This coming from an Eldar player, but wtf have GW done?
It’s beyond frustrating but the list of poor choices is mind blowing….

Fate Dice. 12 regardless if you’re playing 1000pts or 2000pts.
Got a bad roll? Don’t worry, just take out a dice and try again.

Wraithknights. How can you possibly point the double wraith cannon knight the same as the suncannon knight?

Dcannons
Fire prisms.

Throw in harlequins and Ynnari and you basically have a tool for every job.

Yes, points must be addressed, and Fate Dice, but what else?
I want to play my pointy ears without feeling dirty.

 bullyboy wrote:
How is GW going to fix Eldar?

Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

 bullyboy wrote:
This coming from an Eldar player, but wtf have GW done?
It’s beyond frustrating but the list of poor choices is mind blowing….

Fate Dice. 12 regardless if you’re playing 1000pts or 2000pts.
Got a bad roll? Don’t worry, just take out a dice and try again.

Wraithknights. How can you possibly point the double wraith cannon knight the same as the suncannon knight?

Dcannons
Fire prisms.

Throw in harlequins and Ynnari and you basically have a tool for every job.

Yes, points must be addressed, and Fate Dice, but what else?
I want to play my pointy ears without feeling dirty.

With a FAQ about 3-6 months from now after the players have found all the problems.

A lot of the issues are core rules related, so the core rules need to be addressed at the same time. Towering, Blast (esp on d3 shot weapons) Indirect and Devastating Wounds are just a couple of core rules problems and 3 of them converge on the Wraithknight. You could just remove devastating wounds off of the Wraithknight, but you'll still be eating 26 mortals from a squad of Possessed or being tabled turn 2 by a Tsons army.

Fate Dice at the least should work like Sisters in that a unit can only use one per phase.

In general though you almost need to lean into the stupid gak in the army if you're going to be playing an event. Marines, Knights and Custodes are these gigantic damage checks that cannot be overcome with the rest of the army unless you lean into a giant alpha strike list focused around Wraithknights. If those 3 factions were less popular you might be able to go a little easier, but they aint so even at an RTT you run the risk of all 3 of your games being tabled by those factions.

It's like an OP arms race.

speaking as someone with a sister's army, fate dice vs mircle dice is INSULTING.

"yeah so we gave eldar the sisters ability but we turned it up to 11"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
How is GW going to fix Eldar?

Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

Nailed it.

They are incapable of balancing in moderation. Everything is these huge swings from terrible to amazing or vice versa. Wish they’d outsource the rules writing to a 3rd party team of competent games writers, or at least learn to playtest their own shoddy rules first.

nemesis464 wrote:


They are incapable of balancing in moderation. Everything is these huge swings from terrible to amazing or vice versa. Wish they’d outsource the rules writing to a 3rd party team of competent games writers, or at least learn to playtest their own shoddy rules first.

I call it the Rubber Band Effect. On the one hand, like stretching a rubber band to its limit the rebound is always pretty large. On the other hand it sure feels like they want to sting the people who find a combo and/or rules interaction they didn't find and don't approve of because that's the sin, not that they didn't catch it in the first place.

There are a couple of things they could do to help, but I don't think they'd solve the issues.

Fate dice, at the very least, should count as modified dice so you can't trigger Devastating Wounds from them. I'd actually take a leaf out of most other games' books here and specify re-rolls as modifying, so you can only proc DW on a natural Critical Wound roll, to prevent fishing for them if you have full wound re-rolls. Fate dice need a general makeover anyway. I assumed GW would allow SoB more ways to modify and mess with Miracle Dice than Eldar would have ways to do the same with Fate Dice, but the opposite may well be true. I don't understand why Eldar get to re-roll a bad set of dice while still getting lots of ways to manipulate the values in-game as well. I'd change that and add restrictions to how many can be used per unit and per phase.

Towering needs to change. Having such a rule on units that are overwhelmingly very powerful and durable is just bad design because its effects are not equal to both sides and potentially game-warping under some circumstances. I'd either go back to 9th edition's rule so it only works one way, or scrap it completely. That would partially fix the Wraithknight problem, but in reality it needs a big points increase. GW also needs to scrap their approach to points because it's abundantly clear it can't cope with units like Wraithknights that have multiple loadouts with big disparities in their power.

 Bosskelot wrote:
A lot of the issues are core rules related, so the core rules need to be addressed at the same time. Towering, Blast (esp on d3 shot weapons) Indirect and Devastating Wounds are just a couple of core rules problems and 3 of them converge on the Wraithknight. You could just remove devastating wounds off of the Wraithknight, but you'll still be eating 26 mortals from a squad of Possessed or being tabled turn 2 by a Tsons army.

Fate Dice at the least should work like Sisters in that a unit can only use one per phase.

In general though you almost need to lean into the stupid gak in the army if you're going to be playing an event. Marines, Knights and Custodes are these gigantic damage checks that cannot be overcome with the rest of the army unless you lean into a giant alpha strike list focused around Wraithknights. If those 3 factions were less popular you might be able to go a little easier, but they aint so even at an RTT you run the risk of all 3 of your games being tabled by those factions.

It's like an OP arms race.

For problems with the core rules, Mortal Wounds (the way they can spread across a unit) are a problem itself. It seems like a concept that's come from Age of Sigmar (?), but it seems to cause more problems than not. Perhaps they should change the distribution depending on source, e.g. from a weapon it's distributed like other wounds; from special rules [like falling back when battleshocked or suffering from exploding transports] you just count them up for unit as normal.

 Daba wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
A lot of the issues are core rules related, so the core rules need to be addressed at the same time. Towering, Blast (esp on d3 shot weapons) Indirect and Devastating Wounds are just a couple of core rules problems and 3 of them converge on the Wraithknight. You could just remove devastating wounds off of the Wraithknight, but you'll still be eating 26 mortals from a squad of Possessed or being tabled turn 2 by a Tsons army.

Fate Dice at the least should work like Sisters in that a unit can only use one per phase.

In general though you almost need to lean into the stupid gak in the army if you're going to be playing an event. Marines, Knights and Custodes are these gigantic damage checks that cannot be overcome with the rest of the army unless you lean into a giant alpha strike list focused around Wraithknights. If those 3 factions were less popular you might be able to go a little easier, but they aint so even at an RTT you run the risk of all 3 of your games being tabled by those factions.

It's like an OP arms race.

For problems with the core rules, Mortal Wounds (the way they can spread across a unit) are a problem itself. It seems like a concept that's come from Age of Sigmar (?), but it seems to cause more problems than not. Perhaps they should change the distribution depending on source, e.g. from a weapon it's distributed like other wounds; from special rules [like falling back when battleshocked or suffering from exploding transports] you just count them up for unit as normal.

Dev wounds is especially problematic because it modifies all damage into mortals and so even if you put a cap on mortals caused you then end up with awkward situations of transferring MWs into regular damage once they hit the mortals cap.

If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
How is GW going to fix Eldar?

Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

while cynical you are likely spot on, I also suspect you will see one or two other factions getting some specific tools that help them fight Eldar, which will make them also obliterate other lower toughness forces

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
How is GW going to fix Eldar?

Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

Yep. I'm preparing to have miracle dice nerfed for the sins of the Eldar.

I wish I could disagree with you HBMC, but I can't. It is the future you see.

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

We'll find out what the fix is next month at least, not a long wait.

According to new warcom video, looks like it’s dropping next week. Points and balance check.

 bullyboy wrote:
According to new warcom video, looks like it’s dropping next week. Points and balance check.

Should be fun watching them try to balance points in a game that no longer has them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
According to new warcom video, looks like it’s dropping next week. Points and balance check.

Should be fun watching them try to balance points in a game that no longer has them.

Weird, I thought a wraithknight was 370 points?

And interestingly they DID slap Support Weapons early. The printed version sounds like it was still 3 and the index errata changes it to 1.

Dudeface wrote:
Weird, I thought a wraithknight was 370 points?

They can't call 'em points as much as they want. They're still just Power Level with an extra digit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
According to new warcom video, looks like it’s dropping next week. Points and balance check.

Should be fun watching them try to balance points in a game that no longer has them.

They might just split the wraithknight into 2 units, one with the scatter shield and one weapon and the other with two non sword weapons. Given they refuse to use upgrade costs.

Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't give that much of a gak about Eldar. Or knights. Or any other OP army.(outside of my personal disdain for Strands of Fate)

I care about the dogshit armies. Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, Votann, whoever sucks right now.

I think fixing those armies so that those players can actually participate in the edition is a bigger deal than how many mortal wounds a Wraithknight does.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Weird, I thought a wraithknight was 370 points?

They can't call 'em points as much as they want. They're still just Power Level with an extra digit.

Like or not, they're a form of points. Otherwise you're open play take models off a shelf nobody gives a gak type of gaming, which clearly we aren't.

ERJAK wrote:
Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't give that much of a gak about Eldar. Or knights. Or any other OP army.(outside of my personal disdain for Strands of Fate)

I care about the dogshit armies. Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, Votann, whoever sucks right now.

I think fixing those armies so that those players can actually participate in the edition is a bigger deal than how many mortal wounds a Wraithknight does.

It's better to nerf from the top than to buff from the bottom, I think. That it it involves hitting fewer factions than having to buff all the underperformers. There's also a lot to be uncovered.

PenitentJake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
How is GW going to fix Eldar?

Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

Yep. I'm preparing to have miracle dice nerfed for the sins of the Eldar.

I wish I could disagree with you HBMC, but I can't. It is the future you see.

The Exorcist (currently our only good unit) is going to get hit in the indirect changes as well, despite being perfectly fair even WITH miracle dice.

They did say "forms" of indirect fire. What that means could be anything, but it seems like they'd hit only the whacky ones. Hopefully...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't give that much of a gak about Eldar. Or knights. Or any other OP army.(outside of my personal disdain for Strands of Fate)

I care about the dogshit armies. Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, Votann, whoever sucks right now.

I think fixing those armies so that those players can actually participate in the edition is a bigger deal than how many mortal wounds a Wraithknight does.

It's better to nerf from the top than to buff from the bottom, I think. That it it involves hitting fewer factions than having to buff all the underperformers. There's also a lot to be uncovered.

You have to buff all the underperformers anyway. Changing things at the top only helps the guys in second place.

I would also argue that there's only a lot to be uncovered in the top armies or the armies that have radically reallocated their strength since 9th(DE being shooty now). Some of the indexes are very much solved, and most of those are the bad ones.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't give that much of a gak about Eldar. Or knights. Or any other OP army.(outside of my personal disdain for Strands of Fate)

I care about the dogshit armies. Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, Votann, whoever sucks right now.

I think fixing those armies so that those players can actually participate in the edition is a bigger deal than how many mortal wounds a Wraithknight does.

It's better to nerf from the top than to buff from the bottom, I think. That it it involves hitting fewer factions than having to buff all the underperformers. There's also a lot to be uncovered.

You have to buff all the underperformers anyway. Changing things at the top only helps the guys in second place.

I would also argue that there's only a lot to be uncovered in the top armies or the armies that have radically reallocated their strength since 9th(DE being shooty now). Some of the indexes are very much solved, and most of those are the bad ones.

You do have to do both, but you should only do one at a time.

I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

That just makes it worse, honestly. You can't have it where only 1 unit in the army is capable of killing tanks. Your opponent will just nuke them the moment he sees them.

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

This seems to be a problem caused by a whole cascade of terrible rules, all stacked atop one another.

- Devastating Wounds. Mortal Wounds on 6s was common enough in 8th/9th that it wasn't unreasonable to make it a USR. However, perhaps as a result of wanting to make the most of their USR, we've seen Devastating Wounds rolled out to far more weapons/units. More importantly still, the rule has undergone a number of key changes:
- Mortal Wounds are inflicted on a critical, not on a straight 6 (so there are now many ways to do Mortal Wounds on a 4+ or 5+, rather than only ever on a 6+). This in particular seems like a mechanic that only exists for a few specific weapons/units but which has been extended to the main USR. At the very least, it feels like something that should be a variable (e.g. have "Devastating Wounds [6+]", "Devastating Wounds [Critical]" etc.) so that you can control whether or not a given weapon/unit's ability to deal Mortal Wounds can be improved or not.
- Mortal Wounds are inflicted instead of the normal damage (rather than in addition to it). This might have been a slight nerf had it not been for...
- Instead of just doing 1 extra Mortal Wound, you now inflict as many as your weapon's normal damage. So instantly the potential is ramped up substantially. Because clearly GW learned nothing from the Succubus. This can make weapons very swingy and also have the weird effect of making low-RoF weapons with high damage suddenly able to mow down hordes of infantry with the right rolls. Or a little help from Fate . . .

- This brings us neatly to Fate Dice. Even apart from anything else, Fate Dice are a rather strange and nonsensical mechanic to begin with. With SoB, Miracle Dice as a global mechanic is a reasonable abstraction because whether or not a given prayer is answered is outside the direct control of any SoB unit. However, with Eldar, one cannot help but feel that this mechanic should be tied to Farseers for the obvious reason that they are the ones doing the foreseeing and trying to meddle with destiny.
Anyway, mechanically speaking Fate Dice have several issues:
- They don't scale with battle size (you get the same amount whether you're playing 500pts or 2000pts).
- They're extremely front-loaded (Remember how CPs were changed to a gradual mechanic because front-loading them drastically increased the alpha-strike potential? Pepperbridge Farm remembers but clearly no one at GW does.)
- They count for criticals and so proc. Mortal Wounds.
- There are no limits on how many you can spend at any one time (so if a certain unit has a powerful but swingy gun with the potential for extremely high damage output, you can freely just spend a pile of dice to guarantee ridiculous levels of damage).


It feels like the first attempt by some fans to write 40k rules, rather than ones put out by a profession company with 9 prior attempts under its belt.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

This, sadly.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Strands of Fate is way too strong of a mechanic even if they pulled Dev wounds off of everything in the army. There's a reason Sisters don't start the game with 12 dice.

