Apparently there's a German TO who has a line to the rules team (claims to be the reason Deathwatch got nerfed) who is very against the armour-stripping power to the point where many of the early tournaments being ran in Germany are house-ruling it to only reduce armour by 2.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Apparently there's a German TO who has a line to the rules team (claims to be the reason Deathwatch got nerfed) who is very against the armour-stripping power to the point where many of the early tournaments being ran in Germany are house-ruling it to only reduce armour by 2.
Those german tournament changes are a bit extreme to me. At what point are you not even playing 10th edition anymore? Also I am very wary of anyone who says they influence the rules, when they could have just got some inside knowlege and then publish their "suggestions" before the official GWfaq, then claim credit.
Thought I would post the german TO change list here for info:
- [Towering] is changed to: A unit with the [Towering] keyword is considered to be wholly within a piece of terrain, even if it is only partially within it (intention is: "toeing in" for the benefit of seeing "through" ruins instead of natively seeing "through" it)
- Wraithknights Heavy Wraithcannons lose the [Devastating Wounds] ability
- Fatedice are limited to one dice per unit per phase
- [Indirect] fire suffers the same penalty as in 9th edition (-1BS and +1 to save) in addition to any other applicable rules like cover, [Stealth], etc. and cannot benefit from the +1 to hit for being [Heavy] when fired without line of sight (model wise)
- Thousand Sons “Twist of Fate” Cabal Ritual is modified to “any armour saving throws of the unit are modified by -2” instead
- The range of the “Fire Overwatch” stratagem is reduced to 12” and only visible units can be shot
- Mortal Wounds from a single unit are capped at 6 MW per unit per phase when targeted at a non-Monster or non-Vehicle unit, any additional wounds e.g. with Assault Canons are then handled as normal (saves can be made etc.)
- Models can move over and stay on objectives without limitations (as per 9th)
- Lone Operative and similar abilities are subject to investigation of how to fix them best (tbd.)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Apparently there's a German TO who has a line to the rules team (claims to be the reason Deathwatch got nerfed) who is very against the armour-stripping power to the point where many of the early tournaments being ran in Germany are house-ruling it to only reduce armour by 2.
Those german tournament changes are a bit extreme to me. At what point are you not even playing 10th edition anymore? Also I am very wary of anyone who says they influence the rules, when they could have just got some inside knowlege and then publish their "suggestions" before the official GWfaq, then claim credit.
Thought I would post the german TO change list here for info:
- [Towering] is changed to: A unit with the [Towering] keyword is considered to be wholly within a piece of terrain, even if it is only partially within it (intention is: "toeing in" for the benefit of seeing "through" ruins instead of natively seeing "through" it)
- Wraithknights Heavy Wraithcannons lose the [Devastating Wounds] ability
- Fatedice are limited to one dice per unit per phase
- [Indirect] fire suffers the same penalty as in 9th edition (-1BS and +1 to save) in addition to any other applicable rules like cover, [Stealth], etc. and cannot benefit from the +1 to hit for being [Heavy] when fired without line of sight (model wise)
- Thousand Sons “Twist of Fate” Cabal Ritual is modified to “any armour saving throws of the unit are modified by -2” instead
- The range of the “Fire Overwatch” stratagem is reduced to 12” and only visible units can be shot
- Mortal Wounds from a single unit are capped at 6 MW per unit per phase when targeted at a non-Monster or non-Vehicle unit, any additional wounds e.g. with Assault Canons are then handled as normal (saves can be made etc.)
- Models can move over and stay on objectives without limitations (as per 9th)
- Lone Operative and similar abilities are subject to investigation of how to fix them best (tbd.)
Impressive, in such a short list they managed to both over-fix what is not broken in many cases as well as invalidating some core design tenets of 10th (e.g. modifications can only go +/- 1) and breaking a handful of basic rules with pointless exceptions. There are problems in 10th, but these 'solutions' are even worse in my opinion.
As a Guard player, indirect seems to be one of the cornerstones of the list in 10th. Not that I was planning on pure arty spam, but it definitely will be doing some heavy lifting. Removing the heavy bonus just seems like an arbitarily lrge nerf, when Guard have bs5+ heavy units. Without a sentinel, squad mortars would be hitting on 6s.
kodos wrote: even as a free app it does not do its job as you need to remove wargear that is replaced manually and if you forget to unclick that
which is the minimum I expect from an army builder, to actually build a legal army for that game and not just being a calculator with text output
Tsagualsa wrote: It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
as I learned today GW is neither a gaming nor a software company (and not a book writing company either) but just a miniature company
therefore expecting anything but miniatures from them as not reasonable at all, and we should be grateful that a miniature company at least try to make rules for a game with software support and no matter how well those work
so they should not be measured on standards from gaming companies but only miniature companies
hence if GW games and app workes better than the game and app from Wargames Atlantic, Victrix Limited or Perry Miniatures, it is already above the standard for miniature companies
/s
Sure hope you don't think highly of battlescribe then as it falls faaaaaar from your minimum standards desplte years and years of work on it.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Apparently there's a German TO who has a line to the rules team (claims to be the reason Deathwatch got nerfed) who is very against the armour-stripping power to the point where many of the early tournaments being ran in Germany are house-ruling it to only reduce armour by 2.
Those german tournament changes are a bit extreme to me. At what point are you not even playing 10th edition anymore? Also I am very wary of anyone who says they influence the rules, when they could have just got some inside knowlege and then publish their "suggestions" before the official GWfaq, then claim credit.
Thought I would post the german TO change list here for info:
- [Towering] is changed to: A unit with the [Towering] keyword is considered to be wholly within a piece of terrain, even if it is only partially within it (intention is: "toeing in" for the benefit of seeing "through" ruins instead of natively seeing "through" it) - Wraithknights Heavy Wraithcannons lose the [Devastating Wounds] ability - Fatedice are limited to one dice per unit per phase - [Indirect] fire suffers the same penalty as in 9th edition (-1BS and +1 to save) in addition to any other applicable rules like cover, [Stealth], etc. and cannot benefit from the +1 to hit for being [Heavy] when fired without line of sight (model wise) - Thousand Sons “Twist of Fate” Cabal Ritual is modified to “any armour saving throws of the unit are modified by -2” instead - The range of the “Fire Overwatch” stratagem is reduced to 12” and only visible units can be shot - Mortal Wounds from a single unit are capped at 6 MW per unit per phase when targeted at a non-Monster or non-Vehicle unit, any additional wounds e.g. with Assault Canons are then handled as normal (saves can be made etc.) - Models can move over and stay on objectives without limitations (as per 9th) - Lone Operative and similar abilities are subject to investigation of how to fix them best (tbd.)
Impressive, in such a short list they managed to both over-fix what is not broken in many cases as well as invalidating some core design tenets of 10th (e.g. modifications can only go +/- 1) and breaking a handful of basic rules with pointless exceptions. There are problems in 10th, but these 'solutions' are even worse in my opinion.
Not surprised about the place of implementation though/ where this is coming from. Restoring fun by decree
jokes and cultural observations aside. Some of these things are actually not half bad as ideas, but i agree with you that some of the things got overfixed. Indirect fire f.e. the first bit without the +1 to save would've suficed and if it wouldn't have then the next part could've been implemented. The objective marker thingy is a net positive aswell. Personally though i prefer if the objective marker is something that could actually be an object but i guess that's nowadays too simulationist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: As a Guard player, indirect seems to be one of the cornerstones of the list in 10th. Not that I was planning on pure arty spam, but it definitely will be doing some heavy lifting. Removing the heavy bonus just seems like an arbitarily lrge nerf, when Guard have bs5+ heavy units. Without a sentinel, squad mortars would be hitting on 6s.
Well, indirect fire is one of the few mechanics left from an bygone era, that not all factions have even possible access to, that it get's singled out is therefore unsurprising.
Tsagualsa wrote: It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
False dichotomy/false dilemma/false binary
Yeah, that's the one. Nobody loses their mind over bugs/typos, but i think one can expect - from a release product that is not clearly marked as 'beta' or whatever, mind - that about 80% of the things that are advertised work as intended, and have minor issues at most. Nice-to-have stuff is another question, but an app that is intended as a gaming aid should be actually useable, and useful, to that purpose on release day.
