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.

Many of the recent "big picture" threads have been complaint-heavy, mostly around the handling the codexes, layering of rules in codex, power balance, etc. I thought it might be a nice change of pace to instead talk about the "core rules" in 9th edition and what specifically about those core rules people like or think is working well (or could be working well?

Any takers? Any elements of the core rules that you really like?

Crusade giving people who don't care about matched play a recongised playground is amazing.

I actually like the push towards faction purity as well.

I'll start with throwing this out...

The core rules are nice for being quick and easy to get into. They are shorter to read than most mid-weight board games and I think this works well for getting people into the game and hooked

I like, generally, how they are structured and presented in a concise, non-fluffy way. That's also good for lowering the barrier entry.

I think the command point (CP) can be a nice thing, especially when it's just used with the shared stratagems of the core rules.

I like the streamlining of the psychic phase (as compared to 6th + 7th edition).

I don't mind the handling of reinforcements and non-scattering deep strike units.

Along similar lines, I like the Open War Deck and I'm looking forward to picking up the Temptest of War Deck as well.

Honestly, I could see taking the core rules, plus "IndexHammer" style lists, plus the Open/Temptest of War deck and having a pretty solid lightweight version of 40k.

The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

Karol wrote:
The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

^This

I really like the core rules. I think it gets mucked up with the complexity of too many stratagems and too many layers built on top of it.

The phases are all laid out simply enough on the pamphlet rules that with the one sheet you can run an intro game without any of the chapter or special rules and people pick it up quickly.

I don't like much. I can say what I do like more than 8th, but that isn't a very high bar.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do like the way damage charts work for monsters. If they implemented a similar degrading profile for monsters back in the era where tanks had damage charts and armor, I think it would have been a great improvement. So the whole bracket concept is neat (even if it is inadequate for tanks).

I think 9th core rules are significantly better than 8th core rules; the only things I dislike are either changes from 7th to 8th that I understand but still miss, (Armor facings RIP,) and codex balance issues.

Degrading big units with damage are kewl and something that might be emphasised, made more granular, I.e. depending on facing of damage, specific weapons are destroyed, specific abilities lost, yada.

I like the core rules, it's the amount of stratagems and rules layering from codexes that causes the issues.

I think it was Robin Cruddace who would go around asking players a two part question; the first part of which was...
What two things do you absolutely love about the rules and think make for a better game?

1. The Keyword system. I think this is one of the best things to have ever been introduced to W40K.
2. Bespoke unit rules. While this can lead to a modicum of bloat, I think this is better for game balance. For example, having a USR for Feel No Pain: 4+ can be fine for some units, but absolutely game breaking when applied to others. Having the ability to tweak the concept of a rule unit by unit or tweak what it applies to via Keywords unit by unit is far better, cleaner and flexible than making endless exceptions to a USR.

Overall I like the core of 9th edition. The problems are more centered around individual codexes and how they are structured and balanced.

Crusade also made me happy. It was nice that a core rulebook provided a framework for some narrative/roleplaying fun.

 oni wrote:
2. Bespoke unit rules. While this can lead to a modicum of bloat, I think this is better for game balance. For example, having a USR for Feel No Pain: 4+ can be fine for some units, but absolutely game breaking when applied to others. Having the ability to tweak the concept of a rule unit by unit or tweak what it applies to via Keywords unit by unit is far better, cleaner and flexible than making endless exceptions to a USR.

In fairness, oni, a sensible approach to something like Feel No Pain would be to have the USR in the core rules as "Feel No Pain (X+)", where X can vary on a unit-by-unit basis.

And having the option to tweak these "bespoke rules" is all well and good, but I'm pretty sure GW hasn't taken advantage of that since the start of 8th. It's been a change to all the versions of what would've been one USR, or no change at all - at which point, you should be using a USR.

+ + +

I like the presentation of the core rules in the rulebook - by keeping the flavour text out of the way, things are a lot cleaner and clearer. It used to be a problem that the flavour text and rules copy would be in the same paragraph, which could definitely cause confusion. The little summaries at the end of each section are a good way of identifying the key points.

The keyword system is good, but should've been extended to weapons when it was introduced initially - that's a pet peeve, though.

The core rules are fine. Certainly far better than 6th or 7th and some decent improvements on 8th.

Codexes...not so much.

It's honestly hard to remember the fun parts of ninth when all I've been able to think about since February is 'they nerfed sisters and deathguard and released 3 70% winrate armies in the same month'

While I generally like the core rules well enough, there's two parts I really like:

1) Crusade.
This is how I've played 99% of my 9e games.
Its not perfect, and Codex content quality can vary wildly. Read the Drukhari content. Then read & marvel at the crap they gave the Orks....
Overall if you put some work into it improves.
But it's a great starting point.

