Now that people have been able to play a few games, how is 10th treating you? How does list building feel? Does your army feel fluff-appropriate on the table? Have you enjoyed the games you've played?
So far so good, but I’m not a big fan of the character use however. Always being locked up with a specific unit and losing freedom of movement, it just feels so forced. I’m still getting used to it and having fun,
So that’s something.
bullyboy wrote: So far so good, but I’m not a big fan of the character use however. Always being locked up with a specific unit and losing freedom of movement, it just feels so forced. I’m still getting used to it and having fun,
So that’s something.
Yeah, I would have preferred a little more downside to getting battleshocked, and more of the previous joining/leaving units for characters - as well as much fewer "rails" on who can join what. Maybe even recycle the entire can't leave/join while "broken" as can't join/leave on a turn the unit started as battleshocked coupled with Battleshocked wears off at the end of any opponent turn the unit started as battleshocked - right now, you basically battle shock them near the end of your turn, and they're recovered at the start of theirs. Its got no real duration.
So far it’s meh, list building feels so boring and one dimensional even for custodies so far.
Maybe something will improve, but currently it feels like choices are mostly boring and if I want to go heavy into sisters. It’s not a choice that’s really there because any effort was made for the army.
Game is about 40K, nothing special so far and a dice rolling experience.
I don’t feel particularly engaged yet, and mostly will be pulling out other games unless the codexes actually have some effort put into them.
GW could do something, but it’s like a bunch of ideas all shoved into a game again without anyone understanding why those ideas work in other games.
I'm itching to play a game. Almost had one lined up weekend before last but that fell through. I'm looking forward to testing things out.
As for what I have done, list building, that's a tedious chore of a process. I've likened it to building a puzzle where the pieces don't really fit, and all the edges are sharp. Give me a robust points system with variable squad sizes any day of the damned week.
Honestly what I'm most interested is seeing how GW completely screws up the detachment system. I think it has a lot of potential to be wasted and the large variety of different types of armies it will fail to provide.
Played my third game yesterday, games have been fun, I really loved my third game, I tried my hardest to work around the awful melee rules and made skill matter and got a full 5 turn game.
I like the combos, getting additional Canoptek Reanimator triggers off Reanimation Orbs and Ghost Arks or getting extra hits with a Plasmancer in tesla Immortals and then making those hits matter through extra AP with Szarekh, finding and using such combos are things I love so the indexes are interesting. The less restrictive list building allowing me to spam characters like in 5th/6th with my Necrons and being rewarded for doing that feels very fluffy for how I want Necrons to work.
I'm not playing ATM because I decided to get rid of all my stuff and start over with better painting skills but the two factions I was most hyped to play, guard and Tau, look pretty disappointing so far. Both had books that worked fairly smoothly in 9th, in 10th there's so much stuff that seems cool at first but doesn't really work because of timing or keyword issues. It feels less like commanding an army and more like trying to solve some bizarre logic puzzle, and it doesn't help that GW took one of the dumbest anti-fluff rules they've ever written and made it the guard detachment ability with a restriction that you only get to use it if you play the least fun kind of army ever: a static artillery gunline.
Oh well, maybe I'll just start with orks since at least orks always win.
Played 9 games so far and I'd say "so far so good".
They're all been more or less enjoyable, except for one against Tau where I got leaf-blown off the table in turn 1, but that came up to a combination of too little terrain (barely any LoS-blocking) and a really bad matchup listwise (I brought a bunch of heavy vehicles, he brought 9 broadsides. He basically brought scissors to my paper.)
The corerules in 10th are good, as is the decision to lower the lethality. (Unlike in 9th, most of my games so far in 10th *hasn't'* resulted in either side being tabled by turn 3.)
They aren't perfect but good, a solid foundation to expand the game upon. (Towering is a glaring issue still though.)
My main issue is the inbalance in terms of powerlevel between the various armies but it's not bad enough to break the game, and it will probably (hopefully) sort itself out with regular pts-updates.
GW forcing PL on us but calling it points also isn't something I'm fan of, but I can live with it.
So far 10th seems like: 'Maximum profit by minimum effort from two interns'. List building is boring and inflexible. You either take the most effective stuff, or worse, you have no choices on what to take anymore (heirloom weapons of wet noodleness). I won't even get into the problems I have with specific armies. Let's just say I am severely underwhelmed.
I do like that vehicles finally seem tough enough to be worth using. I'm sure by three codex's in that will change.
Oh, and it does seem to take an extra turn to table one or the other player now.
8 games in so far and all good so far (playing Sisters, Custodes, Guard and Marines vs. Necrons, Thousand Sons and Space Wolves). I like having leaders charge with their units and the game is much easier to manage now in terms of data load.
Hopefully the next errata pass fixes some more of the remaining issues - but the base game seems fine enough.
It still felt quite dominated by special rules and the need to sit on objectives immediately and permanently.
The last game in particular - marines against Tsons - was a lot of fishing for 6s, swingy unit performance based on bonuses and rerolls from oaths, strategems, cabals, etc.
A prior more 'casual' game did last 5 turns but it was slow going. A lot of attritional dice rolling.
I will post what I posted in another thread, but here are my thoughts - I have played enough of 9th to know how this is going, and I think I gave 10th it's fair shake:
This is a hard question to answer concisely but here I go, picking the top 3 from each of my games.
Superheavy Company 1) No terrain guidelines or allowance for large models. My opponent set the board with ruins such that my tanks could not make meaningful forward progress. While this could be blamed on the player, I know him pretty well and it wasn't really deliberate (he doesn't know how wide a Baneblade is and graciously offered to move the terrain when I arrived, but I declined. I wanted to test the system as-is).
The real issue here is GW failed to give terrain guidelines that allow Baneblades to maneuver - OR, perhaps a better way, would have been to adopt the 4th edition rule where Baneblades ignore terrain less than 6" (iirc) in height when moving.
2) Tank durability. As I predicted when we saw the tank article, GW nerfing anti-tank weapons did not result in people taking more anti-tank (or paying more for the "real" anti-tank). Rather, it resulted in people using wombo-combos to buff small arms and other non-AT weapons (heavy bolters, plasma) with additional AP and rerolls, etc.
A worthy note is that my Baneblade did survive into Turn 2 (with 3 wounds left) after popping smoke. But it was still badly damaged and took 0 shots from anti-tank weapons - this was achieved with weapons from Plasma on down purely. Feels weird.
3) Wombo-combos. The game felt more like a flowchart, just like 8th and 9th. "Perform X. If successful, perform Y. If not successful, play stratagem Z.". This came from a wider variety of places, moving off the stratagem traincar and spreading out into the "Enhancements, Unit Bespoke Rules, Army Rules, Detachment Rules" traincars, but I wasn't defeated by excellent tactical play. I was defeated by my opponent executing on a series of decisions made before the game (with contingencies at certain steps where he thought I could - and did - disrupt his combos).
Imperial Guard Defense Company/PDF 1) Aircraft rules. Brought a plane to this game as the "scrambled fighter" to help a beleaguered PDF force under attack at a distant outpost. My opponent brought one as well, since he also wanted to test it (this was unplanned, and hilarious). I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
2) Actual anti-tank weapons suck now. I was also testing a Malcador, the big brutish FW tank with built-in AoC. Eventually, he was able to get a Sword-Wraithlord into it... and meh. I have never seen a more pathetic example of something that used to be scary to a tank doing nothing. He did 5 wounds to the Malcador (including some stray shooting) over five rounds of combat. Any other edition, the tank would have been zapped. Damage 1 AP0 weapons that wound on 6s are more scary than Wraithlord swords, because they can be buffed to [Lethal Hits] and the like to do far more to a tank than actual antitank weapons (lol, damn Corsairs) and the Malcador's own buffed durability is meaningless.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Chaos Daemons Game 1) Glass cannons are more like glass featherdusters. My Daemons hit with reduced lethality (witstealer sword at Str 8 still on my 330 pt Keeper), but barely got more durable (keeper got 2 more wounds and is T10). Daemonettes are still easier to kill than guard (guard have lots of durability tools). This was especially apparent when Daemonettes get overwatched by flamers - it's unavoidable and it's extremely painful.
2) Lots of really strange shenanigans makes the army almost not want to play the game. The stratagems (pulling units off the table to redeploy them, making objectives "sticky", etc.) combined with the frailty of the units meant I could very easily and obviously win the game by not engaging my opponent for 5 turns while he slowly lumbered around the board (custodes/sisters of silence footslogging). I agreed with him I wouldn't do this because neither of us would have had much fun. Shadow of Chaos gave me his deployment zone because there were no objectives there, meaning I owned at least half of them... (Wut).
3) Wombo combos. I can explain it but at this point it is probably just repetitive.
Lord_Valorion wrote: I am reading this everywhere...what is the matter with the "awful melee rules"?
toughness went up
anti-tank shooting weapons strength went up
anti-tank melee weapons strength stayed the same
then theres overwatch, new engagement rules and lack of squad option customisation
Automatically Appended Next Post: Personally i've had a ton of fun so far with 10th, more than 9th i'd say, and even with my "bad armies" like Admech or Belakor-less Mono-Tzeentch demons
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
One thing I actually do like is the list building process, but only when I turn my brain to competitive mode, and have fun trying to build crazy combo-wombos.
The game does seem less lethal. We've had multiple scenarios where units that would normally have died in half a shooting phase in 9th have survived the turn. Things like Land Raiders feel much tougher, probably due to the reduction in re-rolls everywhere. The mission deck is great, but I always loved the Maelstrom cards from 8th and was sad to see them go in 9th. It feels like the mission cards will lead to more variety in games overall.
Things I didn't like? Army building is really annoying. The PL system reduces variety because there's no trade-off between powerful but expensive and weaker but cheap options. The fixed points values also mean building an army is very fiddly as you'll often end up 60 points short, or - worse - 20 points over. You can't just take a couple of bodies out to get to the limit, or add some upgrades here or there. Instead you have to reconfigure the entire list. It's not helped by the way Leaders interact with units effectively making them one combined unit and further reducing granularity. It feels like the changes to strats now mean you end up using the same one over and over. I hated the bloat in 9th, but this feels like it's gone too far the other way, especially for armies that have access to the "use a strat again for 0CP" character abilities. Battleshock also seems fairly useless due to timing issues, which further reinforces my theory that GW did next to no real playtesting of 10th.
I think this edition has some potential, but I think there's still a lot of work to do to realise that potential.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.
His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.
His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).
This is related to the other post, but I didn't want to edit the wall of text:
I can't help but notice that you complained that the eldar vs. guard game didn't require maneuvering and then also complained that Daemons vs Custodes game could have been won entirely by maneuvering.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.
His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).
This is related to the other post, but I didn't want to edit the wall of text:
I can't help but notice that you complained that the eldar vs. guard game didn't require maneuvering and then also complained that Daemons vs Custodes game could have been won entirely by maneuvering.
I did say that yes, a pair of observations I did not connect. I think if you are asking me what conclusion I would draw, it's that overall "maneuver importance" is probably in a good place in 10th, but my experiences touched the extremes only, and the extremes left me sour (some of which is my fault, some of which is the Army's - I fail to see how Slaanesh Daemons can be expected to have any units that stay in place to stand and fight).
It's too bad the rest of the system is so painful to fight through because I do think that the Movement Phase in 10th specifically is pretty important, as it should be.
Credit where credit is due, is my initial response!
I saw it in the superheavy game too - my ability to maneuver was constrained and that directly impacted the outcome.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
still not confirmed by GW, by your interpretation, the Hexmark Destoroyer's ability wouldnt do anything
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
still not confirmed by GW, by your interpretation, the Hexmark Destoroyer's ability wouldnt do anything
Those might be an exception. You never know with GW. Hexmark gets free Overwatch at any rate.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I fail to see how Slaanesh Daemons can be expected to have any units that stay in place to stand and fight).
sadly, GW doesn't seem to want monogod demons to be a thing, at least until we possibly get new detachments, right now it is very much "Index:Belakor".
If you want staying power however, Shalaxi is insanely hard to shift and hits like a truck.
Regular keepers with shields also become ridiculously hard to kill, but yeah, lesser demons are pretty bad overall
Really liking 10th so far. Games have been good. I'd really prefer a more abstracted LOS/terrain system, but by the standards I judge 40k its the happiest I've been with the game by a long shot.
Seems like a pretty mixed response. If we were to try and boil things down would it be fair to say:
PROS
+ Less stuff to juggle.
+ People like the maelstrom-esque missions. (Is drunken commander syndrome not a thing?)
+ Reduced lethality.
CONS
- Still a lot to juggle, usually from bespoke datasheet rules.
- List building seems unpopular due to lack of options/nuance and the awkward points gaps that might leave you at a significant points disadvantage.
- Some factions' playstyles aren't suiting their fluff.
- Power imbalance between factions.
If the above is accurate, then the silver lining is that a lot of the cons seem like things that could reasonably be addressed by codices. I.e., adding options to support customization/fluff/playstyles better and generally take another stab at putting all the armies on an equal-ish playing field. Although they'll risk losing the PRO of reduced lethality if they power creep things like they did last edition.