So far building lists haven"t resulted in error or illegal list.
Took me less time to run into those on batlescribe
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AduroT wrote: TSons nerfs? I haven’t heard the complaining about them.
They do seem pretty strong. Ability to delete pretty much any unit(10 termies one shot with spare land raider with just bolters), extreme durability if opponent doesn't spam mw(magnus just laughs at 3 railgun as long as they don"t roll 6 to wound. 3 lancer oath of moment results nothing in average....
Army i would pay atttention. When you can deep strike 400 pts unit that deletes target with overkill it's pretty scary.
People complain about marines deleting specific unit with oath or wraithknight deleting with d-cannons and fate dice. This is about as reliable and doesn't require having 6's on fate dice. Okay at least you can fail but odds are small and loads of rolling involved reducing variance.
tneva82 wrote: [Sure hope you don't think highly of battlescribe then as it falls faaaaaar from your minimum standards desplte years and years of work on it.
really?
a multi million dollar company is not able to create the same standard as a guy in his basement 13 years ago, because it is not a software company
and cannot make a working app because they did not know the rules of their own game while a guy was able to predict the needs of 40k in 2019 and therefore should not be compared with the army builder supplied by other miniature gaming companies?
the minimum GW should to is what if not providing an army builder that actually builds a legal army with me needing to cross check with the datacards what is legal?
tauist wrote: It's not impossible that the codex will re-introduce some of the consolidated wargear options. In fact, I'd say its more than likely, with the indexes being free, the codexes need to have a bunch of new stuff to justify their purchase
Points are free if they're going to be tweaking them every 3 to 6 months.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the assembly instructions for the Sternguard in the Leviathan box, the Combi-Plasma and Combi-Melta have different rules, the former being Anti-Monster/Hazardous, he latter being Anti-Vehicle/Melta. The Lieutenant's Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover as well.
So it's literally just a bolter with various rules on it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Imagine if all Melta-Weapons got Anti-Vehicle 4+ like these Combi-Meltas have. That'd certainly solve a few issues...
Not sure I'd go that far, but it'd certainly be popular.
leopard wrote: the tournament side have a remarkably simple solution open to them: for the next six months use 9th for tournaments and watch for actual issues with 10th before tryoing to fix it
We need games played to actually understand it. No one has played a single GT mission. Brutalizing the rules before we've even had a tournament is a bit nuts. I get dealing with Eldar in some fashion, but the rest should be left alone to play out.
More people should read Wing's rant on Goonhammer:
Spoiler:
Last week was a big one, huh? The vast majority of the rules for 10th Edition are now out in the wild, along with the truly upsetting number of words we wrote about them, and players have started to really dig in and get some games under their belts. I think it’s fair to say that emotions have been running high among segments of the playerbase, and that reactions have been mixed at best among the competitive scene. Plenty of people have positive things to say about the game, but the Indexes and Munitorum Field Manual in particular have created quite a bit of blowback, with some extremely alarmist takes about the edition being dead on arrival or unfixable, and some serious grumbling about some factions, which our own team have not been immune from.
Bluntly, the net result of this is that last week sucked as a content creator, because everyone wanted to laser focus in on excuses to get big mad online, all competing to have the most doom-laden take about 40K or their army, often in our comments section. This does not make the absurd amount of hours it takes to produce that volume of material feel particularly rewarding, and I can only imagine what it’s like for the design team. I’m not looking for pity here – I’ve been in online ecosystems a long time, I know how this works – but I do think the extent to which the community seems determined to have the most hostile or negative take on anything that happens has been ballooning in the last year, and this feels like it’s coming to a head in an incredibly negative fashion.
Because here’s the thing: Tenth Edition is fun! It’s really good fun! I have been privileged enough to play quite a few games of it now, and I’ve enjoyed all of them, coming away each time with new aspects I want to tinker with or try out. I’m also not alone in this – the reaction I’ve seen to Tenth among casual players has been wildly more positive than in the competitive scene, and if you’re outside the competitive ecosystem, the vitriol must look completely baffling. Part of that is, of course, that in the information age the speed at which competitive players can identify and start pushing the extremes of a new set of rules is orders of magnitude faster than it used to be. I imagine that if every game of tenth you’ve played is against the most nightmarish Aeldari list you can concoct, it probably doesn’t seem that great, so here’s an idea: Maybe don’t?
No one is saying that there won’t need to be some balance changes – there obviously will, probably sooner rather than later. We have, as a community, pretty conclusively demonstrated that the Aeldari Index is busted in about three days. Go us, new record etc. Now get some new material, because there’s really only two outcomes here.
Either you think Games Workshop will make improvements or you don’t. If you do, there’s a whole bunch of stuff you can explore while you wait, a lot of it great. If you don’t, and you’re online screaming about how GW can’t or won’t fix this, and Tenth Edition is doomed, then I’ve got a couple of questions. One – which Games Workshop have you been looking at for the last six years? It’s clearly a different one than I have. Throughout 9th edition Games Workshop demonstrated a commitment to improving the game quality through balance dataslates, a new rules glossary, and the return of its own tournament circuit in the US and (more recently) in the UK. It’s not an organisation that strikes me as particularly likely to let these problems hang around if they are as bad as some people think. I understand that people want feedback and changes at the speed of a Discord ping, but also we have literally already had the first emergency balance tweak for this edition, and it’s not even out yet!
The second question is honestly the more important one: What’s your endgame? Let’s say you’re right, and that for some reason Games Workshop is locked in to not course correcting this for six months or whatever. What is blasting out hyperbole after wildly incorrect hyperbole about how this is the worst that things have ever been and that the game sucks now going to accomplish? Make you look smart and sophisticated? Convince people that this community is not worth their time? Somehow get them to adopt your personal dream comp pack that definitely, 100% fixes every faction except the one you play?
Take an honest step back and listen to yourselves, because what you’re really pushing for is driving this community into total irrelevance. Competitive 40k has grown spectacularly over the last few years, but it’s still dwarfed by the greater 40k hobby, and if all the vocal parts of our community spend their time doing is screaming about how terrible everything is, that growth can reverse fast. That goes double if all the casual players are having the time of their lives, because why on earth would anyone choose to get involved in a toxic, seething mass of furious Reddit/Facebook/Twitter/Discord posts?
Either way, play games, get some practice in, and then when the hammer drops on Aeldari/Towering/Indirect fire (delete as applicable), your experience will still matter and the meta-chasers’ will be out of date. To be clear, I’m 100% putting my money (quite a bit of it, US hotel prices are wild) where my mouth is on both fronts on this one. I’m flying over to the US Open Tacoma in July and I’m bringing my Necrons rather than my beloved Wraithknight, because I’m vastly more interested in playing them than an Aeldari list that’ll be legal for months at most. Are some games at events going to suck? Yeah, but that’s always a risk if you attend an event however good the balance is – bad dice or bad opponents can still ruin a game for you. My least enjoyable tournament game ever was one that I won by a healthy margin, but it was still such a soul-destroying experience that I was angry for days afterwards. 40K is an imperfect game played by imperfect people. Sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad, and that’s life. If the competitive community means anything to you, focus on finding the bits that are good, and trust that the game’s designers want to do that as well.
My assumption is that this intro is going to make people a lot of people very mad and get me called a GW shill or whatever and sure, go nuts, there’s a queue. To be very clear, no one at GW has asked me to write this, and no one told us what to put in our Index reviews. People seem to think that the only possible reason we would choose to say anything nice about the Indexes is because Big GW is breathing down our necks, and that just bluntly isn’t true – we look for the positives because we all like this game and want it to be good! Pointing at something and saying it’s bad is much easier than digging into what’s good, and the latter is much more useful in the long run for building up the game. Also, plenty of our readers are never going to go anywhere near a tournament, and I guarantee you that the majority of them are going to find that their Indexes are just fine, and we’re writing for them as well.
This column, however, remains aimed firmly at the competitive community, and the driving purpose of it has always been to build positivity. If people go looking for competitive 40K content, I want them to find something focused on the creativeness and ingenuity that underpins so much of it, to see players from their local scene get a moment in the sun when they have a breakout performance, and to see their pet unit show up in the finals of a supermajor. I don’t want them to find a giant screed about the latest community drama, the latest prediction of the game’s death or people getting furiously angry that anyone would consider playing a non-optimal list.
