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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

How elegant, the care and forethought put into this is scary...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

This is quite possibly the absolutele worst worded wargear choice I have ever had the displeasure of reading

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

I always love it when wargear options require a flowchart to explain them.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

I always love it when wargear options require a flowchart to explain them.

Yup. Real "simple."

I have a feeling 40k might be better if we just went back to points.

Instead of relics and WLT costing 1 CP, then many of them being weak just make them cost different point values. Then they could actually be balanced between each other.

Then either just increase stratagem CP costs across the board, or increase detachment CP costs, or both. To make up for no longer needing CP for the above.

Jarms48 wrote:
I have a feeling 40k might be better if we just went back to points.

Instead of relics and WLT costing 1 CP, then many of them being weak just make them cost different point values. Then they could actually be balanced between each other.

Then either just increase stratagem CP costs across the board, or increase detachment CP costs, or both. To make up for no longer needing CP for the above.

I mean you are right, or just make it so you only get 1 warlord trait, thats the whole point of the warlord trait.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) updated codexes don't have options either - just Crusade content, which is a progression system. They don't allow for any different changes between two fresh-from-the-factory forces.

Tonight I was going to sit down with my dex and my PA and try to respond to some of the stuff you've posted recently with some specific examples... And then it occurred to me that sometimes, writing the detailed posts prevents me from painting, modelling and playing as much as I'd like to- I'm a terribly slow painter, but I should be able to finish a civilian team for my campaign tonight.

So I thought I'd respond quickly to just this piece.

That's fair.

PenitentJake wrote:
The first differentiation that 9th will provide is picking you subfaction. So for both of your fresh from the factory forces, perhaps one subfaction trait is a good match and for the other, a different trait is a better match.

Stop right there criminal scum! (it's an Oblivion reference, you're not actually scum, Jake. )
"Picking subfaction traits" is part of what I have a problem with. In older books, subfaction traits were much more varied and customizable. I can go into specific examples, but right off the bat, this choice is suboptimal relative to the past for pretty much every dex (save the ones that didn't have subfaction traits at all. I acknowledge it is an improvement over those).

PenitentJake wrote:
Next, you'll look at characters within the force- do they have auras that support the play style? If there is a choice of HQ, and each offers different aura options, which character offers the aura most in tune with force you are trying to create? Next, what are the WL trait options for those characters- specifically, are there any that affect units, or do they all affect only the character. Can any of these support the type of army you are trying to create? Don't be afraid to use a requisition strat to get an extra warlord trait in play if that will help you reflect the characteristics of the army you are trying to portray. Ask the same questions about relics.

This is all well and good, but what if you're taking, say, a tank company or superheavy tank company? Non-core doesn't work with auras/psychic powers/whatever 90% of the time, so an Eldar Engines of Vaul detachment or something basically can't do this. Warlord traits also are irrelevant in such a case - your farseer having +1 to cast or whatever probably isn't even worth the RP. This only works if you're fitting within the "proscribed army design" (Want to run a Space Marine tank squadron? Tough luck, buddy, you get no benefit from auras, WLTs, nuffin). You might as well save the RP to buy other units instead. I'll call this the The Way They Were Meant To Be Played™ phenomenon for this post.

PenitentJake wrote:
Now are there ways to use the detachment system to express the character of your army? So rather than organizing your troops into one detachment, are there subgroups within the army that tend to function well together? Would the army, or any of the detachments in it, be likely to work with particular Imperial Agents or allies? If you're avoiding the Nachmund GT Mission Pack, this is a place to think about whether allying in another subfaction would allow you to better represent the army you're trying to create. Even with the Nachmund GT pack, it is still an appropriate place to look at an ally with a different selectable Keyword, like Scions for Guard.

This is also fine, but as you've said, they've just nerfed it, and 9/10ths of the time it is used to bring the "strongest" thing for your units. Even in Crusade, I've seen one-quintillion more Catachan tank companies (or really Spotter Details + Gunnery Experts) than I've seen Mordian. Usually, if you don't want your folks to be pants (which, I'll grant, can have your own narrative flair for Imperial Guard especially) there's a clear winner and clear loser depending on the unit type in each detachment.

PenitentJake wrote:
By now you've got your detachments, your warlord(s) with their trait(s) and relic(s), you subfaction abilities. Now you can look at the options available to individual units- and again, I'll be the first to admit there won't be as many as there once were for most units. But there are still some choices at this level, and a handful of those choices can have a significant impact.