ERJAK wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Strands of Fate is way too strong of a mechanic even if they pulled Dev wounds off of everything in the army. There's a reason Sisters don't start the game with 12 dice.

Agreed and there is no reason why Eldar should but still waiting on GW to bother looking at the obviously broken stuff

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

Right, changing the 6 = +1 MW like in 9e might fix D-Cannons but then it makes Assault Cannons remarkably better. On the other hand the assault cannon has never struck me as a devastating weapon, Sustained Hits seems to make a lot more sense for the various rotary cannon type weapons out there.

On the topic of fixes, you could instead decouple Fate Dice from Criticals with a rule stating that substitutions for Fate Dice do not trigger effects relying on Critical Hits or Critical Wounds. I would not apply this to Miracle Dice though since they don't need to share the nerf CWE gets.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

Right, changing the 6 = +1 MW like in 9e might fix D-Cannons but then it makes Assault Cannons remarkably better. On the other hand the assault cannon has never struck me as a devastating weapon, Sustained Hits seems to make a lot more sense for the various rotary cannon type weapons out there.

On the topic of fixes, you could instead decouple Fate Dice from Criticals with a rule stating that substitutions for Fate Dice do not trigger effects relying on Critical Hits or Critical Wounds. I would not apply this to Miracle Dice though since they don't need to share the nerf CWE gets.

The issue isn’t purely one of DW being too good on Eldar; it’s their ability to force it. So while that change would be a buff to assault cannons, it wouldn’t be that hard of a buff given the marine player can’t just sub in a bunch of sixes to force proc it whenever they want.

That’s the biggest problem with Eldar. Not just the damage potential they have at the high end with the DW mechanics, but the fact that they have a super easy no-fuss means by which to activate it on demand. And that its even sillier because that means of bypassing rng in turn has its own rng protection, via allowing you to continue to reroll and fish for sufficient sixes.

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

I mean, the 8th edition indexes were nothing like the 8th edition codexes (for better or worse).

Let's just hope GW's a bit more consistent with their rules writing this time. (lol)

ERJAK wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Strands of Fate is way too strong of a mechanic even if they pulled Dev wounds off of everything in the army. There's a reason Sisters don't start the game with 12 dice.

The problem is not really with the amount of total dice. Going by 9th most Aeldari lists would have more fate dice in total, especially if they were Ulthwe, and they'd all be sixes.

Where the issue arises in 10th's version of the rule is that you're able to access all those dice at once and be able to use as many as you want at a single time on a single unit. A unit being able to use only a single dice per phase would drastically cut down on a lot of the nonsense, alongside a general change to dev wounds.

I mean in an ideal world I'd just much rather have 9th's version of the rule and ideally I'd just much rather be playing 9th in general. But that's not the world we live in.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

Several armies immediately crash and burn because they have few or even no methods of dealing with high toughness, high armor targets.

You can't simply take devastating wounds out of this system now, or massively rework it. It runs too deep as a solution to a lot of problems, from tanks to invulnerable saves.
You can reduce dependency on it, if you give the armies that need it proper AT weapons, but that's a lot of new units across multiple factions and can't be done quickly.

At that point you should also realize that it doesn't actually hurt eldar that much, because it doesn't address the actual problem (fate dice) and they DO have alternatives to MW, thanks to being designed back in second edition as a proper army with an expansive range and weapon options .

 Bosskelot wrote:

I mean in an ideal world I'd just much rather have 9th's version of the rule and ideally I'd just much rather be playing 9th in general. But that's not the world we live in.

Why not, do the rest of your player group prefer Xth? All my buddies are staying with 9th until when/if GW makes it appealing to us.

Voss wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

Several armies immediately crash and burn because they have few or even no methods of dealing with high toughness, high armor targets.

Maybe that's a problem with those units having absurd durability, or some armies not being designed well enough. After all Melta needs a fix already and there's a thread in the proposed rules for it.

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

If its a problem its not much of one. 6 shots, Devastate on a 6+ is 1 DW per activation. That's pretty minor.

Breton wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

If its a problem its not much of one. 6 shots, Devastate on a 6+ is 1 DW per activation. That's pretty minor.

Hmmm...let me think...is there an army in the game...that has access to a decent whack of Assault Cannons...and enough reroll hits and wounds to make it a problem.

HMMMMMMM...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

I said 3 OR 4. And no it wouldn't make Melta the best weapon in the game. Its still only 1-2 shots that will still whiff on T9+ MONSTERs and choke out on high quantity low quality - Only the Monster drawback really applies to Anti-Vehicle 2+ Grav. It makes it Melta one of the better anti-Vehicle weapons (as it probably should be) but that's about it. Its got a defined and specific/limited role there while putting it on Grav make Grav a little TOO versatile especially for a One Faction Element.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

Do assault cannons become much better if devastating wounds changes to "you get a mortal and a regular hit" rather than "turn all damage into mortal wounds"?

I mean current rules an assault cannon is S6 AP-, Devastating Wounds.

So for the sake of example lets shoot into a Marine and for easy maths lets say you get 6 hits.
On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, 2 failures. 3 wounds into 3+ save means one goes through armour. So 1 mortal wound, one regular wound.

With the proposed uplift.
6 hits. On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, the 6 counts as a mortal and a regular wound. So 4 wounds onto armour, 4/3 go though.
So 1 mortal+1.333 regular wounds.

So you'd need 18 hits, or 27 BS3+ shots, to expect to do an extra wound into marines. Not sure that's a major uplift?

Oath of Moment etc will obviously boost this - but then it boosts everything.

Tyel wrote:
Do assault cannons become much better if devastating wounds changes to "you get a mortal and a regular hit" rather than "turn all damage into mortal wounds"?

I mean current rules an assault cannon is S6 AP-, Devastating Wounds.

So for the sake of example lets shoot into a Marine and for easy maths lets say you get 6 hits.
On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, 2 failures. 3 wounds into 3+ save means one goes through armour. So 1 mortal wound, one regular wound.

With the proposed uplift.
6 hits. On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, the 6 counts as a mortal and a regular wound. So 4 wounds onto armour, 4/3 go though.
So 1 mortal+1.333 regular wounds.

So you'd need 18 hits, or 27 BS3+ shots, to expect to do an extra wound into marines. Not sure that's a major uplift?

Oath of Moment etc will obviously boost this - but then it boosts everything.

Yeah Assault Cannons are not the place this goes nuts. In fact, its not much in Marines. Best you've got I'd guess is Cassius leading some Assault Marines and getting Devastating Wounds on 40-50 some Chainsword, Power Fist, and Eviscerator attacks - about 8 Devastating doing about 9 Mortals.

Apparently they are at least somewhat aware of the issue:

A few other documents were mentioned in the video that you should be aware of. The first of these contains the initial balance updates that will launch in early July, seeking to address some of the early imbalances that have emerged in the new armies. Chief among these will be changes to Fate dice used by the Aeldari, and forms of indirect fire.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/30/warhammer-40000-metawatch-storming-into-10th-edition/

Must have slipped by all that playtesting they said happened....

I think it will be a real shame if terrain and the Towering keyword interactaction is not addressed. Wraithknights shooting is really what has a lot of folks upset: it is not just about Fate Dice. I haven't seen Fate Dice be the issue except when combined with the above mentioned interaction.

I'm 2-4 so far in my games using Wraithknights. Fate Dice certainly dish out the damage with their Wraithcannons, but I've had players who can play around it. However, there was the initial shock of the amount of damage they inflict on the opening turn, which is where I suspect most of the drama comes from.

The bigger issue is that our terrain is designed for 9th edition. In 10th, those Wraithknights are cracking vehicles and Knights as there is no place to hide them (aside from Strategic Reserve, hint, hint).

Infantry can hide from Wraithknights on our 9th edition terrain and units such as Desolators and Hellblasters cripple or outright destroy a Wraithknight in one round of shooting as the Wraithknight can be seen and likely do not have an invulnerable save (I wanted 2 Wraithcannons for each one, for example).

There are armies out there that can even shrug off a Wraithknight shooting. Necrons have scarily resilient builds even against Mortal Wounds.

People quickly figure out to kill the Guardians to mitigate more Fate Dice. It took all of one game for opponents to see that.

But I suspect GW will take a sledgehammer to Fate Dice immediately and not allow the community time to adjust to 10th edition and cool models will go back on the shelf and watch something else become the new bogeyman. Then we get to see the internet complain about the new bogeyman and GW will come in and gimp it. Kind of like playing whack a mole.

Personally, GW should never put aircraft and super heavy models into the game. They are yet to get rules properly in place that interacts well within the game. But, here we are.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't give that much of a gak about Eldar. Or knights. Or any other OP army.(outside of my personal disdain for Strands of Fate)

I care about the dogshit armies. Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, Votann, whoever sucks right now.

I think fixing those armies so that those players can actually participate in the edition is a bigger deal than how many mortal wounds a Wraithknight does.

It's better to nerf from the top than to buff from the bottom, I think. That it it involves hitting fewer factions than having to buff all the underperformers. There's also a lot to be uncovered.

Agreed. I’d rather every army be on the weaker side than the stronger side. Makes for less lethality (like GW apparently wanted), and makes for longer games that aren’t just all the models shot off the table by turn 3.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
According to new warcom video, looks like it’s dropping next week. Points and balance check.

Should be fun watching them try to balance points in a game that no longer has them.

They might just split the wraithknight into 2 units, one with the scatter shield and one weapon and the other with two non sword weapons. Given they refuse to use upgrade costs.

From that perspective the problem is the shield. A 4+ invulnerable is good but not good enough on a model with a 2+ regular save to overlook a weapon as lethal as the heavy wraithcannon. If it added another bonus it might become more interesting - maybe letting it also add wounds like the custodes shield, or granting the benefit of cover.

Old rule scattershield used to bounce back wounds, that’s what it needs. Rebound MWs on successful save up to a max of x
I planned to just place a weapon over the top of mine since it’s never been good tbh

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

And melta being good at killing vehicles is not bad if it's pointed as such. Of course, because you defend everything about GW, you're fine with the paradigm where you can't adjust points, melta sucks at dealing with vehicles, and as a result, armies like Sisters are easily overwhelmed by vehicle heavy lists.

It'll be entertaining to watch the game evolve over the next 6 months as people get tired of braindead parking lots.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

The fact that in 9th MMs were massively better than say lascannons - and a major feature of why vehicles/monsters died when any unit equipped with them looked at them.
There's this strange idea on Dakka (less elsewhere tbh) that the issue was "plasma spam" - but that wasn't really a thing after 8th edition.

As it stands, shooting into say a toughness 10 3+ unit at BS4+.
Lascannon: 1*1/2*2/3*5/6*4.5=1.25.
MM: 2*1/2*1/3*1*3.5=1.16. Rising in 9" to 1.83.

Its a bit worse if the unit has say a 5++ or something - but so what.

Sisters have lots of problems. The fact they only have MMs isn't one of them. The fact Retributors are more expensive than Devs is a reasonable complaint.
Sure - if you make MMs sufficiently broken they will act as a crutch for the rest of the Sisters list. The problem however is that Space Marines can - and have done in 9th - happily spam Melta too.

If GW made an MM Anti-Vehicle 3+ then it expects to do double the damage in the above. That's double the damage in 18" to a Lascannon - and triple in short range. This is not reasonable.

Tyel wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

The fact that in 9th MMs were massively better than say lascannons - and a major feature of why vehicles/monsters died when any unit equipped with them looked at them.
There's this strange idea on Dakka (less elsewhere tbh) that the issue was "plasma spam" - but that wasn't really a thing after 8th edition.

As it stands, shooting into say a toughness 10 3+ unit at BS4+.
Lascannon: 1*1/2*2/3*5/6*4.5=1.25.
MM: 2*1/2*1/3*1*3.5=1.16. Rising in 9" to 1.83.

Its a bit worse if the unit has say a 5++ or something - but so what.

Sisters have lots of problems. The fact they only have MMs isn't one of them. The fact Retributors are more expensive than Devs is a reasonable complaint.
Sure - if you make MMs sufficiently broken they will act as a crutch for the rest of the Sisters list. The problem however is that Space Marines can - and have done in 9th - happily spam Melta too.

If GW made an MM Anti-Vehicle 3+ then it expects to do double the damage in the above. That's double the damage in 18" to a Lascannon - and triple in short range. This is not reasonable.

How much damage does it do outside of 18 inches where the Knight can't charge you when/if it lives?
How much damage does it do to the Tyrannofex?

Old One Eye and his brood move 8". If you're inside 9" for the MELTA bonus, how many turns do you have to shoot and wear down the character and brood before they charge you? How many wounds will they have left? How many turns will the 4 Devs 40 some inches away?

Sarigar wrote:
I think it will be a real shame if terrain and the Towering keyword interactaction is not addressed. Wraithknights shooting is really what has a lot of folks upset: it is not just about Fate Dice. I haven't seen Fate Dice be the issue except when combined with the above mentioned interaction.

I'm 2-4 so far in my games using Wraithknights. Fate Dice certainly dish out the damage with their Wraithcannons, but I've had players who can play around it. However, there was the initial shock of the amount of damage they inflict on the opening turn, which is where I suspect most of the drama comes from.

The bigger issue is that our terrain is designed for 9th edition. In 10th, those Wraithknights are cracking vehicles and Knights as there is no place to hide them (aside from Strategic Reserve, hint, hint).

Infantry can hide from Wraithknights on our 9th edition terrain and units such as Desolators and Hellblasters cripple or outright destroy a Wraithknight in one round of shooting as the Wraithknight can be seen and likely do not have an invulnerable save (I wanted 2 Wraithcannons for each one, for example).

There are armies out there that can even shrug off a Wraithknight shooting. Necrons have scarily resilient builds even against Mortal Wounds.

People quickly figure out to kill the Guardians to mitigate more Fate Dice. It took all of one game for opponents to see that.