Tenth Edition has the potential to be a great time for the game – so let’s focus on that, and not the teething issues. We know they’re there, I’ll wager the design team knows about them too, and shouting won’t get them fixed faster. I’m a software architect in my day job, and I know full well that launching a complex, technical project into the wild can sometimes be a bumpy ride, no matter how hard the team has worked, and that figuring out the causes of problems generally happens very quickly, but properly resolving them can, with the best will in the world, take a bit of time. Also, unlike a software project, you cannot simply roll back a release involving shipping spectacular numbers of physical boxes across the entire globe.
I’ll be at the Bristol GT playing pickup games of 10th this weekend (9th has exited my brain at this point), so if there’s something you like about the new edition, or even some constructive thoughts you have about what could be improved, do come and say hi and let me know. Or eradicate my Necrons with a Wraithknight to teach me a lesson, I guess. I technically cannot stop you doing that. I can even provide the Wraithknight, but as above I will be shaking my head in disapproval the whole time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AduroT wrote: TSons nerfs? I haven’t heard the complaining about them.
They're pretty strong when they get the DW rolling via psychic.
Daedalus81 wrote: So it's literally just a bolter with various rules on it?
Various rules that reflect the type of combi-weapon it is. Some could say it is a consolidation of a Bolter and Meltagun, Bolter and Plasma Gun and Bolter and Flamer rather than a consolidation of a Bolter, Flamer, Melta and Plasma Gun all in one.
If it were literally just a bolter, it wouldn't have those extra rules.
absurd amount of hours it takes to produce that volume of material
That's a pretty wild assumption. I feel like the 'amount of hours' it took 'to produce that volume of material' was closer to "arbitrarily low" rather than "absurdly high".
That Wings editorial is so rich. "GW totally didn't tell us to write this puff piece, srsly guise!" Fine, maybe I believe that. But the "reviews" of the indices that GH wrote were so incredibly slanted (especially the Admech, Sisters, and DG ones) that all credibility was lost for me.
But then, to come back and start throwing your community under the bus because there was some pushback to this absurdly rosy B.S. narrative? Feth off dude. The way the game plays/doesn't play is not the root cause of people's anger; it's the fact that GW has yet again sold us a bill of goods and completely under-delivered on their promises. In some places, that means stupid streamlining. In other places, that means wildly imbalanced rules. In other places, that means soulless, boring army design even if the army isn't completely terrible (I'm looking at you, Drukhari).
Anyway, it's not at all surprising to see toxic positivity from Goonhammer. Reddit lapped it up of course; oh well.
NB: I guess I should add that Wings' list was pretty stupid too. I am so tired of seeing people praising that designer commentary. 80% of that stuff belonged in the core rules, that material isn't "commentary" at all, it's fundamental. And battleshock? Gimme a break. You can already see rumblings in the community about how battleshock/morale still doesn't matter much.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: That Wings editorial is so rich. "GW totally didn't tell us to write this puff piece, srsly guise!" Fine, maybe I believe that. But the "reviews" of the indices that GH wrote were so incredibly slanted (especially the Admech, Sisters, and DG ones) that all credibility was lost for me.
But then, to come back and start throwing your community under the bus because there was some pushback to this absurdly rosy B.S. narrative? Feth off dude. The way the game plays/doesn't play is not the root cause of people's anger; it's the fact that GW has yet again sold us a bill of goods and completely under-delivered on their promises. In some places, that means stupid streamlining. In other places, that means wildly imbalanced rules. In other places, that means soulless, boring army design (I'm looking at you, Drukhari).
Anyway, it's not at all surprising to see toxic positivity from Goonhammer. Reddit lapped it up of course; oh well.
NB: I guess I should add that Wings' list was pretty stupid too. I am so tired of seeing people praising that designer commentary. 80% of that stuff belonged in the core rules, that material isn't "commentary" at all, it's fundamental. And battleshock? Gimme a break. You can already see rumblings in the community about how battleshock/morale still doesn't matter much.
It's the same 'My pet-peeves are a well-reasoned, nuanced critique rooted in impartial analysis, your pet-peeves are entitled whining rendering the community toxic' spiel corporate spokespeople or 'professional critics' often fall back on if they can't defend something on the ground level - instead of refuting the actual critical arguments, attack the tone of them, fall back on 'don't rock the boat' type paroles, and accuse critics of putting the community in a negative light.
Yeah, that's, like, the perfect example. They literally published a "review" and basically retracted it 2 days later. WTF? Like, all that shows me is that they knew there are big issues with the rules, but papered over all the issues in the initial review. Then, because Pendulin has some integrity, he went back and had to post something a little more even-handed.
Third parties should not write GW propaganda, which is what those index reviews were. That's the job of Warhammer Community.
Trickstick wrote: As a Guard player, indirect seems to be one of the cornerstones of the list in 10th. Not that I was planning on pure arty spam, but it definitely will be doing some heavy lifting. Removing the heavy bonus just seems like an arbitarily lrge nerf, when Guard have bs5+ heavy units. Without a sentinel, squad mortars would be hitting on 6s.
As you said at 70pts the Earthshaker is the way to go. I'm going to get myself one of the really huge 3d printed Big Berthas from Battleforge (I think it's Battleforge)
Trickstick wrote: As a Guard player, indirect seems to be one of the cornerstones of the list in 10th. Not that I was planning on pure arty spam, but it definitely will be doing some heavy lifting. Removing the heavy bonus just seems like an arbitarily lrge nerf, when Guard have bs5+ heavy units. Without a sentinel, squad mortars would be hitting on 6s.
As you said at 70pts the Earthshaker is the way to go. I'm going to get myself one of the really huge 3d printed Big Berthas from Battleforge (I think it's Battleforge)
M.
I'd advise caution until the sheet is seen. Never know what will change your perception of a unit.
Trickstick wrote: As a Guard player, indirect seems to be one of the cornerstones of the list in 10th. Not that I was planning on pure arty spam, but it definitely will be doing some heavy lifting. Removing the heavy bonus just seems like an arbitarily lrge nerf, when Guard have bs5+ heavy units. Without a sentinel, squad mortars would be hitting on 6s.
As you said at 70pts the Earthshaker is the way to go. I'm going to get myself one of the really huge 3d printed Big Berthas from Battleforge (I think it's Battleforge)
M.
From datamining, the platforms are apparently BS 5+, so you may want to wait on that.
Laughing Man wrote: From datamining, the platforms are apparently BS 5+, so you may want to wait on that.
I would bet on heavy, move -, and maybe even regiment. Which made me check if you can bring move - stuff on from reserve (for 2cp guard reasons...). I think you can.
On one hand, nice that they are printing new ones at all, on the other why not delay the release at this point since they already limited them and people will complain that they get cards with errors
On the other other hand, we’ve got digital ones, why worry about the print ones - especially given we know each set will be defunct as their Codex rolls out.
On one hand, nice that they are printing new ones at all, on the other why not delay the release at this point since they already limited them and people will complain that they get cards with errors
They could do free swaps of cards with errors for the correct ones in-store, but that would be pretty expensive and a huge logistics burden.
Anyway, it's not at all surprising to see toxic positivity from Goonhammer. Reddit lapped it up of course; oh well.
He has actually a point. Competitive scene has already a bad reputation enough, it will only get worse when all these so called "elite players" spend their time about bitching and moaning about hypothetical cases like they would happen all the time. It's actually pointless.
Meanwhile, normal players (also called "casual" for some reason) have fun with the game. Because they treat it as what it is : a game.
Is it perfect ? Hell no, never was never will. Will GW do something about fixing datasheets / points ? Of course they'll do, just see at the litteral history of 9th. Just with time (they especially like data from tournaments to back them up, after all).
Better not to take it too seriously, in the end. And leave that ultra-competitive mindset in the dumpster where it should belong, IMHO.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the other other hand, we’ve got digital ones, why worry about the print ones - especially given we know each set will be defunct as their Codex rolls out.