As mentioned, this is true if you're following GW's vision for the army - but let's say I want to run a Sororitas tank detachment. I can run 3 Exorcists, 3 Castigators, and - oh, the idea's already DOA, okey dokey. Well, we'll run 6 castigators because our Crusade Group is friendly and ignores RO3 on non-problem units.

I have my detachment (Spearhead, because... well, I must). Warlord is... well, an infantry model, because... well, I mean who ever heard of a Sororitas tank officer anyways, posh. We'll pick a trait for her that helps her in melee, and buy her an immolator for the 10th tank with some Celestians, accepting the lore that there are no Sororitas tank commanders. That trait could be basically anything, doesn't help much. Miracle Dice manipulation maybe? Is it even worth the RP? Meh. No relics really help the concept too, but GOTTA HAVE THEM because it's the only way to make your canoness unique from someone else's, so... I guess whichever? None of them really help tanks. Is it even worth the RP?

Then we get to the unit level and - oh, no options. Maybe I have a tough time deciding which missile launcher to choose for the Exorcist... or maybe I just scrap the whole idea and go back to playing Sororitas the Way They Were Meant To Be Played™. And suddenly, they look like everyone else's sororitas again, pretty much - I bet I'll have some Repentia, some Retributors, some Dominions, and maybe some of the jump pack troops (either Seraphim or Zephyrim, whichever I prefer). And probably some BSS too.

PenitentJake wrote:
Once all of that's done, go through the strats in your book and pick the five that are fluffiest for the force you want to represent. You can put these on colour coded cards so that you can see at a glance that they are fluff and flavour based strats. Later, you'll do another pass to look for a few offensive must-have strats that are chosen more for their impact on the game than consistency with your fluff- these get a different colour; then do another pass for defensive strats and a third colour. How many go into the offensive and defensive categories will vary according to where your fluff stats fall on that spectrum and how impactful they can be.

Either way, you should now have a deck of no more than 15 strats- and you won't have to worry about any of the others in the book really. Theoretically, army a and army b will have at least some degree of variety in their decks. One or two of the offensive and defensive must haves that you've chosen are probably a big enough deal that you'd use them with any army from this faction, while the rest might synergize better with one army or the other based on its subfaction trait(s), its auras, it WL Trait(s) and Relic(s), its unit load-outs and upgrades, or its unit selection/ detachment structure.

Stratagems don't do it for me narratively. Even if we go back to say "well, my Russes have anti-tank rounds and I'm representing that with the Hail of Fire stratagem" then we're still stuck in the situation where one russ has one round once, until next turn when another russ (probably a different one) has one round once also. Then, you run out of CP and no more of your tanks have any antitank rounds, until they do next turn of course.

It's all just a horrible mess of ???????? narratively.

PenitentJake wrote:
Now I'm not saying that's AS detailed as it was in previous editions; I'm certainly not saying it's MORE detailed than previous editions. I'm comfortable saying that I think it provides more customization than you are giving it credit for; and it's very important to point out that if we're going to use Guard as an example, they don't have their 9th ed dex yet, and their options are really going to increase once they get it. I provided quite a walkthrough on building a fluffy DE army from the 9th dex earlier in this thread.

I think they provide more "false" options. You can make your folks the way GW says they're supposed to be VERY well. There's like 120 options, if you stay within the box GW put your dex in. But that means you're only slightly differentiated from other people also playing in that box, and as soon as you want to do something truly unique like a Sororitas Tank Company, everything just implodes.

Now, in 4th, a Sororitas tank company was also very difficult - you would've had to play 2500 points to field it, and you would've had to bring some Immolators (or Repressors)-as-tanks. It would look something like:
4x Sororitas Land Raiders (one Command tank, 3 Elites transports for your "priests" i.e. inquistors that shared a dex)
3x Exorcists
3x Immolators/Repressors

You could also include an Imperial Guard or Space Marine tank or two but you'd've had to make sacrifices elsewhere.

PenitentJake wrote:
The other thing I'll say is that if the armies you've created using this process don't seem distinct enough yet, there are further options that you can use to distinguish them if you have in interest in playing crusade and can find a group who will play it with you. By the time your units become legendary, or even battle hardened, you'll have a lot of opportunities to customize further. I know that isn't an option for everyone, and I know that it isn't a preference for everyone. But if what you want most out of the game is customization, it does provide more opportunities than any other way to play.

Sort of.

