I thought GW were aiming to reduce to the lethality and amount of games decided in the first few turns?

So many reports I’m seeing coming on from tournaments and friendly games is that games are still being decided on turn 2 or 3, and certain armies feel way more ‘lethal’ than before.

Wasn’t the intention to cut down on the mass reroll spam, yet it seems like only some Codexes got the memo (surprise surprise Space Marines still reroll by the bucketload).

All point system issues aside, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed by the early feedback coming from the edition. I was hoping for a return of games that go the full 5 turns rather than people mutually agreeing to call it after just 3.

For some armies the damage efficiency went WAY down. While others stayed more or less the same or got slightly nerfed, but got a lot cheaper.

Play vs DG and you are going to have 5 full turns of playing. If you start vs knights, and the building have windows, the game could be over turn 1, if they start. In general same old w40k, as we had before.

this was marketing speech and advertising, we don't know if it ever was a design goal and we also don't know how strictly this was enforced during design process if it was a goal

but like Bill Gates advertising that the new Internet Explorer will be faster and better than the last one

*record zip*

Question your sources.

People online lie. Some make disliking a game their entire personality because reasons and will absolutely lie for reasons best known entirely to themself.

Cite your sources. Link them if at all possible.

Because whilst I challenge the claim, I myself have no such links or citations to counter. But….I’m not the one making the claim, am I?

GW aren't competent enough to make a game play the way they intend it to.

they may have made "things" less dangerous, but then they took away upgrade costs so you have more "things" overall

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
*record zip*

Question your sources.

People online lie. Some make disliking a game their entire personality because reasons and will absolutely lie for reasons best known entirely to themself.

Cite your sources. Link them if at all possible.

Because whilst I challenge the claim, I myself have no such links or citations to counter. But….I’m not the one making the claim, am I?

Warhammer 40k Studio Manager Stuart Black, when interviewed by Wargamer, that only they were concious that 9th ed was very leathal , like GW representatives said that every sesonal patch too, but that the decision to lower the damage potential of armies in 10th was based on GW wanting to give space for more different ways to play the game.

here is what mr Black had to said about their desing choices in 9th and 10th, in the interview.

“A lethal game rewards certain play styles, strategies or techniques. For example, a key part of previous editions was the concept of trading – a unit moves onto an objective to score it, then the opponent kills it and takes the objective with a unit that then dies, and so on back and forth.”

“There is nothing wrong with this dynamic, but I think it is better if there are other ways to play. It is also more fun if your models get to be on the table for longer!”

That is one example. On the pre release patches and other GW materials the focus on "less deadly" was put focus on too. Now I am not saying people should trust GW, but I can imagine that if someone hears the company say something they could expect it to happen. They just weren't ready for the caviat not mentioned, by anyone at GW. That they plan to do the change to only some armies.

How much mech are people taking? The rules seem to have really shifted towards mech now.

 Trickstick wrote:
How much mech are people taking? The rules seem to have really shifted towards mech now.

Other than whatever adjustments I need to make pts wise, I'm not changing my forces/play styles.
So pretty much the same as before.
●My SWs will remain a drop pod based force with Landspeeder support,
●My Grot force will still be Grot Tanks, Mega-Tanks, Kanz, MkGunz, etc (all the grot vehicle stuff + trucks & a Wazbomb)
●my DA will continue to be rhino/Razorback/dread supported 1st born. Sometimes with a Predator or Whirlwind.
●my Necrons - well really whatever I'm in the mood to play with that day.
●my Knights.....
Etc etc etc.

Other people? (Shrugs)

What I've never done is foolishly expected to see few if any vehicles & thus leave my AT at home.

How many of these games are Marines, Eldar, Knights or TS?

If you have a game between two of weaker factions, separated by a bunch of LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins, then stuff generally isn't dying immediately. Or at least not unless you just sprint them into each other, so every unit is shooting/charging turn 2.

Tyel wrote:
...separated by a bunch of LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins...

Or even some hills or sealed buildings. L-shaped ruins everywhere are so boring, terrain needs some variety.

Wouldn’t surprise me if critical hit mechanics are a major source of blame.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW aren't competent enough to make a game play the way they intend it to.

GW don't even play the game the way its written.

Tyel wrote:
How many of these games are Marines, Eldar, Knights or TS?

If you have a game between two of weaker factions, separated by a bunch of LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins, then stuff generally isn't dying immediately. Or at least not unless you just sprint them into each other, so every unit is shooting/charging turn 2.

Now eldar, knights and especialy 1ksons aren't the most popular armies in the world, but if in order to have a chance to play with a lower then mid tier army is to not play against marines, then we have a problem. And the new players have a gigantic problem, especialy at the start of an edition.

 Trickstick wrote:
L-shaped ruins everywhere are so boring, terrain needs some variety.

And less symmetry.

The immediate thing that stuck out to me looking at 10e rules and convinced me that touching it wouldn't be worth the bother was noticing all of the focus on critical damages now. Not only do you have your usual source of mortal wounds, but now even basic infantry gets in on the action such as with Marine terminators or the ilk. They also did not seem to reduce dice volume at all, so yeah no gak this wargame is still a mess of lethality.

All local games have been definitely much less lethal overall.

Our eldar players are doing similar if not more damage BUT that is a hell of a outlier. Marines aswell can do crazy stuff but its mostly vs the OoM target.


I do agree GW have lowered lethality in general, what doesn't help is players already (without main mission packs out for scoring asap) just looking at the highest damage combos and proclaiming the sky is falling.

 Trickstick wrote:
How much mech are people taking? The rules seem to have really shifted towards mech now.

That's more likely to be a faction-by-faction basis. Obviously Knights won't be taking any more mech. But I could easily see Sisters taking more to a lot more. Same with Custodes - the only multi-use weapons they have higher than S9 on a non-character are the Landraiders and Contemptor fists. GSC have more options than that, so it'd depend on what you mean by Mech vs Mining Laser bikes, and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:
The immediate thing that stuck out to me looking at 10e rules and convinced me that touching it wouldn't be worth the bother was noticing all of the focus on critical damages now. Not only do you have your usual source of mortal wounds, but now even basic infantry gets in on the action such as with Marine terminators or the ilk. They also did not seem to reduce dice volume at all, so yeah no gak this wargame is still a mess of lethality.

What usual source of mortals are you referring to? I thought the usual source was psychics, and they're mostly gone now - most of the mortals I see are from 10e's version of Rending or 10e's version of Impact hits.

This is an honest question, different people think differently, so I'm curious what you thought was the source of Mortals previous that I could have missed.

Breton wrote:

What usual source of mortals are you referring to? I thought the usual source was psychics, and they're mostly gone now - most of the mortals I see are from 10e's version of Rending or 10e's version of Impact hits.

This is an honest question, different people think differently, so I'm curious what you thought was the source of Mortals previous that I could have missed.

Devastating wounds. Especially combined with anti-X is what he's most likely refering. There are some dirty combo's for that. But so far seems there's 2 major outliers.

Eldar. They got high damage devastating wound weapons and ability to quarantee them. 1 per turn bare minimum and that's with lousy dice roll. It won't last forever but 2 turns to delete 2 big targets is far from unexpected. And pretty darn cheap platform.

Thousand son. Not many targets they can't just auto-delete. 10 terminators can with just their bolters average 17 damage to T12 target without invulnerable save. Sure that eats lots of regenerative resources and at least requires dice rolling so there's chance of failure there. Add to that guy that will be insanely hard if you don't have right tools(MW spam being primary one, other is spamming -2 dam1 or 3 shots. Any attempt to take it down with stuff like lascannons, dark lances, rail guns, gladiator lancers etc is exercise in futility...Consider that 2 rail cannons literally cannot harm him without rolling 6 to wound if he so chooses...)

3rd one is marines who excel at deleting single targets so if opponent relies on 1-2 key units he can get crippled hard and fast.

If units are being deleted by the one turn firepower of another unit the game is too lethal for me (barring edge cases)

I can now take the following in a 1,000pts Tyfanid force:

Old One Eye,
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Brainleech Devoureres
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons.
1 Carnifex 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons
Tyrannofex Acid Spray

I think that is quite durable, lowest Toughness is 9. Feels a bit cheeky, but the new way to make forces really opens up what players can do.


Mortal wounds seem to be where a lot of the lethality lies. I think Drukhari can do an awful lot of damage to vehicles with their Haywire blasters, each can do 6 mortal wounds maximum, stick 4 of them in a unit of Scourges and that is potential for 24 mortal wounds against vehicles. Not even Knights can stand up to that level of punishment.

Tyel wrote:
How many of these games are Marines, Eldar, Knights or TS?

If you have a game between two of weaker factions, separated by a bunch of LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins, then stuff generally isn't dying immediately. Or at least not unless you just sprint them into each other, so every unit is shooting/charging turn 2.

Yea of the games I've played some can be tough to manage all the stuff on the table and others are very quick.

GW did all the work to make it less lethal, but some of these armies wind up being a bit nutty with the extra rules. Thousand Sons end up being combo-wombo. Towering makes it hard to hide from the big guns. Eldar have their BS and Marines have their rerolls. If you cut those factions the game would probably play as intended and the sentiments of things being "weak" would actually be baseline.

 stonehorse wrote:
I can now take the following in a 1,000pts Tyfanid force:

Old One Eye,
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Brainleech Devoureres
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons.
1 Carnifex 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons
Tyrannofex Acid Spray

I think that is quite durable, lowest Toughness is 9. Feels a bit cheeky, but the new way to make forces really opens up what players can do.


Mortal wounds seem to be where a lot of the lethality lies. I think Drukhari can do an awful lot of damage to vehicles with their Haywire blasters, each can do 6 mortal wounds maximum, stick 4 of them in a unit of Scourges and that is potential for 24 mortal wounds against vehicles. Not even Knights can stand up to that level of punishment.

It is fun to create new and different themes of lists - and that does look like a fun one. Best of all it's still got it's drawbacks too. Your highest OC is likely to be 9 - and then only if you attach Old One Eye to a 2 model Carnifex Brood your total OC is 23 - and strangely for all those Big Bugs, you'll run into some difficulty vs T12 - only Old One Eye has a weapon profile with a S over 9. Conversely Blistering Assault will get OOE racing around the table tout de suite. And you'll absolutely eviscerate MEQ/TEQ..

Breton wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I can now take the following in a 1,000pts Tyfanid force:

Old One Eye,
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Brainleech Devoureres
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons.
1 Carnifex 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons
Tyrannofex Acid Spray

I think that is quite durable, lowest Toughness is 9. Feels a bit cheeky, but the new way to make forces really opens up what players can do.


Mortal wounds seem to be where a lot of the lethality lies. I think Drukhari can do an awful lot of damage to vehicles with their Haywire blasters, each can do 6 mortal wounds maximum, stick 4 of them in a unit of Scourges and that is potential for 24 mortal wounds against vehicles. Not even Knights can stand up to that level of punishment.

It is fun to create new and different themes of lists - and that does look like a fun one. Best of all it's still got it's drawbacks too. Your highest OC is likely to be 9 - and then only if you attach Old One Eye to a 2 model Carnifex Brood your total OC is 23 - and strangely for all those Big Bugs, you'll run into some difficulty vs T12 - only Old One Eye has a weapon profile with a S over 9. Conversely Blistering Assault will get OOE racing around the table tout de suite. And you'll absolutely eviscerate MEQ/TEQ..

That and I think it has no Synapse, so will be at the mercy of Battleshock.

It isn't a list that is going to fare well against a more experienced player, but against someone who doesn't know what to do and panics when they see so many big Nids it may get a chance to win.

Just realised, I have 35 points spare, so can add in a brood of Rippers, who's job will be to sit back and camp on objectives.

 stonehorse wrote:

Breton wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I can now take the following in a 1,000pts Tyfanid force:

Old One Eye,
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Brainleech Devoureres
2 Carnifexes 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons.
1 Carnifex 2 sets of Monstrous Scything Talons
Tyrannofex Acid Spray

I think that is quite durable, lowest Toughness is 9. Feels a bit cheeky, but the new way to make forces really opens up what players can do.