I've now played 6 games - 3 using SM, 3 using Necrons - losing one game of each. Both losses were very close.
Of the 6 the ones where I used the Necrons were the most fun. I love blowing things up with scarabs.
Neither I nor anyone I've played with or observed at the shop(s) seem to have had any real issue with the new pts system or rules.
Some minor grumbling about SMtac squads only coming in 10 man units & grumbling from the Knights players the other day when their pts went up. Some of us are waiting for the rest of the Legends.
I must have been unlucky judging by other comments here - played a Marine Vs Marine game tonight and spent the evening rerolling dice, lost my Knight in a single turn of shooting.
Not feeling the less lethal vibe and less rerolls quite yet.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
Unit,
When you say your Hydras used overwatch twice, were all three firing overwatch at the same time?
Playable and okay. The missions are doing most of the heavy lifting in that respect.
A lot of the actual moment to moment gameplay has a multitude of tedious things going on with it and despite the supposed fewer rules, you get interrupted more and the flow of the game just isn't there.
It's also paradoxically too durable and too lethal at the same time. If you're one of the top factions that can abuse poorly thought out core mechanics then a brick of Terminators with AoC disappears as if it was never there. If you're mid-tier or lower then there's literally no point in ever rolling dice vs that; you are doing 0 damage to it.
As for the factions I play: CSM and Necrons either retained a lot of flavour, or had more added to them, and feel like they're better internally balanced than before. Aeldari and Drukhari are the complete opposite; they're giant messes with tons of missteps and bad design choices, a complete gutting of flavour and extreme drops in lethality on undeserving units and extreme boosts in lethality for units that in 9th were already good. Worse yet many of these problems probably won't ever really be fixed; Drukhari just fundamentally have a lot of bad melee datasheets and those will not be changed.
Bosskelot wrote: Playable and okay. The missions are doing most of the heavy lifting in that respect.
A lot of the actual moment to moment gameplay has a multitude of tedious things going on with it and despite the supposed fewer rules, you get interrupted more and the flow of the game just isn't there.
It's also paradoxically too durable and too lethal at the same time. If you're one of the top factions that can abuse poorly thought out core mechanics then a brick of Terminators with AoC disappears as if it was never there. If you're mid-tier or lower then there's literally no point in ever rolling dice vs that; you are doing 0 damage to it.
As for the factions I play: CSM and Necrons either retained a lot of flavour, or had more added to them, and feel like they're better internally balanced than before. Aeldari and Drukhari are the complete opposite; they're giant messes with tons of missteps and bad design choices, a complete gutting of flavour and extreme drops in lethality on undeserving units and extreme boosts in lethality for units that in 9th were already good. Worse yet many of these problems probably won't ever really be fixed; Drukhari just fundamentally have a lot of bad melee datasheets and those will not be changed.
Can you refer to a good writeup on the problems with the thematic Drukhari and Aeldari rules?
- Why do some many indirect fire units effectively ignore the indirect fire penalties with Heavy countering the -1 to hit and have ignore cover. Some factions have abilities that even straight up turn off cover if they can hit the unit.
- Overwatch at 24" in the movement phase and with auto-hitting units makes fragile melee units borderline unusable, especially because you can overwatch at the end of a charge move. You know what isn't fun, having every significant part of my army being -2 to move, advance and charge because I had the audacity to move in my own movement phase and got overwatched by a tonne of barbgaunts.
- Fight first has the same issue, fragile melee units are borderline unusable in this edition against some armies.
- Army building, fixed squad sizes and free wargear aren't fun either. Sure, most of the time people were only taking groups of 5 or 10 or whatever the new limits are anyway. Not for my Sisters army though, why can I only have squads of 10 dominions. I don't want to bring 10 dominions when only 4 can have special weapons historically regardless of their squad size. The one squad I'd like to bring more than 5 of for ablative wounds: Retributors, are only available in a squad of 5 rather than the 10 they used to be. Why?! Devastators, which are nearly identical units can be brought in 5 or 10, and are also cheaper despite having more wounds, higher toughness, more wargear options and an armorium cherub. Also just screw me I guess because I wanted to build my tank with a closed hatch and no storm bolter, because I'm paying for it anyway now, not to mention a retributor squad with multi meltas is not worth the same as a squad with heavy bolters.
- The wild haves and have nots of the indexes: why do some factions have abundant access to ranged devastating wounds, fights first, reduce ap by 1, free strats, indirect fire etc and others don't. Have fun playing Votann against Guard with mass artillery, you're just being shot the whole game, too slow and short ranged to shoot them back if you can even get line of site on them.
- Wildly inconsistent reduced lethality, some factions got lethality reduced, not Space marines, eldar or imperial knights though and about knights...
- Towering as a rule. Knights are just playing an entirely different game to the rest of us. A faction with quite strong shooting, re-rolling 1s to hit and wound AND a 6+ or 5+ FNP on at minimum T10 bodies. Yeah why not also have them ignore obscuring. I've also played against them with LOS blocking terrain like solid walls, barely helped. Especially playing a faction that has almost no weapons higher than S10 AP-2.
- Lone Operative on shooting units. You have a vindicare assassin just out in the open? Cool, can't do a damn thing about it. Either spend the whole game hiding small characters or they're very likely getting killed
- Devastating wounds on weapons that do a lot of damage when I have 1w infantry. That's not any less lethal than 9th was.
Ultimately it just hasn't been fun. Playing Orks but then having my 1 round waaagh get effectively -6" movement on my key charging units because 100 points of barbgaunts exist isn't fun. Having a Knight with a conflagration cannon teleport into my backline and then knowing, any of my Sisters infantry units move, they're dead, isn't fun. Getting shot and being able to do nothing in return, isn't fun, especially when it's good shooting or has utility effects. Not all of these things can be fixed with points. I loved list building in 9th, it had a lot of nuance to it. 10th have been bland and boring for me.
AdmittedlyLame wrote: - Why do some many indirect fire units effectively ignore the indirect fire penalties with Heavy countering the -1 to hit and have ignore cover. Some factions have abilities that even straight up turn off cover if they can hit the unit.
Heavy doesn't ignore the indirect penalty. A stationary Basilisk firing at a visible target hits at BS 3+, when firing at a target that isn't visible it hits on a 4+.
especially because you can overwatch at the end of a charge move.
Just remember that if you do the charging unit is already in engagement range. Vehicles will be at -1 to hit and infantry models can only fire pistols. So the trick of charging from behind LOS blocking terrain still works in most cases.
- Lone Operative on shooting units. You have a vindicare assassin just out in the open? Cool, can't do a damn thing about it. Either spend the whole game hiding small characters or they're very likely getting killed
Why can't you do anything about it? Lone Operative gives immunity to shooting outside 12", it doesn't negate it entirely. Get within 12" and you can shoot it normally (or charge it).
23 games played. 19 lost, 1 technical draw as my opponent had to leave eariler, and 2 victories. Although of the wins one vs a dude who has not played w40k and his DG since 8th and a mirror vs a new player.
Army feels odd. Teleporting and tricks related to its give it huge mobility, but it has absolutly no damage. And I don't use NDKs, so it is a real problem. On top of that the costing of a lot of things, seems to have been done by a different person then the one who wrote/tested the rules. A Brother Captin is GK Lt, as Grand Masters are company Cpts. Yet someone forgot to give him the join as second rule. This creates a situation where there is physicaly not enough points to take enough termintor units to fit all characters in, and without lone operative they just die too fast on their own. Plus without being able to buff units and no offensive powers of their own, there isn't much of a reason to take them to begin with. Comparing to some other armies, it feels as if there wasn't much work put down to shape the rules to make a working army out of the units GK can take. A the vehicles are are just marine copy paste.
But as AoS is in a slump around here, the summer is going to be a w40k one this year.
AdmittedlyLame wrote: - Why do some many indirect fire units effectively ignore the indirect fire penalties with Heavy countering the -1 to hit and have ignore cover. Some factions have abilities that even straight up turn off cover if they can hit the unit.
Heavy doesn't ignore the indirect penalty. A stationary Basilisk firing at a visible target hits at BS 3+, when firing at a target that isn't visible it hits on a 4+.
Relative to 9th: when indirect shooting became a problem in 9th so much that GW created a new rule to nerf it, it was hitting just like it is now. Last edition, indirect fire was hitting on 5s and wasn't an issue.
especially because you can overwatch at the end of a charge move.
Just remember that if you do the charging unit is already in engagement range. Vehicles will be at -1 to hit and infantry models can only fire pistols. So the trick of charging from behind LOS blocking terrain still works in most cases.
In most cases, but any skilled player knows to put the flamer or fight first capable units at the front.
- Lone Operative on shooting units. You have a vindicare assassin just out in the open? Cool, can't do a damn thing about it. Either spend the whole game hiding small characters or they're very likely getting killed
Why can't you do anything about it? Lone Operative gives immunity to shooting outside 12", it doesn't negate it entirely. Get within 12" and you can shoot it normally (or charge it).
How? My opponent has an entire army surrounding the thing and it has 36" or 48" range. It's not easy to get within 12 of something like that against any capable opponent. Especially on some deployments
Heavy doesn't ignore the indirect penalty. A stationary Basilisk firing at a visible target hits at BS 3+, when firing at a target that isn't visible it hits on a 4+.
I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.
Smirrors wrote: I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.
"Remove artillery from the artillery faction" is not a viable solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmittedlyLame wrote: How? My opponent has an entire army surrounding the thing and it has 36" or 48" range. It's not easy to get within 12 of something like that against any capable opponent. Especially on some deployments
If your opponent is camping in a back corner with their whole army to protect a sniper and not moving out to threaten the mid-table objectives you just put stuff on the middle objectives and take an easy win even if the sniper kills a character or two. And TBH it probably won't even kill much if you have enough terrain since staying back that far makes it hard to get line of sight to priority targets.
"Remove artillery from the artillery faction" is not a viable solution.
Who said anything about removing artillery? Its about making rules that fit the game in a balanced and enjoyable way.
The basilisk should be max indirect fire at 4+ (and therefore priced accordingly). Units like Desolation Marines, should take penalty for using their indirect weapons.
Smirrors wrote: Who said anything about removing artillery? Its about making rules that fit the game in a balanced and enjoyable way.
The basilisk should be max indirect fire at 4+ (and therefore priced accordingly). Units like Desolation Marines, should take penalty for using their indirect weapons.
We tried that. Guard sucked at a 30% win rate and Basilisks were only seen when they didn't get the -1 to hit. And then the 9th edition book put the penalty back and artillery went right back on the shelf. Hitting on 4s and 5s is not reliable enough.
And Basilisks do take a penalty (unless you give them Sentinel support). They take the same -1 to hit as any unit, they just have good starting accuracy.
Smirrors wrote: Who said anything about removing artillery? Its about making rules that fit the game in a balanced and enjoyable way.
The basilisk should be max indirect fire at 4+ (and therefore priced accordingly). Units like Desolation Marines, should take penalty for using their indirect weapons.
We tried that. Guard sucked at a 30% win rate and Basilisks were only seen when they didn't get the -1 to hit. And then the 9th edition book put the penalty back and artillery went right back on the shelf. Hitting on 4s and 5s is not reliable enough.
And Basilisks do take a penalty (unless you give them Sentinel support). They take the same -1 to hit as any unit, they just have good starting accuracy.
Hitting on 4s is their thing. If they are concerned with -1 to hit, make a special rule so their rounds can't be modified. And then make them cheap again.
Rules to make Guard tanks should definitely be improved, otherwise more competitively priced.
Give us strong Bullgryn units.
If GSC can have strong bike units, Guard should be able to do the same or similar with our calvary.
Artillery isnt the only way Guard should be viable.
Hitting on 4s base, with ways to buff that to 3s or better. Not hitting on 5s and needing buffs to get to 4s. Been there, done that, Basilisks sucked and never saw play.
And no, making Basilisks so cheap they get to the total firepower of the current rules for the same point cost by putting more models on the table is not a real solution.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn
The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.
His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).
Where in ursula it says it overrides once per turn?
Hitting on 4s base, with ways to buff that to 3s or better. Not hitting on 5s and needing buffs to get to 4s. Been there, done that, Basilisks sucked and never saw play.
And no, making Basilisks so cheap they get to the total firepower of the current rules for the same point cost by putting more models on the table is not a real solution.
Basilisks have utility as a tool to slow down infantry. As you highlighted, it can stand still and if enemy is visible, its shooting on 3s. This is the same as a Vanquisher battle tank.
No one likes artillery spam and guard players shouldn't either. At the end of the day its just a difference of opinion of how you like to play and see a faction play.
Smirrors wrote: I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.
If the Basilisk, and its ilk, hit on 5+ most of the time, no one would take them.
Smirrors wrote: I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.
If the Basilisk, and its ilk, hit on 5+ most of the time, no one would take them.
The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm
vict0988 wrote: The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm
Basilisks cost as much as Shoota Boyz, do they? Orks have alternative units with lots of BS4+ and BS3+, do they?