I mean, yes, it does. That's fair. But again, only if you stay in The Way They Were Meant To Be Played™ box - as soon as you have a Sororitas army that, say, would rather liberate the sector and do a holy ritual to drive back the Maledictum rather than one of the characters becoming a Living Saint, it kinda falls apart.

"What should 40k be"

One of the things I love about Battletech is that there are streamlined easy rules (like 40k is now) and there is an advanced ruleset with a ton more crunch and layers of rules you can choose to use (or ignore).

That advanced ruleset is why I love Battletech, but I also love that people that don't want that have the streamlined simple version to use and everyone gets what they want.

Thats what I wish 40k could be.

 auticus wrote:
"What should 40k be"

One of the things I love about Battletech is that there are streamlined easy rules (like 40k is now) and there is an advanced ruleset with a ton more crunch and layers of rules you can choose to use (or ignore).

That advanced ruleset is why I love Battletech, but I also love that people that don't want that have the streamlined simple version to use and everyone gets what they want.

Thats what I wish 40k could be.

I think they tried that with PL, but it fell super flat because power levels were SUPER unbalanced and still are, and GW has given no real credence to attempting to fix it.

@Unit-

Pretty solid responses. You're right, armoured companies are hard in 9th so far. There are more obstacles than I'd thought about at first.

Just a heads up though- Ro3 is very specifically a matched play rule that doesn't exist in Crusade, so your group isn't actually house-ruling when you choose not to follow (not that this counts for much).

Regarding your unconventional Cannoness: the path to sainthood consists of many trials; you develop abilities every time you complete a trial, but you only become a saint if you complete them all. It's perfectly acceptable to complete a trail and stop there.

Also, you can ignore trials entirely and go straight to the blessings.

But yeah, I'll give it to you- you've definitely put the spotlight on how weak this edition is for armoured companies. I could get behind some remedies for that too.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I don't really understand what you want here, other than rules for squad members to pick up the weapons of their fallen comrades. I personally wouldn't be too miffed by such a rule and if it existed I would absolutely be annoyed if a Guardsman couldn't pick up his sergeant's bolter. But this seems tangential to the discussion, unless you are claiming you should be able to give Guardsmen bolters at army creation... so again, fluff.

If it is that critical, just say he got promoted to sergeant the next battle, and buy him a bolter (though adding bolters as a special weapon option would be rad!).

It's more that I've come up with this great backstory and fluff, just like the previous examples of very well-detailed characters, but that's not represented in game. Seems a little like a cop-out and missing the point of comparison.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm defining my dudes as Captain Vaness Kalliga, a hot-headed senior officer inspired by the myths of avenging angels she grew up with, and leads her platoon of drop troops from the front with a two-handed hammer, and using her modified drop pack as a way to tactically reposition herself in the heat of combat. Despite the concern for her safety from the troops under her command, she always seems to pull through, against all odds.

Just so we're being fair with your very flavourful descriptions.

That is a great description and a perfect argument for why Sororitas need jump packs. Unfortunately, the Imperial Guard cannot have them (in the lore)... And if they did, things would be at serious risk of flanderization between factions.

Preserving faction identity is important.

Kalliga isn't a Sister of Battle. She's a Guardsman, in the same way that Sergeant Harker isn't a Space Marine. Most notably, she doesn't have:
Elite training
Power armour
Acts of Faith
The combat strategy of the Sororitas

Sorry, having a jump pack doesn't make Guardsmen into Space Marines or Sororitas.

Guardsmen had jump packs in the era that Space Marines had shuriken catapults. We can talk about that era if you want, but it isn't really what I want - which fluff is better is a matter of opinion though.

You said fluff changes - it's not like there isn't precedent for it, is all I'm saying.

Oh, and you confused Grav Chutes (which the guard have, including entire regiments of them) with Jump Packs. The Tanith used grave chutes at Phantine iirc. And Grav Chutes absolutely were an option until - guess what - GW killed them.

This is literally my point. In 3.5ed, you could buy Drop Troops, which literally gave your lads drop troops. Some form/way of playing drop troops lasted all they way until 9th, where GW outright killed the models with Grav Chutes (Elysians) and removed drop troops/deep strike as a regiment ability unless you don't play a regular regiment at all (Scions have it if you just wanted to play Storm Troopers).

Oh and they took the corpse out back and strung it up with the flyers nerf - now you can't even have the regiment drop out of Valkyries.