But I suspect GW will take a sledgehammer to Fate Dice immediately and not allow the community time to adjust to 10th edition and cool models will go back on the shelf and watch something else become the new bogeyman. Then we get to see the internet complain about the new bogeyman and GW will come in and gimp it. Kind of like playing whack a mole.

Personally, GW should never put aircraft and super heavy models into the game. They are yet to get rules properly in place that interacts well within the game. But, here we are.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Breton wrote:

Tyel wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

The fact that in 9th MMs were massively better than say lascannons - and a major feature of why vehicles/monsters died when any unit equipped with them looked at them.
There's this strange idea on Dakka (less elsewhere tbh) that the issue was "plasma spam" - but that wasn't really a thing after 8th edition.

As it stands, shooting into say a toughness 10 3+ unit at BS4+.
Lascannon: 1*1/2*2/3*5/6*4.5=1.25.
MM: 2*1/2*1/3*1*3.5=1.16. Rising in 9" to 1.83.

Its a bit worse if the unit has say a 5++ or something - but so what.

Sisters have lots of problems. The fact they only have MMs isn't one of them. The fact Retributors are more expensive than Devs is a reasonable complaint.
Sure - if you make MMs sufficiently broken they will act as a crutch for the rest of the Sisters list. The problem however is that Space Marines can - and have done in 9th - happily spam Melta too.

If GW made an MM Anti-Vehicle 3+ then it expects to do double the damage in the above. That's double the damage in 18" to a Lascannon - and triple in short range. This is not reasonable.

How much damage does it do outside of 18 inches where the Knight can't charge you when/if it lives?

Range is worth something, but on the smaller boards it's worth considerably less, and that's not accounting any high movement or deep strike shenanigans (which GW never priced fairly)

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
I think it will be a real shame if terrain and the Towering keyword interactaction is not addressed. Wraithknights shooting is really what has a lot of folks upset: it is not just about Fate Dice. I haven't seen Fate Dice be the issue except when combined with the above mentioned interaction.

I'm 2-4 so far in my games using Wraithknights. Fate Dice certainly dish out the damage with their Wraithcannons, but I've had players who can play around it. However, there was the initial shock of the amount of damage they inflict on the opening turn, which is where I suspect most of the drama comes from.

The bigger issue is that our terrain is designed for 9th edition. In 10th, those Wraithknights are cracking vehicles and Knights as there is no place to hide them (aside from Strategic Reserve, hint, hint).

Infantry can hide from Wraithknights on our 9th edition terrain and units such as Desolators and Hellblasters cripple or outright destroy a Wraithknight in one round of shooting as the Wraithknight can be seen and likely do not have an invulnerable save (I wanted 2 Wraithcannons for each one, for example).

There are armies out there that can even shrug off a Wraithknight shooting. Necrons have scarily resilient builds even against Mortal Wounds.

People quickly figure out to kill the Guardians to mitigate more Fate Dice. It took all of one game for opponents to see that.

But I suspect GW will take a sledgehammer to Fate Dice immediately and not allow the community time to adjust to 10th edition and cool models will go back on the shelf and watch something else become the new bogeyman. Then we get to see the internet complain about the new bogeyman and GW will come in and gimp it. Kind of like playing whack a mole.

Personally, GW should never put aircraft and super heavy models into the game. They are yet to get rules properly in place that interacts well within the game. But, here we are.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Disagree and very premature to simply dismiss terrain. Many players and tourney organizers are running the same terrain they had a week prior in 9th edition. Now, models with Towering simply shoot right through that existing terrain where in 9th they were simply unable to in many cases (Area Terrain specifically). Locally, we immediately felt the difference in game mechanics and we play using GW GT Tournament terrain placement/rules. Towering models ability to shoot vastly improved.

I'm perplexed why you think example battlefields demonstrates GW intention. They even state on p.51 of the Core Rules under the 'Matched Play Focused' board: "but they have been set up more evenly across the battlefield, and the middle contains terrain features that block visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other". That is factually incorrect when it comes to the Towering keyword. Towering models are shooting across the table because none of the terrain in the middle blocks LOS. If terrain where that height AND had solid walls, then the statement by GW could be considered more accurate. I'd argue it is more a product placement advertisement of their terrain kits and card tiles.

I do think GW intended for the game to dish out this many Mortal Wounds. I think GW is backpedaling now because of the public outcry over it. Fate Dice will get drastically mitigated, Desolators get a points increase (as Mike Brandt indicated in the interview) and then we wait for the next army to rise to the crop with Aeldari Mortal wound capability mitigated. And even now, there are Necron builds that can withstand the amount of Mortal Wounds Aeldari are able to put out.

I simply think adjusting terrain keeping the Towering keyword in mind will mitigate the issue rather than GW stating they are changing the rules one week after official Leviathan boxset release.

I don't think windows should matter for terrain. It's a serious issue for a few different reasons that the pretty ruins terrain features that GW tries to sell create a worse gameplay experience than styrofoam blocks.

Sarigar wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
I think it will be a real shame if terrain and the Towering keyword interactaction is not addressed. Wraithknights shooting is really what has a lot of folks upset: it is not just about Fate Dice. I haven't seen Fate Dice be the issue except when combined with the above mentioned interaction.

I'm 2-4 so far in my games using Wraithknights. Fate Dice certainly dish out the damage with their Wraithcannons, but I've had players who can play around it. However, there was the initial shock of the amount of damage they inflict on the opening turn, which is where I suspect most of the drama comes from.

The bigger issue is that our terrain is designed for 9th edition. In 10th, those Wraithknights are cracking vehicles and Knights as there is no place to hide them (aside from Strategic Reserve, hint, hint).

Infantry can hide from Wraithknights on our 9th edition terrain and units such as Desolators and Hellblasters cripple or outright destroy a Wraithknight in one round of shooting as the Wraithknight can be seen and likely do not have an invulnerable save (I wanted 2 Wraithcannons for each one, for example).

There are armies out there that can even shrug off a Wraithknight shooting. Necrons have scarily resilient builds even against Mortal Wounds.

People quickly figure out to kill the Guardians to mitigate more Fate Dice. It took all of one game for opponents to see that.

But I suspect GW will take a sledgehammer to Fate Dice immediately and not allow the community time to adjust to 10th edition and cool models will go back on the shelf and watch something else become the new bogeyman. Then we get to see the internet complain about the new bogeyman and GW will come in and gimp it. Kind of like playing whack a mole.

Personally, GW should never put aircraft and super heavy models into the game. They are yet to get rules properly in place that interacts well within the game. But, here we are.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Disagree and very premature to simply dismiss terrain. Many players and tourney organizers are running the same terrain they had a week prior in 9th edition. Now, models with Towering simply shoot right through that existing terrain where in 9th they were simply unable to in many cases (Area Terrain specifically). Locally, we immediately felt the difference in game mechanics and we play using GW GT Tournament terrain placement/rules. Towering models ability to shoot vastly improved.

I'm perplexed why you think example battlefields demonstrates GW intention. They even state on p.51 of the Core Rules under the 'Matched Play Focused' board: "but they have been set up more evenly across the battlefield, and the middle contains terrain features that block visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other". That is factually incorrect when it comes to the Towering keyword. Towering models are shooting across the table because none of the terrain in the middle blocks LOS. If terrain where that height AND had solid walls, then the statement by GW could be considered more accurate. I'd argue it is more a product placement advertisement of their terrain kits and card tiles.

I do think GW intended for the game to dish out this many Mortal Wounds. I think GW is backpedaling now because of the public outcry over it. Fate Dice will get drastically mitigated, Desolators get a points increase (as Mike Brandt indicated in the interview) and then we wait for the next army to rise to the crop with Aeldari Mortal wound capability mitigated. And even now, there are Necron builds that can withstand the amount of Mortal Wounds Aeldari are able to put out.

I simply think adjusting terrain keeping the Towering keyword in mind will mitigate the issue rather than GW stating they are changing the rules one week after official Leviathan boxset release.

I'd recommend you read GW's actual tournament pack with terrain guidelines.

It does mention providing some true LOS blocking, but gives no indication of how much should be used, or how it should be placed, and the terrain maps themselves very much do not support it. Even on current terrain maps that have some LOS blocking pieces, like UKTC, what happens is everything gets piled into the big square windowless ruin and whatevers left over, infantry especially, gets stuffed into the small windowless rectangle in our dzone. The rest of the terrain on the map may as well not exist and it makes it practically impossible to move out or play any objectives vs Towering models.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't think windows should matter for terrain. It's a serious issue for a few different reasons that the pretty ruins terrain features that GW tries to sell create a worse gameplay experience than styrofoam blocks.

If only there was an alternative to TLoS.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
I think it will be a real shame if terrain and the Towering keyword interactaction is not addressed. Wraithknights shooting is really what has a lot of folks upset: it is not just about Fate Dice. I haven't seen Fate Dice be the issue except when combined with the above mentioned interaction.

I'm 2-4 so far in my games using Wraithknights. Fate Dice certainly dish out the damage with their Wraithcannons, but I've had players who can play around it. However, there was the initial shock of the amount of damage they inflict on the opening turn, which is where I suspect most of the drama comes from.

The bigger issue is that our terrain is designed for 9th edition. In 10th, those Wraithknights are cracking vehicles and Knights as there is no place to hide them (aside from Strategic Reserve, hint, hint).

Infantry can hide from Wraithknights on our 9th edition terrain and units such as Desolators and Hellblasters cripple or outright destroy a Wraithknight in one round of shooting as the Wraithknight can be seen and likely do not have an invulnerable save (I wanted 2 Wraithcannons for each one, for example).

There are armies out there that can even shrug off a Wraithknight shooting. Necrons have scarily resilient builds even against Mortal Wounds.

People quickly figure out to kill the Guardians to mitigate more Fate Dice. It took all of one game for opponents to see that.

But I suspect GW will take a sledgehammer to Fate Dice immediately and not allow the community time to adjust to 10th edition and cool models will go back on the shelf and watch something else become the new bogeyman. Then we get to see the internet complain about the new bogeyman and GW will come in and gimp it. Kind of like playing whack a mole.

Personally, GW should never put aircraft and super heavy models into the game. They are yet to get rules properly in place that interacts well within the game. But, here we are.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Disagree and very premature to simply dismiss terrain. Many players and tourney organizers are running the same terrain they had a week prior in 9th edition. Now, models with Towering simply shoot right through that existing terrain where in 9th they were simply unable to in many cases (Area Terrain specifically). Locally, we immediately felt the difference in game mechanics and we play using GW GT Tournament terrain placement/rules. Towering models ability to shoot vastly improved.

I'm perplexed why you think example battlefields demonstrates GW intention. They even state on p.51 of the Core Rules under the 'Matched Play Focused' board: "but they have been set up more evenly across the battlefield, and the middle contains terrain features that block visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other". That is factually incorrect when it comes to the Towering keyword. Towering models are shooting across the table because none of the terrain in the middle blocks LOS. If terrain where that height AND had solid walls, then the statement by GW could be considered more accurate. I'd argue it is more a product placement advertisement of their terrain kits and card tiles.

I do think GW intended for the game to dish out this many Mortal Wounds. I think GW is backpedaling now because of the public outcry over it. Fate Dice will get drastically mitigated, Desolators get a points increase (as Mike Brandt indicated in the interview) and then we wait for the next army to rise to the crop with Aeldari Mortal wound capability mitigated. And even now, there are Necron builds that can withstand the amount of Mortal Wounds Aeldari are able to put out.

I simply think adjusting terrain keeping the Towering keyword in mind will mitigate the issue rather than GW stating they are changing the rules one week after official Leviathan boxset release.

I'd recommend you read GW's actual tournament pack with terrain guidelines.

It does mention providing some true LOS blocking, but gives no indication of how much should be used, or how it should be placed, and the terrain maps themselves very much do not support it. Even on current terrain maps that have some LOS blocking pieces, like UKTC, what happens is everything gets piled into the big square windowless ruin and whatevers left over, infantry especially, gets stuffed into the small windowless rectangle in our dzone. The rest of the terrain on the map may as well not exist and it makes it practically impossible to move out or play any objectives vs Towering models.

I appreciate your passive aggressiveness.

Are you stating tournament packet rules proves Towering interacting with terrain proves GW intended for it to work as written?

I have read the tourney rules that were JUST released. I'm attending a GT next weekend which is incorporating the Leviathan GT rules minus new GT terrain board layout as they do not have the capability to adjust all tables to the new layout in a single week's time.

I'm not sure I understand your post. I think you agree with my point that the issue is the towering keyword and how it interacts with terrain (as opposed to Fate Dice being the issue).

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't think windows should matter for terrain. It's a serious issue for a few different reasons that the pretty ruins terrain features that GW tries to sell create a worse gameplay experience than styrofoam blocks.

I'd start with the reason windows shouldn't matter is because that window is an abstract, and should be part of the "provides the benefit of cover" not the "can you see me" rules.

The two biggest issues imo are:

Guaranteed dev wounds
Guaranteed damage rolls


If they remove damage rolls from the fate dice and don't let Dev wounds get activated from a fate die, then the core issue goes away.

That is very possible. The change will be the in the Aldari army card and nowhere else.

Feels like they can hot swap a card to make changes. Easier on their end to make changes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"? Second, that doesn't sound especially impressive to someone who plays a game where melta has a 50% chance to Pen AV14 (generally the toughest thing you'll see), and if it does so, a 33% chance to just "nuke" the target if it isn't a Super Heavy.

Of course, if that would make melta weapons that much better, then they could always be priced appropriately. Oh, wait.......

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"?

Daedalus is generally know for running mathhammer in ways that support his point but is deceptive or wrong, and he does it often enough that it's conscious lying on his part. I've been in threads where he's called out on it and he generally tries to avoid engaging with people who show his math is wrong.

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"?