My army codex isn't due out for over a year. And since scrolling through the digital takes FOREVER (surely, the pages are sloooow to load) and printing is a hassle, I still intend on getting the physical cards to use.
I can also use a sharpie on the cards if something changes
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the other other hand, we’ve got digital ones, why worry about the print ones - especially given we know each set will be defunct as their Codex rolls out.
My army codex isn't due out for over a year. And since scrolling through the digital takes FOREVER (surely, the pages are sloooow to load) and printing is a hassle, I still intend on getting the physical cards to use.
I can also use a sharpie on the cards if something changes
-
If the PDFs are 1:1 scale you can print out any updated cards and cut out the just area that's changed to stick on the physical cards
AduroT wrote: TSons nerfs? I haven’t heard the complaining about them.
They're awful, and easily the second most abusive index after eldar but the aeeieldaeieri are just so far and away beyond anything else that it's distracting people from the second worst offender. ArtofWar40k did a good livestream tier list where Siegler and Nanavati explain it pretty clearly.
On one hand, nice that they are printing new ones at all, on the other why not delay the release at this point since they already limited them and people will complain that they get cards with errors
They could do free swaps of cards with errors for the correct ones in-store, but that would be pretty expensive and a huge logistics burden.
Videogame industry level quality control. When did releasing first draft level products become the new normal? How hard is it for a multi-million dollar company to hire an editor?
Zachectomy wrote: Videogame industry level quality control. When did releasing first draft level products become the new normal? How hard is it for a multi-million dollar company to hire an editor?
as I have learned today on this forum:
GW is a miniature company and not a card printing company and for sure not a gaming company you should not expect what you would expect from a card printing company or a gaming company
they don't have enough people to proof read and it is not their job to hier people doing it
Zachectomy wrote: Videogame industry level quality control. When did releasing first draft level products become the new normal? How hard is it for a multi-million dollar company to hire an editor?
as I have learned today on this forum:
GW is a miniature company and not a card printing company and for sure not a gaming company you should not expect what you would expect from a card printing company or a gaming company
they don't have enough people to proof read and it is not their job to hier people doing it
/s
Oh pipe down, there's a long gap between that hyperbole and not understanding software design at a business level.
They should have proof read more and hire more editors, but they're not multi-millon by aimlessly lobbing money at stuff, thus expect them to continue being tight arsed and working on minimal staff.
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, normal players (also called "casual" for some reason) have fun with the game. Because they treat it as what it is: a game.
As far as I can tell this prediction never realizes and tournament players always get the last laugh.
A lot of people will have fun with the game, tournament or no tournanment.
I think something that gets lost a lot is that OP armies only really impact one game per tournament for people outside the top 10%. Your day to day enjoyment of the game is only impacted by OP armies if you spend a lot of time on the internet (even as a tournament player).
The bigger problem is for people who are at the bottom end. For people with armies that aren't good they're either A. ALWAYS playing against Eldar because of the rules disparity, or even worse B) Really boring to play. To me, Sisters, Votann, Deathguard, Admech are the more pressing issue.
Sisters of Battle, because I'm most familiar with army, are even having a particularly bad problem right now where people are thinking they're better (or at least more interesting) than they are, because they're playing the rules wrong. The Sisters index is absolutely meticulous in not allowing you to do ANYTHING fun.
People attaching Canonesses to Dominions or Retributors. People thinking Combat squads gets you the +1 to hit and wound faction but. People thinking the Palatine ability works on the full squad. People thinking they can attach Canonesses AND imagifiers to Celestians, not allowing ANYTHING to attach to repentia, etc. The book is so restrictive in what it allows, that even just common sense ideas of 'of course you can attach a Canoness to more than 2 squads in the army' just don't work.
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, normal players (also called "casual" for some reason) have fun with the game. Because they treat it as what it is: a game.
As far as I can tell this prediction never realizes and tournament players always get the last laugh.
See what happened with Warmachine. The tournament players didn't laugh that much, because they made all the "casual" players run away because of their behaviour. So when Privateer Press did release a "not so balanced" version of the game, there wasn't enough players to keep it alive.
Focusing too much on competition is always a dead end.
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, normal players (also called "casual" for some reason) have fun with the game. Because they treat it as what it is: a game.
As far as I can tell this prediction never realizes and tournament players always get the last laugh.
So you know casuals have not been fun...how?
As is atm who is crying most? Tournament try hards.
For a company that barely does any market research 'tournament try hards' are about the only demographic they can get a solid reading on, mostly because these 'try hards' actually do try hard to communicate with GW, work on FAQs and other things that are essentially free research and development work they're mostly gifting to them. The value of various community-building efforts, tournament organization etc. they put in is hard to calculate, but easily goes into the millions each year. gaking on them is not a good idea for GW, and it is not a good idea for the community at large, even if you're a purely casual player. The tournament crowd has a place in this hobby and is an important factor for its health.
I think something that gets lost a lot is that OP armies only really impact one game per tournament for people outside the top 10%. Your day to day enjoyment of the game is only impacted by OP armies if you spend a lot of time on the internet (even as a tournament player).
I always crack up when this thread devolves into a general complaints thread, but I have to agree with the Sisters of Battle index complaints. My friend that plays them was reading through it with me and I was just dying at how awful it is, and how much they lost in flavor through rules (lack thereof rather). For all the meming people do about people quitting over 10th, he actually wants to quit Sisters for another faction and it’s very sad.
Tyranids are a lot of fun for me though, can’t wait to try out the busted sporocyst ability to spam Mucolids before it gets limited to once per turn.
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, normal players (also called "casual" for some reason) have fun with the game. Because they treat it as what it is: a game.
As far as I can tell this prediction never realizes and tournament players always get the last laugh.
See what happened with Warmachine. The tournament players didn't laugh that much, because they made all the "casual" players run away because of their behaviour. So when Privateer Press did release a "not so balanced" version of the game, there wasn't enough players to keep it alive.
Focusing too much on competition is always a dead end.
Tournament try-hards love broken rules. They have no allegiance to a codex or the army or the lore. They will tear up their models and sloppily re-assemble them for a minor advantage.
That is an entirely different thing that wanting fair competition. Because fair competition is fun, and the reason most people play games.
xttz wrote: Some whispers from a previously reliable source:
Large rules update for release "very soon", possibly tomorrow
Eldar and TSons nerfs
Unspecified changes for some other factions
This is what I'm hoping for.
Sweeping changes need to wait a bit, but some things are pretty obviously not right right now.
Fate Dice needs to be reworked to be closer to miracle dice, towering needs a small update to not turn the table into planet bowling ball for Knights, the Sisters/Admech/Deathguard/Votann Quadrafecta needs at least some points drops, and then a hit to Indirect fire and a small hit to Custodes and Tsons and we'll be in a very playable state.
Tsagualsa wrote: For a company that barely does any market research 'tournament try hards' are about the only demographic they can get a solid reading on...
They have a massive game centre attached to their HQ, with hobbyists from all over the world coming to play and see all the displays! The can talk to all sorts of people any time they like. The people will be a wide range too, I bet.
zend wrote: I always crack up when this thread devolves into a general complaints thread, but I have to agree with the Sisters of Battle index complaints. My friend that plays them was reading through it with me and I was just dying at how awful it is, and how much they lost in flavor through rules (lack thereof rather). For all the meming people do about people quitting over 10th, he actually wants to quit Sisters for another faction and it’s very sad.
Tyranids are a lot of fun for me though, can’t wait to try out the busted sporocyst ability to spam Mucolids before it gets limited to once per turn.
I play sisters as my primary army and am building Tyranids through Leviathan and the listbuilding is night and day.
Tyranids aren't exactly great right now, but they're still really fun! They have cool stuff they can do and shenanigans and a couple of standout models and choices and even some gimmicky nonsense.
Sisters, who aren't that far off from nids in terms of raw game effectiveness (though they are worse), are completely soulless. It's like they had Nurse Ratchet design the thing. 'Oh no, deary; You can't attach a Canoness to a Retributor squad, that's far too exciting for your delicate consitution! Why don't you pay 70pts for Devastating wounds in melee instead?'
Oh pipe down, there's a long gap between that hyperbole and not understanding software design at a business level.