Mortal wounds seem to be where a lot of the lethality lies. I think Drukhari can do an awful lot of damage to vehicles with their Haywire blasters, each can do 6 mortal wounds maximum, stick 4 of them in a unit of Scourges and that is potential for 24 mortal wounds against vehicles. Not even Knights can stand up to that level of punishment.

It is fun to create new and different themes of lists - and that does look like a fun one. Best of all it's still got it's drawbacks too. Your highest OC is likely to be 9 - and then only if you attach Old One Eye to a 2 model Carnifex Brood your total OC is 23 - and strangely for all those Big Bugs, you'll run into some difficulty vs T12 - only Old One Eye has a weapon profile with a S over 9. Conversely Blistering Assault will get OOE racing around the table tout de suite. And you'll absolutely eviscerate MEQ/TEQ..

That and I think it has no Synapse, so will be at the mercy of Battleshock.

It isn't a list that is going to fare well against a more experienced player, but against someone who doesn't know what to do and panics when they see so many big Nids it may get a chance to win.

Just realised, I have 35 points spare, so can add in a brood of Rippers, who's job will be to sit back and camp on objectives.

Oh, I get it, Synapse the KEYWORD across the bottom is what gives Synapse, not Synapse the Faction ability? That seems wrong. Especially since Shadow in the Warp works the way we're used to seeing - the ability is listed as an ability. I even thought to check that, but I saw SYNAPSE as a Faction ability, and thought that meant Carnifex and OOE were synapse creatures now. Even as I'm looking at it, it still feels like I'm reading it wrong, and the Faction Ability Synapse is what puts you in Synapse range. They should have named it something different like Hive Mind - if you have the Hive Mind Faction ability, and are near a Synapse keyword model yadda yadda.

There are several issues with why the new edition is just as lethal and, in some cases, more lethal.

I think the most egregious is; no meaningful army composition restrictions.

I believe what we have currently is the 10th edition sandbox. Bring whatever you want. Play whatever you want. The honeymoon will come to an end. At which point, I firmly believe we will see 'required' books for Organized Play / GT play.

 oni wrote:

I think the most egregious is; no meaningful army composition restrictions.
I believe what we have currently is the 10th edition sandbox. Bring whatever you want. Play whatever you want. The honeymoon will come to an end. At which point, I firmly believe we will see 'required' books for Organized Play / GT play.

There are some. Mostly centered around the Character Can Join Units X, Y, and Z. Some based on the new S/T stat range, a little based on the way OC works now. On the flip side of your point - without the FOC list forcing "balanced" lists caveat emptor is fully in play. Someone pointed out they could fit 7 Big bugs in a 1000 point Nid list(Old One Eye, 5 Carnifex, and a Tyrranofex I think which probably ended up being 4 Units). But they had almost nothing S10 or above, 23 or so OC in the entire army, and no synpase for passing battleshock. It might be a good list, it might not be - but even if it is a good list, its got some pretty big holes to cover. It's easy to see the temptation of 10 Smash Captain lists, but I doubt they'd play well as they wouldn't get Lone Operative/LookOut Sir without units which would make 10 smash captains too expensive. I just made a list that would have even satisfied the old Detachment/FOC system - 6 characters would have been 4HQ, 1 LOW, 1 Elite, it would have had 3 Troops, 2 more elite, and a HS. Its got more than 50 bodies plus characters. Its just a rough draft - I need to replace at least the Eradicators with something more Anti-Tank. Maybe the BGV with something more Anti-TEQ/GravisEQ. There are more threat ranges and stat bands to account for now. I suspect most skew lists have much more risk involved in them now. I'd guess the "safest" skew right now is Green Tide or Little Bugs, but they still have to account for all those stat bands lest they have to spend all day beating on a T12 2+ vehicle/monster.

nemesis464 wrote:

All point system issues aside, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed by the early feedback coming from the edition. I was hoping for a return of games that go the full 5 turns rather than people mutually agreeing to call it after just 3.

Same here, I was really enjoying all the promises marketing was making on WarCom when they announced the edition. Too bad they underdelivered

Seems to me that *most* stuff is less lethal, but there's a couple outliers.

I think it's likely we'll be seeing some nerfing of a few units or abilities pretty soon.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

All point system issues aside, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed by the early feedback coming from the edition. I was hoping for a return of games that go the full 5 turns rather than people mutually agreeing to call it after just 3.

Same here, I was really enjoying all the promises marketing was making on WarCom when they announced the edition. Too bad they underdelivered

I wouldn't say wait for the codexes, but I would say wait for things to settle down. Right now its the wild wild west out there. People are going to be tempted into bad lists because there's no FOC system. Even the ones that don't may have not adjusted to the new breaking points on the Stat bands. After several years of dumping Heavy Bolters and Grav cannons into T5 W3 Aggressors T6 W3 Aggressors are going to be a change up, same with 4++ regular terminators combined with lowered AP on a lot of weapons. Used to be you could smack them around with some Plasma and get them on a 5+/5++ either way. And all that is before you add on a new statband in the T11-12 range for the heavy vehicles and such. Its going to take a while for the Take-All-Comers lists to figure out how many of each threat range weapons they need for a balanced list.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
How many of these games are Marines, Eldar, Knights or TS?

If you have a game between two of weaker factions, separated by a bunch of LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins, then stuff generally isn't dying immediately. Or at least not unless you just sprint them into each other, so every unit is shooting/charging turn 2.

Yea of the games I've played some can be tough to manage all the stuff on the table and others are very quick.

GW did all the work to make it less lethal, but some of these armies wind up being a bit nutty with the extra rules. Thousand Sons end up being combo-wombo. Towering makes it hard to hide from the big guns. Eldar have their BS and Marines have their rerolls. If you cut those factions the game would probably play as intended and the sentiments of things being "weak" would actually be baseline.

tbh - even outside the outlier factions of marines knights and eldar, I'm seeing a whole hell of a lot of super crazy fast game wrapups. I just watched a friends tau vs black templars game where the templars folded completely in two turns.

 oni wrote:
There are several issues with why the new edition is just as lethal and, in some cases, more lethal.

I think the most egregious is; no meaningful army composition restrictions.

I believe what we have currently is the 10th edition sandbox. Bring whatever you want. Play whatever you want. The honeymoon will come to an end. At which point, I firmly believe we will see 'required' books for Organized Play / GT play.

Between the rule of 3 and character restrictions, this is the one thing the edition DOESN'T seem to be having a problem with.

It's hard to tell, but I honestly think we might be one decent balance patch out from a pretty good edition.

Current Problems.

1. Eldar.
2. Imperial Knights.
3. Indirect (specifically Eldar and Desolation Squads).
4. Towering as written.
5. Points Fixes.
6. Targeted fixes for the bottom 4 armies (Deathguard, Admech, Votann, Sisters).

I would say we can't really even judge 10th as anything other than 'incomplete' until they do at least the first 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
How many of these games are Marines, Eldar, Knights or TS?

If you have a game between two of weaker factions, separated by a bunch of LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins, then stuff generally isn't dying immediately. Or at least not unless you just sprint them into each other, so every unit is shooting/charging turn 2.

Yea of the games I've played some can be tough to manage all the stuff on the table and others are very quick.

GW did all the work to make it less lethal, but some of these armies wind up being a bit nutty with the extra rules. Thousand Sons end up being combo-wombo. Towering makes it hard to hide from the big guns. Eldar have their BS and Marines have their rerolls. If you cut those factions the game would probably play as intended and the sentiments of things being "weak" would actually be baseline.

tbh - even outside the outlier factions of marines knights and eldar, I'm seeing a whole hell of a lot of super crazy fast game wrapups. I just watched a friends tau vs black templars game where the templars folded completely in two turns.

Those types of experiences are anecdotal and say more about the people involved than the armies. I turn 2 tabled a Space Marine player in 7th edition as Sisters using the digital codex once, extrapolating that out would have been silly.

nemesis464 wrote:
I thought GW were aiming to reduce to the lethality and amount of games decided in the first few turns?

So many reports I’m seeing coming on from tournaments and friendly games is that games are still being decided on turn 2 or 3, and certain armies feel way more ‘lethal’ than before.

Wasn’t the intention to cut down on the mass reroll spam, yet it seems like only some Codexes got the memo (surprise surprise Space Marines still reroll by the bucketload).

All point system issues aside, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed by the early feedback coming from the edition. I was hoping for a return of games that go the full 5 turns rather than people mutually agreeing to call it after just 3.

So you’re telling me that tournaments players immediately broke an un-FAQ’d, just released edition?

Say it ain’t so.

We just had a weekend of games and all went the distance bar one, which could have gone to Gambits but we shook on after some great shooting from two of my units.your local meta is not the tournament circuit.

If only there was some way of iterating on what came before in a spiral process to improve the design of a living product, instead of burning it all to the ground and restarting.

If only.

wasn't the reason to burn it down that it was impossible to fix and therefore much better to start from zero were everything is on the same level

well, that people are not happy with a half finished version of the game and all the promises being empty advertising from "nu GW"

would not have been a problem of GW announced it to be a public beta, with all free rules to test stuff and than get it printed
or if 9th would last a year longer so GW can fix things and get over the backlog from the pandemic

no real reason to do it like that if the product is not ready

As I've been saying since 10th was first previewed (and likely long before), GW doesn't do the whole "iterative" thing. They swing the pendulum, and throw out entire mechanics and systems to create new mechanics and systems rather than fixing what's broken.

To once again quote The Lost World:

John Hammond - Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again.
Ian Malcolm - No, you're making all new ones.

 kodos wrote:
wasn't the reason to burn it down that it was impossible to fix and therefore much better to start from zero were everything is on the same level

Nope.
Might have been the BS they fed to the gullible.
Might have been the reason people hoped for.
But it wasn't the actual reason.

A new edition means everyone re-buys books, adds models (making some units nu-legal, optimal, or replacing things with new hottness).
And now you all need a deck of cards as well.
Oh, and they're hoping to sell you packs of unit cards too.

"There is a season,
Chun, churn churn,
There is a rea$on,
Churn, churn, churn"

Edit:
"and a time for every purchase,
Under heaven"

Tell me how old you are without telling me how old you are.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tell me how old you are without telling me how old you are.

Haha. That one's definitely before my time, but it's from my parents rotation . . . So I guess that'll still ballpark me.

Although I also have an oddly distinct memory of reading it as a passage in an Anne McCaffery novel in gradeschool. Memory is weird.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As I've been saying since 10th was first previewed (and likely long before), GW doesn't do the whole "iterative" thing. They swing the pendulum, and throw out entire mechanics and systems to create new mechanics and systems rather than fixing what's broken.

To once again quote The Lost World:

John Hammond - Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again.
Ian Malcolm - No, you're making all new ones.

What are you referring to here with 10th?

 vict0988 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As I've been saying since 10th was first previewed (and likely long before), GW doesn't do the whole "iterative" thing. They swing the pendulum, and throw out entire mechanics and systems to create new mechanics and systems rather than fixing what's broken.

To once again quote The Lost World:

John Hammond - Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again.
Ian Malcolm - No, you're making all new ones.

What are you referring to here with 10th?

It will take a while for all the new problems to be known, but there are likely many. The weird keyword inheritance strikes me as a clumsy issue that could cause problems later. However, I actually think the problem is they largely are making the same mistakes again.

Indirect fire would be a good example. It was a major problem in 9th and GW fixed it by making shooting out of LoS much less effective. Those rules have carried over into 10th but there are loads of indirect fire weapons that ignore them thanks to their weapon type and/or special rules - Desolation Squads being a prime example. Ironically they were one of the busted units in 9th that precipitated the change. Or Fate dice, which are causing the exact same problem as Votann Judgement Tokens before GW fixed them.

It all points to a design team who are too reactive. They can make fixes, but it feels like they don't really know why they're fixing things or why they're broken.

