the CP to curb the CP batteries from before. I understand that the specialized armies are supposed to take the CP hit for being all Elite, but how many players are modifying their lists and taking a Core 3 detachment since they're basically free when the specialized ones aren't?
    - 'Sudden Death' and 'Random Game Length' need to be put back in.
    - True Secondary mission objectives. (First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Line breaker, Mission based, etc.)

    Is it time to bring the Allies Detachment back?
    This was both the BEST and WORST thing from 7th. It was the best because it REALLY opened the door for players to take their favorite units from another army, create interesting background stories, and was a conversion paradise as players mixed bits to create a coherent themed army opposed to just two random armies fighting together. I'm aware that there were some broken Combinations that led to Tournaments banning them. We've got a much more stable environment for it now though.
    - Everything is tied to Keywords, so most of the auras, abilities, powers, or stratagems can't be used on the allied army.
    - You have to pay CP for the detachment. It could be independent from the existing ones to restrict what can be brought. I can easily see it being disproportionately higher than a normal Detachment to prevent it from being implemented at lower point games.
    - It would still need additional restrictions that would need to be playtested. Like making sure that the Allied Detachment isn't more than the Parent army or give them their own CP pool.


    Current Armies
    40k: 15k of Unplayable Necrons
    (I miss 7th!)
    30k: Imperial Fists
    (project for 2025)

     
       
    Made in us
    Dakka Veteran






     Akar wrote:
    FINALLY, a potential reasonable discussion on addressing the issues with Nein-th edition. I support this and I wish you nothing but luck with this endeavor. I've been thinking about this for a while and read your post a few times. So many complaints can be eliminated we'd scrap the 'Matched Play' system, or at least give the players something competitive. This is going to be fun.


    Always good to have someone to constructively bounce ideas off, even if you don't necessarily agree eye to eye on things. Thanks for your post. I'll respond to the items in more detail when I have more time to think through it all. But good stuff.

    I will say, I'm looking through the open war mission pack (i.e. the deck of cards) and reminding myself how much I like them for their simplicity and focus. Single, shared, focused objective. Works well.

    I could see a version of secondary's implemented in the game where there was a "shared" set of secondary objectives - maybe none of them related to killing models - but rather different on-map things to compete over.

    I can also see a rationale for keeping the game centered on a common primary objective that has some variability to it. If your detachment is getting tasked to "complete primary objective X" and you fail in that, does what else you did along the way matter that much? More of a philosophical question I suppose.

    Want a better 40K?
    Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
     
       
    Made in ch
    The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





    I personally don't think that you need to remove the automatic splitfire if you have predeclared Shooting. Allbeit this only applies if you force a declaration before any shooting is done, you automatically curb switcheraroos and made for squad weaponry the game finally work.
    I'd hate to go back to the old system of having a lascannon in a squad and then basically sitting around doing nothing with 8 csm whilest the two lascannons are plinking away at a rhino...

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
    A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
    GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
    Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
    Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
    GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
    Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: