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!