Slipspace wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As I've been saying since 10th was first previewed (and likely long before), GW doesn't do the whole "iterative" thing. They swing the pendulum, and throw out entire mechanics and systems to create new mechanics and systems rather than fixing what's broken.

To once again quote The Lost World:

John Hammond - Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again.
Ian Malcolm - No, you're making all new ones.

What are you referring to here with 10th?

It will take a while for all the new problems to be known, but there are likely many. The weird keyword inheritance strikes me as a clumsy issue that could cause problems later. However, I actually think the problem is they largely are making the same mistakes again.

Indirect fire would be a good example. It was a major problem in 9th and GW fixed it by making shooting out of LoS much less effective. Those rules have carried over into 10th but there are loads of indirect fire weapons that ignore them thanks to their weapon type and/or special rules - Desolation Squads being a prime example. Ironically they were one of the busted units in 9th that precipitated the change. Or Fate dice, which are causing the exact same problem as Votann Judgement Tokens before GW fixed them.

It all points to a design team who are too reactive. They can make fixes, but it feels like they don't really know why they're fixing things or why they're broken.

Eldar fate dice are just painfully stupid, as they're literally the Votann mistake repeated, like you said. Desolation Squads are broken due to a confluence of factors, if they did not have [Blast] it would be half as bad, but it turns out that in the 'fishing for 6s' edition hitting on a 6 is not so bad anyway, especially if your whole unit can get +2-4 extra shots per dude easily when shooting at mobs. Combine that with faction-related re-rolls out of the whazoo and the sheer weight of dicebuckets you're throwing becomes both dangerous and annoying.

Lethality was reduced...for a very specific set of mid range strength weapons. Basically anything from ST6 to 9 unless that weapon was afflicted with keyword soup to begin with. The things they needed to kill got tougher, but most of those weapons didn't get better to match.

What did git better where the weapons at the highest and lowest ends. Lower end weapons just can get lucky or pair with re-rolls and keywords. Higher end weapons(las cannon or better equivalents) got boosted to mostly keep pace with the new toughness scale.

This is not a terrible split, but if your army was built around krak missile and autocannon equivalents, you are going to struggle.

Also, for some reason, many units can just upgrade to lascanons for free now.

The best armies right now are ones that can mitigate the changes to the toughness scale.

Its like most triple AAA computer games -

If you don't want to hugely disapointed -

* Don't pre-order...
* Don't buy when launched
* Wait for the patches a few months after launch and see if they bothered to fix anything after the community has actually playtested the game

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Lethality was reduced...for a very specific set of mid range strength weapons. Basically anything from ST6 to 9 unless that weapon was afflicted with keyword soup to begin with. The things they needed to kill got tougher, but most of those weapons didn't get better to match.

What did git better where the weapons at the highest and lowest ends. Lower end weapons just can get lucky or pair with re-rolls and keywords. Higher end weapons(las cannon or better equivalents) got boosted to mostly keep pace with the new toughness scale.

This is not a terrible split, but if your army was built around krak missile and autocannon equivalents, you are going to struggle.

Also, for some reason, many units can just upgrade to lascanons for free now.

The best armies right now are ones that can mitigate the changes to the toughness scale.

It's the exception to the rule for weapons got better.

The Wraithknight Cannon went from :

Blast D3 S16 AP4 D3+6 6s to wound add D3 MW

to :

Blast D3 S20 AP4 2D6 Devastating Wounds

Previously it wounded everything in the game on 2s to 3s on bigger stuff. It also went from average of 8.33 damage to 7. ( The WK also had some other nerfs )

The problem is that Blast is way better so the average number of shots goes up. If you consider how much more like you are to get a bonus in 10th it goes up even more. And while 2D6 is a smaller average it has a bigger top end. When you get to convert ALL of that to MW it becomes a problem beyond the simple D3.

One reason people avoided using it in 9th is that it can bounce off an invulnerable so DW was their way of solving that problem, however, it makes it so the weapon becomes a swiss army knife. Couple this with not being able to hide from Towering and toss in Fate Dice and you have a monster.

Beyond that there's some combo wombo stuff that pushes other weapons ( mostly ones with DW ) to the front.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its like most triple AAA computer games -

If you don't want to hugely disapointed -

* Don't pre-order...
* Don't buy when launched
* Wait for the patches a few months after launch and see if they bothered to fix anything after the community has actually playtested the game

Or you say feth it and just don't buy the game. Why would I pay for the privilege of doin GWs work for them....

Rules are transitive
Models are forever

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It's the exception to the rule for weapons got better.

The Wraithknight Cannon went from :

Blast D3 S16 AP4 D3+6 6s to wound add D3 MW

to :

Blast D3 S20 AP4 2D6 Devastating Wounds

Previously it wounded everything in the game on 2s to 3s on bigger stuff. It also went from average of 8.33 damage to 7. ( The WK also had some other nerfs )

The problem is that Blast is way better so the average number of shots goes up. If you consider how much more like you are to get a bonus in 10th it goes up even more. And while 2D6 is a smaller average it has a bigger top end. When you get to convert ALL of that to MW it becomes a problem beyond the simple D3.

One reason people avoided using it in 9th is that it can bounce off an invulnerable so DW was their way of solving that problem, however, it makes it so the weapon becomes a swiss army knife. Couple this with not being able to hide from Towering and toss in Fate Dice and you have a monster.

Beyond that there's some combo wombo stuff that pushes other weapons ( mostly ones with DW ) to the front.

I think that tracks. Things ahead of the curve stayed ahead of the curve for the most part. Things on the curve fell behind.

The Wraith Cannon is overly egregious because I don't think GW accurately costed the benefit of faction and army rules into their units.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
The Wraith Cannon is overly egregious because I don't think GW accurately costed the benefit of faction and army rules into their units.

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out, but not testing these interactions made them fall on their face. Beyond that most of the points seem ok if you ignore the externalities. And that's probably where we'll see future power creep, because making these detachments interesting while not upsetting unit values is going to be really hard.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out,

Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones.

They definitely should be priced in.

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out,

Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones.

They definitely should be priced in.

But you can't, because then you'd need separate point costs for each detachment. Which...is possible with these kinds of points, but man it'd make analysis a nightmare.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out,

Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones.

They definitely should be priced in.

But you can't, because then you'd need separate point costs for each detachment. Which...is possible with these kinds of points, but man it'd make analysis a nightmare.

...
What part of "Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones." did you not understand?

Space Marines always have Oath regardless of detachment. Eldar and TS will always have Fate Dice and Cabal Point respectively regardless of detachment.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As I've been saying since 10th was first previewed (and likely long before), GW doesn't do the whole "iterative" thing. They swing the pendulum, and throw out entire mechanics and systems to create new mechanics and systems rather than fixing what's broken.

To once again quote The Lost World:

John Hammond - Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again.
Ian Malcolm - No, you're making all new ones.

What are you referring to here with 10th?

It will take a while for all the new problems to be known, but there are likely many. The weird keyword inheritance strikes me as a clumsy issue that could cause problems later. However, I actually think the problem is they largely are making the same mistakes again.

Indirect fire would be a good example. It was a major problem in 9th and GW fixed it by making shooting out of LoS much less effective. Those rules have carried over into 10th but there are loads of indirect fire weapons that ignore them thanks to their weapon type and/or special rules - Desolation Squads being a prime example. Ironically they were one of the busted units in 9th that precipitated the change. Or Fate dice, which are causing the exact same problem as Votann Judgement Tokens before GW fixed them.

It all points to a design team who are too reactive. They can make fixes, but it feels like they don't really know why they're fixing things or why they're broken.

Eldar fate dice are just painfully stupid, as they're literally the Votann mistake repeated, like you said. Desolation Squads are broken due to a confluence of factors, if they did not have [Blast] it would be half as bad, but it turns out that in the 'fishing for 6s' edition hitting on a 6 is not so bad anyway, especially if your whole unit can get +2-4 extra shots per dude easily when shooting at mobs. Combine that with faction-related re-rolls out of the whazoo and the sheer weight of dicebuckets you're throwing becomes both dangerous and annoying.

Fate dice offend me on a spiritual level. Miracle Dice were already a good mechanic, and they gave Eldar Miracle dice but on crack cocaine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out,

Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones.

They definitely should be priced in.

But you can't, because then you'd need separate point costs for each detachment. Which...is possible with these kinds of points, but man it'd make analysis a nightmare.

Those abilities are never going to change. Detachments have ZERO effect on them.

Doctrines are the Detachment ability for marines, not oath of moment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out,

Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones.

They definitely should be priced in.

But you can't, because then you'd need separate point costs for each detachment. Which...is possible with these kinds of points, but man it'd make analysis a nightmare.

Despite detachments not even being involved in any of those rules...

If you can't price based on rule that has nothing to do with detachment you can't apply any point cost because datasheet efficiency changes by detachment as well. So your argument results in no point cost being applicable to anything then.

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, definitely not. Oath, Fate Dice, TS combo wombo, etc are definitely not priced in.

And they shouldn't be, because these detachment sheets will switch out,

Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones.

They definitely should be priced in.

But you can't, because then you'd need separate point costs for each detachment. Which...is possible with these kinds of points, but man it'd make analysis a nightmare.

...
What part of "Oath, Fate Dice and TS Cabal Points are faction abilities, not detachment ones." did you not understand?

Space Marines always have Oath regardless of detachment. Eldar and TS will always have Fate Dice and Cabal Point respectively regardless of detachment.

Whoops, yep. My head went the other way, sorry - you're right.

nemesis464 wrote:
I thought GW were aiming to reduce to the lethality and amount of games decided in the first few turns?

So many reports I’m seeing coming on from tournaments and friendly games is that games are still being decided on turn 2 or 3, and certain armies feel way more ‘lethal’ than before.

Wasn’t the intention to cut down on the mass reroll spam, yet it seems like only some Codexes got the memo (surprise surprise Space Marines still reroll by the bucketload).

All point system issues aside, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed by the early feedback coming from the edition. I was hoping for a return of games that go the full 5 turns rather than people mutually agreeing to call it after just 3.

I remember it being discussed on the online streams, but it seems that IK, SM, and Aeldari didn't get the memo.

DG, Drukhari, and other factions hit like wet noodles compared to the top dogs, although I wonder how strong Aeldari would be if Fate Dice and WK were addressed as they are the biggest offenders.

GW just wasn't thinking about things when writing this indices. Eldar are bad but boy howdy are people sleeping on GSC combos.

The exemptions are for Admech and DG. DG, who have been given the silliest restrictions on stratagems working fully (-1 AP, or -2 AP if you critically wound an enemy near an infected objective on a prime numbered Tuesday), I think the least ability to generate or save CP in the entire game, and flattened boring weapons with anti-synergy to their army rule counteracting the free weapons that are costed into their base points.

DG could get -1 damage on every unit and probably just about limp to a 50% win rate right now. A huge, incredible army wide buff and they maybe become average.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
GW just wasn't thinking about things when writing this indices. Eldar are bad but boy howdy are people sleeping on GSC combos.

The exemptions are for Admech and DG. DG, who have been given the silliest restrictions on stratagems working fully (-1 AP, or -2 AP if you critically wound an enemy near an infected objective on a prime numbered Tuesday), I think the least ability to generate or save CP in the entire game, and flattened boring weapons with anti-synergy to their army rule counteracting the free weapons that are costed into their base points.

DG could get -1 damage on every unit and probably just about limp to a 50% win rate right now. A huge, incredible army wide buff and they maybe become average.

Sisters are in a similar boat. Our detachment ability is mid in IDEAL scenarios, our CP generation options are 2 characters and gets nullified by playing tactical objectives (We have ZERO do a stratagem for free abilities) our units have statlines on par with grots but are priced WORSE than marines, our Leader setups make no sense, and we have 0 useful anti-armor.

ERJAK wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
GW just wasn't thinking about things when writing this indices. Eldar are bad but boy howdy are people sleeping on GSC combos.

The exemptions are for Admech and DG. DG, who have been given the silliest restrictions on stratagems working fully (-1 AP, or -2 AP if you critically wound an enemy near an infected objective on a prime numbered Tuesday), I think the least ability to generate or save CP in the entire game, and flattened boring weapons with anti-synergy to their army rule counteracting the free weapons that are costed into their base points.