They should have proof read more and hire more editors, but they're not multi-millon by aimlessly lobbing money at stuff, thus expect them to continue being tight arsed and working on minimal staff.
if it is not the business of a miniature company to hire someone to make an app as aid for "not their core business" why should they hire an editor or someone to proof read a printed aid for "not their core business"
if they are not required to have an state of the art app design, why should they be required to have state of the art editor for cards
what is the difference between an app and cards as both are aids for their core business but one being not fully functional on release is ok because it is not their core business, while for the other one it is not ok although it is not their core business
if you don't have a problem with the app because GW is not a software company and therefore not required to make a good one, neither should you have a problem with errors on cards because GW is not a card printing company either
ERJAK wrote: I think something that gets lost a lot is that OP armies only really impact one game per tournament for people outside the top 10%. Your day to day enjoyment of the game is only impacted by OP armies if you spend a lot of time on the internet (even as a tournament player).
Depends on the army I think.
"Not very popular army is OP when running some specific combo you are unlikely to just randomly own - especially if its some Forgeworld stuff that cost £100+ a model" - sure, not really a thing in your local FLGS and the whining is very internet based.
The number of people for instance who saw 9 90 point (or whatever it was) Voidweaver's on the table can probably be counted on one hand.
By contrast, "Marines are OP and a simple flex is just bricks of 40 IH Intercessors." This seemed to be a third of everyone I played in late 2019.
The limitation on getting hold of Desolators is sort of keeping the flood gates closed - but I'm sure GW will throw them wide in a couple of months time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the other other hand, we’ve got digital ones, why worry about the print ones - especially given we know each set will be defunct as their Codex rolls out.
My army codex isn't due out for over a year. And since scrolling through the digital takes FOREVER (surely, the pages are sloooow to load) and printing is a hassle, I still intend on getting the physical cards to use.
I can also use a sharpie on the cards if something changes
-
If the PDFs are 1:1 scale you can print out any updated cards and cut out the just area that's changed to stick on the physical cards
Still a hassle because I don't own a printer. So I'd have to go to the library or kinko's and possibly pay twice if they print wrong the first time.
I'm willing to pay $20 for the card sets to avoid that hassle just to save $5
I play sisters as my primary army and am building Tyranids through Leviathan and the listbuilding is night and day.
Tyranids aren't exactly great right now, but they're still really fun! They have cool stuff they can do and shenanigans and a couple of standout models and choices and even some gimmicky nonsense.
Sisters, who aren't that far off from nids in terms of raw game effectiveness (though they are worse), are completely soulless. It's like they had Nurse Ratchet design the thing. 'Oh no, deary; You can't attach a Canoness to a Retributor squad, that's far too exciting for your delicate consitution! Why don't you pay 70pts for Devastating wounds in melee instead?'
Veering into general complaints territory here, but this is how I feel whenever I'm building a Guard or AdMech list for 10E vs a Tau list. There's just so much more when it comes to design flavor there.
A lot of it with Guard can be solved by a stupidly simple errata, but short of cutting AdMech in half again I don't know where they go with that.
Bago wrote: Calling that Goonhammer rant toxic positivity and claim they are writing GW propaganda. Dakkadakka always staying true to itself.
Got an actual rebuttal?
The vast majority of that index review is just transcribing notable changes like unit stats & abilities, explaining how new rules work, or how they can be combined together. It's factually summarising the new rules in a more casual format for readers who won't be carefully comparing old rules to new, or AdMech rules to other factions. Very little of the article is subjective, and you can get over 90% of the content by just reading through the PDF index yourself.
What little opinion there is includes quotes like:
AdMech shooting is "Absolutely Dumpstered"
Servitor rules "feels especially spiteful"
"To rub salt in the wound, if a Datasmith isn’t deployed as a leader of Kastelan Robots, then he does a big sad and just dies."
"It’s easy to look at the nerfs and feel disappointed."
"It’s rough."
Forget bringing a knife to a gun fight, Adeptus Mechanicus are bringing a wet fart to a gak storm. The shooting is bad. The melee is worse. The detachment ability outright helps your opponent in some matchups, and the faction ability is a band-aid on an active grease fire.
The index is bad and it should feel bad.
If this is "toxic positivity" then I can only assume that your personal standard for that is just any piece of writing which doesn't throw a sufficient number of personal slurs at GW studio staff.
More people should read Wing's rant on Goonhammer:
Spoiler:
Last week was a big one, huh? The vast majority of the rules for 10th Edition are now out in the wild, along with the truly upsetting number of words we wrote about them, and players have started to really dig in and get some games under their belts. I think it’s fair to say that emotions have been running high among segments of the playerbase, and that reactions have been mixed at best among the competitive scene. Plenty of people have positive things to say about the game, but the Indexes and Munitorum Field Manual in particular have created quite a bit of blowback, with some extremely alarmist takes about the edition being dead on arrival or unfixable, and some serious grumbling about some factions, which our own team have not been immune from.
Bluntly, the net result of this is that last week sucked as a content creator, because everyone wanted to laser focus in on excuses to get big mad online, all competing to have the most doom-laden take about 40K or their army, often in our comments section. This does not make the absurd amount of hours it takes to produce that volume of material feel particularly rewarding, and I can only imagine what it’s like for the design team. I’m not looking for pity here – I’ve been in online ecosystems a long time, I know how this works – but I do think the extent to which the community seems determined to have the most hostile or negative take on anything that happens has been ballooning in the last year, and this feels like it’s coming to a head in an incredibly negative fashion.
Because here’s the thing: Tenth Edition is fun! It’s really good fun! I have been privileged enough to play quite a few games of it now, and I’ve enjoyed all of them, coming away each time with new aspects I want to tinker with or try out. I’m also not alone in this – the reaction I’ve seen to Tenth among casual players has been wildly more positive than in the competitive scene, and if you’re outside the competitive ecosystem, the vitriol must look completely baffling. Part of that is, of course, that in the information age the speed at which competitive players can identify and start pushing the extremes of a new set of rules is orders of magnitude faster than it used to be. I imagine that if every game of tenth you’ve played is against the most nightmarish Aeldari list you can concoct, it probably doesn’t seem that great, so here’s an idea: Maybe don’t?
No one is saying that there won’t need to be some balance changes – there obviously will, probably sooner rather than later. We have, as a community, pretty conclusively demonstrated that the Aeldari Index is busted in about three days. Go us, new record etc. Now get some new material, because there’s really only two outcomes here.
Either you think Games Workshop will make improvements or you don’t. If you do, there’s a whole bunch of stuff you can explore while you wait, a lot of it great. If you don’t, and you’re online screaming about how GW can’t or won’t fix this, and Tenth Edition is doomed, then I’ve got a couple of questions. One – which Games Workshop have you been looking at for the last six years? It’s clearly a different one than I have. Throughout 9th edition Games Workshop demonstrated a commitment to improving the game quality through balance dataslates, a new rules glossary, and the return of its own tournament circuit in the US and (more recently) in the UK. It’s not an organisation that strikes me as particularly likely to let these problems hang around if they are as bad as some people think. I understand that people want feedback and changes at the speed of a Discord ping, but also we have literally already had the first emergency balance tweak for this edition, and it’s not even out yet!
The second question is honestly the more important one: What’s your endgame? Let’s say you’re right, and that for some reason Games Workshop is locked in to not course correcting this for six months or whatever. What is blasting out hyperbole after wildly incorrect hyperbole about how this is the worst that things have ever been and that the game sucks now going to accomplish? Make you look smart and sophisticated? Convince people that this community is not worth their time? Somehow get them to adopt your personal dream comp pack that definitely, 100% fixes every faction except the one you play?
Take an honest step back and listen to yourselves, because what you’re really pushing for is driving this community into total irrelevance. Competitive 40k has grown spectacularly over the last few years, but it’s still dwarfed by the greater 40k hobby, and if all the vocal parts of our community spend their time doing is screaming about how terrible everything is, that growth can reverse fast. That goes double if all the casual players are having the time of their lives, because why on earth would anyone choose to get involved in a toxic, seething mass of furious Reddit/Facebook/Twitter/Discord posts?