If you're going to pick examples, please pick good ones. Choosing most of your examples from an army that damn-near uniformly hits on 5+ isn't a great start to an argument.
Guard players, on the other hand, but their big guns, would have other options that are considerably more reliable than 5+ hitting Basilisks/Manticores. That's what I was getting at. Figured that'd be obvious.
Smirrors wrote: I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.
If the Basilisk, and its ilk, hit on 5+ most of the time, no one would take them.
The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm
I think we can all agree that nobody in the history of W40K has taken Conscripts for their ability to lay down withering firepower. Given that is the point of the Basilisk, you are comparing Apples to Rocks.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think 4+ is perfectly fine for an indirect piece of artillery.
Not so great for a Carnifex swinging his claws.
Why? They're renown for being tough, strong, unsubtle battering rams, not for being expert skilled melee fighters.
I mean, not really? Or at least, I'd say their drawbacks shouldn't be represented by a low WS. And arguably, they're not really that strong (i.e. high strength) in melee in 10th either.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think 4+ is perfectly fine for an indirect piece of artillery.
Not so great for a Carnifex swinging his claws.
Why? They're renown for being tough, strong, unsubtle battering rams, not for being expert skilled melee fighters.
I mean, not really? Or at least, I'd say their drawbacks shouldn't be represented by a low WS. And arguably, they're not really that strong (i.e. high strength) in melee in 10th either.
They used to be base WS3 and BS2 iirc back in 3rd/4th, which for newer players is as accurate/useful in melee as a base human and as accurate at range as an ork. So yes, they're not historically finesse combatants, this push for over the top efficiency is what lead to the lethality issue. Maybe stuff shouldn't be hitting as often and/or as hard all the time.
I've played a few games now and I'm having fun.
I was disappointed with the way options have been squished for some armies but I've learned to live with it.
Playing CSM is fun which is a sentence I haven't said in a long time. The difference between actual Astartes and Cultists as Battleline is well done IMO and the Legionaries can definitely pack a punch. Sorcerers remain cool as ever and I'm considering picking up a new army based on my original custom warband. Dark Pacts aren't as bad as I first thought.
Deathwatch are definitely interesting but I had to rework a fair whack of my Killteams.
T'au shooting continues to terrify and Necron Reanimation Protocols are the bane of my existence.
But it's all fun and that's really what matters.
And for a time Defilers were as skilled in melee as Guardsmen. That was stupid too.
Again, disagree, but to each their own. I just don't like the attitude that 50% of a d6 is worthless to the majority.
I mean, there's two things at play here. Unless you have a decent number of attacks, it's probably not worth it to pay MC-level points for something that hits half the time. That's a game balance thing, but there are knobs you can tweak to make the 50% number feel right.
Then there's the fluff, and that's where WS3 doesn't feel fitting for a Carnifex. Why would hyper-adaptation result in a CQC tank bioform that gets slapped around by any Tom, Dick, and Harry? And I didn't play in 3/4e but IIRC there were tons of adaptations and things you could take to make the Carnifex do a particular job better. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing one of those increased its WS.
And for a time Defilers were as skilled in melee as Guardsmen. That was stupid too.
Again, disagree, but to each their own. I just don't like the attitude that 50% of a d6 is worthless to the majority.
I mean, there's two things at play here. Unless you have a decent number of attacks, it's probably not worth it to pay MC-level points for something that hits half the time. That's a game balance thing, but there are knobs you can tweak to make the 50% number feel right.
Then there's the fluff, and that's where WS3 doesn't feel fitting for a Carnifex. Why would hyper-adaptation result in a CQC tank bioform that gets slapped around by any Tom, Dick, and Harry? And I didn't play in 3/4e but IIRC there were tons of adaptations and things you could take to make the Carnifex do a particular job better. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing one of those increased its WS.
Because the carnifex is meant to batter tanks/doors/walls/large objects into pieces, you don't need to be dexterous or a nimble fighter to be good at that, you just have to be able to whack it a couple of times really hard. Which is what carnifex used to do.
But it definitely is possible to make a monster level creature valuable and worthwhile when it hits 50% of the time. The game and community mentality aren't behind it however, we could push ork BS upto 4+ and switch to a d4 and nothing would change at this point.
People want the game to be less lethal, they want units to live longer. Simply accept you'll do less damage and job accomplished. You really want everything to hit on 3+ then it better cost a lot and have limited attacks.
That aside to bring it back on topic, playing 10th from my limited experience so far has been OK, it's not hard to transition from 9th, USRs largely do the job, terrain is still a bit meehhh to guess the right volumes at this stage. I just wish they'd attacked lethality a little more aggressively (ironically).
And for a time Defilers were as skilled in melee as Guardsmen. That was stupid too.
Again, disagree, but to each their own. I just don't like the attitude that 50% of a d6 is worthless to the majority.
I mean, there's two things at play here. Unless you have a decent number of attacks, it's probably not worth it to pay MC-level points for something that hits half the time. That's a game balance thing, but there are knobs you can tweak to make the 50% number feel right.
Then there's the fluff, and that's where WS3 doesn't feel fitting for a Carnifex. Why would hyper-adaptation result in a CQC tank bioform that gets slapped around by any Tom, Dick, and Harry? And I didn't play in 3/4e but IIRC there were tons of adaptations and things you could take to make the Carnifex do a particular job better. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing one of those increased its WS.
I would dare to show how any tom, dick and harry survive let alone beat carnifex
tneva82 wrote:Where in ursula it says it overrides once per turn?
Unless he can show exact word he's cheating.
Phase ain't turn.
I mean a phase is in a turn?
"This unit gets 2 CP in the Command Phase" would let it get 2CP, despite not mentioning a turn at all (and the CP generation limit is per turn, not per phase, just like Overwatch).
If I said "ONLY ONE BREAK IS ALLOWED PER HOUR" as corporate policy, and said "Tneva82 can take two breaks every 10 minutes", would you still only take 1 per hour because I didn't specify "and also multiple times per hour"?
vict0988 wrote: The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm
Basilisks cost as much as Shoota Boyz, do they? Orks have alternative units with lots of BS4+ and BS3+, do they?
If you're going to pick examples, please pick good ones. Choosing most of your examples from an army that damn-near uniformly hits on 5+ isn't a great start to an argument.
Guard players, on the other hand, but their big guns, would have other options that are considerably more reliable than 5+ hitting Basilisks/Manticores. That's what I was getting at. Figured that'd be obvious.
Points can't be changed? It's funny you should note that Orks have BS4+ alternatives, they're called Killa Kans, those were complete garbage for 8th and 9th if I am not mistaken. It all comes back to points efficiency. The idea of a tank with a side benefit of being able to shoot less accurately at things it cannot see will automatically be garbage is far out, you could always just shoot targets in LOS with it.
Come the feth on, what other BS5+ ranged units are there in the game? Conscripts are also a Guard unit if you didn't know, they happened to be super competitive at the start of 8th. There is nothing wrong with the examples I picked, that's like half the BS 5+ ranged units in the game I know of.
If you roll enough dice you'll get some 5s. At worst it might be unsatisfying to have a bad roll once in a while or the damage output might feel too low.
Smirrors wrote: I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.
If the Basilisk, and its ilk, hit on 5+ most of the time, no one would take them.
The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm
I think we can all agree that nobody in the history of W40K has taken Conscripts for their ability to lay down withering firepower. Given that is the point of the Basilisk, you are comparing Apples to Rocks.
Basilisks have the pinning benefit as well. 150 pts for 40 Conscripts and a Commander firing 150 shots was indeed quite a lot.
"This unit gets 2 CP in the Command Phase" would let it get 2CP, despite not mentioning a turn at all (and the CP generation limit is per turn, not per phase, just like Overwatch).
If I said "ONLY ONE BREAK IS ALLOWED PER HOUR" as corporate policy, and said "Tneva82 can take two breaks every 10 minutes", would you still only take 1 per hour because I didn't specify "and also multiple times per hour"?
That's not how it works. Turn > Battle Round > Phase. So for Overwatch, it is used within a Movement or Charge Phase but can only be used once a Turn, so if you used it already you can't use it again.
Creed's ability would take place after you used Overwatch on a previous unit thereby triggering the "Once per turn" stipulation.
"This unit gets 2 CP in the Command Phase" would let it get 2CP, despite not mentioning a turn at all (and the CP generation limit is per turn, not per phase, just like Overwatch).
If I said "ONLY ONE BREAK IS ALLOWED PER HOUR" as corporate policy, and said "Tneva82 can take two breaks every 10 minutes", would you still only take 1 per hour because I didn't specify "and also multiple times per hour"?
That's not how it works. Turn > Battle Round > Phase. So for Overwatch, it is used within a Movement or Charge Phase but can only be used once a Turn, so if you used it already you can't use it again.
Creed's ability would take place after you used Overwatch on a previous unit thereby triggering the "Once per turn" stipulation.
Which is subsequently ignored because as long as it is in the same phase, Ursula Creed's more specific rule overrides the main rule book general Overwatch rule and allows it to be used twice. (But only in the same phase). Specific overrides general is how permissive rulesets work.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Which is subsequently ignored because as long as it is in the same phase, Ursula Creed's more specific rule overrides the main rule book general Overwatch rule and allows it to be used twice. (But only in the same phase). Specific overrides general is how permissive rulesets work.
I'll keep this nice and simple for you.
Have you used the Overwatch Stratagem already this turn?
Yes - You cannot use this Stratagem again this turn.
No - You can use this Stratagem.
It is literally as simple as that. The Turn limitation comes before Creed's ability to use a Stratagem twice in a phase.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Which is subsequently ignored because as long as it is in the same phase, Ursula Creed's more specific rule overrides the main rule book general Overwatch rule and allows it to be used twice. (But only in the same phase). Specific overrides general is how permissive rulesets work.
"Specific overrides general" is not relevant in this case because it's not a conflict of specific vs. general, it's two entirely separate rules. There are two restrictions on stratagem use:
1) A "no more than once per phase" limit that applies to all stratagems, including overwatch.
and
2) A "no more than once per turn" limit specific to overwatch.
2 is not a more specific form of 1, it is a separate rule that exists in addition to 1. Creed allows you to ignore 1, it doesn't apply any more to 2 than it does to the rule that tank shock can only be used on a vehicle unit.
My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.
My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...
....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.
My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.
My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...
....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.
My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.
My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...
....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.
It clarifies GW's intent... Probably.
GW sucks at technical writing, more at eleven.
Now is the intent for Ursula to do the same but with more stratagems on her list? Or to do the same with every OTHER stratagem except overwatch because they very carefully worded her ability to exclude it, and also wanted Asurmen to very carefully secretly do nothing
My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.
My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...
....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.
It clarifies GW's intent... Probably.
GW sucks at technical writing, more at eleven.
Now is the intent for Ursula to do the same but with more stratagems on her list? Or to do the same with every OTHER stratagem except overwatch because they very carefully worded her ability to exclude it, and also wanted Asurmen to very carefully secretly do nothing
Assuming GW is consistent across the board (which is a pretty big assumption, truth be told) it'd indicate that the "Extra Strat" abilities can be used with Overwatch.
A Basilisk isn't a unit of 30 Conscripts or 30 Shoota Boyz. Again, pick better examples than BS5+ units that need mass amounts of firepower to have any appreciable effect.
If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.
And we saw this very clearly with the 9th edition codex. GW removed the exemption from the indirect fire penalty when the new codex arrived, making Basilisks usually hit on 5s, and Basilisks weren't seen again until 10th fixed their accuracy problem.
MinscS2 wrote: The whole "IG artillery should be hitting on 5+"-discussion is hilarious given that IG is sitting at a 32% winrate @ GTs.
Let's lower it even more shall we?
Thats because most people miss the point.
A basilisk hitting on 5s would never likely occur given that if its stationary and behind cover, it would be hitting on 4s. Guard vehicles shouldn't need to hit on 5's unless bracketed.
Guard artillery needs to be good, not oppressive.
Guard tanks should be cheaper, guard tank commanders should be able to order themselves. Our calvary should be hard hitting like GSC jackals. Our Bullgryn should hit a little harder or be a good choice for most lists.
It shouldn't take that much to improve the guard across the board to make it a fun army to play, and play against.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.
And we saw this very clearly with the 9th edition codex. GW removed the exemption from the indirect fire penalty when the new codex arrived, making Basilisks usually hit on 5s, and Basilisks weren't seen again until 10th fixed their accuracy problem.
I'm sure I can find several bad Titanic ranged units in 10th, that does not prove that Titanic units are garbage, those specific units could just be overpriced for their performance.
A Basilisk isn't a unit of 30 Conscripts or 30 Shoota Boyz. Again, pick better examples than BS5+ units that need mass amounts of firepower to have any appreciable effect.
If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.