DG could get -1 damage on every unit and probably just about limp to a 50% win rate right now. A huge, incredible army wide buff and they maybe become average.

Sisters are in a similar boat. Our detachment ability is mid in IDEAL scenarios, our CP generation options are 2 characters and gets nullified by playing tactical objectives (We have ZERO do a stratagem for free abilities) our units have statlines on par with grots but are priced WORSE than marines, our Leader setups make no sense, and we have 0 useful anti-armor.

Every army that lacks a CP discount ability should have their worst, 10point enhancement made into that. It's just bonkers mismatches in power.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
GW just wasn't thinking about things when writing this indices. Eldar are bad but boy howdy are people sleeping on GSC combos.

The exemptions are for Admech and DG. DG, who have been given the silliest restrictions on stratagems working fully (-1 AP, or -2 AP if you critically wound an enemy near an infected objective on a prime numbered Tuesday), I think the least ability to generate or save CP in the entire game, and flattened boring weapons with anti-synergy to their army rule counteracting the free weapons that are costed into their base points.

DG could get -1 damage on every unit and probably just about limp to a 50% win rate right now. A huge, incredible army wide buff and they maybe become average.

Sisters are in a similar boat. Our detachment ability is mid in IDEAL scenarios, our CP generation options are 2 characters and gets nullified by playing tactical objectives (We have ZERO do a stratagem for free abilities) our units have statlines on par with grots but are priced WORSE than marines, our Leader setups make no sense, and we have 0 useful anti-armor.

Every army that lacks a CP discount ability should have their worst, 10point enhancement made into that. It's just bonkers mismatches in power.

I’m convinced the edition wasn’t properly playtested at all and the various army writers had zero communication throughout the entire process.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:


Every army that lacks a CP discount ability should have their worst, 10point enhancement made into that. It's just bonkers mismatches in power.

Its deeper than that. They need to synergize.

SM can put a Phobos Captain in a unit of Infiltrators - freebie repeat strat, 5+ to gain 1CP. That's 1.33+ CP per battle round.

UM can put a Phobos Libby in Infiltrators around Guilliman - itself a worth-its-points gimmick for No-shooting-within-12, and No Deep Strike within 12+ for the whole mini formation AND get 2.67+ CP of value because he can do it per turn.

Tzeentch Marked CSM can do it on a Leadership Test after a Dark Pact. Abby potentially does it even easier.

Cypher's special ability helps disrupt the CP Battery combo, depending on a FAQ for Set to Zero vs Set to X+1 as his wording is a little ambiguous compared to the Rules Commentary.

Tau have Shadowsun for the generation, but not much for the freebie.

The Ethereal is slower than most other just Gain 1 CPs - though also not an Epic Hero where most of the Just Gain Ones are located.

World Eaters are way behind, having no generation beyond one Enhancement that only gives 0CP Heroic Interventions.

Tsons Cultists have some generation of somewhat dubious value.

The Tallyman is roughly on par with the Ethereal for CP every other turn.

The Lictor/Deathleaper has some potential for CP Generation.

IG may have better access to CP Gen/Batteries than UM.
Leontus adds a straight 1CP per battle round,
Ursula is the only Freebie Strat source.
Infantry Squads, Shock Troops, DKOK, Catachans, Kasrrkins, and Tempestus Scions (basically any INFANTRY with a Vox Caster both so the 5+ trick. Conversely a lot of their Strats are 2CP to cast.

Chaos Knights have nada.

Imperial Knights have a few- Freebie on Canis Rex, and 1 time 3CP gen from Oath's Deed.

GSC have some pretty hefty POTENTIAL between the Freebie, get a point gimmick, and Hybrids just giving you (Max 1) a 4+ roll per controlled objective, plus freebies from the Nexos.

Orks have only 1, but its a decent one the 4+ per Objective Controlled Max 1 Generated

Imotek is a Take-One

OVerlords have the Freebie as do (sort of) Hexmark Destroyer(s) - limited to one Strat but one that works well for them.

Drukhari get an enhancement for the Use a Strat get a CP on a 4+ with a big bonus for the one you want to use a lot - but other than that no real freebie/duplicative choices.

Epidemius is likely going to generate a lot of CP

Skulltaker some, but less so.

Kairos potentially even less so.

AM Get the 5+ on multiple Aircraft.
And the Ironstrider, Dunecrawler, Raiders, Rangers, Vanguard, Disintegrator, Dunerider, and Dragoons - but they have zero access to the Freebie half of the battery combo.

Coteaz can generate almost as many free CP as your opponent does - so swings wildly.
Generic Inquisitors have the best Target Strat - Gain CP on a Die Roll I've seen so far.
But Agents don't really have access to the Freebie - Target - Gain CP combo.

CP Generation above and beyond auto-generation swings wildly. Guard may have the best setup for a farm/generating, but they also have the most expensive strats (at a quick glance) - Loyalist and Chaos SM are probably in a virtual tie for second and third, Chaos Daemons, IG and Mechanicus probably shake out to 4, 5 and 6th place depending on build and work put in in a moderate slide behind the SM, while a whole lot of armies are sitting around wondering what happened. At least from a quick glance.

The Freebie is just the trigger to the combo. Also need to look at the Freebie - 5+, gain a CP for a Strat that was free to start with.

nemesis464 wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
GW just wasn't thinking about things when writing this indices. Eldar are bad but boy howdy are people sleeping on GSC combos.

The exemptions are for Admech and DG. DG, who have been given the silliest restrictions on stratagems working fully (-1 AP, or -2 AP if you critically wound an enemy near an infected objective on a prime numbered Tuesday), I think the least ability to generate or save CP in the entire game, and flattened boring weapons with anti-synergy to their army rule counteracting the free weapons that are costed into their base points.

DG could get -1 damage on every unit and probably just about limp to a 50% win rate right now. A huge, incredible army wide buff and they maybe become average.

Sisters are in a similar boat. Our detachment ability is mid in IDEAL scenarios, our CP generation options are 2 characters and gets nullified by playing tactical objectives (We have ZERO do a stratagem for free abilities) our units have statlines on par with grots but are priced WORSE than marines, our Leader setups make no sense, and we have 0 useful anti-armor.

Every army that lacks a CP discount ability should have their worst, 10point enhancement made into that. It's just bonkers mismatches in power.

I’m convinced the edition wasn’t properly playtested at all and the various army writers had zero communication throughout the entire process.

If there had been any worthwhile playtesting that was listened to we would not have the Eldar Fate Dice

Breton wrote:
IG may have better access to CP Gen/Batteries than UM.
Leontus adds a straight 1CP per battle round,
Ursula is the only Freebie Strat source.
Infantry Squads, Shock Troops, DKOK, Catachans, Kasrrkins, and Tempestus Scions (basically any INFANTRY with a Vox Caster both so the 5+ trick. Conversely a lot of their Strats are 2CP to cast.

Just to note that the vox is 4+ if within 6" of an officer, which is nice. You are never taking vox casters on dkok though, as you have to give up your plasmaguns and 3rd special per 10, which is a big ask.

Also, vox casters depend on your interpretation of Leontus and the "start of the command phase" restriction on the cp cap. I think it is obviously meant that any "start of the command phase" ability does not count towards the cap, but am experiencing a lot of pushback againt this interpretation.

You could be sisters where your only free strat is Stern getting to heroically intervene.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Every army that lacks a CP discount ability should have their worst, 10point enhancement made into that. It's just bonkers mismatches in power.

What use case are you seeing that makes you think this?

Are you serious?

ERJAK wrote:

Sisters are in a similar boat. Our detachment ability is mid in IDEAL scenarios, our CP generation options are 2 characters and gets nullified by playing tactical objectives (We have ZERO do a stratagem for free abilities) our units have statlines on par with grots but are priced WORSE than marines, our Leader setups make no sense, and we have 0 useful anti-armor.

So first, let me agree with the point of this post- I agree that Sisters aren't in a great place, and we could use some help; I'm on the same page with here. But I have to ask some questions about your post, just in case I got things wrong.

So if Junith Eruita is on the table at the beginning of our command phase, we gain a CP. Tactical objectives do not cause her to not be on the field at the beginning of the command phase. Am I correct, or are you?

The Rod of Office allows a Canoness to gain a CP on a roll of 4+ every time her unit is the target of a strat. Obviously, this is conditional- first, you have to take the Rod, then you need the 4+, and you only get to do it when her unit performs a strat... But tactial objectives (from what I know) don't cancel that either. Am I right or are you?

The Daemonifuge can use the heroic intervention strat for 0 CP. Am I right or are you?

Are grots really 3+bs, 4+ws, 7+ld, oc2+, 3+ save, 6+ invul?

Also curious about what you mean by "leader setups" not making sense. From my perspective, I think certain synergies could have been more helpful, but I don't recall seeing anything I would say didn't make sense. The Canoness having a once per game ability to give herself a 2+ invul for a phase isn't a great ability for either her or her unit... But I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense.

The leadership setups issue is probably alluding to:

Canoness: Can only lead Battle Sisters Squads and Celestian Sacresants. So she cannot lead Dominions nor Retributors.

Palatine: Can lead those two units along with Dominions and Sisters Novitiates. Unlike Space Marine Lieutenants and Captains, she can't join a squad along with the Canoness.

Other Leaders: Dogmata, Imagifier, Dialogus, and Hospitaller can be a second leader with only with Canoness or Palatine only on the Battle Sister Squad.

 alextroy wrote:
The leadership setups issue is probably alluding to:

Canoness: Can only lead Battle Sisters Squads and Celestian Sacresants. So she cannot lead Dominions nor Retributors.

Palatine: Can lead those two units along with Dominions and Sisters Novitiates. Unlike Space Marine Lieutenants and Captains, she can't join a squad along with the Canoness.

Other Leaders: Dogmata, Imagifier, Dialogus, and Hospitaller can be a second leader with only with Canoness or Palatine only on the Battle Sister Squad.

And again, some of that is suboptimal, and not as good as it could be, but I wouldn't say that any of it "doesn't make sense".

It makes perfect sense to me that a Palatine with a Scout move can lead a unit with a Scout move and that a Canoness without a scout move cannot.

It makes perfect since to me that a Canoness might think her Palatine's skill set would be better used to lead an additional unit, rather than assist with the leadership of a unit the Canoness herself is leading. She might want to bring along a different character who' role is less tactical leadership, and maybe more Medical or Spiritual expertise.

I'm not saying it's good for the army's performance- like I said, I agree we're weak, and I agree that tweaking some of these interactions could be a part of the solution to improving the army's performance. I don't dispute that at all, and I don't know of many people who would. I'm just saying that in isolation, there's nothing that really strikes me as "not making sense."

PenitentJake wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Sisters are in a similar boat. Our detachment ability is mid in IDEAL scenarios, our CP generation options are 2 characters and gets nullified by playing tactical objectives (We have ZERO do a stratagem for free abilities) our units have statlines on par with grots but are priced WORSE than marines, our Leader setups make no sense, and we have 0 useful anti-armor.

So first, let me agree with the point of this post- I agree that Sisters aren't in a great place, and we could use some help; I'm on the same page with here. But I have to ask some questions about your post, just in case I got things wrong.

So if Junith Eruita is on the table at the beginning of our command phase, we gain a CP. Tactical objectives do not cause her to not be on the field at the beginning of the command phase. Am I correct, or are you?

The Rod of Office allows a Canoness to gain a CP on a roll of 4+ every time her unit is the target of a strat. Obviously, this is conditional- first, you have to take the Rod, then you need the 4+, and you only get to do it when her unit performs a strat... But tactial objectives (from what I know) don't cancel that either. Am I right or are you?

The Daemonifuge can use the heroic intervention strat for 0 CP. Am I right or are you?

Are grots really 3+bs, 4+ws, 7+ld, oc2+, 3+ save, 6+ invul?