2) My favorite part is the detachment system.
This allows me to make all kinds of armies. Particularly things that fit into Crusade....
Without the current detachment system? Some of my current armies couldn't even be fielded.

This took me a while, but I think I'm all right with WS being a flat number nowadays.

Literally everything else about the core rules for 8th/9th was either simplified badly in a way that made the game work worse (unified statlines, the new to-wound table, terrain, line of sight), made more complicated in the name of making things simpler (damage resolution, stratagems), or indecisively simplified in a way that both made the game more complicated and made the game work worse (the psychic phase).

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This took me a while, but I think I'm all right with WS being a flat number

In theory I wanted to like it since it was similar to sigmar. But it removed a defensive layer and didnt replace it with anything.

I like crusade missions thats about it. The rest is more blamd or boring than previous editions

For the core rules of 40k, because 95% of 40k's problems have always come from the Codices, I would say that I generally like the flow of the game and how everything works together. But, as with everything GW does, it's a classic collection of tremendous ideas ruined by terrible implementation. Actions are a great idea that they don't use enough. The various game sizes are a great idea that they don't filter into enough elements of game and army design/structure. Keywords are a great shorthand that they generally don't use enough, or make too specific (especially with stratagems). Strats in and of themselves are a good idea ruined not just by the sheer amount of them, but because they've become the default for things that should just be unit-based special rules or upgrades.

But the core concepts behind everything are pretty much fine. Except the morale system that is, which is utterly horrific and needs to be scrapped completely and replaced with a suppression system.

 Dysartes wrote:
In fairness, oni, a sensible approach to something like Feel No Pain would be to have the USR in the core rules as "Feel No Pain (X+)", where X can vary on a unit-by-unit basis.

And having the option to tweak these "bespoke rules" is all well and good, but I'm pretty sure GW hasn't taken advantage of that since the start of 8th. It's been a change to all the versions of what would've been one USR, or no change at all - at which point, you should be using a USR.

The is the mistake people always make when talking about USRs: They're so inflexible, you'd need to keep making exceptions!

Not if they're scalable from the start, just as you said. If things are planned out in advance, and written in the most broad and flexible way possible, then you can avoid most (not all) problems coming up in the future. But GW doesn't do that, instead writing things in a vacuum, which is why we lurch from one paradigm to another as we move through the edition.

What I like about 9th is the core rules are a free PDF (buried) on GW's website.

Sorry, that's about all I can say.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
For the core rules of 40k, because 95% of 40k's problems have always come from the Codices, I would say that I generally like the flow of the game and how everything works together. But, as with everything GW does, it's a classic collection of tremendous ideas ruined by terrible implementation. Actions are a great idea that they don't use enough. The various game sizes are a great idea that they don't filter into enough elements of game and army design/structure. Keywords are a great shorthand that they generally don't use enough, or make too specific (especially with stratagems). Strats in and of themselves are a good idea ruined not just by the sheer amount of them, but because they've become the default for things that should just be unit-based special rules or upgrades.

But the core concepts behind everything are pretty much fine. Except the morale system that is, which is utterly horrific and needs to be scrapped completely and replaced with a suppression system.

 Dysartes wrote:
In fairness, oni, a sensible approach to something like Feel No Pain would be to have the USR in the core rules as "Feel No Pain (X+)", where X can vary on a unit-by-unit basis.

And having the option to tweak these "bespoke rules" is all well and good, but I'm pretty sure GW hasn't taken advantage of that since the start of 8th. It's been a change to all the versions of what would've been one USR, or no change at all - at which point, you should be using a USR.

The is the mistake people always make when talking about USRs: They're so inflexible, you'd need to keep making exceptions!

Now if they're scalable from the start, just as you said. If things are planned out in advance, and written in the most broad and flexible way possible, then you can avoid most (not all) problems coming up in the future. But GW doesn't do that, writing things in a vacuum, which is why we lurch from one paradigm to another as we move through the edition.

Have an exalt. I'll also mention that I actually like the current cover system. There are other ways to do cover that would be perfectly fine or even better, but the current one is a pretty good blend of being simple/easy to remember and impactful enough to matter.

I'll also give points for 9th NOT using armor facings or Armor Values. I know that's been the case since 8th, but it was a good change that I'm happy to keep going forward. I also really like that you can outflank anything via the strategic reserves rules.

I genuinely prefer armour values and facings because:

1. I think position and manoeuvre should mean something (certainly far more than they do in TLOS/you can't shoot the tip of a claw behind a building current 40k rules).
2. I don't like how everything can hurt everything.