Ah, I must have missed that Basilisks were back to shooting one-shot, I can see why they need to hit Space Marine BS to make up for that /sarcasm. You're going to move the goalposts anyway, so what's the purpose of finding examples? I found BS 5+ shooting units that were good, so BS 5+ shooting units can be good. I deliberately avoided units like Servitors being good because they were just used as action monkeys and units with melee, it is really not fair to expect to find a good Astra Militarum tank with BS 5+ because there are no AM tanks with BS 5+, the only time they've been hitting on 5s is during a short window after their codex was released, but I can point to groups of units being weak in other codexes as well, but it all comes down to points.
If the current 100 pt BS 4+ Basilisk was changed to a 65 pt BS 5+ Basilisk it would be just as tough and have a higher return on investment, it would be a much better unit. Values for easy math, 5+ BS Basilisk ROI would be 2% better and would be more impacted by getting +1 to hit from having LOS.
MinscS2 wrote: The whole "IG artillery should be hitting on 5+"-discussion is hilarious given that IG is sitting at a 32% winrate @ GTs.
Let's lower it even more shall we?
Thats because most people miss the point.
A basilisk hitting on 5s would never likely occur given that if its stationary and behind cover, it would be hitting on 4s. Guard vehicles shouldn't need to hit on 5's unless bracketed.
Guard artillery needs to be good, not oppressive.
Guard tanks should be cheaper, guard tank commanders should be able to order themselves. Our calvary should be hard hitting like GSC jackals. Our Bullgryn should hit a little harder or be a good choice for most lists.
It shouldn't take that much to improve the guard across the board to make it a fun army to play, and play against.
Rules changes should not be made on the basis of win rates, that's how you get stupid gak like lethal wounds on lasguns. Guard artillery should not be super accurate, if you can find a source for it being super accurate at targeting things without spotters or anything I will yield my point. This idea that BS5+ is automatically garbage is completely silly.
vict0988 wrote: This idea that BS5+ is automatically garbage is completely silly.
Like it or not it's true. We already did this experiment with the 9th edition codex and the result was that artillery didn't see the table outside of extremely casual kitchen table games until 10th brought it back to an acceptable hit rate.
And no, making artillery cheaper to compensate is not a solution. You aren't actually reducing the effectiveness of indirect fire and addressing the balance issue, you're only making some people feel better because "BS 5+" is emotionally better than seeing "BS 3+" even if the end result is the same models leaving the table each turn. And those people shouldn't be pandered to.
vict0988 wrote: This idea that BS5+ is automatically garbage is completely silly.
Like it or not it's true. We already did this experiment with the 9th edition codex and the result was that artillery didn't see the table outside of extremely casual kitchen table games until 10th brought it back to an acceptable hit rate.
And no, making artillery cheaper to compensate is not a solution. You aren't actually reducing the effectiveness of indirect fire and addressing the balance issue, you're only making some people feel better because "BS 5+" is emotionally better than seeing "BS 3+" even if the end result is the same models leaving the table each turn. And those people shouldn't be pandered to.
I'm but sorry you're very endemic of the problem here. Over the years and even since the last reboot in 8th there's been the steady trends of:
- More attacks
- Less drawbacks to movement
- More reliability in attacks
- More reliability in wounding
- More ability to bypass saves
- More interactions that improve the above between units
10th has in some places reduced some of those, but I'd wager increased the interactions that improve attacks, but overall maybe hasn't been quite enough.
This creeping increase in constant lethality and the need for "top end efficiency" to be normalised is why 9th ended up having a lethality crisis. There should be fewer models being removed each turn, that's the point. There needs to be a general scale back in some of those areas and 4+ should be considered "good" with 3+ to hit things considered "above average" and yes that would mean comparatively reducing the number of marines on the table to show their elite training.
Where this will hit the usual wall of gnashing is "marines are the baseline". Fine, they're the most commonly seen faction and stat block. What should matter is you ability to combat marines, not how close your units ape their stats.
10th made some efforts in this regards like the BS4+ skitarii, which was met with hostility, lets throw in 4+ on the fex as well. But as long as the bare minimum anyone accepts is a 67% success rate to hit, they then can't complain about overlaps in unit profiles, design space and lack of granularity in interactions when most of the variables aren't considered usable.
Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.
I have only stated that basilisks should be hitting on 4s. That is the standard guard hit rate. Hitting on 5s should only occur of bracket.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.
I have only stated that basilisks should be hitting on 4s. That is the standard guard hit rate. Hitting on 5s should only occur of bracket.
5s with the indirect fire penalty. Which is what it was when the 9th edition codex was released and artillery disappeared for the rest of the edition.
And Basilisks do have BS 4+ as is standard for guard. They have a +1 to hit ability similar to how orders give +1 to hit.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.
Well you're all for tearing up the games points design manifesto so why not rescale the game at the same time? You're misrepresenting both the original point and your own at the same time. The original post was that they shouldn't be able to be buffed beyond a 4+ to hit with indirect fire, which you refuted because they must hit on a 3+ or cease to be useful in the game. That needs to change and it needs to be something people stop expecting from every single unit.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.
I have only stated that basilisks should be hitting on 4s. That is the standard guard hit rate. Hitting on 5s should only occur of bracket.
5s with the indirect fire penalty. Which is what it was when the 9th edition codex was released and artillery disappeared for the rest of the edition.
How long was the duration of this dark age of artillery?
And no, making artillery cheaper to compensate is not a solution. You aren't actually reducing the effectiveness of indirect fire and addressing the balance issue, you're only making some people feel better because "BS 5+" is emotionally better than seeing "BS 3+" even if the end result is the same models leaving the table each turn. And those people shouldn't be pandered to.
Cut Basilisk pts by 20% and reduce BS by 1. Now their ROI against targets in LOS is reduced by 7%, ROI against targets out of LOS is reduced by 17% but the tank is more durable for its pts and it is more efficient at pinning units. Do some calculations to see if the efficiency math checks out against various targets compared to other vehicles in Astra Militarum, playtest an army with a trio of Basilisks 3 times and see if things are obviously broken or release. Now if it gets spammed in tournaments you increase the pts and if it never gets taken you decrease its points until it starts getting taken.
One of the poorer edition launches. I've had 10 games now and whilst I appreciate a refresh of the system mechanics overall its a disappointing experience. Points/power levels are regularly discussed locally as being a major mistake. Overwatch and downgrading of melee as well. Key words are nice and welcomed, marine changes to transports are also good. 9th ed had better response locally and brought more players in than 10th has.
Sureshot05 wrote: One of the poorer edition launches. I've had 10 games now and whilst I appreciate a refresh of the system mechanics overall its a disappointing experience. Points/power levels are regularly discussed locally as being a major mistake. Overwatch and downgrading of melee as well. Key words are nice and welcomed, marine changes to transports are also good. 9th ed had better response locally and brought more players in than 10th has.
It's a bit hard to judge because of different world events going on at the time, but it's actually been very hard to find games of 10th locally, especially as time has gone on. There was an initial burst of activity around it and now it's all died down a little because I think people are sort of waiting for fixes.
I've certainly not noticed a huge surge in new players around here either.
I'd argue a lack of a surge compared to the more recent editions is more down to circumstance than the quality of rules.
Compared to 8th, 10th isn't coming off of a widely hated version of the game. Even with its faults 8th was leagues ahead of 7th in terms of rules quality which got a lot of previous players back into the game.
And as for 9th? Well, we aren't in global lockdowns or restrictions anymore. Most people are back to the previous way of life (if altered in many cases with working from home) and the surge we saw with 9th isn't down to good rules but people looking to pick up something that isn't video games or TV in lockdowns.
The cost of living in most countries has risen pretty heavily as well so the chances are people aren't really looking to buy tonnes of luxury goods when some previously stable families are now towing the poverty line.
That isn't to say people's opinions on the new rules aren't valid, just that now more than ever things have gotten in the way of a big boom of new starts.
The four games I've played have involved a turn two concession, two turn three concessions and just a single game went to the end. And these games didn't even involve Towering or much Indirect Fire.
I have not played any new to 40k players or seen any new to 40k players playing.
I did play a relative newbie and they really struggled to remember all their datasheet rules. I often had to go through this scenario with them when they shot or fought:
- What is the special rule on your bodyguard unit's datasheet?
- What is the special rule on your leader's datasheet?
- What is the second special rule on your leader's datasheet?
If I hadn't patiently done this each time they would have missed out on a bunch of rules/power on their attacks.
I tried one of the GW recommended tournament layouts (layout 1) and it was hilariously hard for anything not in the middle of the table to shoot anything that was in the middle of the table.
But, if either of us had had a towering model it would have been extremely simple for that model to shoot everything in the middle of the table (and most things in our deployment zone).
It isn't clear exactly what the solid blue blocks are in the layout, but I think they will have to be magic boxes to prevent issues with towering.
Gert wrote: I'd argue a lack of a surge compared to the more recent editions is more down to circumstance than the quality of rules.
Compared to 8th, 10th isn't coming off of a widely hated version of the game. Even with its faults 8th was leagues ahead of 7th in terms of rules quality which got a lot of previous players back into the game.
And as for 9th? Well, we aren't in global lockdowns or restrictions anymore. Most people are back to the previous way of life (if altered in many cases with working from home) and the surge we saw with 9th isn't down to good rules but people looking to pick up something that isn't video games or TV in lockdowns.
The cost of living in most countries has risen pretty heavily as well so the chances are people aren't really looking to buy tonnes of luxury goods when some previously stable families are now towing the poverty line.
That isn't to say people's opinions on the new rules aren't valid, just that now more than ever things have gotten in the way of a big boom of new starts.
Limited production runs and rampant scalping are also taking a bigger bite than ever out of the crowd that might potentially be jumping on board with the new edition. Persistent supply chain issues are making newer GW products unobtainable in some countries.
Im enjoying it thus far, I play Necrons and they felt terrible at the end of 9th; Now they feel like a real army. Cult is really powerful, probably too much so but Im not complaining about that lol. Overall Im enjoying it more since the army I have the most of is actually useable but god List Building sucks now, so much less choice, less interesting. Melee feeling worst when 9th already felt like a capital S Shooting game is a bummer and Command Reroll only applying to specific rolls is terrible, seems built to lead to a bunch of feel bad moments where your cool ability that goes off on a 2+ is, of course, gonna roll a 1 and then you cant fix it with the Reroll strat because it only applies to Generic Rolls not special faction/unit stuff now. I've already lived thru some *brutal* examples of this and it just feels like a change that directly leads to a worst time and terrible feel bad moments. Im positive on it but really only because my biggest army is actually capable of surviving past Round 3 now, so not glowing praise.
I'm only a couple of games into 10th. The experience playing my craftworlders and my drukhari were night and day.
My drukhari felt awkward to write a list for, and I was paranoid I wouldn't have enough anti-tank. Then on the table, they only killed a single unit (a wave serpent) in my first 1k game.
My craftworlders could be taken in small, cheap units that were easier to mix-and-match. I still leaned into anti-tank options to be safe, but the detachment ability rerolls and strands of fate meant that I wiped out my opponent's vehicles by turn 2 (still 1k points). All my units were long-ranged except for my howling banshees, so I was able to keep my distance. Between war walkers Scouting, Strands of Fate, my warlock's Quicken, and the Phantasm stratagem, I also felt more fast/agile than my drukhari even though the core of my drukhari list was 3 units of scourges. (Who can move-shoot-move now).
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but so far it feels like the edition's core rules are fine but the specific indices have some real winners and losers.
I've had four real games and its been enjoyable. Two of the games were very close and two were situations where one of went for the gambit. All games went to Turn 5. The rules have been, more or less, clean. Perhaps its just that I was jaded of the 9th Ed missions and Secondaries, but I am really enjoying the mission deck. Its like they took three years off to figure out how to make the old Maelstrom Missions work and they did a great job.
I was very happy to get the rules and Indexes for free, but this launch does feel like a Beta.I've been lucky, I suppose, to have not faced any Towering models, nor have I faced one of the power-houses.
I haven't found list-building to be a chore with my Dark Angels. For now its a new challenge.
In my little scene (town of 120K), our upcoming tourney sold-out with something like 40 spots. This compares to roughly a dozen players for recent Horus Heresy and Age of Sigmar tournies. This Edition has brought out about a dozen new players for the upcoming tourney. Early days, but there is a lively 40K turn-out on our 40K day at the FLGS.
After another week of gaming, I decided to give w40k some rest. GK the way they are now, are early 8th ed level of fun. Each time I play them I wonder, why am I not playing AoS. Any hopes for a quick fix to bad armies, after the pseudo fix to the best armies, went up in smoke after this week. But that is a me, and some other people problem. The people with highly optimised armies and graced with good rules, are having a lot of fun. It is rather odd to see a Quarter of an event being take up by eldar and almost another one by knights (24 people store event), while some armies (DG, Ad Mecha, GK, various melee marines of both chaos and not chaos kind, DE.) not beign represented at all. The mirrors are going to be big next week at my store.
