14 replies to this topic

[Brother Sidonius]

File Name: Sid's Rebalanced 40K: Core Rules

File Submitter: Brother Sidonius

File Submitted: 26 Sep 2021

File Category: Warhammer 40,000

This document is the first part of a fan-made overhaul for Warhammer 40K 9th edition. The aim of the overhaul is to create the most fun experience possible for you and your opponent during your games. To achieve this, game mechanics that made previous editions of 40k fun have been reimagined for the current edition and datasheets have been rebalanced.

To use these rules, it is recommended that you have the referenced 7th, 8th and 9th edition Rulebooks as well as your army’s current Codex and Sid’s Rebalance for that Codex if it is available. If Sid’s Rebalance is not available, you can use the designer’s commentary provided to make use of all the rules until it is.

Click here to download this file

[Naryn]

Very excited to check these out.

[Shovellovin]

Will take a look at this. Thank you for sharing. 

[Petitioner's City]

My immediate suggestion would be to have a table of armour facings (I know, a fair task to compile) - I know from heresy how annoying it is having to cross reference books across editions. It would also allow you to update old armour facings in-line with 8th/9th stats too.

Something worth looking at also is the heresy 8th/9th edition rulesets at the heresy30k forums - https://heresy30k.in...les-discussion/

Overall, an exciting ruleset.

Edited by Petitioner's City, 26 September 2021 - 03:43 PM.

[Battle Brother Abderus]

Just one note from me.

 

I've seen this before in a couple of official GW missions.

 

For whatever reason some people seem to forget that some factions e.g. daemons only (or almost only) have invulnerable saves.

 

It just doesn't seem like an act of balance to switch these off, seems to create for that faction an unsolvable problem. 

 

My suggestion as you already have a +1 Inv save would be a -1 Inv save.

 

Though the +1 Inv save would create a bunch of 2+ inv saves and in some cases army wide 3+ inv save which creates its own problem

 

The more i think about, just leave them alone. Any modification here can just have a influence on the game  that's unbalanced.

 

BBA

Edited by Battle Brother Abderus, 26 September 2021 - 04:14 PM.

[Brother Sidonius]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

 

My immediate suggestion would be to have a table of armour facings (I know, a fair task to compile) - I know from heresy how annoying it is having to cross reference books across editions. It would also allow you to update old armour facings in-line with 8th/9th stats too.

Something worth looking at also is the heresy 8th/9th edition rulesets at the heresy30k forums - https://heresy30k.in...les-discussion/

Overall, an exciting ruleset.

 Eventually I'll be able to have a table of every Vehicle armour facing, but I'm working on the Codex's one at a time so it's going to take a while! That horus heresy forum looks like a great resource so cheers for that.

 

 

Just one note from me.

 

I've seen this before in a couple of official GW missions.

 

For whatever reason some people seem to forget that some factions e.g. daemons only (or almost only) have invulnerable saves.

 

It just doesn't seem like an act of balance to switch these off, seems to create for that faction an unsolvable problem. 

 

My suggestion as you already have a +1 Inv save would be a -1 Inv save.

 

Though the +1 Inv save would create a bunch of 2+ inv saves and in some cases army wide 3+ inv save which creates its own problem

 

The more i think about, just leave them alone. Any modification here can just have a influence on the game  that's unbalanced.

 

BBA

Having no invulnerable save isn't fun so I'll absolutely look at changing the Null Zone psychic power and similar rules to a -1 modifier instead. It's a great idea in my opinion

[Xenith]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

 

 

Just one note from me.

 

I've seen this before in a couple of official GW missions.

 

For whatever reason some people seem to forget that some factions e.g. daemons only (or almost only) have invulnerable saves.

 

It just doesn't seem like an act of balance to switch these off, seems to create for that faction an unsolvable problem. 

 

My suggestion as you already have a +1 Inv save would be a -1 Inv save.

 

Though the +1 Inv save would create a bunch of 2+ inv saves and in some cases army wide 3+ inv save which creates its own problem

 

The more i think about, just leave them alone. Any modification here can just have a influence on the game  that's unbalanced.

 

BBA

Having no invulnerable save isn't fun so I'll absolutely look at changing the Null Zone psychic power and similar rules to a -1 modifier instead. It's a great idea in my opinion

 

I mean, in the background, daemons should just evaporate if they entered a null zone. The psychic power exists in 40k, and so do daemons, it's balanced by the extrememly short range (assuming it's the same 6" as in Codex SM).

[Battle Brother Abderus]

As ii  recall there's a battle wide random table which turns invs off hence my original note.