Also curious about what you mean by "leader setups" not making sense. From my perspective, I think certain synergies could have been more helpful, but I don't recall seeing anything I would say didn't make sense. The Canoness having a once per game ability to give herself a 2+ invul for a phase isn't a great ability for either her or her unit... But I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense.

You can only generate 1 CP per battle round. If you generate a CP from a tactical objective, that counts towards your 1 CP per battle round generation. Therefore, it shuts off Junith and the Canoness. Also, Junith shuts off the Canoness.

Daemonifuge can use the Heroic intervention strat. There's just no reason to ever do so. While it technically counts, it will come up once every 10000 games. Stern is there to score with Lone Operative, not fight.

Point for point that's closer to Grots than Marines.

A bunch of leader abilities/combos make no sense.

'Celestians only get their 2+ save back with an Imagifier, but don't get their unit ability unless attached to a canoness,?'

'Celestian's are the army's primary bodyguard unit, who has inbuilt synergies for equipping multiple leaders, but can't have multiple leaders attached?'

'Canonesses and Palatines can't equip to Retributors or Dominions for...reasons?

'Preachers and Missionaries can attach to Arcos, but not Repentia...for reasons.'

'Missionaries give two buffs to the units they're attached to, but both units already have one of those abilities making him wasteful no matter who he's with.'

Aestrid, Imagifiers, and Dogmata not being able to attach to Novitiates when Hospitallers, Preachers, and Dialogus can? (it's because Aestrid might be GOOD with Novitiates)

Aestrid being a melee buff and attaching to 3 shooting units and only 1 melee unit?

The index is utterly arbitrary on whose allowed to do what where, for purely gameplay reasons. Which would be fine, if the decisions weren't almost universally terrible. I can HEAR the writer at GW huffing in outrage when his editor told him that he should probably include at least 1 character who has scout.

The Castigator Battle Cannon is only Strength 10, and has a bonus against Vehicles and Monsters...to reroll HITS. And BLAST for some ungodly reason. Why? We hit on 2s a lot of the time with vehicles, and how many vehicles or monsters are you hitting that have 5+ models in the unit?

Meanwhile, they gave the Autocannon twin linked. So the Autocannon is better against vehicles and Monsters T11 or higher, and the battlecannon is better against big units. Their bonuses cancel themselves out. Why even give them different rules? It's so asinine.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The leadership setups issue is probably alluding to:

Canoness: Can only lead Battle Sisters Squads and Celestian Sacresants. So she cannot lead Dominions nor Retributors.

Palatine: Can lead those two units along with Dominions and Sisters Novitiates. Unlike Space Marine Lieutenants and Captains, she can't join a squad along with the Canoness.

Other Leaders: Dogmata, Imagifier, Dialogus, and Hospitaller can be a second leader with only with Canoness or Palatine only on the Battle Sister Squad.

And again, some of that is suboptimal, and not as good as it could be, but I wouldn't say that any of it "doesn't make sense".

It makes perfect sense to me that a Palatine with a Scout move can lead a unit with a Scout move and that a Canoness without a scout move cannot.

It makes perfect since to me that a Canoness might think her Palatine's skill set would be better used to lead an additional unit, rather than assist with the leadership of a unit the Canoness herself is leading. She might want to bring along a different character who' role is less tactical leadership, and maybe more Medical or Spiritual expertise.

I'm not saying it's good for the army's performance- like I said, I agree we're weak, and I agree that tweaking some of these interactions could be a part of the solution to improving the army's performance. I don't dispute that at all, and I don't know of many people who would. I'm just saying that in isolation, there's nothing that really strikes me as "not making sense."

Why can't Celestine or Morvenn attach to regular troops? They're all about inspiring leadership, Celestine fights alongside basic battle Sisters all the time in the books. In fact, she's only escorted by Seraphim or Zephyrim in Fall of Cadia.

Why can't Preachers or Missionaries attach to all squads? They're all ecclesiarchy, aren't they?

What about a Novitiate makes it so that a Dialogus wants to chill with them but an Imagifier thinks they're icky?

Even if it's fine for preachers and missionaries to not join BSS, why can't they join repentia? They can join Novitiates so it's not because they're sisters and they can join Arcos so it's not because they're repentant. Are Repentia Superiors that selfish?

Why does the Triumph only hang out with regular battle sisters? Celestians not good enough for them?
Why are Missionaries cool to hang out with BSS, but Preachers not?

Who can lead what, where is 100% gameplay based with 0 thought to fluff.

ERJAK wrote:


Why can't Preachers or Missionaries attach to all squads? They're all ecclesiarchy, aren't they?

The answer to most of these questions is because GW really screwed the pooch on what can and can't join what squads. I'm betting you and I could write

Why can't X join Y, like the fluff/previous editions/books say?

GW is trying to exert hypercontrol over who can do what - even when its stupid to do so. Lieutenants can join Captains and they can join Chapter Masters as a second leader. Lieutenants generally provide LETHALT HITS. Chaplains generally provide +1 to Wound - which is bypassed by LETHAL HITS - this is generally (I can think of one case) not an over the top wombo combo even for a Lieutenant with Bolter Drill making the same 6's LETHAL and SUSTAINED. But Lieutenants cannot be a second leader behind Chaplains. Heck I would love to see Judiciars be the "Chaplain Lieutenant" and able to be second leader behind the Captains/chapter masters, while the Lieutenants are the Captain Lieutenants and can join behind Chaplains so it's always a mix-n-match

Why do the Firstborn get Basic Veteran Marine statband Company Command that are all tied into one squad, while Primaris Company Command are all SuperDudes and more often than not cannot even attach to their Company Commander because they lack a second/third/etc leader permission?

Nothing can join Devastators and their 4 Heavy Weapons, but they can join Desolation Squads. and their 20?

In many ways, it feels like we're in the 10th Edition Beta Test as we wonder why Gretchin are T5 instead of Runtherds being T2 in the shooting phase. When it comes to what can attach to what, it feels like we're in the Alpha test.

ERJAK wrote:
You can only generate 1 CP per battle round. If you generate a CP from a tactical objective, that counts towards your 1 CP per battle round generation. Therefore, it shuts off Junith and the Canoness. Also, Junith shuts off the Canoness.

You can only gain 1cp per battle round, outside of cp gained at the start of the command phase. Junith's cp is gained at the start of the command phase, so does not count towards the cap.

 Trickstick wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
You can only generate 1 CP per battle round. If you generate a CP from a tactical objective, that counts towards your 1 CP per battle round generation. Therefore, it shuts off Junith and the Canoness. Also, Junith shuts off the Canoness.

You can only gain 1cp per battle round, outside of cp gained at the start of the command phase. Junith's cp is gained at the start of the command phase, so does not count towards the cap.

I don't think your interpretaion is going to survive the FAQ - I'm pretty sure when they say:
"Outside of the CP players gain at
the start of the Command phase,
each player can only gain a total of
1CP per battle round, regardless of
the source"

they mean The CP you collect for "Passing Go" at the Start of the Command Phase - ergo your cap for a 5 turn game is 5 for your command phase, 5 for their command phase, and 5 for any other source - for a total of 15 - though most factions won't get close to that.

Breton wrote:
they mean The CP you collect for "Passing Go" at the Start of the Command Phase

I don't really see that as the case. It is putting a very specific definition on "the cp", which is not backed up by any other wording. Plus, how would that work with a rule like Knights' Code Chivalric? It says to gain 3cp at the start of the command phase. If your interpretation was true, then that 3cp would be limited to 1cp only, which is madness.

Edit: But this is a bit off-topic for this thread anyway. I made a ymdc thread about it yesterday:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810591.page

Sisters aren't an army I will likely ever play and I did think ERJAK was exaggerating their problems when we just had the preview article.

But the more I look at their full rules, the worse they look. They seem to have similarities with Necrons but they must have had different writers, one was being careful, the other was just making "bwaum" noises while imagining an alien invasion.

Necrons - Overlord plus a Cryptek plus 2 Cryptothralls can join 20 Warriors, 10 Immortals or 10 Lychguard. There are so many different combinations to try whether you want bodies, shooting or combat.

Sisters - Canoness can join 10 Sisters (not 20), not join 5 Retributors, can join 10 Sacresants. But can only bring the second character to the Sisters unit. Few interesting combos to be found, needless. The drop from 20 Sisters to 10 feels very unfun.

Necrons - 1CP bring back a character.

Sisters - 1CP bring back a character, but throw away some of your miracle dice for funsies.

Also, as an aside, the Sisters strat has this line "You can use this Stratagem on that unit even though it was just destroyed" but the Necrons strat doesn't, so does the Necrons one not work?

One thing I would suggest when looking at the PDF indexes is doing a find/search for the following:
- lone operative
- scouts
- infiltrators
- stealth
- not within
- anti
- devastating wounds
- a stratagem

You do have to read the context surrounding these rules, but you quickly get a sense of whether the index is playing with the full 10th rules or just half.

Sisters do not come out well from those searches. Although I will note they have access to Agents and Knights, but that is not much use for someone who wants to play actual Sisters.

EightFoldPath wrote:

One thing I would suggest when looking at the PDF indexes is doing a find/search for the following:
- lone operative
- scouts
- infiltrators
- stealth
- not within
- anti
- devastating wounds
- a stratagem

Done most of those - I'd also suggest looking for:
CP
Even If or Already Been (for the Repeat Strat skills)
Feel No Pain
Deep Strike
Leader (and check to what)

EightFoldPath wrote:
Sisters aren't an army I will likely ever play and I did think ERJAK was exaggerating their problems when we just had the preview article.

But the more I look at their full rules, the worse they look. They seem to have similarities with Necrons but they must have had different writers, one was being careful, the other was just making "bwaum" noises while imagining an alien invasion.

If it helps you at all, the Necron army rule is largely non-functional. The thing that makes Necrons unique, RP, is easily ignored.

Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

The armies that can bruteforce it currently, like spamming deso marines, are problems that need to be addressed.

On the flipside I think for a lot of non-broken army lists or factions in general Necron RP presents a reverse balance problem; they might actually be a little too tough.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

 Bosskelot wrote:
On the flipside I think for a lot of non-broken army lists or factions in general Necron RP presents a reverse balance problem; they might actually be a little too tough.

From my experience, the unkillable super-units have surprisingly little killing power, so as long as you avoid getting unfavorable charges, you can just dodge them and win the game by outscoring the necron player.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

My first game was against a Tau army with Shadowsun that failed to wipe a shieldguard squad. Necrons are pretty durable in this edition.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
On the flipside I think for a lot of non-broken army lists or factions in general Necron RP presents a reverse balance problem; they might actually be a little too tough.

From my experience, the unkillable super-units have surprisingly little killing power, so as long as you avoid getting unfavorable charges, you can just dodge them and win the game by outscoring the necron player.

That sounds like it's skillful play, with possible counterplay.
That's a good thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
On the flipside I think for a lot of non-broken army lists or factions in general Necron RP presents a reverse balance problem; they might actually be a little too tough.

From my experience, the unkillable super-units have surprisingly little killing power, so as long as you avoid getting unfavorable charges, you can just dodge them and win the game by outscoring the necron player.

That sounds like it's skillful play, with possible counterplay.
That's a good thing.

I'm not disagreeing with that


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In general, in my 10th edition games the decisions taken by me and my opponents have mattered much more than the lists we have built.

That said, I see many veterans being frustrated by no longer being able to decide games at the list building stage and the lack of obvious "good against everything" units they can just bring 3 of to solve all possible problems. Quite a few are unwilling to relearn a game they have played for decades.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
On the flipside I think for a lot of non-broken army lists or factions in general Necron RP presents a reverse balance problem; they might actually be a little too tough.

From my experience, the unkillable super-units have surprisingly little killing power, so as long as you avoid getting unfavorable charges, you can just dodge them and win the game by outscoring the necron player.

That sounds like it's skillful play, with possible counterplay.
That's a good thing.

A unit that can't do anything isn't exactly some wonderful thing for Necrons to have.

As I said, lists relying on getting RP off vs straight buffs and damage aren't going to be good.