Daedalus is generally know for running mathhammer in ways that support his point but is deceptive or wrong, and he does it often enough that it's conscious lying on his part. I've been in threads where he's called out on it and he generally tries to avoid engaging with people who show his math is wrong.

But, using a target without an invul would actually help support Daed's point. I don't think that he’s attempting any such shenanigans here. Just seems to be an odd choice for an example.

Eldar are overtuned cheese what else is new. I've played off and on since 3rd and Eldar always oscillate between above average and insufferably OP

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"?

Daedalus is generally know for running mathhammer in ways that support his point but is deceptive or wrong, and he does it often enough that it's conscious lying on his part. I've been in threads where he's called out on it and he generally tries to avoid engaging with people who show his math is wrong.

But, using a target without an invul would actually help support Daed's point. I don't think that he’s attempting any such shenanigans here. Just seems to be an odd choice for an example.

Harkens back to a knight being the default yardstick for killing a vehicle I think.

redboi wrote:
Eldar are overtuned cheese what else is new. I've played off and on since 3rd and Eldar always oscillate between above average and insufferably OP

I hope they fix the obvious overperformers, that'll allow us to judge the balance of the rest of the units in the dex. I don't want to powergame the combo of the month, I just want to play fluffy aspects and not get obliterated *cries in howling banshee*

Fate dice is such an obvious overpowered, terribly scaled and abusive mechanic that it is hard to believe the rules writers have played a single game. Guaranteeing results, being able to frontload all damage, nothing the person on the receiving end can do about it... immediately obvious for anyone that it is a terrible mechanic




Automatically Appended Next Post:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

redboi wrote:
Eldar are overtuned cheese what else is new. I've played off and on since 3rd and Eldar always oscillate between above average and insufferably OP

I hope they fix the obvious overperformers, that'll allow us to judge the balance of the rest of the units in the dex. I don't want to powergame the combo of the month, I just want to play fluffy aspects and not get obliterated *cries in howling banshee*

Howling banshees, like all close ranged glass cannons, are screwed in this edition unless they get "no overwatch allowed" special rule.

2 changes :

Make fate dice count as modified dice rolls .

Remove the ability to use fate dice on damage rolls.

That way, Eldar keep their "all as planned" army rule but lose the forced spike devastating wounds. Either you make sure you wound OR you fish for a 1/6 chance to do mortals

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
2 changes :

Make fate dice count as modified dice rolls .

Remove the ability to use fate dice on damage rolls.

That way, Eldar keep their "all as planned" army rule but lose the forced spike devastating wounds. Either you make sure you wound OR you fish for a 1/6 chance to do mortals

This is far too sensible and easy a change for them to actually do it.

 General Kroll wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
2 changes :

Make fate dice count as modified dice rolls .

Remove the ability to use fate dice on damage rolls.

That way, Eldar keep their "all as planned" army rule but lose the forced spike devastating wounds. Either you make sure you wound OR you fish for a 1/6 chance to do mortals

This is far too sensible and easy a change for them to actually do it.

It makes their damage a lot worse, but ultimately just means they'll use the dice to tank your first 15 meaningful shots instead.

It's worse, but I'm not sure it's ENOUGH worse.

ERJAK wrote:

It makes their damage a lot worse, but ultimately just means they'll use the dice to tank your first 15 meaningful shots instead.

It's worse, but I'm not sure it's ENOUGH worse.

Lethality is a much bigger problem than tankyness, my suggestion was a "first pass" at it, then if they were to implement that, wait a bit to see if their resilience becomes overwhelming.

I'm pretty sure a wraithknight being hard to kill is much less a problem than it dumping 20 mortals in one attack

Only one fate dice pr throw (same as sisters).
Using them count as a modified dice/fate dice can't trigger DW.
No characters changing dice into 6, let them reroll one dice from the pool instead.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

It makes their damage a lot worse, but ultimately just means they'll use the dice to tank your first 15 meaningful shots instead.

It's worse, but I'm not sure it's ENOUGH worse.

Lethality is a much bigger problem than tankyness, my suggestion was a "first pass" at it, then if they were to implement that, wait a bit to see if their resilience becomes overwhelming.

I'm pretty sure a wraithknight being hard to kill is much less a problem than it dumping 20 mortals in one attack

if he was easy to kill by lets say drop poding 2x5 devastators on top of him and lighting him up, then at least there would be the "fix" to the problem in the form of just get first turn bro. WK problem is tha the combines both things, same as regular imperial knights. Super resilient and with strong offensive ability. On top of that both are fast, and towering helps with LoS.

tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'

There would be no problems if either eldar were costed the right way, considering they get the rolls they want and/or other factions had comperable rules. For some reason, I like to think, one person designed the eldar rules or changed them prior index release and another did the points. One wanted eldar to be characterful and powerful, the other wanted to sell maximum number of possible models. Potentialy both thought that other people were doing the same for other factions. Maybe now they are doing the suprise pikatchu face. Or maybe they only "tested" index eldar vs late 2024 codex, and in comperation to the eldar codex, the index rules "aren't that powerful".

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'

Most competitive players I know wants the game to be as balanced as possible. This is the result of rules writers on tight deadlines who don't play their own game enough IMO. It should have been painfully obvious that fate dice as written is a totally broken mechanic. They didn't even figure out that it should scale.

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'

This is a good point, sadly.

Hey let’s take this good system from 9th and completely butcher it for 10th!!
I have no idea why GW constantly has to reinvent the wheel, and often learn nothing. They are so incompetent with the game mechanics, it’s scary.
Take Fate Dice back to 9th edition and just substitute psychic for a Ld dice (again, only allowing one for each test just like charging). Yes, your sixes will still trigger nasty effects but you won’t have many of them and they need to change the Farseer ability so they can’t swap out rolls, just allow them to reroll one dice at beginning of each battle round (if they go back to rolling 6 dice per battle round, which also stunts any front loaded alpha strikes.

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'

There's no evidence this is what happened at all. Most competitive players would have been able to tell GW Fate Dice were a stupid mechanic without playing a single game. It would seem the biggest problem with 10th's rollout is the lack of external playtesting.

They also need to do something with the wraith knight to balance its options. It’s on this scale where free equipment is glaringly the wrong direction. The suncannon doesn’t come close to the wraith cannon and the shield is worthless. There needs to be a way to bring down the power of the wraithcannon while also bumping the suncannon and shield. Perhaps suncannon should keep 2D6 but gain Sustained 1.
Shield needs to reflect MW as it’s defensive profile on a 2+ save platform, especially with the way cover works, is a waste of a weapon position.

On the one hand, the fate dice change DOES fix Eldar.

On the other hand, they fethed over sisters of battle for the sins of every other fething army.

Not as bad as Chaos Knights, though. Or guard. Sorry Guard.

ERJAK wrote:
On the one hand, the fate dice change DOES fix Eldar.

On the other hand, they fethed over sisters of battle for the sins of every other fething army.

Not as bad as Chaos Knights, though. Or guard. Sorry Guard.

Make a Sisters fix thread?
Would be interesting to see how people feel they can be boosted.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/05/warhammer-40000-updates-changes-to-strands-of-fate-towering-units-and-more/

Problem solved.

 bullyboy wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
On the one hand, the fate dice change DOES fix Eldar.

On the other hand, they fethed over sisters of battle for the sins of every other fething army.

Not as bad as Chaos Knights, though. Or guard. Sorry Guard.

Make a Sisters fix thread?
Would be interesting to see how people feel they can be boosted.

Index needs a full rewrite. Detachment rule is bad, units are bad, leadership is a mess, nothing has synergy with anything else. You could drop the whole army 30% and it wouldn't be good.

Related to Eldar. Going to one Fate Dice per phase makes them essentially old Miracle Dice, which is still a really good mechanic. Especially because it's pretty much always going to be a six thanks to frontloading and farseers.

However, I think that combined with the point bumps takes a lot of the edge off of Eldar and might even result in them being fair. I'm thinking GSC are gonna dominate now though. We'll see how the meta shakes out.

I probably won't bother playing any games until the Fall patch where they hopefully help make gak armies less unplayable, but at least it'll be interesting to watch things shake out.

Loopstah wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/05/warhammer-40000-updates-changes-to-strands-of-fate-towering-units-and-more/

Problem solved.

Ha, GW decided to just take a sledgehammer to all the WKs. Not surprising. The Suncannon and Glaive variants did not really deserve the nerf, but this is the paradigm we're in. Whatever.

The Fire Prism nerf also doesn't seem harsh enough? Like it still punches way above its points IMO.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/05/warhammer-40000-updates-changes-to-strands-of-fate-towering-units-and-more/

Problem solved.

Ha, GW decided to just take a sledgehammer to all the WKs. Not surprising. The Suncannon and Glaive variants did not really deserve the nerf, but this is the paradigm we're in. Whatever.

The Fire Prism nerf also doesn't seem harsh enough? Like it still punches way above its points IMO.

The fact that it's STILL cheaper than an Exorcist is kind of insulting, ngl.

Its a start I guess.

Support platform whacked too. Like you will ever take an vibro cannon or shadow weaver now. This one points for all options is DUMB!
While GW stays with this concept, WYSIWYG is completely out the window for me. Feth that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow, they added 30pts to the Exorcist like that needed nerfing, wtf?

Whomever predicted that the Field Ordnance would get smacked even though 2 out of the 3 options they have don't even have Indirect Fire, well done.

This wouldn't be an issue if the different weapons had different points values. Now if you want the direct versions, you're paying the penalty for the indirect ones.

This is so pants-on-head stupid that it boggles the mind.

Oh, and let's just put the Lord of Skulls up a whole bunch of points because... ? Oh, and Death Guard are saved. Plague Marines can be taken in units of 7 again.

So their balance changes made things worse or better? Thats the only thing that matters

This perfectly sums up how ridiculous the “points” system is.

The sword and shied Wriathknight gets completely shatter because of the sins of the double D-cannon ones.

I don’t see how anyone but the most toxically positive of fanboys can still pretend like this is better than different loadouts costing different points.

——————

 tauist wrote:
So their balance changes made things worse or better? Thats the only thing that matters

It's fixed some problems, but created new ones and ignored others. At best it's neutral. They seem to have done a general increase to all indirect fire weapons, even things like Exorcists that weren't really all that good. It just screams "lazy" to me at first glance.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Whomever predicted that the Field Ordnance would get smacked even though 2 out of the 3 options they have don't even have Indirect Fire, well done.

This wouldn't be an issue if the different weapons had different points values. Now if you want the direct versions, you're paying the penalty for the indirect ones.

This is so pants-on-head stupid that it boggles the mind.

Oh, and let's just put the Lord of Skulls up a whole bunch of points because... ? Oh, and Death Guard are saved. Plague Marines can be taken in units of 7 again.

But only Death Guard. Allowing 8 Berserkers or 9 Rubric Marines is just one bridge too far...

 tauist wrote:
So their balance changes made things worse or better? Thats the only thing that matters

That depends what your models were built with, which is sort of the issue.

Overall it likely made the game a little better, I'm not sure price hiking knights makes towering suddenly not a problem necessarily, but the various hits reduced some of the bad guys in the meta.

Where it makes it worse is that the less ridiculous builds of the models which didn't cause problems are now nuked by virtue of sharing a box with the one build that was a problem.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Whomever predicted that the Field Ordnance would get smacked even though 2 out of the 3 options they have don't even have Indirect Fire, well done.

This wouldn't be an issue if the different weapons had different points values. Now if you want the direct versions, you're paying the penalty for the indirect ones.

This is so pants-on-head stupid that it boggles the mind.

Oh, and let's just put the Lord of Skulls up a whole bunch of points because... ? Oh, and Death Guard are saved. Plague Marines can be taken in units of 7 again.

But only Death Guard. Allowing 8 Berserkers or 9 Rubric Marines is just one bridge too far...

Well berserkers and rubrics come in boxes of 10, so...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Oh, and let's just put the Lord of Skulls up a whole bunch of points because... ?

You just don't get it. You're a WAAC donkey-cave if you're not willing to pay 888 points for the Lord of Skulls.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Oh, and let's just put the Lord of Skulls up a whole bunch of points because... ?

You just don't get it. You're a WAAC donkey-cave if you're not willing to pay 888 points for the Lord of Skulls.

Ofc. It might not have anything to do with having 2 decent guns on a towering platform though, it is indeed a thinly veiled insult at tournament players who can't have fun.

 tauist wrote:
So their balance changes made things worse or better? Thats the only thing that matters

I am actually impressed they did some

 Mr Morden wrote:

 tauist wrote:
So their balance changes made things worse or better? Thats the only thing that matters

I am actually impressed they did some

Consider having better standards then because there is no world where blanket downward changes even to units that don't warrant it (the Exorcist hahahahahah) is good balancing. It's lazy balancing from a team that barely pays attention to or cares about its rules.

But who cares? Most of the people on this site and all the other Warhammer communities will still support this company.

Dudeface 810589 11561544 wrote:

Ofc. It might not have anything to do with having 2 decent guns on a towering platform though, it is indeed a thinly veiled insult at tournament players who can't have fun.

But Dude, if the problem is towering, and you fixed it by changing the skill in some way, then a ton of products may become "confusing" and not be bought. By changing point costs you don't change much for the best, kill the non best options and don't have to worry that boxes/codex come with cards with wrong stuff writen on them. The next 5-6 books are already writen and 1-2 probably printed or being printed, GW can't afford to suddenly change how a rule works.

But joke aside, I love the fact that purgations squads, with their sudo LoS shoting with flamers, got the Desolator treatment. Take that power armoured GK players, feel the burn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Consider having better standards then because there is no world where blanket downward changes even to units that don't warrant it (the Exorcist hahahahahah) is good balancing. It's lazy balancing from a team that barely pays attntion to or cares about its rules.

But who cares? Most of the people on this site and all the other Warhammer communities will still support this company.