I'm a custodes and daemons player and I'm loving 10th so far, obviously daemons are a bit weaker but not horrible to field. Only thing I'm sad at really is taking away the psyker phase(I'm one of the weird ones that liked 7th ed psyker phase dice battles xD)
3 weeks & 7 fun games into 10th & the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
At the local shops we've added at least a dozen new players to the game. And our 1st 10e Crusade is about to launch. Last count we had 20some people signed up for it.
ccs wrote: the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.
I mean I don’t really care for rules systems. They seem to come and go. Games are so tough to organise that it feels like everything’s changed by time you get around to it.
I liked monstrous creatures feeling like monsters with my Tyranids. Good old days.
Don’t like that they’ve done exactly what I thought they’d do with Sisters. Let’s nerf damage on the glass cannon army, not bring any of their special rules like sacred rites into the profile and let’s charge them marine points for a t3 1A 1W model that hits in CC on a 4. Only it’s worse because I didn’t think they would nerf the characters, nerf the unit sizes, remove units from the game and make melta horrible at doing what it’s meant to do. Yeah, I’ll wait for the codex.
ccs wrote: the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.
Walked into my FLGS for some paints this weekend and they were hosting a tournament. I don't think I've ever seen so many Imperial Knights in one place.
Walked into my FLGS for some paints this weekend and they were hosting a tournament. I don't think I've ever seen so many Imperial Knights in one place.
Not surprised. Easy army to collect. Meta atm. But also few units so it feels easier to play and manage the game. Knights on knights probably a fun match up.
ccs wrote: 3 weeks & 7 fun games into 10th & the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
The game would be better with perfect imbalance instead of every upgrade being an auto-include, why are you fighting so hard to keep internal balance terrible? If you really hate sponson-less Leman Russes so much why not argue that taking sponsons should make Leman Russes cheaper?
Now that we're actually coming up to a month since proper release I've been seeing more local discontent amongst many of the more casual players. Many of the weird foibles and awkward mechanics are starting to become more apparent even to them. The charge/fight phase is the big one as previously it seems like a lot of them were just playing it like 9th's without the massive extra movement shenanigans you could pull off. Unfortunately that isn't how 10th's charge/fight phase actually works so now that they're actually playing the system by its rules even the casual beerhammer guys are getting annoyed by it; the ones with melee armies especially.
It's the same thing with the terrain system. They praised it initially for being simpler, no toe-ins and having less terrain types, but the strict wholly within requirement for LOS means that some units get completely screwed over depending on the type of board you end up getting.
Of course these were all concerns raised by people who were more into the mechanics of the game and during the honeymoon period are things you could probably ignore.
It is "straightforward". That's what it is for me. It is fun, but the inbuilt unit combinations are somewhat hurting the actual gameplay. When I lock a build every game with it plays the same way. I don't know if it is the same for other people aswell, but I've had 3 games with my last list and each and everyone just plays out the inbuilt combos hence all three games were very much the same. That's 10th edition for me - I build my army (deck) and it plays this way and this way only and each game with it is pretty much the same. It is still fun, though, the above is just my impressions not a real complaint. My feeling is that it will be really interesting for the first couple of months, but will wear out much quicker than 9th did.
0 new people so far in the club that joined or at least visited because of it.
The tournament group in the club all switched afaik, but I'm not sure how happy they are at the moment, as I'm not really in contact with them.
2 out of 16 people from the homebrew group tried 10th once and said it was okay.
Personally, I don't think there is much wrong with the core rules. Every edition got some parts better and some worse. The upcoming codizes will decide wether this is a good or bad edition.
Rather piss poor. I've played/watched 6 games, they're all over by turn 3. Melee being gutted and very few useful AT guns available for most armies means high T spam is often unkillable, unless you're spamming Lethal Hits. 8th edition indexes were better balanced.
This makes me think GW play tested this game with a requirement of 6 Battleline choices per list they used. In no other army construction method does this edition make sense. "Bring w/e you want, if you get tabled it's GG regardless of points earned" Also OC 2 is stupidly small for Battleline. When a single OC1 model can remove 3-6 OC2 models. The OC doesn't matter if they're dead.
ccs wrote: the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.
How do you make a non tournament list with something like custodes ,tournaments list 3 units of guards 3 characters, or knights , or 1ksons or generaly every good army there is like GSC, eldar etc. You take what is lore accurate, often don't even spam stuff, run singles or dups of stuff. And you practicaly have 90% of a tournament list, on the flip side if you would try to play a non tournament version of a bad army, then good luck trying to play DG without mass artilery and PM or non 5/5/3/3 GK.
ccs wrote: the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.
How do you make a non tournament list with something like custodes ,tournaments list 3 units of guards 3 characters, or knights , or 1ksons or generaly every good army there is like GSC, eldar etc. You take what is lore accurate, often don't even spam stuff, run singles or dups of stuff. And you practicaly have 90% of a tournament list, on the flip side if you would try to play a non tournament version of a bad army, then good luck trying to play DG without mass artilery and PM or non 5/5/3/3 GK.
I mean, its pretty simple really, in a casual TS list i'd chose :
not to run the flamer + ahriman blob
run a few vindicator/helbrutes
5-man termis instead of 10-man
no magnus
Tzaangors
Cultists
Horrors
Oh and the simplest part : i wouldnt spam the whole combos all game, maybe one twist of fate if my opponent is greatly getting control of the game.
Its really not hard to play more casually, even with a tournament list actually.
ccs wrote: the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.
Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.
How do you make a non tournament list with something like custodes ,tournaments list 3 units of guards 3 characters, or knights , or 1ksons or generaly every good army there is like GSC, eldar etc. You take what is lore accurate, often don't even spam stuff, run singles or dups of stuff. And you practicaly have 90% of a tournament list, on the flip side if you would try to play a non tournament version of a bad army, then good luck trying to play DG without mass artilery and PM or non 5/5/3/3 GK.
Most armies have enough options you can bring a friendlier list, just don't lean into the cheese like not taking a primus with gsc or just not comboing off every turn with Tsons. Knights are more of a state check than that says if you brought enough AT to down a Knight or 2 armigers per turn you win, if not, you lose so that ones a bit more on the opponent I think. Custodes though... there's just so few units to pick from and most are good that it is actually hard to not make a good army unless you REALLY trying or just pick overcosted FW units like venetari or the dreadnoughts. DG and GK are in a bad spot I agree but.. cmon.. you literally picked the 2 worst armies to compare with atm, it sucks but there's always a couple losers per edition, overall most armies are between a 45-52% win rate. Which is GW's goal percentage(45-55 actually but I feel that's a bit swingy, 48-52 would be more balanced but that's SO hard I don't blame them for that. 45-55 is fine really)
Ecdain wrote: Knights are more of a state check than that says if you brought enough AT to down a Knight or 2 armigers per turn you win, if not, you lose so that ones a bit more on the opponent I think.
So far we’ve only played balanced boarding actions and narrative missions.
That part I’ve loved.
I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)
So for learning and fun? A-
For people who want HH levels of competitive fun (which is what I play when scratching that itch): C- as it is
Lobokai wrote: So far we’ve only played balanced boarding actions and narrative missions.
That part I’ve loved.
I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)
I disagree. Tourney players should not be pandered to.
Lobokai wrote: I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)
Tournament players don't care about the sponson issue, they just take all the best options and beat you with them. PL's problems hurt casual and narrative players, the people who pick options for reasons other than sheer point efficiency and win percentages.
Lobokai wrote: I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)
Tournament players don't care about the sponson issue, they just take all the best options and beat you with them. PL's problems hurt casual and narrative players, the people who pick options for reasons other than sheer point efficiency and win percentages.
Agreed, this is such a weird argument that keeps popping up. I'd imagine a tournament player would just take whatever is powerful. They'd easily spot weak units and simply wouldn't take them. A casual player will buy models they like the look or fluff of, only to find out on the tabletop that that unit has garbage rules. That's a feelsbad moment, and something I've experienced more than once. In fact, those experiences led me to start mathhammering in an attempt to gauge a unit's true effectiveness, since gw's points turned out to be less than reliable.
Lobokai wrote: I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)
Tournament players don't care about the sponson issue, they just take all the best options and beat you with them. PL's problems hurt casual and narrative players, the people who pick options for reasons other than sheer point efficiency and win percentages.
Narrative lists aren't playing pick-up-games vs tournament lists so this scenario likely won't occur often. Many narrative players will take inferior choices to fit a theme. (my DKoK use flamers/grenade pretty much exclusively since it fits for a trench clearing theme, but i wont use plasma, even though it is definetly the strongest option given the new DKoK rule)
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Narrative lists aren't playing pick-up-games vs tournament lists so this scenario likely won't occur often
why?
the point of a pick up game is that you pick up a random game, why should the chance to meet a tournament list in a store/club be significant lower than for a narrative list?
as my experience is that most people in stores/clubs go there with tournament lists to train against random people and random lists to get different impressions than always playing the same
while the narrative people are those avoiding the pick up games and playing in fixed groups
so I would say it is the other way around, having anything but a tournament list in a pick up game won't occur often, hence why balance is so important as easy to find pick up games is the main advantage of 40k
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Narrative lists aren't playing pick-up-games vs tournament lists so this scenario likely won't occur often
so I would say it is the other way around, having anything but a tournament list in a pick up game won't occur often, hence why balance is so important as easy to find pick up games is the main advantage of 40k
That is the point I was trying to make, you won't see tournament lists vs narrative lists in pick-up-games often because the vast majority of people doing pick up games in random clubs fit the description you provide.
Any chance we can keep the points/PL discussion in that other thread? I come to this one to hear how people are actually experiencing 10th Edition, not a debate on granular points.
alextroy wrote: Any chance we can keep the points/PL discussion in that other thread? I come to this one to hear how people are actually experiencing 10th Edition, not a debate on granular points.
Whilst I agree, I think the fact that conversation has more air time and is seeping into other places suggests it's also indicative of peoples actual experience of 10th.
a_typical_hero wrote: It baffles me that you seemingly don't want to understand or admit that you would have a better game yourself, even in a narrative environment.
Somebody bringing "fluffy" Tallarn, Mordian, Armageddon, Tanith or Terrax will all bring superior weapons but pay the same cost as you.
GW has yet to provide a balanced ruleset. My play group does not believe that GW games are ever designed around perfect balance (hence why there is always cries about imbalance every time a new set of rules, codex or otherwise drops). We distilled what we enjoy about games workshop games (the models/lore/setting) so we put value in those factors. Yes we have to do some self-control balancing which we found is much easier since we go hard on thematic lists rather than (take all hunter killer missiles because they free). I know this isn't for everyone and I'm not trying to advocate that everyone should adopt our method of list building/enjoyment of the game. I am meerly offering a perspective that is different than the WAAC tournament grindset player (which we all use to be for 40k/AoS, and are now doing so for other more balanced games).
Tl;dr We think GW games have never been balanced, so we don't value them as true competitive tests of skill.
"just use houserules" is not a valid solution for anyone who does not have a fixed group that wants them
you could also say, just play a different game and use your GW models and lore for that, this way you have more fun and none of the problems
just that those are solutions that only work for a minority of people
therefore giving up on demanding better rules from GW so that the majority benefits as well is not a good idea
kodos wrote: "just use houserules" is not a valid solution for anyone who does not have a fixed group that wants them
you could also say, just play a different game and use your GW models and lore for that, this way you have more fun and none of the problems
just that those are solutions that only work for a minority of people
therefore giving up on demanding better rules from GW so that the majority benefits as well is not a good idea
Being quite Frank though, do you mean rules or points?
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree, I think the fact that conversation has more air time and is seeping into other places suggests it's also indicative of peoples actual experience of 10th.
Sure but there's a 74-page thread about it already. The last thing this thread needs to turn into is another one of those.
kodos wrote: "just use houserules" is not a valid solution for anyone who does not have a fixed group that wants them
you could also say, just play a different game and use your GW models and lore for that, this way you have more fun and none of the problems
just that those are solutions that only work for a minority of people
therefore giving up on demanding better rules from GW so that the majority benefits as well is not a good idea
I've never mentioned house-rules, I said self-control, as in, not taking every best possible option because it's the best, but building lists that are thematic, regardless of the perceived efficiency of the point use. Also, if you read my entire post, I clearly stated, that my intention is not to convince the masses that our self-control method is the solution for them, I am just offering a method that works for us, and people reading can adopt it or not.
As for the topic question: Our 10th games have been fun and decently close, there are a few design decisions that have us head scratching, such as C'tan shards going from T7 to T11 as a way to balance out the loss of 3wound/phase rule. Yet Ghazkull lost toughness and can join a unit as his consolation for the loss of a 4wound/phase rule.
As for the topic question: Our 10th games have been fun and decently close, there are a few design decisions that have us head scratching, such as C'tan shards going from T7 to T11 as a way to balance out the loss of 3wound/phase rule. Yet Ghazkull lost toughness and can join a unit as his consolation for the loss of a 4wound/phase rule.