Uh, don't Valkyries have "Grav-Chute Insertion"? There's your way to have your regiment drop from Valks - take Valkyries, and use the Grav-Chute Insertion rule. The options exists, juts not in the same form.
Also, I think the Tanith used something different, if I'm not wrong. Not full lift jump packs, but not grav chutes either, if I'm not mistaken.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can have your fluff customisation. It's called modelling and fiction. If you want to represent your forces being worn down and weary, you can model them like that. If I want my Space Marines carrying power katanas, I'll model them like it. I don't need bespoke rules for it.

No, but this is a silly argument. Why even play a Warhammer game? Why not just play chess and just have the fiction of the battle be that it's in the 41st millennium?

That's an absurd abstraction of my stance, and you know it.

What, do I need rules for every different type of Leman Russ from every different type of Forge World and every different assembly line to represent the missing sixth hull rivet from the 39th tank produced on the ninth Wednesday of the year M41.826?

There's a point at which abstraction is more than fine. That's ultimately a personal thing, but I don't think things like power weapons, for example, need bespoke profiles.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My stance on this point has changed over the years, but I think I prefer the idea of more basic rules, and leave the flavour of minor aspects to the players to build for themselves.

I think this is a fine idea too, and worthy of discussion. However, that isn't what's happening in 9th at all. What's happening in 9th is a huge, voracious, carcinogenic growth of rules bloat to try to get every faction under the sun to have rules - and yet it is still failing worse than earlier editions did, because the rules aren't written that well.

What you want has merit and I would love to discuss it in another thread.

Don't get me wrong, I *really* don't like how bloated 9th is getting, especially on things like subfaction rules and suchlike. I vastly preferred early 8th, with a handful of stratagems. All I'm saying is that you don't need bespoke rules to have Your Dudes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your armoured column specialises in full frontal assaults? Then deploy them in a frontal formation on the tabletop. Your Space Marines specialise in using bikes? Then take bikes. Your Tyranids prefer the use of Carnifex battering rams? Then take lots of Carnifexes.

This, of course, comes with the understanding that I'd want all options to be viable on tabletop.

Which gets back to balancing for narrative vs balancing for competitive. Something I think you and I would agree on.

I think so too. However, my point is simply that you shouldn't need a mechanical reason to lock you into what you choose to take. If you want a themed army, take the units that fit that theme.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So take Chimeras, take Ratlings, take Conscripts, and take Storm Troopers.

If you want a fluffy army, build one. You don't need GW to force you into it.

I think you are missing the discussion here somewhat. I was attempting to prove that 9th did faction identity worse than earlier editions.

I was not attempting to prove that you need faction identity to be present in the rules at all, which is a separate and more lengthy discussion that probably deserves its own thread.

Worse, I think I agree, but I don't think I agree with how far apart they are.

My $0.02 is that I prefer there to be faction identity represented in rules - the game is cooler when Saim-Hainn and Alaitoc play differently rather than just being different paint-schemes. I say that because army composition is only part of reflecting an army's lore on the tabletop.

Whereas I think I might well prefer where things were just different paint schemes, and if you wanted to flavour your army to play a certain wait, then you take the various units, abilities, and suchlike that permit for that. But, perhaps I think that's just our difference of what we think 40k should be.

PenitentJake wrote:Now I'm not saying that's AS detailed as it was in previous editions; I'm certainly not saying it's MORE detailed than previous editions. I'm comfortable saying that I think it provides more customization than you are giving it credit for; and it's very important to point out that if we're going to use Guard as an example, they don't have their 9th ed dex yet, and their options are really going to increase once they get it. I provided quite a walkthrough on building a fluffy DE army from the 9th dex earlier in this thread.

Yeah, this I think sums up how I feel.

Can it be better? Sure, I'll totally agree with that. But is there customisation (and sufficient customisation, at that) for Your Dudes TM? I say yes.

They started to add more of that customization with the paid upgrades for HQs, but one way to further bring in that customizing is the free relic you get, and you can pay points for more if you want. After all, I really don't think anyone is gonna think an Imperial Fists Captain wielding BOTH the Teeth of Terra and one of the Relic pistols is gonna be broken.

Anyone remember Chaos Lords from 3.5? Now that was customisation...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Oh, and you confused Grav Chutes (which the guard have, including entire regiments of them) with Jump Packs. The Tanith used grave chutes at Phantine iirc. And Grav Chutes absolutely were an option until - guess what - GW killed them.