But what are the changes really. Some B or C level units got nerfed in B or C level armies. Eldar went from S++ tier army to either second or third best army in the game. The no nerf GSC, without the eldar and knights to reign them in, become the new S++ unkillable army of doom. etc

And the funny thing about watching the changes is that all of this is stuff that already happened in the past. Fixed results in a game based on rolling random numbers creates skews. Ignoring LoS in a shoting focused game creates an enviroment where people just roll dice. Hundreds if not thousands of free points are VERY BAD for the game. GW has seen all of those things. They have seen them in 8th and in 9th, and I am sure they have seen those in prior editions too, judging by what old timers here say about pre 8th editions. Yet they do it the same over and over again.
Who thinks that GSC generating 1000-1500pts free points per game vs the best armies is going to be balanced?

Plus as a bonus GW did the same thing they always do, sprinkle some nerfs, some nerfs that shouldn't have happened, but they did nothing to fix the armies that are bad. Vottan, DG or Ad mech didn't become better after the change. Eldar and GSC switching places at the top does not make playing WE more enjoyable. In the end after three editions seen, I think it is not something that just happens, but a clear design choice by the company to write the rules in a specific way. It will never change, until the company dies one day.

A company that has no loans, is making more profit year after year "dies one day"? LMAO

GW will keep on plowing, despite the rules being what they are. GW is a miniatures company, not a wargame company. You are deluding yourself

 tauist wrote:
A company that has no loans, is making more profit year after year "dies one day"? LMAO

GW will keep on plowing, despite the rules being what they are. GW is a miniatures company, not a wargame company. You are deluding yourself

They lost money and customers during 7th. The situation is primed for that to happen again; 10th sucks, they don't playtest, there are other good miniatures games around.

No, the company is not leveraged enough to go under, but they could be in a rough spot. I hope they end up in that way, it'd be just.

Hecaton wrote:

 tauist wrote:
A company that has no loans, is making more profit year after year "dies one day"? LMAO

GW will keep on plowing, despite the rules being what they are. GW is a miniatures company, not a wargame company. You are deluding yourself

They lost money and customers during 7th. The situation is primed for that to happen again; 10th sucks, they don't playtest, there are other good miniatures games around.

No, the company is not leveraged enough to go under, but they could be in a rough spot. I hope they end up in that way, it'd be just.

I don't. I hope they issue rules corrects address the issues in 10th edition so that it's a great fun game we can all enjoy.

I

BrianDavion wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 tauist wrote:
A company that has no loans, is making more profit year after year "dies one day"? LMAO

GW will keep on plowing, despite the rules being what they are. GW is a miniatures company, not a wargame company. You are deluding yourself

They lost money and customers during 7th. The situation is primed for that to happen again; 10th sucks, they don't playtest, there are other good miniatures games around.

No, the company is not leveraged enough to go under, but they could be in a rough spot. I hope they end up in that way, it'd be just.

I don't. I hope they issue rules corrects address the issues in 10th edition so that it's a great fun game we can all enjoy.

Which won't happen unless GW learns a lesson

nemesis464 wrote:
This perfectly sums up how ridiculous the “points” system is.

The sword and shied Wriathknight gets completely shatter because of the sins of the double D-cannon ones.

I don’t see how anyone but the most toxically positive of fanboys can still pretend like this is better than different loadouts costing different points.

——————

Fixing towering and indirect fire with points is just a terrible way to fix that problem.

BrianDavion wrote:

I don't. I hope they issue rules corrects address the issues in 10th edition so that it's a great fun game we can all enjoy.

I

I'm working with the framework/idea that GW will never change until they start feeling it.

I'd love for them to fix things but I think things need to get worse first.

Slipspace wrote:

 tauist wrote:
So their balance changes made things worse or better? Thats the only thing that matters

It's fixed some problems, but created new ones and ignored others. At best it's neutral. They seem to have done a general increase to all indirect fire weapons, even things like Exorcists that weren't really all that good. It just screams "lazy" to me at first glance.

If you were worried about the absolute most OP stuff as your #1 priority, they addressed those issues fairly well.

If you cared about ANYTHING ELSE, it wasn't good.

Tsagualsa wrote:
But only Death Guard. Allowing 8 Berserkers or 9 Rubric Marines is just one bridge too far...

Because it's based on how many come in the box, something that a certain someone denied until he was blue in the face, yet has been shown as true over and over and over and over and over again.

Just to confirm, the main change here is that Strands are once per phase now instead of being used any number of times in a given phase?

Well, at least they upped to the points of the prism to be higher than the night sp-Huh? They upped the cost of the night spinner by 30 points? But why though?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Just to confirm, the main change here is that Strands are once per phase now instead of being used any number of times in a given phase?

Only change.
Its funny, I think it is actually possible (with enough units that create new Fate dice) to end up in a situation where you can't actually spend all your Fate Dice over the course of the game.

Well, at least they upped to the points of the prism to be higher than the night sp-Huh? They upped the cost of the night spinner by 30 points? But why though?

It has indirect fire, so it got slapped. This wasn't a reasoned approach to points adjustments, this was 'we're really doing this job in autumn, but here, quit complaining'

It's equivalent to the 9th Ed aircraft nerf: A blanket solution applied to fix specific problems.

And it's not even a solution. It doesn't fix the towering issue. I don't even think GW understand the towering issue. I'd even go so far as to say that in their "test" games prior to 10th being locked, they didn't play it the way they wrote it, instead playing it the way they thought they wrote it, because that's how God-awful they are at writing and testing rules.

Not particularly surprisingly, GWs solution was to fix things in a way that didn't require them to change their core rules of the game just weeks after release. Therefore we received:

Fate Dice: Strong nerf that doesn't alter any printed materials. Aeldari Codex isn't even on the roadmap, giving them plenty of time to perfect this before it goes to print.

Indirect Fire: Indirect Fire got you down? Let's make them all less points efficient with a points raise.

Towering: It worked for Indirect Fire, so let's put a big points increase on Towering models.

In theory, this will reduce the abusiveness of the marquee issues of the day. Only time will tell.

This removes the worst offenses from the game so GW can assess what else needs adjustment. Given that this only took a couple of weeks hopefully that means we can look forward to more changes in the weeks to come.

Honestly I don't know what people were expecting from a quick emergency fix that wasn't planned in their schedules.

Was it a rushed job? It was by definition rushed! And yet it came out decent.

Fate dice has been fixed in a way that makes sense and many CWE players are expressing their satisfaction with the change. It has been kept nice and fluffy but now it doesn't make you lose friends.

Indirect fire was solved by increasing points on many (not all) units capable of doing it. And this is IMO the right approach. A unit with indirect fire has the perk of being able to influence the battlefield for longer than a unit without it, so it is really just a case of increasing points. Luckily they had the time to go over single entries in this instead of doing a blanket increase. Thanks to this admech, death guard and tau indirect options were not touched, because it honestly made little sense. Before someone says "Mah' exorcist!!!!", at 140 points it was too good. Yes the sisters need help, but this and that are 2 different issues which luckily they didn't make the mistake of mixing.

With towering they had 2 possible approaches. Change the rule or make the units capable of abusing the rule less good at it. The first option clearly wasn't viable. By the nature of this change, there was clearly no possible playtest of the changes. Changing the rule could have had deep ramifications which could have broke the game and forced them to release yet another emergency fix. Going with point increases was the "Better safe than sorry" approach. Now, it sucks for CK, but IK were already stat checking people very hard and warping into the meta into a "How many knights per turn can you drop?" race, so a point nerf to them was already expected with or without towering. The issue with CK is again a different one (faction rules) and they did a good job of not mixing the 2 issues.

For a (necessarily) rushed job, they did a good one IMO.

 alextroy wrote:

Indirect Fire: Indirect Fire got you down? Let's make them all less points efficient with a points raise.

Towering: It worked for Indirect Fire, so let's put a big points increase on Towering models.

And if your unit has non-indirect options that suddenly went up in cost, or your towering unit has a pure HTH build that wouldn't really make use of Towering, well then I guess that's just too bad!

"Simple, not clever."

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly I don't know what people were expecting from a quick emergency fix that wasn't planned in their schedules.

Was it a rushed job? It was by definition rushed! And yet it came out decent.

Fate dice has been fixed in a way that makes sense and many CWE players are expressing their satisfaction with the change. It has been kept nice and fluffy but now it doesn't make you lose friends.

Indirect fire was solved by increasing points on many (not all) units capable of doing it. And this is IMO the right approach. A unit with indirect fire has the perk of being able to influence the battlefield for longer than a unit without it, so it is really just a case of increasing points. Luckily they had the time to go over single entries in this instead of doing a blanket increase. Thanks to this admech, death guard and tau indirect options were not touched, because it honestly made little sense. Before someone says "Mah' exorcist!!!!", at 140 points it was too good. Yes the sisters need help, but this and that are 2 different issues which luckily they didn't make the mistake of mixing.

With towering they had 2 possible approaches. Change the rule or make the units capable of abusing the rule less good at it. The first option clearly wasn't viable. By the nature of this change, there was clearly no possible playtest of the changes. Changing the rule could have had deep ramifications which could have broke the game and forced them to release yet another emergency fix. Going with point increases was the "Better safe than sorry" approach. Now, it sucks for CK, but IK were already stat checking people very hard and warping into the meta into a "How many knights per turn can you drop?" race, so a point nerf to them was already expected with or without towering. The issue with CK is again a different one (faction rules) and they did a good job of not mixing the 2 issues.

For a (necessarily) rushed job, they did a good one IMO.

I think the issue is the inherent disadvantages of the new points system means that for any unit "fixed" their alternative loadouts went from "ok" to "why bother" in some cases. The easiest example being the sword and board wraithknight who didn't benefit hugely from fate dice, towering and nobody was too concerned with, just got a whopping great hike for issues it didn't have due to sharing a datacard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Indirect Fire: Indirect Fire got you down? Let's make them all less points efficient with a points raise.

Towering: It worked for Indirect Fire, so let's put a big points increase on Towering models.

And if your unit has non-indirect options that suddenly went up in cost, or your towering unit has a pure HTH build that wouldn't really make use of Towering, well then I guess that's just too bad!

"Simple, not clever."

Oddly they did get that right to a degree for the chaos knights as the rampager wasn't changed as it has a stubber to it's name for ranged output. So they do know this but I doubt the moral quandary over the wraithknight actually gave them pause though.

for people who say changing core rules for fresh released game is not viable, remember GW changed a core rule for Age of Sigmar after the release day because the people in the promo video played it wrong and they thought it is the better solution to change to rule to match the video

anything is viable for GW if it is needed, they will just go cheapest possibility no matter if it solves the problem or creates more

Wow, genestealer cults special rule is just as bad as Eldar were. You can just endlessly recycle everything, with automatic success for all battleline units, AND they get sustained fire and ignores cover for that unit too. I thought the 2CP recycling of IG was bad, but GSC just gets it for every unit for free!

I had hopes for 10th, but this is a dumpsterfire. GW rule writers are incompetent

My objectivity on towering is kind of skewed because I don't really want Knights of any sort in the game. As such I don't really mind blanket nerfs. If they have to be in the game, have them C-Tier at best. If you want to play them for fun, feel free. They won't however warp the meta, which they have done every time they've been good. Same view on flyers.

Really towering should just go, but I can understand perhaps why they didn't want to admit that right out the gate.

Canadian 5th wrote:This removes the worst offenses from the game so GW can assess what else needs adjustment. Given that this only took a couple of weeks hopefully that means we can look forward to more changes in the weeks to come.

They've specifically said there won't be another balance change for 3 months. So the units caught in the crossfire of this "fix" are screwed at least until then.

Spoletta wrote:Honestly I don't know what people were expecting from a quick emergency fix that wasn't planned in their schedules.

Competence? A sense that they at least understand the problem?

Spoletta wrote:Was it a rushed job? It was by definition rushed! And yet it came out decent.

Did it? Tell that to anyone running a melee Wraithknight, or a FOB with either of the two non-indirect weapons. Or anyone running the worryingly large number of units that can't attack in close combat because GW forgot to give them a close combat option.

Spoletta wrote:Fate dice has been fixed in a way that makes sense and many CWE players are expressing their satisfaction with the change. It has been kept nice and fluffy but now it doesn't make you lose friends.

Indirect fire was solved by increasing points on many (not all) units capable of doing it. And this is IMO the right approach. A unit with indirect fire has the perk of being able to influence the battlefield for longer than a unit without it, so it is really just a case of increasing points. Luckily they had the time to go over single entries in this instead of doing a blanket increase. Thanks to this admech, death guard and tau indirect options were not touched, because it honestly made little sense. Before someone says "Mah' exorcist!!!!", at 140 points it was too good. Yes the sisters need help, but this and that are 2 different issues which luckily they didn't make the mistake of mixing.

The biggest issue here is that GW obviously don't understand what they're doing.

Indirect was identified as a problem in 9th edition. This was mainly due to the large number of indirect weapons that were created towards the end of the edition with a high volume of shots and large numbers of re-rolls. GW's fix was to introduce penalties to these weapons to make them all less effective. This worked, but had the unintended consequence of making a lot of older indirect weapons useless. The real problem was that GW don't understand what makes things powerful, so they gave too many indirect fire weapons stats that were simply too good. The correct solution is to understand the power of indirect fire and make sure the weapons that have that property don't get out of control in their basic stats.

Now in 10th we have a double whammy of incompetence. They put the 9th edition fix into the core rules, then gave over half the indirect weapons in the game rules that get around it. Go look at the number of indirect weapons that have Ignores Cover and are Heavy and you'll see how pointless the indirect restrictions are. Then you have things like Desolators that just have far too many shots in general. No single unit should be rolling that many dice with that level of accuracy. It's the same mistakes they've made before - literally six months previously - and it's absolutely maddening.

I also think the Blast rule probably needs to change to only kick in for units above 5, but that's a minor grievance at this point.