Yes, the game evolved and so toughness paradigms have to change. Not sure what your issue is with those changes - it's not like it makes any sense for a C'tan to be leading a unit of Crons, while Ghaz leading a bunch of Orks is perfectly sensible. Maybe his toughness didn't have to decrease, but it doesn't seem like a huge deal either way. 10th blew the door wide open, for better or worse. Those stat changes feel much less unnatural than other things, e.g. the shift to PL or the new, awkward charge/assault phase.
Yes, the game evolved and so toughness paradigms have to change. Not sure what your issue is with those changes - it's not like it makes any sense for a C'tan to be leading a unit of Crons, while Ghaz leading a bunch of Orks is perfectly sensible. Maybe his toughness didn't have to decrease, but it doesn't seem like a huge deal either way. 10th blew the door wide open, for better or worse. Those stat changes feel much less unnatural than other things, e.g. the shift to PL or the new, awkward charge/assault phase.
What did you find awkward about the charge/assault phase? We personally find pile-in a little bit more restrictive that is hard to pinpoint as a good or bad change yet.
Yes, the game evolved and so toughness paradigms have to change. Not sure what your issue is with those changes - it's not like it makes any sense for a C'tan to be leading a unit of Crons, while Ghaz leading a bunch of Orks is perfectly sensible. Maybe his toughness didn't have to decrease, but it doesn't seem like a huge deal either way. 10th blew the door wide open, for better or worse. Those stat changes feel much less unnatural than other things, e.g. the shift to PL or the new, awkward charge/assault phase.
What did you find awkward about the charge/assault phase? We personally find pile-in a little bit more restrictive that is hard to pinpoint as a good or bad change yet.
Between changes to pile-in, engagement range, toughness increases, and the almost universal de-toothing of AP and damage, most of my gak just doesn't hit very hard. Most of my melee mainstays don't have much of a place anymore.
I've never mentioned house-rules, I said self-control, as in, not taking every best possible option because it's the best, but building lists that are thematic, regardless of the perceived efficiency of the point use. Also, if you read my entire post, I clearly stated, that my intention is not to convince the masses that our self-control method is the solution for them, I am just offering a method that works for us, and people reading can adopt it or not.
As for the topic question: Our 10th games have been fun and decently close
so you use house rules to adjust FOC and vastly improved your experience with the game
So you play an altered version of 40k that works for your group
Which also implies that an unaltered version without house rules that restrict which units are taken does not work and is not fun (otherwise you would not need those restrictions)
So the game as released does not work for your group and you needed further restrictions to have fun
Yeah this is what we all are talking about, just that we want that changes from GW as house rules are only possible in a fixed group and most of us don't have one
kodos wrote: so you use house rules to adjust FOC and vastly improved your experience with the game
So you play an altered version of 40k that works for your group
Which also implies that an unaltered version without house rules that restrict which units are taken does not work and is not fun (otherwise you would not need those restrictions)
So the game as released does not work for your group and you needed further restrictions to have fun
Yeah this is what we all are talking about, just that we want that changes from GW as house rules are only possible in a fixed group and most of us don't have one
We do not alter any of the rules of 40k. We play exactly as written. The group just knows the game can be easily unbalanced when taking everything to the teeth, so we choose to pick wargear options that are flavorful to the armies we bring. Again, it's not a house rule, there are no restrictions, any one of the folks in my group is free to bring whatever they want, but we all have a similar mind-set and play for the enjoyment of thematic battles, so no one is bringing the most optimal lists for the sake of winning, they are bringing what fits the narrative we are trying to tell in our campaigns/games.
I feel for people who's only form of gameplay is purely random pick-up-games. I think those people should strive to build a local community of regulars and then that community will develop a sense for what everyone's trying to get from the game, and you can tailor your lists to match the opponent in terms of efficiency vs flavor.
call it a mindset, gentleman's agreement or whatever you want
"our group does not take the models and upgrades available as written by the rules but have restrictions on what to take because otherwise the game won't be fun"
but this is not playing as written by GW, because GW has put in restriction on what is thematic and what not, that is why we have Keywords and rules which Characters can join which unit
that there are other units/upgrades that arer not "thematic" is your personal opinion and an additional restriction within your group
and people outside your group will disagree with you what is thematic and what not
the local Eldar player will say that his army is purely thematic and just by accident stronger than others not too strong as he will still lose against a good GSC player
hew won't agree to break his theme by removing certain unit others don't like
this is very much a house rule of your group be it an unspoken agreement or not, and alters the game as the official rules don't have that restriction
and this is fine, there is no problem or disadvantage to alter the game so that it works for your group
but it is just for your group, it is not 40k as written, it is not the 40k others encounter and all your experience does not relate to the unrestricted version of the game
PS: this is also a reason why my favorite is still 5th Edition not because there were no problems, but there were house rules for scenarios/missions and additional unit restrictions the wider gaming area agreed to. playing in a different country was plying a different game, also never encountered the problem the most people on Dakka had with 5th because of that
but it was an altered version of the game and that was the reason we had the most fun with that version
Narrative lists aren't playing pick-up-games vs tournament lists so this scenario likely won't occur often. Many narrative players will take inferior choices to fit a theme. (my DKoK use flamers/grenade pretty much exclusively since it fits for a trench clearing theme, but i wont use plasma, even though it is definetly the strongest option given the new DKoK rule)
Successful tournament lists often times become net lists with players copy pasting them for their army (even if they don't understand how to properly use them). It's not uncommon for someone to have a theme list for a pickup game (Ork playing going for a dread mob for example) while their opponent is using whatever the latest meta list is from the internet. Hell, that is what many people claim 7th edition was like at most tables. Unfortunately tournament metas bleed into FLGS metas and those imbalances / edge cases that tournament list making thrives on results in imbalance issues showing up in more casual settings.
Is a list that consists of 20 custodes guardians, 2 cpts, 1 unit of wardens, 2x4 SoS with flamers ans 2x2 allarus terminators considered not fluffy, because it can win events? Eldar wright heavy army ? 4 knights or 3 knights and a few small ones? Also is someone playing a bad army, whose army for 10th is a clone of a tournament list, still considered a bad WAAC player, even if his armies tournament lists win rates are in the 30% or below? How about armies that consists of 4-5 unit options, excluding characters? If something can be taken from a codex, then it is a lore accurate and fluffy. If it is not lore accurate vide marines mounted in venoms, then it is not an option in the codex. The whole "fluffy" and "lore accurate" seems to be a smoke screen from hidding bad and good armies, being used. A good army with a good set of rules, especialy if undercosted, can often carry a huge amount of "fluffy" units. A bad army can not do that. And often if it doesn't play that one tournament list , assuming it has one, then there is no playing the actual for them, there is just losing.
kodos wrote: call it a mindset, gentleman's agreement or whatever you want
"our group does not take the models and upgrades available as written by the rules but have restrictions on what to take because otherwise the game won't be fun"
but this is not playing as written by GW, because GW has put in restriction on what is thematic and what not, that is why we have Keywords and rules which Characters can join which unit
that there are other units/upgrades that arer not "thematic" is your personal opinion and an additional restriction within your group
and people outside your group will disagree with you what is thematic and what not
the local Eldar player will say that his army is purely thematic and just by accident stronger than others not too strong as he will still lose against a good GSC player
hew won't agree to break his theme by removing certain unit others don't like
this is very much a house rule of your group be it an unspoken agreement or not, and alters the game as the official rules don't have that restriction
and this is fine, there is no problem or disadvantage to alter the game so that it works for your group
but it is just for your group, it is not 40k as written, it is not the 40k others encounter and all your experience does not relate to the unrestricted version of the game
PS: this is also a reason why my favorite is still 5th Edition not because there were no problems, but there were house rules for scenarios/missions and additional unit restrictions the wider gaming area agreed to. playing in a different country was plying a different game, also never encountered the problem the most people on Dakka had with 5th because of that
but it was an altered version of the game and that was the reason we had the most fun with that version
This makes it sound like your saying if I don't take the optimal lists and my friend also doesn't bring an optimal list, we're not playing how GW intended. I'm fairly certain that's not what you're trying to say, but that's kind of how it reads.
(I too miss 5th... I won't go into detail because it'll start an off topic discussion)
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Narrative lists aren't playing pick-up-games vs tournament lists so this scenario likely won't occur often. Many narrative players will take inferior choices to fit a theme. (my DKoK use flamers/grenade pretty much exclusively since it fits for a trench clearing theme, but i wont use plasma, even though it is definetly the strongest option given the new DKoK rule)
Of course it will happen. And aside from the fact that people who build narrative lists show up at the same pickup game nights as the list optimizers there's also the fact that "narrative" does not mean "weak". Your lore is for flamers, other people have equally valid lore for mass plasma. Having a better point system helps everyone by making more choices of roughly equal value instead of having your list be clearly worse than the list where the lore favors mass plasma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeadliestIdiot wrote: This makes it sound like your saying if I don't take the optimal lists and my friend also doesn't bring an optimal list, we're not playing how GW intended. I'm fairly certain that's not what you're trying to say, but that's kind of how it reads.
There's an immense difference between "I happen to not have an optimal list" and "we have an implicit agreement to deliberately tone down our lists and avoid using too many of the overpowered things". The first is playing the game as normal, the second is a de facto house rule even if it is enforced by social pressure instead of written rules.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: This makes it sound like your saying if I don't take the optimal lists and my friend also doesn't bring an optimal list, we're not playing how GW intended. I'm fairly certain that's not what you're trying to say, but that's kind of how it reads.
(I too miss 5th... I won't go into detail because it'll start an off topic discussion)
can see that, though hard to phrase it differently (for me) and in addition, how should a new or returning player know about those things as they will just write a list with what is officially available
but "I don't take certain options available because it kills the fun" is a subjective restriction not written in rules and which options are not thematic or killing the fun will change depending on the people you ask
another big problem with that is, that a themed/fluffy and weak list might be the strong/crushing WAAC list with the next update, so only those with a big collection can compensate while others have an army they cannot use any more because of the "house policy"
(as an example, the by far cheapest possible 2k army in the last editions, was also among the strongest until it was nerfed, so having a trap for new players here as they might want to start cheap because everyone is playing 40k and end up as TFG for no other reason than not having as much money to spend as others)
This might be a bit too doomer than I'd like, but I think the balance in the game is probably in its worst state since 7th edition.
Balance in 8th and 9th was rarely perfect. It was often warped by broken codexes with 70%~ win rates. Some factions became terrible and were left to rot for far too long. But I felt the majority of the "average factions" could play into each other. This is generally why people said "this is the most balanced edition of 40k" - even if other posters cried foul.
By contrast, 10th seems to have produced the 7th edition tier system. That is where the "haves" have an (overwhelming) advantage into everyone else, the next tier are disadvantaged into the Haves - but odds on to beat everyone below them - and so on down to the very bottom factions.
So in tenth we have Eldar, Imperial Knights, GSC and then say Custodes and Thousand Sons. But if you took these factions out (lets say they were all nerfed into the ground with 50% point hikes etc), you'd have Chaos Knights, Necrons and Tyranids pushing a 60% win rate in the rest of the factions in the game (probably recording more in tournaments once the top players shifted over).
Then there's some stuff in the middle (Orks probably next best, then CSM, SM, DE, SoB etc)
But even without factoring games into the "best factions", Squats and DG are struggling for a 30% win rate - because they are rubbish into everyone.
Now you can - as with 7th - try to get around this for friendly games of garagehammer. But GW could and should have done better. I think as weeks turn into months, there's going to be more and more outcry unless they fix it.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Narrative lists aren't playing pick-up-games vs tournament lists so this scenario likely won't occur often
why?
the point of a pick up game is that you pick up a random game, why should the chance to meet a tournament list in a store/club be significant lower than for a narrative list?
as my experience is that most people in stores/clubs go there with tournament lists to train against random people and random lists to get different impressions than always playing the same
while the narrative people are those avoiding the pick up games and playing in fixed groups
so I would say it is the other way around, having anything but a tournament list in a pick up game won't occur often, hence why balance is so important as easy to find pick up games is the main advantage of 40k
Training with suboptimal lists as an opponent will gain the tournament player zero insights. That´s why you generally play against other stronger lists to train. There is one exception though:
The Noob Basher.
He will gladly go to a store and challenge Little Timmy with his netlist.
GW will fix it, don't worry too much Tyel. As long as the codexes don't reset the suck GW will probably get it right with enough pts revisions.
I think if you are unhappy with your rules or pts you should see if your community is open to homebrewing, just make sure to let other players take the reigns when it comes to balance to make sure you don't get overenthusiastic.
vict0988 wrote: GW will fix it, don't worry too much Tyel. As long as the codexes don't reset the suck GW will probably get it right with enough pts revisions.
I think if you are unhappy with your rules or pts you should see if your community is open to homebrewing, just make sure to let other players take the reigns when it comes to balance to make sure you don't get overenthusiastic.
I think the problem with homebrewing is that once you break this seal, where does it end? Almost every faction will have issue with some units.