Either way, play games, get some practice in, and then when the hammer drops on Aeldari/Towering/Indirect fire (delete as applicable), your experience will still matter and the meta-chasers’ will be out of date. To be clear, I’m 100% putting my money (quite a bit of it, US hotel prices are wild) where my mouth is on both fronts on this one. I’m flying over to the US Open Tacoma in July and I’m bringing my Necrons rather than my beloved Wraithknight, because I’m vastly more interested in playing them than an Aeldari list that’ll be legal for months at most. Are some games at events going to suck? Yeah, but that’s always a risk if you attend an event however good the balance is – bad dice or bad opponents can still ruin a game for you. My least enjoyable tournament game ever was one that I won by a healthy margin, but it was still such a soul-destroying experience that I was angry for days afterwards. 40K is an imperfect game played by imperfect people. Sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad, and that’s life. If the competitive community means anything to you, focus on finding the bits that are good, and trust that the game’s designers want to do that as well.
My assumption is that this intro is going to make people a lot of people very mad and get me called a GW shill or whatever and sure, go nuts, there’s a queue. To be very clear, no one at GW has asked me to write this, and no one told us what to put in our Index reviews. People seem to think that the only possible reason we would choose to say anything nice about the Indexes is because Big GW is breathing down our necks, and that just bluntly isn’t true – we look for the positives because we all like this game and want it to be good! Pointing at something and saying it’s bad is much easier than digging into what’s good, and the latter is much more useful in the long run for building up the game. Also, plenty of our readers are never going to go anywhere near a tournament, and I guarantee you that the majority of them are going to find that their Indexes are just fine, and we’re writing for them as well.
This column, however, remains aimed firmly at the competitive community, and the driving purpose of it has always been to build positivity. If people go looking for competitive 40K content, I want them to find something focused on the creativeness and ingenuity that underpins so much of it, to see players from their local scene get a moment in the sun when they have a breakout performance, and to see their pet unit show up in the finals of a supermajor. I don’t want them to find a giant screed about the latest community drama, the latest prediction of the game’s death or people getting furiously angry that anyone would consider playing a non-optimal list.
Tenth Edition has the potential to be a great time for the game – so let’s focus on that, and not the teething issues. We know they’re there, I’ll wager the design team knows about them too, and shouting won’t get them fixed faster. I’m a software architect in my day job, and I know full well that launching a complex, technical project into the wild can sometimes be a bumpy ride, no matter how hard the team has worked, and that figuring out the causes of problems generally happens very quickly, but properly resolving them can, with the best will in the world, take a bit of time. Also, unlike a software project, you cannot simply roll back a release involving shipping spectacular numbers of physical boxes across the entire globe.
I’ll be at the Bristol GT playing pickup games of 10th this weekend (9th has exited my brain at this point), so if there’s something you like about the new edition, or even some constructive thoughts you have about what could be improved, do come and say hi and let me know. Or eradicate my Necrons with a Wraithknight to teach me a lesson, I guess. I technically cannot stop you doing that. I can even provide the Wraithknight, but as above I will be shaking my head in disapproval the whole time.
No. lmao. That rant is peak empty-brain. His position, boiled down, is "GW will obviously fix these many issues, because people are loudly complaining about them. So why are people loudly complaining about the issues?"
It's tone-policing of the most irritating kind, offered from a position of privilege/access. He's mad that he didn't get to feel good about his website's release coverage and get comment section dopamine feedback.
Was GW going to fix all of the problems he agrees exists without people complaining about them? You know, those problems they designed and introduced and published themselves?
Bago wrote: Calling that Goonhammer rant toxic positivity and claim they are writing GW propaganda. Dakkadakka always staying true to itself.
Got an actual rebuttal?
People who are whining about OP armies have stupidly pie-in-the-sky dreams of being on the final table at LVO and losing because Nick Nanavati rolled 7 6gs on his fate dice against you.
In reality, unless a super basic build of space marines is crazy OP (i.e. 40 intercessors in the IH era that was previously mentioned) You might run into the real grit and grime of the OP armies once or twice per balance cycle.
The Goonhammer guy is objectively correct about the doomsaying being overblown for OP armies. Some areas don't even HAVE Eldar players.
He barely gave lip service to the substandard armies that are the more significant issue, or that GW's track record for taking down the absolute top end is actually pretty okay, but their track record for boosting underperformers is extremely bad (I think Necrons are the only army that saw a significant turnaround without a full codex revamp. Admech were bad from their last round of nerfs to the end of the edition).
Bago wrote: Calling that Goonhammer rant toxic positivity and claim they are writing GW propaganda. Dakkadakka always staying true to itself.
Got an actual rebuttal?
People who are whining about OP armies have stupidly pie-in-the-sky dreams of being on the final table at LVO and losing because Nick Nanavati rolled 7 6gs on his fate dice against you.
In reality, unless a super basic build of space marines is crazy OP (i.e. 40 intercessors in the IH era that was previously mentioned) You might run into the real grit and grime of the OP armies once or twice per balance cycle.
The Goonhammer guy is objectively correct about the doomsaying being overblown for OP armies. Some areas don't even HAVE Eldar players.
He barely gave lip service to the substandard armies that are the more significant issue, or that GW's track record for taking down the absolute top end is actually pretty okay, but their track record for boosting underperformers is extremely bad (I think Necrons are the only army that saw a significant turnaround without a full codex revamp. Admech were bad from their last round of nerfs to the end of the edition).
I don't understand this attitude. I play matched play in my garage with friends. None of us go to tournaments but the fact we play matched play tells you we prefer pitched battle, objectives based games over story driven campaigns ala crusade. Balance matters even to us. My friend plays Eldar and he should be able to bring his wraithknight and run his army without the other two of us feeling like if he does we're not going to have a fun game because of the power disparity. The bottom line is that for matched play games balance matters whether you're playing at a tournament or playing at home because it directly impact how enjoyable a matched play game is.
I'd argue balance matters for narrative and open play even more
firstly for a narrative you need to be able to adjust the forces to flow with the desired story, its not just win/lose but did you do better or worse than the story expected - if its meant to be a heroic last stand, trying to hold for a set period of time and you can kerbstomp the enemy its not quite the same thing
ditto for a more relaxed "open" game you need a decent level of balance, even just as a guide player A has a new knight or new other unit they want to bring, player B can get a good level of what would be an appropriate level of addition to their own force
both apply even with asymmetric forces, maybe for a teaching game so the learning player has a known advantage that can be adjusted etc
the requirement for a matched play level of balance may not be there for narrative and open, but it is still required, and "power level" didn't cut it, and nor does "all upgrades are free!"
if for nothing more than the value of an upgrade should be a guide to its likely general utility - something expensive is either very good at a specific commonly needed thing or good al round, while something cheaper should add something, but perhaps in more specific circumstances or a more gradual "nudge" upwards generally
yes with experience you learn these things, and what is under/over costed.
as has been noted, saying "its hard!" doesn't absolve the requirement to try, especially with what GW charge for the game (and no the rules being a free download currently doesn't remove this, the game as a whole is far from free)
leopard wrote: I'd argue balance matters for narrative and open play even more
And you'd be entirely correct. This argument that balance only matters for competitive players gets brought up all the time, and is always wrong. Competitive players will adjust their armies to take whatever is currently most powerful and expect to face similarly powerful (or, in GW's case, broken) lists themselves. They might prefer to see better balance between factions, but ultimately it doesn't have much effect on them.
More casual players get hosed by bad balance, especially when it's as bad as GW often manage. I remember playing the 8.5 SM Codex for about 3 weeks, then shelving my SM army because it was just not a fun experience for anyone. The same applied in 9th with people playing against Tyranids. When an entire book is just massively better than everything else, casual players are usually the ones to get most disheartened because they often don't understand why they're constantly losing and usually aren't having fun because of the disparity in power. I've seen it happen too often and I've seen enthusiastic players leave the game entirely because of it. These are players who would never have had any intention of going anywhere near a tournament.
leopard wrote: I'd argue balance matters for narrative and open play even more
And you'd be entirely correct. This argument that balance only matters for competitive players gets brought up all the time, and is always wrong. Competitive players will adjust their armies to take whatever is currently most powerful and expect to face similarly powerful (or, in GW's case, broken) lists themselves. They might prefer to see better balance between factions, but ultimately it doesn't have much effect on them.