Spoletta wrote:With towering they had 2 possible approaches. Change the rule or make the units capable of abusing the rule less good at it. The first option clearly wasn't viable. By the nature of this change, there was clearly no possible playtest of the changes. Changing the rule could have had deep ramifications which could have broke the game and forced them to release yet another emergency fix. Going with point increases was the "Better safe than sorry" approach. Now, it sucks for CK, but IK were already stat checking people very hard and warping into the meta into a "How many knights per turn can you drop?" race, so a point nerf to them was already expected with or without towering. The issue with CK is again a different one (faction rules) and they did a good job of not mixing the 2 issues.

For a (necessarily) rushed job, they did a good one IMO.

Everything you've written here could be summarised as "GW didn't playtest". We're less than 2 weeks into 10th and we're seeing fundamental problems with the core rules. In many cases these problems were identified as soon as the Indexes were released, without any games being played. Towering and Fate Dice were probably the two biggest concerns at that point and they are the main things hit in this update. This is not some super niche interaction producing broken results. This is core rules that feel like nobody even played with before releasing them.

If you don't want to change core rules you need to playtest properly (or at all). GW didn't, leaving themselves in the position they now find themselves. To compound the problem they changed points to Power Levels so they can't even use points to adjust things properly as we're now seeing from the unintended consequences of non-problematic loadouts going up on certain units. That's to say nothing of the clumsy increase to almost all indirect fire units even when they're not actually a problem.

Spoletta wrote:
Indirect fire was solved by increasing points on many (not all) units capable of doing it. And this is IMO the right approach. A unit with indirect fire has the perk of being able to influence the battlefield for longer than a unit without it, so it is really just a case of increasing points. Luckily they had the time to go over single entries in this instead of doing a blanket increase. Thanks to this admech, death guard and tau indirect options were not touched, because it honestly made little sense. Before someone says "Mah' exorcist!!!!", at 140 points it was too good. Yes the sisters need help, but this and that are 2 different issues which luckily they didn't make the mistake of mixing.

I disagree. Imperial Guard was hit the hardest with this, now they're trash. For these reasons:
- Wyvern, FOB, and Deathstrike were already bad at their prior point costs. They should not have gone up. The Basilisk, Manticore, and FW Carriages were the problem and needed the nerf. If the before mentioned 3 indirect fire units remained their old cost they would be semi-viable but not fantastic.
- The only good units Guard have right now are Lord Solar, Creed, Infantry, Scout Sentinels, and Indirect. Now they've lost indirect, and got no buffs to their incredibly overcosted tanks.
- Bad rules writing. Colossus and Praetor were also nerfed, the issue is they have errors in their datasheets. The Colossus doesn't even have heavy and indirect on its weapon, it's also lacking the artillery keyword. The Praetor has S4 on its anti-tank profile.
- Guard are already at a 35% winrate, and now expected to go down.

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly I don't know what people were expecting from a quick emergency fix that wasn't planned in their schedules.

At least the slightest hint of any competence maybe, i'm not sure how that is still too much to expect from a multi-million dollar company who is doing this for freaking decades...

Spoletta wrote:
Was it a rushed job? It was by definition rushed! And yet it came out decent.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/decent

acceptable, satisfactory, or reasonable

Was it reasonable: NO.

Was it satisfactory: HELL NO.

Was it acceptable: If GW would be a small mid lvl company who is just starting sure, for the actual GW FETH NO.

Spoletta wrote:
Indirect fire was solved by increasing points on many (not all) units capable of doing it. And this is IMO the right approach.

Right, cause actually fixing the problem instead would be obviously the wrong approach...

Spoletta wrote:
A unit with indirect fire has the perk of being able to influence the battlefield for longer than a unit without it, so it is really just a case of increasing points. Luckily they had the time to go over single entries in this instead of doing a blanket increase.

Yeah luckily the janitor was going over the entries in his coffee break, otherwise their points changes might have embarrassingly started with making an already blatantly bad army even worse and in general lack any actual balance between the factions..., oh wait i guess their janitor was surprisingly more interessted in his coffee after all.....

Spoletta wrote:
Thanks to this admech, death guard and tau indirect options were not touched, because it honestly made little sense.

Okay at this point im pretty convinced that it's just your favourite hobby to gaslight Sisters of Battle players, right?

Spoletta wrote:
Before someone says "Mah' exorcist!!!!", at 140 points it was too good.

Let me just try to replicate the mental gymnastics necessary to unironically claim the Exorcist was too good, it was the only good(in absolutely no universe even remotely broken) tank in a so far below 40% faction: https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#GbF full of overcosted and illogical(like the Castigator for example) units, who's biggest problem is everything related to tanks/heavy armor and their general fragility without any kind of punch, therefore the Exorcist(which nobody of the strong to broken armys with actually opressive units would ever take at 140 pts) must be obviously too good cause it looks notably better than most of the overcosted/illogical/hot garbage entries of the rest of the army XD...

Spoletta wrote:
Yes the sisters need help, but this and that are 2 different issues which luckily they didn't make the mistake of mixing.

Yeah luckily they did their best effort to put Sisters below 35% again(like they were last week) for absolutely no good reason, that's much more balanced, and luckily you do your best attempt at trying to gaslight people into thinking GW even just remotely did a decent job with this gak.

Spoletta wrote:
With towering they had 2 possible approaches. Change the rule or make the units capable of abusing the rule less good at it. The first option clearly wasn't viable.

Well doing the right thing was clearly not possible, cause for that they would need to find a halfway competent person who actually understands their game...

Spoletta wrote:
By the nature of this change, there was clearly no possible playtest of the changes.

Right, and as we know GW would definitely never put a rule out without playtesting it XD...

Spoletta wrote:
Changing the rule could have had deep ramifications which could have broke the game and forced them to release yet another emergency fix. Going with point increases was the "Better safe than sorry" approach.

Breaking a broken game with a rule that don't even influences most armies that much is a magic trick i would assume just GW might be capable of, right?

Spoletta wrote:
Now, it sucks for CK, but IK were already stat checking people very hard and warping into the meta into a "How many knights per turn can you drop?" race, so a point nerf to them was already expected with or without towering. The issue with CK is again a different one (faction rules) and they did a good job of not mixing the 2 issues.

Yeah luckily they didn't even try to mix "balance" with actual balance, otherwise someone else except you could have maybe thought they would be not incredibly lazy and incompettent.

Spoletta wrote:
For a (necessarily) rushed job, they did a good one IMO.

I would even say they did so far a great job at crushing any hope for balance in this Edition.

Dudeface wrote:
Oddly they did get that right to a degree for the chaos knights as the rampager wasn't changed as it has a stubber to it's name for ranged output. So they do know this but I doubt the moral quandary over the wraithknight actually gave them pause though.

At this stage them getting anything right is less likely to be a conscious choice and more likely to that whole "broken clock/twice a day" thing.

Slipspace wrote:


I also think the Blast rule probably needs to change to only kick in for units above 5, but that's a minor grievance at this point.

Isn't that how it currently works?

It's for every 5, including the first 5.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's for every 5, including the first 5.

Ah, I see.

But would changing it from 5 to 6 really improve matters? It just seems to make many marine units e.g. terminators become exempt where they probably shouldn't be.

I don't think there's anything to fix.

The 9th Edition blast rules made taking units above 5 models a liability, or units above 10 even worse, as there were these set jumps in power for blast weapons.

Now it scales per unit size, +1 for every full 5. It's a simple system that impacts everything in exactly the same way.

And any number you pick, whether it's 5 or 6 or 10 or 11 or 3347858.7 is going to be arbitrary. Better to just stick with full 5's.

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with 5s and the blast rule was one of the more reasonable ways of executing it (even if it does scale weirdly with a D3 vs a 2D6 blast weapons)

I’m fine with the Blast rule giving benefits every five models as it does, and that’s despite me currently being obsessed with twenty four man Necron Warrior units. However I would have made the rule Blast X, to allow different weapons to gain different amount of hits per five targets.

We're living in the intersection of 3 major problems. The points system is not granular enough. Several core universal rules are on their face problematic. And thirdly, the indexes are inconsistent at best(a sub problem being I think all army and detachment rules were treated as equal for costing units when they are most definitely not equal).

The last two options are compounded by the stacks of printed product that go with them, and I expect no one wants to be the guy to tell the boss that millions of dollars of fresh product are incorrect as written. I have a sneaking suspicion that the next few codexes won't even change the composition of the printed indexes in any significant way.

So if you can't change the rules, and you can't change the indexes, all you're left with is the points. And points is a hammer because you can only alter per-unit costs in this system. So even when points are arguably the right call for the fix(say towering, more or less) you end up with a lot of collateral damage.

There are just some units that are broken at any points that are playable. They are auto-includes or a dead unit because every selection in your army is a step function. You can't run one less model. You can't take less wargear. So the point increase means you bump some other unit to a cheaper option, and you only stop taking them when you have to give up a whole other unit. (and probably not even then since some units are just better than any other 2 units you can take in your army).

Their problem is the unit is bad, their interaction with core rules are bad, and power level is bad for balance. But we can't change any of that because it will make someone at GW eat too much crow.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Indirect Fire: Indirect Fire got you down? Let's make them all less points efficient with a points raise.

Towering: It worked for Indirect Fire, so let's put a big points increase on Towering models.

And if your unit has non-indirect options that suddenly went up in cost, or your towering unit has a pure HTH build that wouldn't really make use of Towering, well then I guess that's just too bad!

"Simple, not clever."

/Ugly-crying in GK Purgation squad

Now 2 ppm less than SM Desolators for a max squad loadout of 4 24" range HW, 6 S.Bolters & 6 NFWeapons...and they can only "Indirect Fire" if the target unit is visible to another GK unit...smh.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And points is a hammer because you can only alter per-unit costs in this system.

An entirely artificial and self-imposed restriction. There is no reason they couldn't change this tomorrow.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And points is a hammer because you can only alter per-unit costs in this system.

An entirely artificial and self-imposed restriction. There is no reason they couldn't change this tomorrow.

Agreed,

I think this is a case of this being someone's baby, and they will not accept that the baby is ugly.

All these issues come from bad decisions in both the game design and product development stages at GW. Admitting how bad these decisions are probably puts some peoples' jobs on the line.

They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

It was obviously part of their design style and if they can do the same for each and every any minor variant of a Marine Lt...

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

It's like an interconnected matrix of terrible decisions all piling up to make one edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

Which doesn't really seem like and issue - there's two whole knight army lists you can take more than 6 in after all.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

Nobody needs to take 6 Wraithknights. 1 profile is fine.

You can already take 6 wraithknights with the FW version being a separate entry.

 Daba wrote:
You can already take 6 wraithknights with the FW version being a separate entry.

And I can count on one hand how many times I supported that being a separate entry instead of just an extra wargear option or two.

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

Which doesn't really seem like and issue - there's two whole knight army lists you can take more than 6 in after all.

Other knights have very limited options to take along side them. Wraithknights have the entire Eldar range to build around. Personally, I've always considered that a problem with the way Imperial Knights were awkwardly forced into their own codex, but that ship sailed long long ago.

 Lord Clinto wrote:


/Ugly-crying in GK Purgation squad

Now 2 ppm less than SM Desolators for a max squad loadout of 4 24" range HW, 6 S.Bolters & 6 NFWeapons...and they can only "Indirect Fire" if the target unit is visible to another GK unit...smh.

Don't forget the fact that GK aren't attaching a librarian or apothecary with bolter discipline to their purgation squad, to make the unit even more powerful. But that is what happens when in order to do fixes you do the formula of "mark all units with indirect" and "add X% point cost", without reading what the thing does.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

Which doesn't really seem like and issue - there's two whole knight army lists you can take more than 6 in after all.

Other knights have very limited options to take along side them. Wraithknights have the entire Eldar range to build around. Personally, I've always considered that a problem with the way Imperial Knights were awkwardly forced into their own codex, but that ship sailed long long ago.

Those knights have access to a wider range of weapons than the wraithknight and more diverse platforms.

With this new points cost there is really 3 types of wraithknight now:

sword and shield - worth the original cost
Gun and shield - worth about halfway between the others
dual gun - worth the new expensive cost

In the knight codex they would be different named units, here they're mushed into a single unit. Call them bladewind, defender and hunter or something

If people are super uptight at having an all wraithknight army despite there being all knight armies already, you can give it a rule that means you can only take a max of 3 - walker between worlds - you can't take more than 3 total of the bladewind, defender or hunter wraithknights.




THis is working within the current paradigm knowing that they aren't going to reintroduce upgrade costs. Otherwise I'd just say do that.

Or just fix Towering. Y'know...

 Hellebore wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They should have made the melee and ranged Knights different units - not sure why they did not....

Then you could take 6 of them rather than 3.

Which doesn't really seem like and issue - there's two whole knight army lists you can take more than 6 in after all.

Other knights have very limited options to take along side them. Wraithknights have the entire Eldar range to build around. Personally, I've always considered that a problem with the way Imperial Knights were awkwardly forced into their own codex, but that ship sailed long long ago.

Those knights have access to a wider range of weapons than the wraithknight and more diverse platforms.

With this new points cost there is really 3 types of wraithknight now:

sword and shield - worth the original cost
Gun and shield - worth about halfway between the others
dual gun - worth the new expensive cost

Things like this. Is absolutely how it should be done.

Or just have points costs for weapons, and you don't need to do it that way...

but than you don't have a reason to reset the rules and start a new game from scratch

 kodos wrote:
but than you don't have a reason to reset the rules and start a new game from scratch

Wargear being included in costs is far from being the main reason why they did an edition reset (even when not taking into account that they have to please the shareholders)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:
but than you don't have a reason to reset the rules and start a new game from scratch

Wargear being included in costs is far from being the main reason why they did an edition reset (even when not taking into account that they have to please the shareholders)

I think he means them using it as the reason to go to 11th in a few years. “We listened to you guys and decided to bring back wargear points in the new edition” yeah….””listened”.