I think the answer for friendly games is just to "play worse". Less optimised armies, less optimised decision making. I feel if you play with "mostly ignore the objectives, just have a fight, person with most stuff left wins" then DG aren't too bad against the mid-tier factions. The problem is that if you focus on objectives then there isn't much they can do since they are glacially slow. (This is especially the case if you assume a more casual collection of Plague Marines and Terminators with various characters and the odd daemon engine rather than some deliberate attempt to "solve" their problems.) I'd say its similar issue with the Squats, but no one in our group seems to be actively playing them.
I guess to a degree you could say "just let them play with 10-20% more points and see what happens" - but eh... still feels a bit awkward.
Even throughout 9th with some of its wild codexes a lot of the time you really could tone down lists and have normal friendly games. 9th was the most successful edition from a casual experience locally precisely because the general balance of the game was very good for the most part. Occasionally a codex would just generally be too strong throughout, but I'd argue that was the exception rather than the rule.
Because 10th has applied the "reduced lethality" thing so inconsistently there are a large amount of factions that are just fundamentally bad and no amount of points tweaks will fix them. Even when 9th Necrons were down in the dumps and pre-Core-on-everything you could still take some of their awkward overcosted units and do work with them because they might have decent attack stats, good AP and high damage. Skorpekh destroyers being the best example here. But so many indexes fundamentally cannot play the game because they've been "reduced lethalitied" into irrelevance in a game about power armour. Someone can plonk down some Terminators with AOC and some Indexes may as well not even bother rolling dice to try and kill them, because they just do not have the tools to do so. You cannot "tone down" a Custodes list without making something that looks bizarre on the table, so most normal Custodes armies will just steamroll over people in a casual environment. I know Custodes players who, outside of Aeldari/GSC/etc nonsense, have yet to lose a single game of 10th and they haven't been close or interesting games either, going by what they've told me. They've just walked forward and won.
There's also a potentially bigger issue in that so many units and indexes have too many feelsbad reactive mechanics or bad old stuff reintroduced from older editions that was smartly removed over 8th and 9th. Warp Spiders do less damage than 9th now, but they're incredibly swingy so they either go from doing nothing to spiking hard and vomiting mortals on people and not giving them any defense against their attacks. And on top of this they have their old Flickerjump back, which is just a silly ability and probably shouldn't exist in the game. So currently they might be balance, or needing a points increase, but they'll never feel good to play or play against. You might be able to tone down the power of your lists, but because everything needs its own special rules now there are far too many annoying mechanics spread across armies that you have to deal with.
problem with "just play worse" is that you need to know how to do that in the first place and know which units are too good before you buy
same as house rules, this is something for veterans with a collection only
a beginner buying into the game being told that he need to buy more because the stuff he thought is cool is not allowed in that club because it is too strong, or someone having a 2k list from 9th not being allowed to play that because he must buy new stuff first to be seen as "casual" is a form of gatekeeping and makes the game less beginner friendly
and that is GWs fault because if they don't get balance right, the game is not beginner friendly and the veterans saying it does not matter because it always has been that way and GW should just keep doing what they do means they want it to be less beginner friendly
Training with suboptimal lists as an opponent will gain the tournament player zero insights. That´s why you generally play against other stronger lists to train.
this really depends on the level you are, like little Timmy wants to go to his first tournament so goes to the store to play a pick up game because by now he only played against Tommy at home so any other list than the Leviathan Tyranids is welcome
or the top 10 ranking player who prepares to win masters series
and the point was not meeting top tier tournament players in pick up games, but meeting tournament lists in pick up games, and not only the top tier players are playing with tournament lists and everyone else plays narrative ones
but there will be a lot of beginners as well with non-narrative list, specially because they don't know how a narrative list looks like and some of those still want to get better at playing the game
Meanwile Jimmy, their friend managed to get his hands on a christmas box of custodes, and rolls up to their games with an army consisting of 50% of a tournament list.
had a combat patrol game yesterday, Marine Aggressors are not "reduced lethality"
Let's see. Bolters had shots halved, AP reduced. How is that not reduced lethality?
In 9e you would have had more than twice the firepower.
when the difference is not in how many they kill but in the level of overkill there isn't much difference, when they are perfectly able to still wipe their target where as before they wiped their target with dice to spare, from the perspective of the spattered remains on the floor the change is marginal
There was reduced damage done to some unit, and two armies. The rest is either changed damage or the damaged actualy went up. I think no one who played a game vs knights or eldar, for the first time in 10th, can say there is less leathality in the game. Or saw what GSC pipe bombs do to even toughest stuff.
One thing I strongly dislike (probably my main issue actually) with 10th now when I've started settling in, is Devastating Wounds, especially in conjunction with Anti-X.
There's just too many weaponprofiles with Devastating Wounds in 10th. Combine it with how keywords work and/or Anti-X and it becomes too much.
For the good of the game, Devastating Wounds needs a rework.
One possible solution would be to have them work like the old rending-system from earlier editions, i.e. a critical wound ignores armour saves (or improves AP by X.)
Edit: And make Anti-X count as a wound and not a critical-wound while you're at it, did GW learn nothing from pre-nerf LoV in 9th?
I played 2000 points Imperial Fists vs Blood Ravens.
More relaxed lists I guess.
Mine (all Primaris):
Tor Garadon
Captain in Gravis
Biologis
Apothecary
Lieutenant
Techmarine
4x 5 Heavy Intercessors with Heavy Bolter
2x 5 Intercessors with Grenade launcher and PFist
5 Aggressors
3 Eliminators
3 Eradicators
3 Eradicators
5 Hellblasters
Leviathan with Melta, Volkite and Storm
ATV with multimelta
His army (from memory):
Gabriel (Captain in Terminator)
Librarian
Techmarine (warlord)
Blade Guard Ancient
3 Blade Guard
10 Sternguard
10 Assault Marines
Dreadnaught
Redemptor plasma
Redemptor onslaught
Storm Talon
Storm Talon
Storm Raven
I went first. Started a long my deployment edge.
He took the bait and tried to close the gap asap.
My opening turn didn't do much.
His first turn he moved up with the hovering Storm Raven and deployed a Dread, the Sternguard, and the librarian next to his onslaught Redemptor directly in front of my aggressors, an Intercessor squad, Eradicators and Biologis.
He pushed up the other side of the board with the blade guard, plasma Redemptor and one storm talon.
He was able to destroy all my Eradicators in his first turn and put a wound on Tor Garadon.
My next turn I moved forward with Devastator Doctrine to completely blend the lines our forces, now covering the entire map with overlapping fields of heavy boltrifle fire.
My Leviathan removed his regular Dread in one blast with his cyclonic Melta lance and put some damage on the Storm Talon. Tor and the ATV charged the plasma Redemptor. Tor did some hurt and then got stomped to paste.
My remaining aggressors and captain charged his Sternguard and their neighboring onslaught Redemptor. The put some big hurt on the Sternguard with the Redemptor removing another 2 aggressors.
His 2nd turn the 10 man assault squad deep strikes into my deployment zone onto my rear objective (tagged by my Intercessors turn one).
His blade guard engage in combat with my other intercessor squad trying to take a center objective.
As he had chosen to active his Tactical Doctrine he fell back out of many combats to fire and charge.
His plasma Redemptor targeted the ATV he moved away from, only for the ATV to fire back with his ability after surviving the Redemptor attacks.
BOOM! ATV earns his place among the 1st company lol.
The Aggressors and Captain killed off the Sternguard/librarian after surviving their charge.
My 3rd turn the Leviathan destroyed the Storm Talon and Raven (and we both only now realized he hadn't deployed the second Talon yet). The Hellblasters/lieutenant/apothecary unit turned around and overcharged the assault squad off the table.
The Captain destroyed the onslaught Redemptor and the blade guard were chopped down by massed bolter fire as the Intercessors fell back on the mid objective.
The game was called. Imperial Fists victory 22-12.
We played the basic mission with the 4 objective markers and our own secondaries of 5vp for killing the warlord and 1VP for each unit destroyed.
Overall feelings...
Was fun. Very few issues with rules or confusion. It took 6 hours but we didn't have quick references (scrolling through apps is kinda slow I guess) and we took a few short breaks just to walk away from the table a bit. We also were chatting quite about about Warhammer in general that distracted us regularly lol.
My opinions on his army...
Too many flyers (one was not even used), Redemptors are badass, some characters can be completely useless.
His options on my army...
An army of toughness 6, 3 wound models in 3+ saves is not to be dismissed. ATVs are apparently kinda cool. Hellblasters are infantry better than Eradicators.
They have learned rather well that players are always looking to buy op stuff so by deliberately making game imbalanced which changes they rake in huge money.
It's deliberate since players buy the latest OP unit all the time like lemmings.
As long as that continues and rules and models come from same source it continues.
If they were learning anything from that, they'd learn that that type of player is in the minority and certainly shouldn't be something you base all the changes in your game around.
Got in my first 10th Edition game, 1K of Sisters of Battle versus Space Marines. My Sisters pulled out the win due to superior positioning. A lucky round of 5 Repentia surviving shooting of 2 5-model Intercessor Squads didn't hurt either (even if they then failed a rerolled 6" charge!).
I have to say the game reminds me of a more refined version of the 8th Edition Index era. The rules were just so much simpler than the massive layers of rules we got in 9th Edition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If they were learning anything from that, they'd learn that that type of player is in the minority and certainly shouldn't be something you base all the changes in your game around.
had a combat patrol game yesterday, Marine Aggressors are not "reduced lethality"
Given they fire half as many shots as they used to...
Not necessarily - usually more than half. The Boltstorms are the most "popular" and now get about 2/3s and those shots One Twin Linked Boltstorm + D6 Harness shots vs 3+3+D6) are more lethal than they were with the stacking/parallel buffing now available to them.
In 9th 10ish shots for 5 - 50 shots, reroll hits and 1s to wound (CM + LT - or Guilliman - Auras) - 33 hits + 11 out of 17 RR Hits = 44 hits, top out at -1 AP for Tactical Doctrine S4 vs T4 22 wounds plus 3.5 for 25 woundings saving on a 4+ for 12-13 damage.
In 10th with a Bolter Discipline Biologis + Dev Doc + Storm of Wrath - 6 x 6.5 attacks 39 attacks, me-you-Sustained+Lethal-6-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other = 26 hits counting 13 Crit Hits that wound and add another hit meaning 39 Hits, and 13 already-woundings. 39 hits wound T3 19.5 times, and save at -2 - 19 woundings plus the 13 already woundings from the crit hits is 32 -2 woundings (-1 for closest Target, -1 for Storm of Fire in Dev Doctrine + Ignores Cover) = about 22 damage.
With that said, they're generally the exception proving the rule. They need to gimmick and buff stack to do that - without the -2 AP from the stacking they almost certainly do less than before - and thats where most of the reduced lethality is coming from - Much harder to acquire (better than) -2AP plus a large number of elite infantry getting toughness boosts while most weapons did not get a Strength boost. Those Aggressors are only wounded by super Power Swords on a 4+, even Master Crafted ones are only on a 5+ - 3+ to a 4+ on Terminators with a 4++ instead of being reduced to their 5+/5++ armor save of last edition. Most Melta lost range, The Krak missile gained a point of S but using them against Marine bodies was sort of a wink-and-nod "off-label" prescription.
Terminators as mentioned went to a blanket 4++, while Roboute went from his 3++ to a 4++ Individual units may have gotten more/less lethal and/or more/less durable but overall the "elite" units became more durable and through some relativity to that most units became less lethal.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If they were learning anything from that, they'd learn that that type of player is in the minority and certainly shouldn't be something you base all the changes in your game around.
had a combat patrol game yesterday, Marine Aggressors are not "reduced lethality"
Given they fire half as many shots as they used to...
Not necessarily - usually more than half. The Boltstorms are the most "popular" and now get about 2/3s and those shots One Twin Linked Boltstorm + D6 Harness shots vs 3+3+D6) are more lethal than they were with the stacking/parallel buffing now available to them.
In 9th 10ish shots for 5 - 50 shots, reroll hits and 1s to wound (CM + LT - or Guilliman - Auras) - 33 hits + 11 out of 17 RR Hits = 44 hits, top out at -1 AP for Tactical Doctrine S4 vs T4 22 wounds plus 3.5 for 25 woundings saving on a 4+ for 12-13 damage.
In 10th with a Bolter Discipline Biologis + Dev Doc + Storm of Wrath - 6 x 6.5 attacks 39 attacks, me-you-Sustained+Lethal-6-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other = 26 hits counting 13 Crit Hits that wound and add another hit meaning 39 Hits, and 13 already-woundings. 39 hits wound T3 19.5 times, and save at -2 - 19 woundings plus the 13 already woundings from the crit hits is 32 -2 woundings (-1 for closest Target, -1 for Storm of Fire in Dev Doctrine + Ignores Cover) = about 22 damage.
With that said, they're generally the exception proving the rule. They need to gimmick and buff stack to do that - without the -2 AP from the stacking they almost certainly do less than before - and thats where most of the reduced lethality is coming from - Much harder to acquire (better than) -2AP plus a large number of elite infantry getting toughness boosts while most weapons did not get a Strength boost. Those Aggressors are only wounded by super Power Swords on a 4+, even Master Crafted ones are only on a 5+ - 3+ to a 4+ on Terminators with a 4++ instead of being reduced to their 5+/5++ armor save of last edition. Most Melta lost range, The Krak missile gained a point of S but using them against Marine bodies was sort of a wink-and-nod "off-label" prescription.