Breton wrote:

Why do the Firstborn get Basic Veteran Marine statband Company Command that are all tied into one squad, while Primaris Company Command are all SuperDudes and more often than not cannot even attach to their Company Commander because they lack a second/third/etc leader permission?

Because the First/True/RealMarine characters come is a single box labelled "Command Squad", while the Primaris ones are purchased one at at time for $30 a pop.

It's dumb.

Nothing can join Devastators and their 4 Heavy Weapons, but they can join Desolation Squads. and their 20?

Devastator Marines are notoriously stubborn, rebellious and just plain hard to get along with, and therefore unable to be led. :/

No idea. It's also dumb.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Why do the Firstborn get Basic Veteran Marine statband Company Command that are all tied into one squad, while Primaris Company Command are all SuperDudes and more often than not cannot even attach to their Company Commander because they lack a second/third/etc leader permission?

Because the First/True/RealMarine characters come is a single box labelled "Command Squad", while the Primaris ones are purchased one at at time for $30 a pop.

It's dumb.

But wait a minute, that would somehow imply that GW bases decisions on boxes, that can't be right......

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Why do the Firstborn get Basic Veteran Marine statband Company Command that are all tied into one squad, while Primaris Company Command are all SuperDudes and more often than not cannot even attach to their Company Commander because they lack a second/third/etc leader permission?

Because the First/True/RealMarine characters come is a single box labelled "Command Squad", while the Primaris ones are purchased one at at time for $30 a pop.

It's dumb.

But wait a minute, that would somehow imply that GW bases decisions on boxes, that can't be right......

Its the other way around. Those characters have always been in the box, yet in 9e they were solo characters like the Primaris - but they didn't rotate out the old kit with a new individual one. But in the past they've generally been pretty good at mirroring Firstborn and Primaris.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

And through a strat, that you can also double up on with Overlords. And through Rez Orbs. And through Ghost Arks. All the while a Reanimator is boosting all of these rolls.

 Bosskelot wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

And through a strat, that you can also double up on with Overlords. And through Rez Orbs. And through Ghost Arks. All the while a Reanimator is boosting all of these rolls.

Yeah, reanimation is the definition of a rule that looks weak on paper but in practice it's actually very powerful. This is due to a number of factors including the numerous ways to buff it, powerful defensive abilities on various characters and the generally lower lethality of the game, outside of a few outliers. It just takes more effort to get through 20 Warriors with -1 to hit, or 10 Lychguard with -1 to wound. Res orbs will be common because of the no-cost upgrades and Reanimators are just very strong units now.

 Jidmah wrote:
In general, in my 10th edition games the decisions taken by me and my opponents have mattered much more than the lists we have built.

That said, I see many veterans being frustrated by no longer being able to decide games at the list building stage and the lack of obvious "good against everything" units they can just bring 3 of to solve all possible problems. Quite a few are unwilling to relearn a game they have played for decades.

To move on from Necrons, I kind of feel though that's why (late) 9th was considered to be balanced. If the stuff you take (which was a reasonable portion of most codexes) counters everything, it should be harder to win in the list building stage.

I think in 10th we have what you described in the Ork tactics thread (obviously the solutions will be different):

 Jidmah wrote:
Not just vehicles - IMO there are the following defensive "weight classes" in 10th edition:

1) Light infantry - gretchin, kultists, pox walkers, infantry squads, guardians. You have little requirements in regards to the quality of attacks here, more is better.
2) Medium infantry - marines, flash gits, sisters, beastsnagga boyz, aspects. They have multiple layers of defense and enough armor to benefit from cover. You need decent strength, devastating wounds or amor penetration to kill them efficiently. Weight of low quality attacks can hurt, but not wipe them.
3) Heavy infantry - terminators, MANz, custodes, bullgryns. Usually good toughness, armor and invuls backed up by high wound counts and defensive abilities, characters or stratagems. You need high quality guns to kill them, with good number of shots. They pretty much shrug off low quality attacks, even in high numbers and dedicated anti-tank guns often aren't sufficient to kill them because the low number of shots bounces of the invuls.
4) Mounted/Beasts/light vehicles - bikes, squighogs, spawn, buggies. Durable units similar to medium infantry, but with more wounds, but below the magic T8 threshold. Other than medium infantry, you need high damage weapons to kill them efficiently.
5) Vehicles - trukks, speeders, rhinos, guard artillery. Good armor, wounds and toughness of 8-10, but no further noteworthy defensive layers. Weight of attacks will hurt them, but as these models tend to be cheap there is no way to kill them efficiently without high quality weapons.
6) Monsters/Walkers - dreads, hellbrutes, daemon princes, primarchs, daemon engines. They have great defensive profiles, invuls, defensive abilities but are usually limited to T9 or 10 and around 10 wounds. In theory they could be drowned in attacks, but almost all of them hit hard, you take major losses when trying. PKs can usually take them down during the Waaagh!
7) Tanks/super-heavies - LRBT, battlewagon with 'ard case, morkanaut, landraiders. Unless you can ignore at least one layer of their durability (toughness or armor or high wound counts), don't bother shooting them.
Of course, there are some oddballs which fit nowhere, but the absolute majority of models fit into one of these classes.

Its still early, so some discovery is inevitable - but it seems a lot easier to build lists that are very lethal into each other - or relatively pillowfisted - because they have - or don't have - the right tools for the job.

This is perhaps especially an issue for more casual lists which aren't written with an eye to covering all the bases and working as a tool box. (And I'd argue some factions don't really have great options for that anyway).

From a balance perspective, while its moving into the endless "game vs simulation" argument, it feels like what we have in the indexes is not a rock-paper-scissors system.
So for example if light infantry only have "low quality attacks" - they end up only being good into other light infantry. But they are hardly unique for that purpose, so you can just ditch them. And certainly bringing more of them doesn't seem to impose a question on your opponent in the way taking more stuff from the other categories does.

Which I think is partly an issue of unit size. So maybe a unit of Terminators (especially with an attached character) chasing down a unit of Gretchin (45) or Cultists (55) would be overkill and therefore inefficient. But if you move up the points to say 10 Boyz (85) - let alone Guardians (110), Wyches (110) or Kabalites (120) etc, then it starts to become quite reasonable. Blast on certain already efficient platforms (not just Desolators) already feels too good into 10 man squads, and borderline ludicrous into 20 mans.

I'm also tempted to say that assault needs to be somewhat universalist or it just doesn't work. You can't run reasonably expensive units across the table, make a successful charge roll - only to find yourself going "well on average dice I'd only expect to kill 2 marines anyway" - and completely bounce off TEQ or Rhinos. Maybe that's defeatist - but it seems like how it goes.

Tyel wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In general, in my 10th edition games the decisions taken by me and my opponents have mattered much more than the lists we have built.

That said, I see many veterans being frustrated by no longer being able to decide games at the list building stage and the lack of obvious "good against everything" units they can just bring 3 of to solve all possible problems. Quite a few are unwilling to relearn a game they have played for decades.

To move on from Necrons, I kind of feel though that's why (late) 9th was considered to be balanced. If the stuff you take (which was a reasonable portion of most codexes) counters everything, it should be harder to win in the list building stage.

I think in 10th we have what you described in the Ork tactics thread (obviously the solutions will be different):

 Jidmah wrote:
Not just vehicles - IMO there are the following defensive "weight classes" in 10th edition:

1) Light infantry - gretchin, kultists, pox walkers, infantry squads, guardians. You have little requirements in regards to the quality of attacks here, more is better.
2) Medium infantry - marines, flash gits, sisters, beastsnagga boyz, aspects. They have multiple layers of defense and enough armor to benefit from cover. You need decent strength, devastating wounds or amor penetration to kill them efficiently. Weight of low quality attacks can hurt, but not wipe them.
3) Heavy infantry - terminators, MANz, custodes, bullgryns. Usually good toughness, armor and invuls backed up by high wound counts and defensive abilities, characters or stratagems. You need high quality guns to kill them, with good number of shots. They pretty much shrug off low quality attacks, even in high numbers and dedicated anti-tank guns often aren't sufficient to kill them because the low number of shots bounces of the invuls.
4) Mounted/Beasts/light vehicles - bikes, squighogs, spawn, buggies. Durable units similar to medium infantry, but with more wounds, but below the magic T8 threshold. Other than medium infantry, you need high damage weapons to kill them efficiently.
5) Vehicles - trukks, speeders, rhinos, guard artillery. Good armor, wounds and toughness of 8-10, but no further noteworthy defensive layers. Weight of attacks will hurt them, but as these models tend to be cheap there is no way to kill them efficiently without high quality weapons.
6) Monsters/Walkers - dreads, hellbrutes, daemon princes, primarchs, daemon engines. They have great defensive profiles, invuls, defensive abilities but are usually limited to T9 or 10 and around 10 wounds. In theory they could be drowned in attacks, but almost all of them hit hard, you take major losses when trying. PKs can usually take them down during the Waaagh!
7) Tanks/super-heavies - LRBT, battlewagon with 'ard case, morkanaut, landraiders. Unless you can ignore at least one layer of their durability (toughness or armor or high wound counts), don't bother shooting them.
Of course, there are some oddballs which fit nowhere, but the absolute majority of models fit into one of these classes.

Its still early, so some discovery is inevitable - but it seems a lot easier to build lists that are very lethal into each other - or relatively pillowfisted - because they have - or don't have - the right tools for the job.

This is perhaps especially an issue for more casual lists which aren't written with an eye to covering all the bases and working as a tool box. (And I'd argue some factions don't really have great options for that anyway).

From a balance perspective, while its moving into the endless "game vs simulation" argument, it feels like what we have in the indexes is not a rock-paper-scissors system.
So for example if light infantry only have "low quality attacks" - they end up only being good into other light infantry. But they are hardly unique for that purpose, so you can just ditch them. And certainly bringing more of them doesn't seem to impose a question on your opponent in the way taking more stuff from the other categories does.

Which I think is partly an issue of unit size. So maybe a unit of Terminators (especially with an attached character) chasing down a unit of Gretchin (45) or Cultists (55) would be overkill and therefore inefficient. But if you move up the points to say 10 Boyz (85) - let alone Guardians (110), Wyches (110) or Kabalites (120) etc, then it starts to become quite reasonable. Blast on certain already efficient platforms (not just Desolators) already feels too good into 10 man squads, and borderline ludicrous into 20 mans.

I'm also tempted to say that assault needs to be somewhat universalist or it just doesn't work. You can't run reasonably expensive units across the table, make a successful charge roll - only to find yourself going "well on average dice I'd only expect to kill 2 marines anyway" - and completely bounce off TEQ or Rhinos. Maybe that's defeatist - but it seems like how it goes.

I'd even argue there's another threshold at T5, T6, T8 and T10(+).

T5 will see some massed Heavy Bolter and their equivalent, at T6, you're more likely to switch up to Auto/Assault Cannon equivalents or better. T8 jumps into Plasma/Melta and still the Autocannons - T10+ starts to hit Lascannon equivalents, and tank/monster mounted stuff like laser destroyers and D Cannons. The reduced lethality is probably what added this "new" tier at T6. Most weapons lost some Armor Pen which meant wounding on 5's still had potential with -2/-3 AP etc.. whereas now S5 -1 vs T6 3+ probably lost too much to still be able to stretch. Some people subconciously picked up on this fast with the Predator Destructor. Additional -1AP on Heavy Bolters for 6A 5 -2 D2 and 4 RF (easy RF on top of that) 2 autocannon s9 -2 D3 shots that can still cross over that threshold with both the sponsons and the main gun.

If you exclusively look at toughness and strength without considering the other layers of defense, you are bound to pick the wrong weapons for the job.

 Jidmah wrote:
If you exclusively look at toughness and strength without considering the other layers of defense, you are bound to pick the wrong weapons for the job.

Good thing I didn't say just SvT then, and included things like how easy the Autocannon is to RapidFire, along with how an increased AP can help overcome a less than favorable SvT but less so this time around.