Don't be silly. They know that we know they can roll out wargear points in any of the quarterly MFM if they feel it is necessary to satisfy the player base.

of course they can
same as they could have added all the changes from 6th to 7th with a simple Errata pdf
or the changes from 8th to 9th

we know it, they know it and people still happily celebrate a new Edition and come back because "this time" GW really tried and solved all the problems
and if there are still problems, you cannot expect a new game to be perfect at launch

knowing does not help much here, and GW is doing it anyway and people will praise them for listening

The edition changes have never been simple errata changed. Points changes and whether or not to charge for upgrades are much simpler than that, as we saw during 9th Edition.

Will there be an 11th Edition. 99.9% chance with 99% chance in 2026. That has nothing to do with wargear points.

 alextroy wrote:
The edition changes have never been simple errata changed.

Well you refuse to iterate, how can they be?

They both iterate and innovate at the same time. This does lead to lots of churn rather than a march towards a more prefect rules set.

There is a lot of 8th/9th in 10th Edition. There are a lot of issues that directly address issues of 8th & 9th. Then there are a lot of innovations, like the changes to unit datasheets around weapons. Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

I see a lot to like and a lot that needs much more work to reach a good level of implementation.

They pendulum swing and throw out entire mechanics and replace them with entirely new untested mechanics in a hamfisted attempt to "fix" problems that they themselves created all the while ignoring the community and even their play testers.

That's not innovation and iteration. That's confusion and desperation.

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

And upgrades not matching at that. I'm not running AdMech as long as GW gives the gak limitation of "one of each gun" in Rangers and Vanguard, but I know the fanboys ate that up as brilliant.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

Towards and To are not the same. Towards is in progress, to is finished. They should have been relatively finished but they're not. They're still moving towards.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

Towards and To are not the same. Towards is in progress, to is finished. They should have been relatively finished but they're not. They're still moving towards.

And when did they start, 1987?

How long will it bloody take?

Or maybe they do randomly change gak for no reason and haven't been iterating. Hmmm.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

Towards and To are not the same. Towards is in progress, to is finished. They should have been relatively finished but they're not. They're still moving towards.

And when did they start, 1987?

Pretty much with that last MFM of 9th.

How long will it bloody take?

Or maybe they do randomly change gak for no reason and haven't been iterating. Hmmm.

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

Towards and To are not the same. Towards is in progress, to is finished. They should have been relatively finished but they're not. They're still moving towards.

And when did they start, 1987?

Pretty much with that last MFM of 9th.

If your three data points look like :. , you can't even draw a line, not to mention define directional progress...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They pendulum swing and throw out entire mechanics and replace them with entirely new untested mechanics in a hamfisted attempt to "fix" problems that they themselves created all the while ignoring the community and even their play testers.

That's not innovation and iteration. That's confusion and desperation.

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

There are 2 types of upgrades. Those you are supposed to take and those that really need some type of compensation (like points). GW is pricing units assuming you actually take those you are supposed to take. 40 Points of Heavy Weapons is why 5 Devastators are 120 points while 10 are 200.

Your Tactical Squad is supposed to take 2 the two weapon upgrades (Special & Heavy/Special). Ideally, the weapons would be side grades to each other. Unfortunately, GW missed many obvious things like how a the Heavy Bolter is obviously inferior to a Grav-Cannon even against a Heavy Bolter's best targets.

On the other hand, the Sergeant has so many options, almost all that are better than Boltgun and Bolt Pistol. Some are comically better, like Combi-Weapon and Plasma Pistol.

So please, stop belaboring the obvious fact that wargear option have no additional cost for taking them. Most are already paid for in the price of admission.

 alextroy wrote:


So please, stop belaboring the obvious fact that wargear option have no additional cost for taking them. Most are already paid for in the price of admission.

I'm still enjoying the people who didn't get the point about not wanting to back to paying PPM for grenades, and people demanding grenade upgrades - that are on basically everything - must cost points for their upgrade value. Even though they're on basically everything and thus almost as built into each unit as S1, T1.

*checks into thread*

Yep. People still claiming that a Grav Gun + Grav Cannon and a Flamer + Heavy Bolter are 'sidegrades'.

Back in another couple of days!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
*checks into thread*

Yep. People still claiming that a Grav Gun + Grav Cannon and a Flamer + Heavy Bolter are 'sidegrades'.

Back in another couple of days!

*checks into thread*

Yep. People I made up are still claiming things I also made up like the idea that a Grav Gun + Grav Cannon and a Flamer + Heavy Bolter are 'sidegrades' even though about 4 posts up someone literally points out they dropped the ball on the Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter.

Back in another couple of days!

 alextroy wrote:

Your Tactical Squad is supposed to take 2 the two weapon upgrades (Special & Heavy/Special). Ideally, the weapons would be side grades to each other. Unfortunately, GW missed many obvious things like how a the Heavy Bolter is obviously inferior to a Grav-Cannon even against a Heavy Bolter's best targets.

 alextroy wrote:
There are 2 types of upgrades. Those you are supposed to take and those that really need some type of compensation (like points). GW is pricing units assuming you actually take those you are supposed to take. 40 Points of Heavy Weapons is why 5 Devastators are 120 points while 10 are 200.

Which is stupid, as not all heavy weapons are equal, and pricing them as such is why this new system is bad.

 alextroy wrote:
Your Tactical Squad is supposed to take 2 the two weapon upgrades (Special & Heavy/Special). Ideally, the weapons would be side grades to each other. Unfortunately, GW missed many obvious things like how a the Heavy Bolter is obviously inferior to a Grav-Cannon even against a Heavy Bolter's best targets.

"Supposed to take" doesn't cut it. There have been plenty of times when I've taken just a Heavy Weapon or just a special weapon. I shouldn't have to pay for things I'm not taking.

 alextroy wrote:
Most are already paid for in the price of admission.

Which, as has been stated (and proven, time and time again) is a God-awful system and they need to change it.

Breton wrote:
Towards and To are not the same. Towards is in progress, to is finished. They should have been relatively finished but they're not. They're still moving towards.

there is no sidegrade that was not there before and is still just there for "historical" reasons

look at Landspeeder and Crisis, you get the Sidegrade LS because have always been that, and no multiple Crisis Datacards also because they have always been that way
there is no move towards anything but just "happy accidents"

Going to get in a few games today with the new changes.

Played nine games with my Aeldari prior to the changes and went 5-4 (three of the losses were to Necrons). I'm interested seeing how things fare today at a local one day event.

List definitely changed but did retain one Wraithknight to see if it is remotely worth a premium 475 points. I am pretty sure the event will use a house rule that LOS is blocked on the first floor of windows which will further impact the value of models with the Towering keyword.

1070 days til 11th.

"How is GW going to fix Eldar?"

Badly.

 alextroy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They pendulum swing and throw out entire mechanics and replace them with entirely new untested mechanics in a hamfisted attempt to "fix" problems that they themselves created all the while ignoring the community and even their play testers.

That's not innovation and iteration. That's confusion and desperation.

 alextroy wrote:
Like the tentative move towards sidegrades over upgrades.

They have 100% not done that. The game is full of upgrades, and all of them are free.

There are 2 types of upgrades. Those you are supposed to take and those that really need some type of compensation (like points). GW is pricing units assuming you actually take those you are supposed to take. 40 Points of Heavy Weapons is why 5 Devastators are 120 points while 10 are 200.

Your Tactical Squad is supposed to take 2 the two weapon upgrades (Special & Heavy/Special). Ideally, the weapons would be side grades to each other. Unfortunately, GW missed many obvious things like how a the Heavy Bolter is obviously inferior to a Grav-Cannon even against a Heavy Bolter's best targets.

On the other hand, the Sergeant has so many options, almost all that are better than Boltgun and Bolt Pistol. Some are comically better, like Combi-Weapon and Plasma Pistol.

So please, stop belaboring the obvious fact that wargear option have no additional cost for taking them. Most are already paid for in the price of admission.

If I'm supposed to take upgrades then those upgrades should not be upgrades but should be included in the unit's base stats/gear. The fact that they aren't leads to trap choices. Trap choices lead to mismatched games, which can screw over filthy casuals like myself (or even just make you feel like you're getting screwed for having a bolt pistol instead of a plasma pistol, despite not firing it the entire game either way). This "supposed to take" argument means they deliberately implemented trap choices.

This also goes against at least the past 7 editions, meaning anyone who didn't fully bling out their models back then probably needs to buy new kits to get their missing gear/weapo... ah, I see.

So you are saying you would be happier with the points of a Tactical Squad if it didn't say:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
Every model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

And instead said:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
The Tactical Sergeant and 7 Tactical Marines are equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with Heavy Bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with a Flamer, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
The Tactical Marine armed with a Heavy Bolter may replace it it with:.....
The Tactical Marine armed with a Flamer may may replace it it with:.....The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

This is basically what GW is saying you should do with most units Wargear options. It is your choice to chase the most optimal options rather than be thematic. It is their fault for doing a poor job making the options closer in utility to make that choice more one of unit usage than mathhammer.

And don't bother answering the rhetorical question. I know the answer is no

Yes, this would be better than what we have now. If the expectation is to have special and heavy weapons selected, then the default loadout should include the cheapest selections of both.

Same with sponsons or Hunter-killer missiles. There is no downside in choosing them, so making it optional is a trap choice.

If the default is without any upgrade, then make a unit cost X and unlocking upgrades cost Y. It's really not that hard of a concept to try to be super smug about it.

I mean, in the second example GW isn't forcing you to pay for weapons you might not be taking - for my part I still wouldn't like it because I believe wargear upgrades should generally (if not always) be a choice and there should be some benefit to not taking all the upgrades you can, but that second example is still a step in the right direction.

I will declare myself surprised. If the Wargear Options are free, I see no need to force them on a model in interest of clarifying intent and avoiding the trap choice of not using them. However, I will agree that would do that.

I do see there could be reasons for not charging to unlock upgrades.

One is it prevents taking the cheapest version of a unit because it is deemed to be more efficient. Almost no-one competitive used upgrades on most units. They were deemed inefficient because the unit could to it's job, like being warm bodies to catch bullets and score objectives, with the upgrades that added minimal upside on the unit. This goes all the way back to the Loyal 32 of 8th Edition that had 0 upgrades and existed mostly for the CP along with the space they took up on the board.

The second is it makes determining the points of a unit easier if there are less variables to calculate. It is much easier to determine if you know an Intercessor Squad will always be either 5 Intercessors with an Astartes Grenade Launcher or 10 Intercessors with 2 Astartes Grenade Launchers. Even with the various choices the Sergeant can make for his wargear (a problem with most units), it is easier than worrying about how much those Astartes Grenade Launcher is worth compared to not having it. For all the talk of using the last few points for extra upgrades, most people either always included them or always didn't based on cost versus utility.

Does this mean GW did a great job? No, but I can at least see what they were aiming for despite the execution. I even like the design concept while disliking the execution.

 alextroy wrote:
Almost no-one competitive used upgrades on most units. They were deemed inefficient because the unit could to it's job, like being warm bodies to catch bullets and score objectives, with the upgrades that added minimal upside on the unit.

Nonsense. Build me a competitive tau list for 9th that did not purchase upgrades for the majority of the units in the army.

I'm sure that other people can chip in with requests for their own particular armies to test your assertion that upgrades were not taken in numbers.

Meanwhile, in bizarro world where nobody took Resurrection Orbs, Whip Coils, Shadowlooms...

 alextroy wrote:
So you are saying you would be happier with the points of a Tactical Squad if it didn't say:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
Every model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

And instead said:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
The Tactical Sergeant and 7 Tactical Marines are equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with Heavy Bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with a Flamer, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
The Tactical Marine armed with a Heavy Bolter may replace it it with:.....
The Tactical Marine armed with a Flamer may may replace it it with:.....The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

This is basically what GW is saying you should do with most units Wargear options. It is your choice to chase the most optimal options rather than be thematic. It is their fault for doing a poor job making the options closer in utility to make that choice more one of unit usage than mathhammer.

And don't bother answering the rhetorical question. I know the answer is no

To continue with the current point structure they must get to here (sadly).

 alextroy wrote:
One is it prevents taking the cheapest version of a unit because it is deemed to be more efficient. Almost no-one competitive used upgrades on most units. They were deemed inefficient because the unit could to it's job, like being warm bodies to catch bullets and score objectives, with the upgrades that added minimal upside on the unit. This goes all the way back to the Loyal 32 of 8th Edition that had 0 upgrades and existed mostly for the CP along with the space they took up on the board.

I'm very confused as to what you mean here.

Are you including special/heavy weapons as upgrades here? If so, I have to call bullgak on this because people absolutely did take special weapons. Indeed, I'd argue it was far rarer to see units with no special/heavy weapons than ones that maxed out on them.

About the only exception I can think that were consistently ignored would be stuff like power swords/fists on sergeants in ranged units. Though, even then, I'd argue that this is a product of the core rules. e.g. whether or not it was the best possible build, I saw a lot more people taking power fists on sergeants back in 5th edition, because the rules made doing so much more appealing despite the cost. Likewise, you saw more weapons on Eldar/DE sergeants in shooty units back when they could expect to swing before most units that charged them.

I don't need to look up any tactics forum to know that Guard players didn't field their infantry without all sorts of extra guns.

I would rather see a list that actually didn't use upgrades and analyse the outlier.

I think this is a wrong statement of the past edition.