Having said that, I do like GW's degrading statline method of showing vehicles in the current rules. I think that was a nifty concept that, for the most part, they've got right. The only major issues with it current stand at:

1. The 10+ wounds = degrading is arbitrary. They should just put degrading on whatever should have it, and allow some things that don't degrade to have more than 9 wounds.
2. They need to stop being afraid of Toughnesses above 8.

Movement is simple, there are two types of units, those that fly and those that don't.

I like the psychic phase, it's fair to the user of every codex, whether they have LD7 or LD10 Psykers or no Psykers at all. Powers being in codexes is also neat since it ensures that everyone doesn't just use the same 1-2 disciplines because GW oopsed the balance.

I like vehicles and monsters following the same rules.

I like that Reinforcements don't get lost and that the game doesn't decide where your models run to or how they pile into melee, the micro control over individual models appeals to me.

I like that my Necrons don't run away without my command, I like being able to remove casualties (from shooting/morale) as I please.

I like that aircraft can be hit on something other than 6+ and that they don't crash because there is no room to land on the table.

I like that more characters like Catacomb Command Barges and Daemon Princes can join units.

I like the clarity in the rules, the rules are pretty easy to remember and you can usually just read the rules to understand how they work.

I like Heroic Interventions and the lack of challenges and free Overwatch.

I like Command Points most of the time. I like Counter-Offensive and Desperate Breakout a lot, CP Re-roll and Insane Bravery are pretty good.

I like the rules for Detachments, a lot of freedom while still encouraging bringing some Troops.

I like the smaller tables because it makes makes melee a lot more viable.

I like the terrain rules for the most part, I think it makes a lot more terrain pieces functionable.

Karol wrote:
The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

The army composition is also much better now. No more 4-6 HQs and 6-9 troops just to have the basic amount of CPs. That's a massive improvement IMHO. Missions are also good, better than 8th and better than most of the much older editions' missions.

Overall I think core rules are solid, but I always liked 40k core rules and I always rated an edition basing on the codexes, not the core rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I genuinely prefer armour values and facings because:

1. I think position and manoeuvre should mean something (certainly far more than they do in TLOS/you can't shoot the tip of a claw behind a building current 40k rules).

To increase value in positioning and manoeuvreing I vastly prefer having much lower stats on all ranges and harsher limitations on firing weapons after moving.

I don't disagree on ranges. Things are too fast/long ranged. But movement and firing penalties you have to be careful with, lest the default becomes completely static warfare.

The core game rules are great! Perhaps my favourite 40K rules edition ever and I've played them all other than 3rd.

The standout points that contribute to this are:

- They are short, making them easy to learn and not to intimidating to new players.

- They are clear, lots of examples and clearly defined terms to leave less grey areas.

- Everything uses the same rules, their are no special vehicle/monster sub rules and everything works off the same basic stat line.

- The Basic Strength, AP, Dam VS Tough, Armour, Wounds system works well and offers loads of room for differing profiles and variety of weapons and defences to be represented.

- Pschics phase, its quick, easy and doesn't feel like it's own little game within a game.

- Army construction rules, so much better now you have to pay CP to bring different forces instead of being rewarded for playing a missmash of stuff.

- Terrain rules, versatile and can be used to represent more of less anything you have on your table.


The main downside of the core rules for me, and the only thing I'd really like to see change is the combat phase. Its too rewarding for the more experienced player (of which I am one). There are loads of very nuanced movement tricks that can catch unknowing players off their guard as they don't really gel with the easy going nature of the rest of the ruleset. Add to that the mess they have made of always strikes first/last and it could all do with a clean up and simplification.

As you mentioned the codexs are where 99% of problems have come from, they create so many exceptions to the main rules and the way they have completely disregarded the excellent Offense/Defence system they had set up by introducing arbitrary rules that ignore it and the proliferation of invuln saves and mortal wounds just drags the game down.

The keyword system technically could be a massive boon. (and often is but at the same time isn't)
Action system could be a massive boon (underused)
Degrading profiles for big things could be a massive boon.
The cover rules system could be decent. (except that it is designed in way that makes heavy infantry more likely to want to stick to cover than light infantry if it isn't denying LoS.)

Do you see the theme.

 oni wrote:
I think it was Robin Cruddace who would go around asking players a two part question; the first part of which was...
What two things do you absolutely love about the rules and think make for a better game?