More casual players get hosed by bad balance, especially when it's as bad as GW often manage. I remember playing the 8.5 SM Codex for about 3 weeks, then shelving my SM army because it was just not a fun experience for anyone. The same applied in 9th with people playing against Tyranids. When an entire book is just massively better than everything else, casual players are usually the ones to get most disheartened because they often don't understand why they're constantly losing and usually aren't having fun because of the disparity in power. I've seen it happen too often and I've seen enthusiastic players leave the game entirely because of it. These are players who would never have had any intention of going anywhere near a tournament.
Literally no one here has said that balance doesn't matter, or that it only matters for competitive players.
The point ERJAK was making is that online discussion about game balance can present a very distorted view, giving people the impression that every casual pickup game they play will be against some broken list that wipes them by turn two. In reality there's a pretty wide range of factions with a wide range of lists, most of which have few or only minor issues.
What's more, often the broken rules require specific army lists & models ready to exploit. Much of the time only the more competitive players have the resources and experience to use these flawed rules in the period before they get stamped out, like how the Deathwatch combo was quickly squashed. I find it hard to believe there were many casual players getting hopelessly wrecked by black space marines in that 48 hour period.
It's fair to assume that the vast majority of casual players either haven't played 10th yet (it is actually released tomorrow), or have only played smaller practice games. Rumour has it there's a major balance update imminent, so it's possible those people never even experience the cause of all this drama.
xttz wrote: Literally no one here has said that balance doesn't matter, or that it only matters for competitive players.
well,, this arguments comes up from time to time, but usually in the other way is if people are talking about that different options/units/factions are not balanced, someone steps in and claims "I don't need this because I play narrative" or "in casual games you play for fun and not to win", or the discussion is shut off by "perfect balance is impossible, so should not waste time and money on balance"
xttz wrote: Literally no one here has said that balance doesn't matter, or that it only matters for competitive players.
well,, this arguments comes up from time to time, but usually in the other way is if people are talking about that different options/units/factions are not balanced, someone steps in and claims "I don't need this because I play narrative" or "in casual games you play for fun and not to win", or the discussion is shut off by "perfect balance is impossible, so should not waste time and money on balance"
The narrative players just have a different view on balance, simply because they don't play the game while looking only with optimized lists in a vaccuum or even perfectly symetric battles. They do choose their lists to build a narrative, and thus "restraint themselves" by not taking units that do not fit it, optimized or not.
For example, if a battle is underground and vehicles don't fit the narrative of the game to play, lists can be build with infantry type only. Suddenly an eldar army list without bikes or vehicles do not feel the same in game.
Narrative players do understand that balance without real context is meaningless. There is no problem when players stop taking into account building the best list ever as if itself was the endgame. It's not.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The only winning move is not to play. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
to date the only decently balanced games I have ever played have all come from a company not trying to sell a miniatures line alongside it
nothing wrong with how GW operates but its not compatible with a balanced game, or where is the incentive for a constant churn of armies?
the only plus side is that by now everyone should know this
the downsides for players are many, e.g. the unbalanced nature of most starter boxes is likely to put off a lot of players as the idea that you play the game twice, one way round each largely doesn't apply
Literally no one here has said that balance doesn't matter, or that it only matters for competitive players.
The point ERJAK was making is that online discussion about game balance can present a very distorted view, giving people the impression that every casual pickup game they play will be against some broken list that wipes them by turn two. In reality there's a pretty wide range of factions with a wide range of lists, most of which have few or only minor issues.
What's more, often the broken rules require specific army lists & models ready to exploit. Much of the time only the more competitive players have the resources and experience to use these flawed rules in the period before they get stamped out, like how the Deathwatch combo was quickly squashed. I find it hard to believe there were many casual players getting hopelessly wrecked by black space marines in that 48 hour period.
It's fair to assume that the vast majority of casual players either haven't played 10th yet (it is actually released tomorrow), or have only played smaller practice games. Rumour has it there's a major balance update imminent, so it's possible those people never even experience the cause of all this drama.
My reply will probably get drowned in incoming discussion about IA datasheets, but I just wanted to respond quickly.
ERJAK's point was fine but it doesn't apply to my position at all. ERJAK is a competitive player who only cares about tournament-level gameplay. I am the opposite - I want as much balance as GW can possibly give me, but I don't want it at the cost of lore verisimilitude, or at the cost of granularity. GW threw both of those things I care about the most out the window. Goonhammer ignored that fact and sugarcoated all the other changes. That's what I take issue with. And of course, the game will be massively imbalanced for awhile... but that's always the case with an edition change, I'm not surprised about that. That's not what I'm up in arms about.
Anyway, I just want to make sure my point is made - I own 10s of thousands of points of painted minis across many different factions, some OP in 10th and some basement-level. I read the rules, saw the points -> PL changes, and said I wasn't interested (and expressed my disinterest through posts on dakka and reddit). Nothing about that is toxic, and I'd appreciate Goonhammer not trying to gaslight my position as such.
Well they're certainly not worth 305 each (especially when the Tyrannofex is over 100 points less), and giving up two bio-cannons for +2 Scything Talon Attacks and a flamer that doesn't ignore cover is pretty lame, or I don't get why a 'Dule's ScyTals are only AP-2 buuuuuuuuuut I am happy to see that the Hierodules have profiles that are actually quite tough.
leopard wrote: I'd argue balance matters for narrative and open play even more
And you'd be entirely correct. This argument that balance only matters for competitive players gets brought up all the time, and is always wrong. Competitive players will adjust their armies to take whatever is currently most powerful and expect to face similarly powerful (or, in GW's case, broken) lists themselves. They might prefer to see better balance between factions, but ultimately it doesn't have much effect on them.
More casual players get hosed by bad balance, especially when it's as bad as GW often manage. I remember playing the 8.5 SM Codex for about 3 weeks, then shelving my SM army because it was just not a fun experience for anyone. The same applied in 9th with people playing against Tyranids. When an entire book is just massively better than everything else, casual players are usually the ones to get most disheartened because they often don't understand why they're constantly losing and usually aren't having fun because of the disparity in power. I've seen it happen too often and I've seen enthusiastic players leave the game entirely because of it. These are players who would never have had any intention of going anywhere near a tournament.
Literally no one here has said that balance doesn't matter, or that it only matters for competitive players.
The point ERJAK was making is that online discussion about game balance can present a very distorted view, giving people the impression that every casual pickup game they play will be against some broken list that wipes them by turn two. In reality there's a pretty wide range of factions with a wide range of lists, most of which have few or only minor issues.
What's more, often the broken rules require specific army lists & models ready to exploit. Much of the time only the more competitive players have the resources and experience to use these flawed rules in the period before they get stamped out, like how the Deathwatch combo was quickly squashed. I find it hard to believe there were many casual players getting hopelessly wrecked by black space marines in that 48 hour period.
It's fair to assume that the vast majority of casual players either haven't played 10th yet (it is actually released tomorrow), or have only played smaller practice games. Rumour has it there's a major balance update imminent, so it's possible those people never even experience the cause of all this drama.
I'm also arguing that OP stuff doesn't matter nearly as much as UP stuff, but people's fantasies about getting robbed on the top table because a Wraithknight did 72 mortal wounds thanks to fate dice, is a lot cooler to think about (and easier to get outraged over) than your day to day gaming group ending most games with 'yeah, sorry man...they really need to buff Deathguard.'
ERJAK wrote: I'm also arguing that OP stuff doesn't matter nearly as much as UP stuff, but people's fantasies about getting robbed on the top table because a Wraithknight did 72 mortal wounds thanks to fate dice, is a lot cooler to think about (and easier to get outraged over) than your day to day gaming group ending most games with 'yeah, sorry man...they really need to buff Deathguard.'
some people might think so but others are totally fine with that:
Sarouan wrote: The narrative players just have a different view on balance, simply because they don't play the game while looking only with optimized lists in a vaccuum or even perfectly symetric battles. They do choose their lists to build a narrative, and thus "restraint themselves" by not taking units that do not fit it, optimized or not.