 

There's the balance of "fluff" vs practicality. - Bearing in mind we're applying logic to a universe were 8 foot green orcs fly around on rocks, incorpable beings from the beyond exists and so do space-faring giant insects.

 

Daemons have a trade off. Their saves aren't very good. But you always get them. Changing that has the same effect of saying making all weapons -6 rend, would on most factions.

 

Which is why I said just leave them alone.

 

I think the major unbalance in 40k actually comes from the individual data sheets.

 

What we have here is more akin to a tool-set for building narrative battles. 

[Brother Sidonius]

As ii  recall there's a battle wide random table which turns invs off hence my original note.
 
There's the balance of "fluff" vs practicality. - Bearing in mind we're applying logic to a universe were 8 foot green orcs fly around on rocks, incorpable beings from the beyond exists and so do space-faring giant insects.
 
Daemons have a trade off. Their saves aren't very good. But you always get them. Changing that has the same effect of saying making all weapons -6 rend, would on most factions.
 
Which is why I said just leave them alone.
 
I think the major unbalance in 40k actually comes from the individual data sheets.
 
What we have here is more akin to a tool-set for building narrative battles.

Funny you should mention the datasheets because rebalancing them for every army is the next step in the project. And I’ve already fit every Space Marine Captain variant into one datasheet so the rest should be a breeze!

[Battle Brother Abderus]

I would have started with the data sets.

 

The reason why is that when you change a rule. That rule will effect every datasheet in the game. This can lead to really unbalanced interactions (like the one pointed out). Or strange exploits, like a guardsmen calming complete immunity to a bloodthirster, by virtue of standing on a ledge 1 inch tall, that the later can not fit it's base on. 

 

Your issue with changing sheets is there's probably over 1,000 sheets overall, each with stratagems and fluff you need to represent while trying to maintain balance and considering how effective that cost is.

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

 

Slaanesh, Nurgle, Tzeenth and Khorne are in my codex. If you make one too strong then the codex gains redundant choices. If you keep them all the same then the fluff isn't represented. If they're strong in combination, if you design them to be used this way. Mono-god becomes redundant, if you give bonuses for being mono-god the, undivided and possible 3 of the mono-factions become redundant. - And so on and so forth, this is just with one book.

 

If you were to say make krack missiles flat 6 damage, then then all multi-would models become less effective and would need a points reduction or defensive buffs. Each solution creates and snowball of implications.

 

Here's another LoS. True line of sigh punishes things that are just too big to hide, so do you consider the size of the model when generating it's stats. Or use generic rules where the size of a model is redundant, meaning wraithknights are leaving 1mm of there base in terrain borders to claim a save.

 

The TL:DR is it's absolutely massive task to balance 40k 

Edited by Battle Brother Abderus, 28 September 2021 - 02:26 PM.

[Petitioner's City]

I would have started with the data sets.

The reason why is that when you change a rule. That rule will effect every datasheet in the game. This can lead to really unbalanced interactions (like the one pointed out). Or strange exploits, like a guardsmen calming complete immunity to a bloodthirster, by virtue of standing on a ledge 1 inch tall, that the later can not fit it's base on.

Your issue with changing sheets is there's probably over 1,000 sheets overall, each with stratagems and fluff you need to represent while trying to maintain balance and considering how effective that cost is.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

Slaanesh, Nurgle, Tzeenth and Khorne are in my codex. If you make one too strong then the codex gains redundant choices. If you keep them all the same then the fluff isn't represented. If they're strong in combination, if you design them to be used this way. Mono-god becomes redundant, if you give bonuses for being mono-god the, undivided and possible 3 of the mono-factions become redundant. - And so on and so forth, this is just with one book.

If you were to say make krack missiles flat 6 damage, then then all multi-would models become less effective and would need a points reduction or defensive buffs. Each solution creates and snowball of implications.

Here's another LoS. True line of sigh punishes things that are just too big to hide, so do you consider the size of the model when generating it's stats. Or use generic rules where the size of a model is redundant, meaning wraithknights are leaving 1mm of there base in terrain borders to claim a save.

The TL:DR is it's absolutely massive task to balance 40k

But this shouldn't be a reason *not* to houserule - you are feeling the inertia of the scale, but house ruling is good, even if it is endless trial and error. There is no perfect ruleset, no balance with over 1000 units. Instead it is - to an extent - creative mess-making, and continuous change to accommodate those mismatches.

I think Brother Sidonius would benefit from a "live" website (be it wordpress, wiki or other) rather than a pdf - this would allow them to make continuous changes. I've done this for my group's necromunda group - a replacement for either all those individual or a single comprehensive rulebook. Another good hobby example of this is killer shrike's website at http://killershrike.com/.