SVT is the first thing you should look at because its the first pass/fail/efficiency check. When you wound on 5's that's a lot of armor saves they've passed because they didn't even have to roll. In a way, its similar to Transhuman. They've got a pocket in there where you often have to choose 4+/5+ wounds, or low AP/Damage.

There's a fair bit of Mutli-shot S5 -1(or -2) D1 (or D2) Heavy Bolters, Cryptothralls, Deathmarks, Squig Launchas Psychic Scream, and on and on.

When weapons go to S6, they are more often AP0 , D1 - Assault Cannon, Particle Beamer, Tesla Cannon, Devourers with Brainleech worms, Shadow Weaver

At S7 its usually S7 -2 D1 for plasma-ish stuff, or S7 -1 D2 like Supa-Gatlers, Missile Pods, Bio Plasma, Deathspitters etc.

TEQ now eats into the Heavy Bolter with T5, 2+/3+ W3 not being covered well by S5, -1, d2

Gravis equivalents at T6, W3 take that speedbump started by TQ and turn it into a plateau as you (normally) have to pick between the already platueaing Heavy Bolter, or move to a weapon that keeps up with the SvT race but actually backsteps on the AP and D, or leaning harder into your Plasma tier weapons. And more creatures got a Toughness bump than guns got a Strength bump. There are not a lot more "equivalents" in those defensive tiers.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

Tell me you don't know necron rules without saying so.

Lol.

To add to that with a "real life" example where S5 weapons taper off vs T6 units, while the S6 guns are additionally generally taking a step back of their own:

MANZ are in a pretty nice sweet spot right now. at T6, 2+, 3W - Heavy Bolters are an uphill fight wounding on 5's, barely budging the armor save, and needing two woundings with a "wasted" extra damage. Grav only fares slightly better being D3 (and is SM only, plus better served going for Vehicles) - Jump up to an Assault Cannon (and the like- GW really seems to love 6A, S6 0 D1), and you're back to wounding on 4's but now you're not even moving the needle on armor save, and doing D1. Jump up to Plasma, and you're wounding on 3's, almost nullifying the armor save, still need two woundings with a "wasted" extra damage, and taking HAZARDOUS tests. Finally jump up to the Predator Autocannon and its 6 shots, wounding on 3's, armor save goes to 50/50 and each wounding kills a MANZ. Krak also fit in here, but usually have fewer shots per unit: 1 per 5 Intercessors, 2 per 5 Terminators, a few units at 2 per.

The SM units best situated to deal with Meganobz look like the Predator Destructor, and Desloation Squads and Scout Bikes - probably Plasma Redemptor Dreads and Firestrike Turrets. Maybe the Ballistus Dread, but you're likely "wasting" Lascannon shots on it if you're focus firing.

How many of those units are getting buzz? The Desolation Squad everyone expects to get nerfed into oblivion, and the Redemptor really. Maybe a little for the Predator. Nobody is really talking about Scout Bikes. Yet.

Breton, if I wanted the opinion of someone without a sliver of experience with 10th on ork tactics, I would have posted here. I didn't, someone else copied my content from another threat, so feel free to ignore whatever was quoted.

To it put bluntly all of that is nonsense, and the predator is terrible for killing MANz. Even with oath of moment you will likely be killing just one, and that one is going to be back up on its feet next turn.

 Jidmah wrote:
Breton, if I wanted the opinion of someone without a sliver of experience with 10th on ork tactics, I would have posted here. I didn't, someone else copied my content from another threat, so feel free to ignore whatever was quoted.
To it put bluntly all of that is nonsense, and the predator is terrible for killing MANz. Even with oath of moment you will likely be killing just one, and that one is going to be back up on its feet next turn.

Jidmah, there were no tactics involved. It was a straight up comparison of offensive/defensive power curve between S/T5 and S/T7.

Because MANZ are INFANTRY
Turret
Autocannon 4A RF2, S9, -2, D3
6 shots, 5.34 hits, 3.5 woundings, after save 1.75 woundings x 3 damage.
Sponsons
Heavy Bolter 2x 3A SH1, S5 -2 D2
6 shots, 6.34 hits, 2.09 woundings, After save 1.04 woundings x 2 damage.
Or
Lascannon 2x A1 S12 -4 D6+1D
2 shots, 1.78 hits, 1.49 woundings at ~4.5 damage

So with OOM, the Autocannon kills an average of 1 and 3/4 MANZ while the Heavy Bolters add 2/3 a MANZ OR the Lascannon add another MANZ and a half. That feels pretty decent against T6 2+. and even better against Gravis at T6 3+.

 Bosskelot wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

And through a strat, that you can also double up on with Overlords. And through Rez Orbs. And through Ghost Arks. All the while a Reanimator is boosting all of these rolls.

Great, you used all your points to boost one squad and then you opponent just has to wipe it in one go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yall realize lethality didn't go down, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Necron RP is incredibly powerful in 10th I have no idea what you're talking about.

You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

Tell me you don't know necron rules without saying so.

Lol.

We were given the rules for free. They're there for everyone to read. You see stacking upon stacking, but miss when it happens and how easily worked around that is.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Breton, if I wanted the opinion of someone without a sliver of experience with 10th on ork tactics, I would have posted here. I didn't, someone else copied my content from another threat, so feel free to ignore whatever was quoted.
To it put bluntly all of that is nonsense, and the predator is terrible for killing MANz. Even with oath of moment you will likely be killing just one, and that one is going to be back up on its feet next turn.

Jidmah, there were no tactics involved.

Believe me, I noticed. Which is exactly what lead me to my comment - assuming neitherstratagems nor cover means your entire math is completely detached from the reality of games and therefore worthless.

Played my first game of 10th today - 1000pts, my friends Guard vs my Tyranids.

I just brought a random list of one of each thing I could fit in to see how they play, and my friend brought a balanced vehicle/infantry Guard list.

The Nids kerb stomped the guard and by turn 3 it was basically done - we played a bit of T4 to try things out he'd have been tabled in T5.

The big wound, high toughness models just wouldn't die before they ploughed through stuff and to be honest it felt really imbalanced - he couldn't have done much different and didn't really make any mistakes.

As a first game impression, we both left feeling that vehicle/monsters are much tougher and are going to be the meta, and there was little to no point bringing infantry beyond objective sitting.

Games could also still obviously be decided in the early turns.

Looking forward to playing more to see if these initial thoughts hold true

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You get it once during your own Command Phase. Any army, besides Death Guard and AdMech, can brute force it squad to squad. The people that say it's good only say that after attaching a bunch of characters to squads. Outside doing 1 "invincible" Warrior blob you can't commit a lot of points to building around it. Mark my words on that.

Every unit gets it, it can be buffed by certain characters (which you are incentivised to take via the Detachment), and there are other units (Canoptek Reanimators) that can buff it as well.
Warriors get D6 base, with D3+3 on an objective, attaching a Lord gives you two instances to enact Reanimation Protocols, and if the unit is within 12" of a Canoptek Reanimator you get an extra D3 (which stacks BTW so multiple Reanimators give you multiple dice to roll)

You complain about your opponent having to focus fire down your units like that's a bad thing, especially if you're playing the army properly and attach characters like Technomancers or Chronomancers that make it harder for those enemy units to kill yours. There are units out there right now that have massive balance issues but Reanimation Protocols are a very good army rule if you play to the strengths of the detachment.

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Breton, if I wanted the opinion of someone without a sliver of experience with 10th on ork tactics, I would have posted here. I didn't, someone else copied my content from another threat, so feel free to ignore whatever was quoted.
To it put bluntly all of that is nonsense, and the predator is terrible for killing MANz. Even with oath of moment you will likely be killing just one, and that one is going to be back up on its feet next turn.

Jidmah, there were no tactics involved.

Believe me, I noticed. Which is exactly what lead me to my comment - assuming neitherstratagems nor cover means your entire math is completely detached from the reality of games and therefore worthless.

Let me make it even clearer since your animosity is getting in the way - there were not tactics INTENDED to be involved. And suddently requiring other people to include strats and cover to demonstrate a T6 plateau but not the T8 plateau - or practically any other math-hammer not specifically involving cover or strats - is an interesting choice. But I guess you need a new reason to save face on the Predator thing. You could have just said you didn't realize the Preds had a bespoke anti-infantry boost that put them over the top.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Breton, if I wanted the opinion of someone without a sliver of experience with 10th on ork tactics, I would have posted here. I didn't, someone else copied my content from another threat, so feel free to ignore whatever was quoted.
To it put bluntly all of that is nonsense, and the predator is terrible for killing MANz. Even with oath of moment you will likely be killing just one, and that one is going to be back up on its feet next turn.

Jidmah, there were no tactics involved.

Believe me, I noticed. Which is exactly what lead me to my comment - assuming neitherstratagems nor cover means your entire math is completely detached from the reality of games and therefore worthless.

Let me make it even clearer since your animosity is getting in the way - there were not tactics INTENDED to be involved. And suddently requiring other people to include strats and cover to demonstrate a T6 plateau but not the T8 plateau - or practically any other math-hammer not specifically involving cover or strats - is an interesting choice. But I guess you need a new reason to save face on the Predator thing. You could have just said you didn't realize the Preds had a bespoke anti-infantry boost that put them over the top.

Nope, I very much included both AP-2 and oath of moments into my calculations and it still sucks, because AP-2 into a 2+ armor unit in a game with near omnipresent cover is still not great. Which was exactly my point, you didn't look at all layers of defense and therefore picked the wrong weapon for the job.

You are absolutely wrong on this, and no amount of bending over backwards and moving goalposts will change that.

And I don't care about face at all. Did you know that one of the most efficient ways to derail a thread on dakka is to respond to one of your posts and tell you that you are wrong?

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Breton, if I wanted the opinion of someone without a sliver of experience with 10th on ork tactics, I would have posted here. I didn't, someone else copied my content from another threat, so feel free to ignore whatever was quoted.
To it put bluntly all of that is nonsense, and the predator is terrible for killing MANz. Even with oath of moment you will likely be killing just one, and that one is going to be back up on its feet next turn.

Jidmah, there were no tactics involved.

Believe me, I noticed. Which is exactly what lead me to my comment - assuming neitherstratagems nor cover means your entire math is completely detached from the reality of games and therefore worthless.

Let me make it even clearer since your animosity is getting in the way - there were not tactics INTENDED to be involved. And suddently requiring other people to include strats and cover to demonstrate a T6 plateau but not the T8 plateau - or practically any other math-hammer not specifically involving cover or strats - is an interesting choice. But I guess you need a new reason to save face on the Predator thing. You could have just said you didn't realize the Preds had a bespoke anti-infantry boost that put them over the top.

Nope, I very much included both AP-2 and oath of moments into my calculations and it still sucks, because AP-2 into a 2+ armor unit in a game with near omnipresent cover is still not great. Which was exactly my point, you didn't look at all layers of defense and therefore picked the wrong weapon for the job.

Again Cover and strats are rarely put into these benchmarks unless it specifically involves the cover or strat, right? When people do S9 Melta into a T9 Dread they don't include Cover or Strats, do they? Sometimes they may not even include the 5++ vs non-invuln one. I'm not even sure why you've got your shorts in a bunch. I was using them as an archetype for the general category of T6 2/3+ because their 2+ was even tougher than the 3+ Grav in a benchmark test, not some sort of "tactical How To" - because again, this was more of a benchmark than a tactical.

You are absolutely wrong on this, and no amount of bending over backwards and moving goalposts will change that.

You mean like Dev Doctrine + Storm of Fire for ignores cover and and additional -1 to AP? I mean that sort of one-upsmanship is a big reason these benchmark mathhammers don't include Cover and Strats right?

And I don't care about face at all. Did you know that one of the most efficient ways to derail a thread on dakka is to respond to one of your posts and tell you that you are wrong?

Are you trying to derail a thread by telling someone else they derail threads?
Regardless, I'm pretty sure a platform that kills (most often) two MANZ in a 2-6 model count unit a turn and then most of another per turn (Before escalating Strategem Duels) is doing all right, and you are free to disagree.

Feel free to play armchair hammer benchmarks with yourself against a unit you clearly have never faced in a real game.