For example, if a battle is underground and vehicles don't fit the narrative of the game to play, lists can be build with infantry type only. Suddenly an eldar army list without bikes or vehicles do not feel the same in game.
Narrative players do understand that balance without real context is meaningless. There is no problem when players stop taking into account building the best list ever as if itself was the endgame. It's not.
Would it kill them to alphabetize these download lists?
"Points for these units will are available in the Munitorum Field Manual 2023 Mk I"
On the highlighted text, someone must have changed how they were going to originally release the points. Also sounds like we won't get the points for these units for free like all the other units in the game?
<EDIT> Ah, I see it's in the already online points manual. Wonder why they didn't link to it?
Would it kill them to alphabetize these download lists?
"Points for these units will are available in the Munitorum Field Manual 2023 Mk I"
On the highlighted text, someone must have changed how they were going to originally release the points. Also sounds like we won't get the points for these units for free like all the other units in the game?
The free download has the Imperial Armour points in it. It's Ver 1.1 now.
A D6+3 Heavy Flamer with +1 AP and Damage for 285 pts (Malcador Infernus) might actually be the most overpriced thing I've ever seen in an official GW datasheet...
MinscS2 wrote: A D6+3 Heavy Flamer with +1 AP and Damage for 285 pts (Malcador Infernus) might actually be the most overpriced thing I've ever seen in an official GW datasheet...
Are you surprised? It checks all bases:
It's fw It's a malcador.
It's a Flame tank.
There wasn't one edition it was ever good, or passable even
Tantalus seems good. I own one and I'm glad that I can keep fielding it as the centrepiece of my raiding forces without hindering myself. Gotta stuff some Incubi and Drazhar inside.
I particularly like the upgraded pulse disintegrators
Zachectomy wrote: Videogame industry level quality control. When did releasing first draft level products become the new normal? How hard is it for a multi-million dollar company to hire an editor?
as I have learned today on this forum:
GW is a miniature company and not a card printing company and for sure not a gaming company you should not expect what you would expect from a card printing company or a gaming company
they don't have enough people to proof read and it is not their job to hier people doing it
/s
Oh pipe down, there's a long gap between that hyperbole and not understanding software design at a business level.
They should have proof read more and hire more editors, but they're not multi-millon by aimlessly lobbing money at stuff, thus expect them to continue being tight arsed and working on minimal staff.
Today I learned that releasing reasonably complete and polished products by having basic quality control is "aimlessly lobbing money at stuff". Brilliant
Not sure about Mechanicus, but everything Heretic Astartes has been relegated to Legends. Absolutely hilarious, considering that we've had Dreadclaws since 2002, and all of the "Legended" daemon engines have always been 40k units. I'll provide more salt once I get a day off, but for now:
What. A. Joke. Especially since Loyalist Scum kept the Astreus, Thunderhawks, and codex access to Contemptors.
Did the colossus ever even have a model? I remember the bombard did, but I think the colossus just appeared in a Guard codex at some point, but was never released.
keep in mind they brought in "twin linked" initially to stop weapons getting too many shots, many many years back - also when you could only fire one gun but had two it gave a benefit within the rules of the day
then GW being GW, gave twin linked to just about anything any Imperial (and many other) vehicles had, and thus the era of "can re-roll misses" was born, because more dice is more better right?
yes it made no sense how strapping two HMG together made one of them more accurate without the chance for both to ever hit but never mind, ignore the bloke behind the curtain and run with it
then came 8th when if it was twin linked it now got the full rate of fire, with other ways to re-roll to hit as well, which would have been fine if GW hadn't spent a decade doubling up weapons on anything and everything.. hence idiocy like the Custards jet bike having more guns than an entire Panzer division could dream of
to be honest I used to want to fire with every barrel, but then I got my wish, and I'm not sad to see it go back to what it was to be honest
Trickstick wrote: Did the colossus ever even have a model? I remember the bombard did, but I think the colossus just appeared in a Guard codex at some point, but was never released.
Then they merged the two into the "Colossus Bombard".
And now the Colossus has the weapon profile of the Griffon. Cool.
Trickstick wrote: Did the colossus ever even have a model? I remember the bombard did, but I think the colossus just appeared in a Guard codex at some point, but was never released.
Then they merged the two into the "Colossus Bombard".
And now the Colossus has the weapon profile of the Griffon. Cool.
Kind of flies in the face of "no model no rules".
Also it doesn't have indirect, but has the anti + devastating combo.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It went on the Russ chassis rather than the Chimera one. It's the reason I technically own 31 Russes, rather than exactly 3 Armoured Companies.
Trickstick wrote: Also it doesn't have indirect, but has the anti + devastating combo.
*comical double-take*
What the...???
The Colossus Siege Bombard doesn't have indirect fire???
ahh that would be it, I remember the old Epic scale model
leopard wrote: sure I can remember a FW Colossus model, weird looking thing with its own chassis instead of the Chimera hulled bombard or the Griffon
The FW Colossus has a Leman Russ hull.
The Colossus Siege Bombard doesn't have indirect fire???
You facepalm, but IRL bombards are not indirect fire weapons either. Bombards are wall breakers used to create a breach for attacking troops. Dunno how much this statline fits that. And back when it was introduced during 5th edition, the Colossus did have a Griffon-like profile, its selling point over the Heavy Mortar was 1 better AP and Ignores Cover.
Is the terrax drill not a mechanicus forgeworld unit? It looks like I have lost it for my chaos marines but it is there for mechanicus. Just wanna know the points.
Also for the legends stuff from the other day. Where are those points to be found?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the other other hand, we’ve got digital ones, why worry about the print ones - especially given we know each set will be defunct as their Codex rolls out.
My army codex isn't due out for over a year. And since scrolling through the digital takes FOREVER (surely, the pages are sloooow to load) and printing is a hassle, I still intend on getting the physical cards to use.
I can also use a sharpie on the cards if something changes
-
If the PDFs are 1:1 scale you can print out any updated cards and cut out the just area that's changed to stick on the physical cards
Still a hassle because I don't own a printer. So I'd have to go to the library or kinko's and possibly pay twice if they print wrong the first time.
I'm willing to pay $20 for the card sets to avoid that hassle just to save $5
-
I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying if you buy the physical cards, you can print out any updates from the free PDFs and stick them over the top - no need to use a sharpie. Obviously if you don't have access to a printer that's not going to work for you, but that's my plan
Is the terrax drill not a mechanicus forgeworld unit? It looks like I have lost it for my chaos marines but it is there for mechanicus. Just wanna know the points.
Also for the legends stuff from the other day. Where are those points to be found?
Yeah I used to love sticking some CSM inside the drill transport, shame it disappeared.
Have to say that GW did make the preorder window wide enough that some stores in the UK still have it for preorder even one day before release.
Personally this tells me that enough units were made for this area. Not sure about the rest of the world.
If you are in the UK this box is still available to buy so yeah not much to say and I give credit where credit is due.
I am sorry if the answer is obvious, but are their points for the legends models? I want to use my Leviathan dreadnought, but can't find points anywhere
xeen wrote: I am sorry if the answer is obvious, but are their points for the legends models? I want to use my Leviathan dreadnought, but can't find points anywhere
So far they have not been provided. We're missing: Legends Datasheet, FW Datasheets for the stuff that is not in the Munitorium Manual, Points for HH Legends.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: So... time to shut this one down since rules and datasheets have been released?
Any objections?
Fine by me; i'll open up a new thread for the Tyranid/SM-related stuff shortly (probably on Sunday), this one has run its course after 10k replies, close to 900k views and 160 edits to the OP.
Thanks to everyone that contributed, especially dudeface, xttz and matrindur, and to all that made this crazy journey with us.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: So... time to shut this one down since rules and datasheets have been released?
Any objections?
Fine by me; i'll open up a new thread for the Tyranid/SM-related stuff shortly (probably on Sunday), this one has run its course after 10k replies, close to 900k views and 160 edits to the OP.
Thanks to everyone that contributed, especially dudeface, xttz and matrindur, and to all that made this crazy journey with us.
All credit and virtual beers to you, it was a sterling job you've done.