1. The Keyword system. I think this is one of the best things to have ever been introduced to W40K.
2. Bespoke unit rules. While this can lead to a modicum of bloat, I think this is better for game balance. For example, having a USR for Feel No Pain: 4+ can be fine for some units, but absolutely game breaking when applied to others. Having the ability to tweak the concept of a rule unit by unit or tweak what it applies to via Keywords unit by unit is far better, cleaner and flexible than making endless exceptions to a USR.

Then why not just make the the USR FnP +X, then one unit will have +6, while makkari can run around with a +2.

This is a great thread. I find myself agreeing with everything everyone else has said.

I like that Aircraft get to leave and return again.

I also like save modifiers better than the All-or-Nothing system we've had in some of the previous editions.

Permissive rule systems do increase lethality, so it's a fine line, but generally I prefer the increased player agency afforded by a permissive system and find it to be a trade up. I like a game in which I test my battle plan against another player's battle plan rather than a game in which each of us are playing against the limitations imposed on our individual forces as much as we are playing against each other, or a game in which each of us is trying harder to thwart the other than to complete our own objectives. This is also why I like IGOUGO- I find in AA, the game becomes more about thwarting your opponent than executing a plan- you're more reactive than you are active. I tend to find that style frustrating if it goes too far.

Again, different players have different preferences- I see how people could like the reactive, style; I see the appeal of reduced lethality that comes from limitations on things like move-and-shoot, or rapid fire, or range. But I can acknowledge the existence of those benefits and still have my preferences for a system which gives me a greater likelihood of achieving my battle plan and testing it against my opponent's battle plan, which is similarly more likely to be achieved.

I am about to up the frequency of my play schedule because I'm teaching another person how to play, and I think I'm really going to lean into core rules before we start adding things in. We'll play a couple 25PL games without strats, WL Traits, relics or chapter tactics. The idea here is to get used to all the core mechanics, terrain rules, and data sheet rules. Then we can add one WL Trait, one Relic, BRB strats and each of us can choose a selectable keyword for our army and begin chapter tactics. After a few more games, we'll pick 5 codex strats each to add to our collections, and start using Crusade missions. After a few games of this, we can finally launch our Crusades with the full suite of rules.

I really want this player to enjoy the game, so I don't want to introduce too much too soon.

I like that the rules are written in such a way that they facilitate the gradual implementation of layers. I think that one of the reasons we see so many complaints about bloat is that people with experience from previous editions want to go from zero to hero too soon- a new edition drops and everyone rushes right to 2k matched without following the design features of the game which facilitate a gradual entry into competitive play.

Stripping everything out and playing means you learn to master the fundamentals- limited as they are; when you don't have access to all your strats, you really have to focus on terrain use, target priority and combined fire. Adding strats in gradually once you've learned the basic skills will to ensure you aren't relying too much on tricks to compensate for poor fundamentals, which theoretically should diminish the tendency to stack more than necessary to achieve a desired effect, thereby distributing CPs more evenly throughout the turns of the game.

We'll see how it works out in practice.

I am in a strange place where I love 9th editions core rules (with the exception of fliers - units which have no place in 40k).

I always hated templates (and plenty of other games with far more artillery than 40k ever had, such as Bolt Action and Konflikt, make no use of them). I despised vehicle rules, which were a collection of clumsy mechanics that turned vehicles into either nigh unstoppable monsters or aluminium death traps. The old deep strike rules were a fantastic example of gak gameplay design, and there were no tears shed when they were culled.

The loss of all these in 8th was imo, a triumph for the game.

My issue is the codexes (and the culling of options), the issues of which have effectively nothing to do with the core rules. I.e., if you tuned everything down, the base game would really not need any changes.

Karol wrote:

 oni wrote:
I think it was Robin Cruddace who would go around asking players a two part question; the first part of which was...
What two things do you absolutely love about the rules and think make for a better game?

1. The Keyword system. I think this is one of the best things to have ever been introduced to W40K.
2. Bespoke unit rules. While this can lead to a modicum of bloat, I think this is better for game balance. For example, having a USR for Feel No Pain: 4+ can be fine for some units, but absolutely game breaking when applied to others. Having the ability to tweak the concept of a rule unit by unit or tweak what it applies to via Keywords unit by unit is far better, cleaner and flexible than making endless exceptions to a USR.

Then why not just make the the USR FnP +X, then one unit will have +6, while makkari can run around with a +2.

That could work if we're limiting ourself to only the 'ignore wound' aspect of FnP. The added benefit of a bespoke ability is for example, the ability to change the circumstances in which it applies.
For example you only get the bespoke FnP against AP-1 and AP0 weapons. A USR wouldn't be able to achieve this type of flexibility and a different ability would have to be created to make the exception. At which point we've actually made rules bloat worse because we have a USR + an exception instead of just one bespoke ability that takes care of it all.