But equally a pdf can be downloaded, printed, etc, so has more benefit.

Edited by Petitioner's City, 29 September 2021 - 09:12 PM.

[Battle Brother Abderus]

 

But this shouldn't be a reason *not* to houserule - you are feeling the inertia of the scale, but house ruling is good, even if it is endless trial and error. There is no perfect ruleset, no balance with over 1000 units. Instead it is - to an extent - creative mess-making, and continuous change to accommodate those mismatches.

 

I'd 100% agree there's no perfect ruleset.

 

I'd agree to houserule, under two cavets. 1)People apply common sense to the rules 2)Everyone has the same understanding of what common sense is. 

 

An example of current rule exploit, involves placing your models being a wall far enough away so they don't come within the extra range of being close to a terrain feature. But close enough that model's bases can't fit in the gap.

 

Appropriately one of the core problems with the hobby is now, and has always been. The min/maxing and stacking the most effective units. - Lack of Balance. People gravitate toward efficacy. 

 

I was under the impression from the post title that the goal was to seek increased balance.

 

That said.

 

Personally I think that community made rules (such as ITC format) improves the product. Not to heap another spade full on the GW hate train. But I feel that the people who write the rules are somewhat detached from how the hobby is played in mass. 

[Battle Brother Abderus]

Another suggestion from me

 

Rule: No plan survives contact with the enemy.

 

At the start of the game, immediately after the mission is determined. Both players must consult the table below and select the corresponding number of stratagems shown and reveal these to your opponent. These are the only stratagems that can be used in the game (including ones used "before the battle starts" and ones taken as part of mustering your army)

 

The exceptions are : Command Re-Roll, Cut them down, Desperate Breakout, Emergency disembarkation, Fire Owerwatch, Counter Offensive, Insane Bravery. Each player may still use these.

 

Max Points 500 - 2

Max Points 1000 - 4

Max Points 2000 - 8

Max Points 3000 - 10

 

In addition each player gains the additional stratagem.

 

Tactical Brilliance - 3CP 

 

You may immediately replace one of your selected stratagems, that you have not yet used, with another one you were eligible for  at the start of the game. (this excludes the ones listed as well as tactical brilliance)

 

The idea here is I feel that stratagems although fun have gotten out of control and a part of the game is now trying to must an encyclopaedic knowledge of every faction's stratagems.   

Edited by Battle Brother Abderus, 05 October 2021 - 06:46 PM.

[Brother Sidonius]

Apologies for being late in replying, I’ve been busy celebrating the Queens birthday.

To be completely explicit with my intentions, the aim of the project is to make 9th edition more fun. To do that I’ve added old mechanics to the Core Rules to make the game feel more like 40K. A consequence of this is that now every datasheet needs to be updated to be compatible with the new mechanics (like different Toughness’ for each armour facing and what size blast marker to use) and I thought that while I was editing them anyway I may as well rebalance them.

This may seem a daunting task but I stand on the shoulders of giants. Your average datasheet won’t need to be touched since the design team has already done a brilliant job which will allow me to focus on making the objectively bad datasheets ok and OP datasheets just really good. The aim is to improve the balance of the game but only because that makes it more fun to write lists and more fun to play games.

And on that note, thanks for tips on game balance! I’m no game designer so I appreciate the pointers. And I’ll also have a look at a live document or website to host the rules. Honestly hadn’t crossed my mind but that would make it much easier to access.

And now for Battle Brothe Abderus’ suggestions:
Terrain exploits can be a bit silly… I’ll see if I can come up with a common sense rule for terrain features that makes the interactions more natural. Perhaps I’ll change the Breachable terrain trait so that it allows Infantry, Beasts and Swarms to end their move within a terrain feature with the restriction that they have to fight last because they’re stuck in a window. You’d just set them up near their actual position as if they had wobbly model syndrome.

And limiting Stratagems is a great idea! You’d basically have to build a small deck of stratagems before the game. With your permission, I’m going to steal that idea and implement it as a Mission Special Rule called “Broken Supply Lines” or something similar.

[Battle Brother Abderus]

And limiting Stratagems is a great idea! You’d basically have to build a small deck of stratagems before the game. With your permission, I’m going to steal that idea and implement it as a Mission Special Rule called “Broken Supply Lines” or something similar.

 

Yes you do, so does anyone else.

 

On the condition the rule is called as I named it "No plan survives contact with the enemy".

 

I just like that saying.