Doesn't change the fact you're still wrong.

I was looking to really discuss Jidmah's categories - and why I think its resulting in games being over quickly - rather than debate whether a Predator can kill MANz.

The problem as far as I can see is that unit's defensive stats have been budged into these categories - but the weapons hasn't followed (or has only done so half-heartedly for a bunch of indexes).

Which is basically a way of saying - SM can choose from Melta, Plasma, Grav, Autocannons, Assault Cannons, mass Heavy Bolters, etc etc - but most other factions can't.

For example as DE my tool for dealing with categories 3 to 7 is... Dark Lances. Or I guess Heat Lances or if pressed Blasters etc - but its basically Lances all the way down. My other weapon profiles are typically low S (although sometimes poisoned), low AP and usually 1 damage. Which doesn't especially do the job into MEQ, never mind anything tougher.

Which means the game can feel very dependent on alpha strike. If I nuke your tough units off the table (if I can bring 20+ lances to bear I have a decent chance) then I'm likely to win. If however you nuke these units off the table, I'm left with stuff that can't reliably scratch anything bigger than a space marine.

This is mainly because (imo) assault has been nerfed and is no longer quasi universalist into anything. And this seems to go for a bunch of factions beyond just DE. I saw someone claiming only really Orks can do assault well now (although I don't know if that's true) - but not with Boyz.

Tyel wrote:
This is mainly because (imo) assault has been nerfed and is no longer quasi universalist into anything. And this seems to go for a bunch of factions beyond just DE. I saw someone claiming only really Orks can do assault well now (although I don't know if that's true) - but not with Boyz.

I don't think you are wrong here - squighog boyz, beastsnagga boyz and nobz backed by army-wide sustained hits and the Waaagh! itself are all effective against a great number of different targets, and many more less powerful choices like dreads, kanz, battlewagons and killrigs follow that trend. It's a mix of good buff characters, high base strength, a bit of AP and 2 damage everywhere that makes them good against almost everything.
I think it's just heavy infantry that orks have no good way of dealing with (neither combat nor shooting), but also don't see anyone spamming those right now.

The only thing i can really think of would be the walkers. They have the damage characteristic, AP and amount of attacks to deal with heavy infantry such as custodes. Maybe you could try spamming rokkits at a unit that is 5+? A unit of deffkoptas (with mek) should do at least a bit of ranged damage at such targets. Shame you wouldn't be wounding on 2 though.

I do think Custodes can mess stuff up in combat though.

Tyel wrote:
I was looking to really discuss Jidmah's categories - and why I think its resulting in games being over quickly - rather than debate whether a Predator can kill MANz.

The problem as far as I can see is that unit's defensive stats have been budged into these categories - but the weapons hasn't followed (or has only done so half-heartedly for a bunch of indexes).

That was my point, even beyond it - that new categories have been created. Most people agreed on at least three - MEQ (T4, 3+ or thereabouts) TEQ (T5, 2+, 5++ or thereabouts) and (Heavy) Vehicles. Some might split out the light vehicles - which is fair. Some might add GEQ (Guard equivalent T3, 5+) which is also fair. But expanding the top of the SvT range curves from the T Side much more often than the S side has created more of a stairstep than a curve. A lot of the TEQ "aimed" weapons did not get a S bump to include the Gravis Equivalents - likely because the TEQ units didn't get the T bump that Gravis did - meanwhile the sweet spot Gravis Equivalents landed in have guns more aimed at wounding Guard Equivalents on 2's than ripping up W3 3+ models. All those S6 -0 D1 guns are for Guard Equivalents with T3 W1 and minimal armor to start with - similar to the way you see OC Plasma being S8 -3 D2 vs a T4, 3+, D2 MEQ. Or why it wasn't unhead of to see S8 -2 D6D Krak missile storms heading into MEQ. As they're now S9, -2 D6+1 its even easier to see the MEQ overkill - while Superkrak and the Las-Not-Cannons going to S10, -2, D6+1 area to hurl into TEQ is also in the mix - finally you've got the actual Lascannon for the 2+ to wound T6 Gravis Equivalents - if they're not too busy shooting into T12 vehicles.

Which is basically a way of saying - SM can choose from Melta, Plasma, Grav, Autocannons, Assault Cannons, mass Heavy Bolters, etc etc - but most other factions can't.

For example as DE my tool for dealing with categories 3 to 7 is... Dark Lances. Or I guess Heat Lances or if pressed Blasters etc - but its basically Lances all the way down. My other weapon profiles are typically low S (although sometimes poisoned), low AP and usually 1 damage. Which doesn't especially do the job into MEQ, never mind anything tougher.

Which means the game can feel very dependent on alpha strike. If I nuke your tough units off the table (if I can bring 20+ lances to bear I have a decent chance) then I'm likely to win. If however you nuke these units off the table, I'm left with stuff that can't reliably scratch anything bigger than a space marine.

This is mainly because (imo) assault has been nerfed and is no longer quasi universalist into anything. And this seems to go for a bunch of factions beyond just DE. I saw someone claiming only really Orks can do assault well now (although I don't know if that's true) - but not with Boyz.

Basically we're talking about the stratafication of attacks into targets. And the rings in the tree trunk for T5, T6, did not grow, and may have even shrunk. I (slightly more than) haflway suspect this was intentional on GW's part. Some players can/will choose/be forced to lean into the Lascannon/Lance/etc options either because they don't have any others - or they don't have enough models to cover all the options (like Knights or Custodes etc). But I get the feeling we're being pushed into TAC lists that have a little bit of each strata in their arsenal. Probably another reason Desolation Squads are expected to get spanked down so hard they won't be able to sit until 12th edition. In addition to a bucket of indirect dice that don't suffer indirect penalties, they've also got one of the better gun stats for multiple targets 10x Superkrak can lay into TEQ or Mid Range Monsters fairly well.

Assuming GW sticks with this design philosophy long enough, I would expect to see more attack sources in the TEQ and Gravis EQ range for all factions. And between the Side Grade thing, and stratafication I'd even expect anit-TEQ attacks to not cross over with the Anti-GravisEQ attacks - probably through a manipulation of the Attacks, S and AP as D/W is pretty similar on both (though D4 on the TEQ for Stormshields and Crisis Suits has potential) - AP-2 on TEQ generally pushes them onto their Invuln.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally - as I look at the Drukhari sheets - they may have been hit by the similar "unintended consqueunces" cracks that hit Sisters with the change to Melta vs their original design. They(DE) were designed with a Poison approach way back when heavy infantry had two wounds. Maybe. They haven't been kept up with the expanding profiles, and they don't have the depth that Aeldari does from their walkers and support weapons in addition to the similar speeders.

cody.d. wrote:
The only thing i can really think of would be the walkers. They have the damage characteristic, AP and amount of attacks to deal with heavy infantry such as custodes. Maybe you could try spamming rokkits at a unit that is 5+? A unit of deffkoptas (with mek) should do at least a bit of ranged damage at such targets. Shame you wouldn't be wounding on 2 though.

I do think Custodes can mess stuff up in combat though.

well they do, but who in their right mind plays a melee army in 10th? Maybe if the design of the army forces you to do it, it can be a problem, at most other times a melee heavy or melee centric army in the age of overwatch is not going to be making it cross midfield. Horde armies can at least try and suffer horrible number of models lost, but something like BA or GK players would be just wasting time playing vs custodes. There is more match ups like that in 10th though. BT in GK. Melee, including custodes, in to knights or eldar. And I don't even know what people that started DG in 8th are doing right now with their armies.

Karol wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
The only thing i can really think of would be the walkers. They have the damage characteristic, AP and amount of attacks to deal with heavy infantry such as custodes. Maybe you could try spamming rokkits at a unit that is 5+? A unit of deffkoptas (with mek) should do at least a bit of ranged damage at such targets. Shame you wouldn't be wounding on 2 though.

I do think Custodes can mess stuff up in combat though.

well they do, but who in their right mind plays a melee army in 10th? Maybe if the design of the army forces you to do it, it can be a problem, at most other times a melee heavy or melee centric army in the age of overwatch is not going to be making it cross midfield. Horde armies can at least try and suffer horrible number of models lost, but something like BA or GK players would be just wasting time playing vs custodes. There is more match ups like that in 10th though. BT in GK. Melee, including custodes, in to knights or eldar. And I don't even know what people that started DG in 8th are doing right now with their armies.

Overwatch (the Strat) is still limited to once per turn- not even once per phase.. Even the SM Captains (probably) don't trump that additional restriction - at least that's how I'd read it. You've probably got a unit or two that has an Overwatch mimicking bespoke, or that improves the chances of overwatch. Am I reading Overwatch wrong, or are other people playing it wrong?

how does it doesn't trump the restriction. It say once per phase, even if it was used use it again.
Gulliman+20 desolators are like basic noob marine army right now.

GK don't have any "overwatch" buffing special rules. The best you can get is the use again stratagem on the NDK GM. But the problem with all of those and GK, is that their range weapons are really bad. 10 termintors with 2 psycanons and a character attached cost like an eldar WK, but they sure as hell do not have the resiliance, offensive power. heck they don't even have the offensive power of a 10 desolators firing from behing a ruin.

Karol wrote:
how does it doesn't trump the restriction. It say once per phase, even if it was used use it again.

Based on the wording of Rites, and the wording of the Restriction(s) on strats in general, and the Overwatch strat in specific.
Generic Strat Rules: "but you cannot use the same Stratagem more than once in the same phase."
Rites of Battle: "even if another unit from your army has already been targeted by that Stratagem this phase."
Overwatch: "One unit from your army that is within 24 inches" .... and .... "You can only use this Stratagem
once per turn".

It feels like Rites does get around "in the same phase" - they're mostly the same wording Rites Phase Empowerment cancels Strat Phase Restriction - but not "Once Per Turn" - different wording and increased restriction.

Gulliman+20 desolators are like basic noob marine army right now.

GK don't have any "overwatch" buffing special rules. The best you can get is the use again stratagem on the NDK GM. But the problem with all of those and GK, is that their range weapons are really bad. 10 termintors with 2 psycanons and a character attached cost like an eldar WK, but they sure as hell do not have the resiliance, offensive power. heck they don't even have the offensive power of a 10 desolators firing from behing a ruin.

Karol wrote:

Gulliman+20 desolators are like basic noob marine army right now.

pretty sure your average noob doesn't have 20 desolators

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

Gulliman+20 desolators are like basic noob marine army right now.

pretty sure your average noob doesn't have 20 desolators

It's a reference to relative skill level required to pilot the list.

Breton wrote:

Karol wrote:
how does it doesn't trump the restriction. It say once per phase, even if it was used use it again.

Based on the wording of Rites, and the wording of the Restriction(s) on strats in general, and the Overwatch strat in specific.
Generic Strat Rules: "but you cannot use the same Stratagem more than once in the same phase."
Rites of Battle: "even if another unit from your army has already been targeted by that Stratagem this phase."
Overwatch: "One unit from your army that is within 24 inches" .... and .... "You can only use this Stratagem
once per turn".

It feels like Rites does get around "in the same phase" - they're mostly the same wording Rites Phase Empowerment cancels Strat Phase Restriction - but not "Once Per Turn" - different wording and increased restriction.

Agreed.

Flesh Hounds have a similar situation:

Pouncing Hunters: You can target this unit with the Heroic Intervention Stratagem for 0CP, and can do so even if
you have already used that Stratagem on a different unit this phase.

Fire Overwatch changes the default restriction from "once per phase" to "once per turn", and Rites of Battle goes:

Rites of Battle: Once per battle round, one unit from your army with this ability can be targeted by a Stratagem for 0CP, even if another unit from your army has already been targeted by that Stratagem this phase.

That's permission to overrule the basic restriction of using the same stratagem only once per phase, so those captains will be able to do things like multiple heroic interventions, but it's not enough to overrule Fire Overwatch's own restriction. Just like how in previous editions, deep striking in a land raider and getting out the assault ramp didn't allow a unit to assault after deep striking.