If it’s the choice between nothing and something, ditch the nothing and just always give them something. You have some dumb stuff like the Necron Bikes who have a 5+ save, and then can take a wargear option that gives them a 4+ with no alternatives or downsides, so of course you always take it. This just means the save stat on the front is wrong. Just give them that wargear by default always.

 alextroy wrote:
So you are saying you would be happier with the points of a Tactical Squad if it didn't say:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
Every model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

And instead said:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
The Tactical Sergeant and 7 Tactical Marines are equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with Heavy Bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with a Flamer, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
The Tactical Marine armed with a Heavy Bolter may replace it it with:.....
The Tactical Marine armed with a Flamer may may replace it it with:.....The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

This is basically what GW is saying you should do with most units Wargear options. It is your choice to chase the most optimal options rather than be thematic. It is their fault for doing a poor job making the options closer in utility to make that choice more one of unit usage than mathhammer.

And don't bother answering the rhetorical question. I know the answer is no

Why would the answer be no? Genuinely confused here. Of course the answer is yes, since that's exactly what I was proposing?

To clarify: I'm proposing the above solely in response to your statement that gw is "essentially telling us to take x upgrades" without actually enforcing it. My proposal would be a better way of achieving that since you'd at least avoid trap choices of the "hah, you failed to divine gw's intended minimum loadout for the squad from the datasheet!" kind. I'm definitely in Team Points otherwise.

The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

We agree on that

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

Honestly not against the idea. It would mean less plastic refuse in general so the idea is very green. I am not even trying to be clever or sarcastic. I actually think this is a good idea. We are currently drowning in plastic garbage and I am all for reducing it.

really?
did not encountered that from 3rd to 9th, any source for that people always used the basic loadout and never paid points for the upgrades?

and if this is true, why even have different weapons, just a generic "heavy weapon" for everyone would be enough

 Eldarsif wrote:
Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

*brandishes Hitchens's razor*

'Nobody took any upgrades for nine editions' is the new 'I always took an Ether Lance and Daemonic Visage!'

I took Daemonic Visage... sometimes...

It was great when you had a few points spare, something 10th Ed can't replicate at all.

Deleted

I have played for nine editions with mostly Imperial Guard and usually used some upgrades on units that had options for them. Special Weapons were always desirable. Occasionally a heavy weapon for infantry, plasma cannons, lascannons, and multi-meltas for vehicles, autocannons sometimes for sentinels. The units that I almost always took bare bones were characters (valued for their auras and orders, not killing power) and artillery. Sometimes I took bare bones Leman Russes and Scout Sentinels.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

This is such a weird and untrue assessment.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

Doesn't matter. If it's better than the base model, it needs to cost more.

 kodos wrote:
really?
did not encountered that from 3rd to 9th, any source for that people always used the basic loadout and never paid points for the upgrades?

Back in 3rd and 4th I’d run my tactical squads bare bones, maybe with a flamethrower at best, most of the time. Also, for multiple editions I’ve ignored all upgrades on any irl boyz I took with the sole exception of the nob (who got upgraded to a nob, given a klaw, bosspole, ect).

Idk why I’m bringing this up. Even if we pretend everyone had always run bare troop choices, literally no army ever has refused upgrades on their more elite selections.

I remember those times as I had my naked Blood Claws without anything as well as my 20 points full upgraded Grey Hunters

saying no one ever took the 1 point per model grenade so those are useless bits on the frame if you need to pay points for them is a bold claim

 Eldarsif wrote:

Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

This, as they say, is a bad take.

Could be a local meta thing? Imagine that, playing all those editions and everyone only ever taking a handful of upgrades.

Not sure if every tournament included the changes etc - but supposedly at the weekend Eldar were still at a 70% win rate after mirrors.

Really though, I think the tournament data remains a bit small to really know what's going on. I.E. Sisters of Battle were up to a respectable 47% win rate compared with the mid 30s last week. But we are talking about 7 players - so really it feels like the result will have been a function of who ran into who. (In the same way the 7 DG players crashed to just a 27% win rate, which might be a record low for a real faction).

A point to make regarding the win rate this past weekend. I know of two events that did not utilize the current changes to Aeldari. Captial City Clash; lists and rules were locked in before the GW points change and Fate Dice. The Salt Lake location GT streamed over the weekend indicated they had made house rules regarding Fate Dice (1 dice per unit per phase). I am unsure what the other events had in place.

I think next weekend's results will be more in line (assuming no GW changes this week) as it should ensure all results will be using the current points/rules changes.

Not saying Aeldari won't still be high but at least removes the variable rules that were utilized last weekend.

Of note, I did get to play in a local one day event using the updated rules for Aeldari. I went 2-1 (lost to Deathwatch). Locally, the more serious tourney players attended Capital City Clash GT which had our GSC, Custodes and Necron players absent. As a result, the tourney boiled down to Knight vs Knight taking the top spots.

Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

Sarigar wrote:
Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

A rules change that make you wonder if you should abuse your faction rule to the fullest can’t be a bad change.

 alextroy wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

A rules change that make you wonder if you should abuse your faction rule to the fullest can’t be a bad change.

Haha, I get your snark

The rule change impacts how I will build the army. Not sure how good it is. I was losing games to very efficient Necron and DA builds prior to the rule changes. And those folks piloting those armies were getting blown out by GSC.

The rules changed. I got to field my army against Imperial Knights (win), Deathwatch (loss), and Tau (win). I'll play more games and figure out what works for me. Currently, I am scoring very high on Secondaries but can struggle on Primaries.

It wasn't snark.

The prior version of Fate Dice made leaning into that mechanic a very strong proposition. Get lots of high value Fate Dice paired with a few High Damage Devastating Wounds attacks and you can clear your enemy's fire most important units off the board with little effort.

The new version means it is a scalpel rather than a hammer. Use the right dice at the right moment to slowly bend the game towards victory rather than smashing your way there with a massive Alpha Strike. Make it less of your game plan and therefore less critical to build your army around.

This change I see as a good thing. Players seeing that is also a good thing.

Who'da thought we'd end up in a world where taking a maligned unit like Guardians and using them as intended is "abusing your faction rule"!

 kodos wrote:
really?
did not encountered that from 3rd to 9th, any source for that people always used the basic loadout and never paid points for the upgrades?

and if this is true, why even have different weapons, just a generic "heavy weapon" for everyone would be enough

I think it depended on the army, some armies had upgrades you wanted to take, others had upgrades that where inefficant traps, still others had situational upgrades. I do know that in previous editions it was RARE to see a 10 man marine squad with special weapon and heavy weapon

Sarigar wrote:Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Who'da thought we'd end up in a world where taking a maligned unit like Guardians and using them as intended is "abusing your faction rule"!

He did mention dropping both Eldrad and Guardian Defenders. This means they were going for lots of Fate Dice and then finding they ended up with more than they could use. I'm sure it will be interesting to see what they thinks after dropping both from their list.

Not quite. I used one squad of Guardians and pondered if I would even add Eldrad to my list.

Prior to the changes I would use 3/4 of my Fate Dice in turns one and two and try to hold out the rest of the game. It worked well vs Knights and Marines but horribly against a certain Necron build. These lists utilized 2-3 Wraithknights which is where most Fate Dice were expended.

This past weekend, we utilized new points and Fate Dice changes. I fielded one Wraithknight as a result as I felt the points increase kept two off the table. The change to Fate Dice vs Knights was very impactful and I had 2 Knights in my backfield by turn 3. He outscored me on Primary but only got 7 points on Secondaries which kept in the game and win as I nearly maxed Secondaries.

Fate Dice change was fairly impactful vs Deathwatch. Squads of T6, 3 Wound Marine models are tough to chew through without the Mortal Wounds reliability in my list. To be fair, my opponent played a very solid game and beat me. This game provided me some insight of how the points increase and reduction of Fate Dice usage reduced the utility of the Wraithknight.

Game three. Fate Dice came into play vs Tau but Towering was the bigger issue. Skyray tanks, Broadside and Crisis Suits had nowhere to hide vs my Wraithknight and Fire Prism extreme range further exasperated the issue. My opponent conceded on turn 3 after he failed to destroy my Wraithknight (in cover) and I then destroyed his Tigershark and both Crisis Teams (with characters). He built an army to beta strike but did not quite hit hard enough and got punished for it.

The one area that did not feel right the game is spiking on overwatch. This is now the second game where I overwatch with a Wraithknight, use a 6 to hit and roll the other dice. Then, I get hot and roll a couple more 6's and the one dice reroll gets me another 6. This spike destroys units. In both Fate Dice iterations, Wraithknight Overwatch feels exceptionally strong.

However, I finally got to play my Wraithknights after sitting on the shelf for 6+ years. Many players have now prepared for them and Wraithknights are terrible to play into GSC and certain Necron builds.

GW Fate Dice rule change and points increase only put my Wraithknights back on the shelf and has me fielding a more efficient army that really does not even need Fate Dice. It is a shame as I really like the model. I think Ynarri will begin to see more play at large.

fire the guy who wrote the eldar index

I've been able to play several more games post changes to Fate Dice and Wraithknight points increase.

-Wraithknight. Taking a single Wraithknight has still been a viable choice. I have played two Wraithknights in games, but always felt I didn't have enough stuff to effectively play the Primary and Secondary missions. A Wraithknight is not a auto include, but taking one does not gimp the army.

-Overwatch. Warp Spiders and a Wraithknight are the two units opponents are having their movement plans disrupted. I've found it very impactful in every game I've played.

-Fate Dice. This is why a single Wraithknight is worth the 475 points. Shooting phase guarantees one to wound roll of a 6 and the Overwatch guarantees one to hit roll of a 6. There have been multiple games where I will Overwatch, use a Fate Dice for one 6 to hit and after the free reroll, I'll get another one or two hits with the Heavy Wraithcannon. This, combined with Towering, is really game changing. Locally, we utilize the GW tourney terrain layout which dramatically limits lanes of fire, except for the Towering keyword.
At this point, the Wraithknight is the only unit I factor Fate Dice into. Other usages of Fate Dice become very situational. Opponents are not finding Fate Dice to be an unfun to face mechanic post change.

-Battle Host Detachment Ability. I'm really baffled GW brought this back. In late 8th edition, this was Expert Crafters and was so good it became a defacto standard and GW gutted it in the 9th edition codex. Yet, they brought it right back in 10th. Aeldari have an exceptional number of units that benefit from this rule allowing one to build the bulk of the army around it. D-Cannon Support Weapons, Hornets, War Walkers, Fire Prisms, Void Weavers are excellent, cheap platforms for this detachment ability, especially for their points.
Opponents are not overly enjoying this aspect of the Aeldari play experience.

-Weapons. Well, we have Brightlances, and Brightlances. When I get the weapon option choice, it really is a non choice. Vyper: Brightlance, War Walker: Brightlance, Hornet: Brightlance, Guardian Defenders: Brightlance. I would like more options to give me a more enjoyable in game experience.

-Warp Spiders. If you've not faced them, these are a frustrating Infantry unit for opponents. For 100 points, take 2-3 squads every game.

-Shadow Spectres. This is the other frustrating to face Infantry unit. At 80 points, this is a very likely candidate for a points increase. Another unit people will be taking 2-3 squads every game.

-Fire and Fade. Game changing. When combined with the above two mentioned Infantry units, this is the feel bad moment for opponents. Both units provide such mobile flexibility and for 100 points (Spiders) and 80 points (Spectres)
Warp Spiders 24" Normal Move (Flickerjump), then Fire and Fade an additional 12".
Shadow Spectres 12" Normal Move, additional 6" Normal Move after shooting, then Fire and Fade an additional 12".

-Mortal Wound output. I still think it is necessary to retain in 10th edition and I'm not finding MW output to be an issue. There are army builds out there that can handle Aeldari MW output (which is high). Diminishing that ability won't fix an issue, only shift the problem. Ironically, this is a real weakness for Aeldari as they really have not built in defenses against Mortal Wounds.

- The Yncarne. Raise the points and I'd still bring the model. I think it is much better than the Avatar, yet the Avatar is more points. Opponents are having to make decisions to NOT shoot at my army because of this model. The ability to charge after it teleports is massive. I think this is the model, not a Wraithknight, that folks will see in every army. It is simply that good.

- Missions. I'm at the point that if I could score over 40 on Secondary Objectives, I would. The army plays the Secondary so well that I can generally score both Secondaries every turn which is extremely important. For myself, I am not maxing out on Primary Objectives. I'm not a top tier tournament player and that is where my shortcoming arises. When I lose a game, this is where it happens; I just can't score enough and/or my opponent scores 45-50 on Primary.

-Opponents. This is something I don't see discussed. I'll broadly break down opponents into three categories
1. This group has basic fundamentals of the game but are not overly efficient. This group I generally avoid unless I tone down lists and the game is more instructional. I've run into this person in a local RTT and it becomes a bit of a non game and I don't think it is enjoyable for either of us.
2. This group understands the game and builds efficient armies. These can go back and forth, but I'm still winning more of my games against these players. This is where I'd personally rate myself.
3. This group is very experienced and travel to attend multiple GTs and generally has winning records. This is the group that simply outplays me. Locally, there are 3-4 players that I'd rate here and I've lost every game to them with my Aeldari and they are not utilizing Aeldari.

Fixes? Not sure. The knee jerk reaction to Fate Dice and Wraithknights didn't 'fix' the Aeldari early tournament win rate (which is what I assume prompted GW to implement the quick fix as there was some amount of observable data) ; it just changed how folks win with Aeldari. The army has fantastic tools to play the missions.

All within the span of a month, my army dropped the following:

-2 x 10 Guardians,
-Eldrad
-1 Wraithknight

What became defacto auto includes after the changes:

-2 x 5 Warp Spiders
-2 x 5 Shadow Spectres
-The Yncarne (to be fair, this model was in pre rules changes, but points became a limiting factor at that time)
-Nightspinner
-1 x 5 Rangers

Wins/losses have not drastically changed. For myself, who I play against is a more definitive factor determining win/loss.

I'm actually interested to see over the next few weeks how the meta will adapt and see what shakes out. Terrain layouts are exceptionally important as we saw with the GW Tacoma GT. I'm guessing September would be technically the beginning of 'Fall' and we could see either/both the Tyranid and Space Marine Codex which could become the next bogeyman army.