This is literally my point. In 3.5ed, you could buy Drop Troops, which literally gave your lads drop troops. Some form/way of playing drop troops lasted all they way until 9th, where GW outright killed the models with Grav Chutes (Elysians) and removed drop troops/deep strike as a regiment ability unless you don't play a regular regiment at all (Scions have it if you just wanted to play Storm Troopers).

Oh and they took the corpse out back and strung it up with the flyers nerf - now you can't even have the regiment drop out of Valkyries.

Uh, don't Valkyries have "Grav-Chute Insertion"? There's your way to have your regiment drop from Valks - take Valkyries, and use the Grav-Chute Insertion rule. The options exists, juts not in the same form.
Also, I think the Tanith used something different, if I'm not wrong. Not full lift jump packs, but not grav chutes either, if I'm not mistaken.

I hate to be blunt, but you are wrong here. The Tanith used grav-chutes specifically, not jump packs. Also, I would like to point out that there is a difference between doing grav-chute insertions using Valks (which requires one to purchase Valkyries, natch) and giving all of one's army grav-chutes (as used to be possible with the 3.5 IG doctrines). Even if one's group is very forgiving regarding the new Flyer rules (allowing you to bring in more than two or three squads for jumps at a given time), that's more of an aircav/heliborne feel as opposed to the WW2 "let's carpet bomb the sky with people" of the old drop troops regiments.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

For the life of me I can't remember a Primaris Captain with a powerfist and plasma pistol. Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember Chaos Lords from 3.5? Now that was customisation...

Stop making the chaos players cry. they have never had a codex that good since.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

For the life of me I can't remember a Primaris Captain with a powerfist and plasma pistol. Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

But Where was it from?

Breton wrote:
But Where was it from?

Store anniversary model.

Breton wrote:
Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

It's on the non-special-character build of Master Lazarus - though it looks more like a traditional bolter to me than a bolt carbine.

Same is true of the Space Wolves Primaris Lieutenant - who still hasn't had a clampack release, for some reason.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember Chaos Lords from 3.5? Now that was customisation...

Not only them. Chaos units in general could be tweaked in various ways. Only downside to that was that they became expensive and still had only W1.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

For the life of me I can't remember a Primaris Captain with a powerfist and plasma pistol. Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

Those literally only exist because there's a specific model (often special edition?) with that loadout. In the case of the Special Issue Bolt Carbine it's faction-locked. Why they couldn't just count the thing as a MC bolt rifle I don't know. It's peak GW ineptitude. First remove all customisation, then add back in a bunch of options for one single model rather than opening that option up to everyone (or realising that adding yet another bolt weapon to the Codex is insane and you really should just stop).

Slipspace wrote:
(or realising that adding yet another bolt weapon to the Codex is insane and you really should just stop).

OR

OR

And bear with me here!

OR

Listen.

OR

We make EVERY weapon a bolt weapon! Lasbolters! Plasma bolters! Meltabolters! Kids love bolters! We'll sell millions.

Marines have 48 bolt weapons. 52 if you count combi-grav/plas/melta/flamer. And that's ignoring Relics.

Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Please no, 8, especially early 8th was a hot mess

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

Just looking at this gives me a headache. I cannot fathom why they don't just say "this model can take 1 melee weapon and 1 shooting weapon from the list below". Oh yea, because they think we're too stupid to figure out how to kitbash a space marine with different weapons than the ones on the sprue.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Please no, 8, especially early 8th was a hot mess

Early 8th was some good times. Any of you remember index bubblechukkas?, for sure one of the absolute best things to come from modern 40k…. Until it just died .

Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems
-Make the game AA
-Remove the FoC/Detachment system in favor of an on-datasheet stat that determines how many of a unit you can bring
-Make relics/Warlord traits cost points instead of CP
-Remove CP, add a once per turn reroll on anything
-Double the wounds on vehicles and monsters, give them a 2+/3+ save
-Expand the S/T chart so it goes higher than T8 and S9 (yeah i know about x2S stuff)
-Lower the range on everything. basic guns should be 18", max range should be 36 (with very few guns getting to 48")
-Fix the modifiers cap so that its a maximum of -1/+1 per source/player (shooting at rangers in cover through dense after advancing with assault weapons should have you shoot at -3)
-simplify the lawyer-speech rules
-make missions interesting and diverse (not just different objective/deployment placement)
-make a heavier use of the actions framework, bake it in the missions, make missions require actions by different kind of units (vehicles/monsters/ beasts/bikes/infantry/characters) as part of the primaries

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?