Terminators as mentioned went to a blanket 4++, while Roboute went from his 3++ to a 4++ Individual units may have gotten more/less lethal and/or more/less durable but overall the "elite" units became more durable and through some relativity to that most units became less lethal.
Whilst I see your point that is a 300 pt unit with 1CP and a once per game ability being used to kill 130 pts of guardsmen.
You don't become resilient with a 4++, when DevWounds are common spammed and GSC pipe bombs kill knights in a turn. And that is coming from a person playing an army of 100% dudes being +4inv. NDKs are a non entity, because they just die too easy.
Whilst I see your point that is a 300 pt unit with 1CP and a once per game ability being used to kill 130 pts of guardsmen.
Dev Doctrine is only "free" once per game, but you can use it on the Aggressors all game long if you want, I've built a list to do that over and over- but yeah I was going for the point not the gimmick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: You don't become resilient with a 4++, when DevWounds are common spammed and GSC pipe bombs kill knights in a turn. And that is coming from a person playing an army of 100% dudes being +4inv. NDKs are a non entity, because they just die too easy.
Who is common spamming Dev Wounds, and how?
Aren't most of those Demo Charges one-shot or BS5+?
Bosskelot wrote: Dev wounds/mortals are a staple of Aeldari, GSC and CSM lists.
Marines can lean into them hard too.
Not especially well - vs Infantry at least. The combination of Anti-X + Devastating Wounds to spam Mortals is pretty rare - they even nerfed it on Deathwatch off the bat.
Whilst I see your point that is a 300 pt unit with 1CP and a once per game ability being used to kill 130 pts of guardsmen.
Dev Doctrine is only "free" once per game, but you can use it on the Aggressors all game long if you want, I've built a list to do that over and over- but yeah I was going for the point not the gimmick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: You don't become resilient with a 4++, when DevWounds are common spammed and GSC pipe bombs kill knights in a turn. And that is coming from a person playing an army of 100% dudes being +4inv. NDKs are a non entity, because they just die too easy.
Who is common spamming Dev Wounds, and how?
It's not terribly hard to do with SM.
Last summer I picked up a SM army dirt cheap from a guy at the one shop on his way out of the game. He'd built it focused on using Gatling Cannons - max ATVs, Redemptor dreads, Gladiators, whatever the other primaris tank that can have a gatling. If it could have a gatling of any size, that's what he built.... Because he thought that looked cool. Of course he had no way to know that a year later all those guns would be flinging devastating wounds, overwatch would be improved, or that the ATVs would be able to provide cover fire for SM "mounted" units..... Not to mention Oath of the Moment.
I picked this force up for a crazy good price - as in, too good to pass up even if I only ever played it once or twice. And then I got lucky when the rules shifted with 10e.
To this I've since added an outrider squad with a mounted Chaplain.
I've put mixes of this stuff on the table a few times in the past month & chewed the hell out of most everything I've faced. And it works quite well at lower pt games.
Last summer I picked up a SM army dirt cheap from a guy at the one shop on his way out of the game. He'd built it focused on using Gatling Cannons - max ATVs, Redemptor dreads, Gladiators, whatever the other primaris tank that can have a gatling. If it could have a gatling of any size, that's what he built.... Because he thought that looked cool. Of course he had no way to know that a year later all those guns would be flinging devastating wounds, overwatch would be improved, or that the ATVs would be able to provide cover fire for SM "mounted" units..... Not to mention Oath of the Moment.
I picked this force up for a crazy good price - as in, too good to pass up even if I only ever played it once or twice. And then I got lucky when the rules shifted with 10e.
To this I've since added an outrider squad with a mounted Chaplain.
I've put mixes of this stuff on the table a few times in the past month & chewed the hell out of most everything I've faced. And it works quite well at lower pt games.
Again I'm not sure spamming 1/6 of 2/3 of 1/5 of your army is spamming Dev Wounds. At one-in-six they're still frosting on cake, not roast beef on taters and gravy. Invader ATV is probably the cheapest Points per "rotary cannon" shot you'll get at about 10 points per attempt to DW. Even if you COULD spam all 2,000 points that's 200 attempts hitting 134 times, generating 21 natural 6 DW's. Meanwhile the 3+ 4+, and 5+ wounds deal 89 wounds, for 29 damage after saves. You're chewing things up on volume of fire not DW. And like I said, even if you did try and max the assorted miniguns you're not getting 200 attempts a turn. In theory you can pack 6 Invaders (But three will cost way more per attempt for the Outriders they have to attach to) - 3 Tornadoes that jump to 11+ points per attempt, Redemptors at 11.25 per attempt up to Reapers at about 13 points per. Don't get me wrong 10 D1 DW wounds per turn isn't anything to scoff at - but spread out over your whole army its more like a disease/poison bleed effect than a haymaker punch.
To this I've since added an outrider squad with a mounted Chaplain.
I've put mixes of this stuff on the table a few times in the past month & chewed the hell out of most everything I've faced. And it works quite well at lower pt games.
How well it works at 2k? Low point game balance always been junk in gw games. Gw makes non-scaling rules.
Eldar. They have them where they want, when they want and there is 0 interactive ways you can go around it, in fact they are fewer then zero ways, because Incarne and phantasm exists, but that is a separate thing.
Last and only experience with 10th, 1 game of combat patrol death guard vs SM….got tabled turn 3.
5x Deepstriking terminators with librarian giving sustaining hits on autocannon, 5x stormbolters and 3x 3+ powerfists with oath of the moment. But theres more. 5 man squad of flamers and new overwatch triggers if you sneeze. Immortal CC captain in term armour with reroll fails of everything. Killed 2 flamer
marines whole game. Yea 10th edition is the Fox News of wargaming.
Ineedvc2500 wrote: Last and only experience with 10th, 1 game of combat patrol death guard vs SM….got tabled turn 3.
5x Deepstriking terminators with librarian giving sustaining hits on autocannon, 5x stormbolters and 3x 3+ powerfists with oath of the moment. But theres more. 5 man squad of flamers and new overwatch triggers if you sneeze. Immortal CC captain in term armour with reroll fails of everything. Killed 2 flamer
marines whole game. Yea 10th edition is the Fox News of wargaming.
Oh yeah, i went to see the DG combat patrol and its giga bad lol.
Still, i wouldn't dismiss the whole edition after one game, and DG is getting buffs soon-ish most probably so that should help them.
I've played a couple 1000 pts games - some with my brother, and a SM mirror match against Salamanders. I won the latter, mostly because my opponent wasn't expecting me to bring a Redemptor and Repulsor.
RaptorusRex wrote: I've played a couple 1000 pts games - some with my brother, and a SM mirror match against Salamanders. I won the latter, mostly because my opponent wasn't expecting me to bring a Redemptor and Repulsor.
Oath of Moment is kind of busted.
You are playing 1k game. GW games have never ever scaled well and oath is blindingly obviously more powerful the smaller the game.
Hell even GW saw that and changed the rule for combat patrol.
Oath of Moment needs to be either removed, or it and Doctrines swapped around so that every Marine army isn't Oath of Moment'ing everyone off the table each turn.
Ineedvc2500 wrote: Last and only experience with 10th, 1 game of combat patrol death guard vs SM
Firstly, you played Combat Patrol, which is to 40k what Warcry is to Warhammer. It's not really 10th. Secondly, you played Death Guard, arguably the worst army in 10th.
I don't think that's a good metric from which to base your conclusions.
Played in a three-round 46 player local tournament on the weekend - the event had sold out and they made some space. We still had a waiting list.
I like the missions and cards and this sentiment seemed to be universal - almost everyone took Tactical Objectives. I took Dark Angels. My games were all quite close. The first two against Iron Hands and Thousand Sons were high-scoring with some big turns but my third game (and loss) was a low-scoring affair.
The top player was Aeldari, and he quickly blew his opponents off the table each round. Maybe that's a feature of 10th and not a bug?
The top ten included five Space Marines with my Dark Angels just on the outside looking in at 11th place having gone 2 and 1. My third opponent placed fourth with his Orks. Two(!?!) Death Guard and a Grey Knights were also in the top ten.
Our results were, perhaps, atypical due to the brief given to us by the TO going in (keep it friendly)? I do think that they need to lock the developers in a building for a month with some competitive players to fix the balance. They also need to remove Towering or make it as Line of Sight is reciprocal.
So its early days but our little community seems to be doing well with 10th.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Firstly, you played Combat Patrol, which is to 40k what Warcry is to Warhammer. It's not really 10th. Secondly, you played Death Guard, arguably the worst army in 10th.
I don't think that's a good metric from which to base your conclusions.
but it is what GW wants new players to experience as metric if they like it or not
buy the combat patrol you like most, play the game with pre-made, (advertised as balanced) army lists and having so much fun that buy more stuff to play the full game
if their new intro fails on that level and someone does not like it all, no reason to continue and spending more money to realise that balance (or the army you like) does not get better
PS: compare it to someone hitting his head when trying to get into a new car, it does not matter how well it drives, the chance to buy is gone the moment the very first experience is negative
More like the person hitting their head when walking through the door on the way into the dealership. They're not even at the car yet - they can just see it from where they are.
Combat Patrol isn't 10th. Playing Combat Patrol doesn't mean you've played 10th. It means you've played some weird intro version of the game mandated by people who don't design games so that they could sell more expensive boxes.
GW advertises something different, "CP is the ideal way to start playing 40k" and also "the fast and fun way to play 40k"
now you are saying GW is wrong and CP is not the real 40k as only matched play and crusade are "real" 40k
GWs fault if their false advertising is hitting them back, not ours
so someone doing what GW suggested and being disappointed, no need to convince them that it will get better if they spend 5 times the money for a "real" army
H.B.M.C. wrote: More like the person hitting their head when walking through the door on the way into the dealership. They're not even at the car yet - they can just see it from where they are.
Combat Patrol isn't 10th. Playing Combat Patrol doesn't mean you've played 10th. It means you've played some weird intro version of the game mandated by people who don't design games so that they could sell more expensive boxes.
What does a larger game add to 10th in your eyes at that point? They use the exact same rules, but with obviously fewer options and less stuff in a smaller space.
Dudeface wrote: What does a larger game add to 10th in your eyes at that point? They use the exact same rules, but with obviously fewer options and less stuff in a smaller space.
More units on the table so games are less likely to be decided by "I killed your one anti-tank unit on turn 1, my tank now wins" and not being locked into the weird combat patrol armies and their random incoherent unit/upgrade choices.
The top player was Aeldari, and he quickly blew his opponents off the table each round. Maybe that's a feature of 10th and not a bug?
Or the eldar is busted. At least fate dice got nerfed quite a bit but they still have too cheap units.
[qupte]Our results were, perhaps, atypical due to the brief given to us by the TO going in (keep it friendly)? I do think that they need to lock the developers in a building for a month with some competitive players to fix the balance. They also need to remove Towering or make it as Line of Sight is reciprocal.
Make it what?
Towering as is works both way. He sees you, you see him.
One way tournaments can help with towering is upgrade terrain. Towering still needs to physically see the enemy so good 4-5" solid walls will cover from towering. You could model boards over windows in ruins etc if you don't want to go just for big foam walls.
Having played where physically big enough terrain pieces to block entire knight for several editions helps here.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: More units on the table so games are less likely to be decided by "I killed your one anti-tank unit on turn 1, my tank now wins" and not being locked into the weird combat patrol armies and their random incoherent unit/upgrade choices.
This is true - but your opponent now has more units to kill your 2-3 anti-tank units.
I'm not sure I'd judge 10th entirely on one combat patrol game, but I'm not sure its as far away as that. The DG Combat Patrol sucks - but the DG index also sucks. Playing 2k points of it, so you can lose from deployment against Eldar/Knights/GSC/Custodes/Thousand Sons/Daemons/Tyranids/Necrons (etc etc) isn't automatically going to give you a better experience.
You can I guess say "ah, but to get the real 10th experience you just shouldn't play, idk, half, two/thirds, 5/6ths... of the factions" - but that seems a bit limiting.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: More units on the table so games are less likely to be decided by "I killed your one anti-tank unit on turn 1, my tank now wins" and not being locked into the weird combat patrol armies and their random incoherent unit/upgrade choices.
This is true - but your opponent now has more units to kill your 2-3 anti-tank units.
I'm not sure I'd judge 10th entirely on one combat patrol game, but I'm not sure its as far away as that. The DG Combat Patrol sucks - but the DG index also sucks. Playing 2k points of it, so you can lose from deployment against Eldar/Knights/GSC/Custodes/Thousand Sons/Daemons/Tyranids/Necrons (etc etc) isn't automatically going to give you a better experience.
You can I guess say "ah, but to get the real 10th experience you just shouldn't play, idk, half, two/thirds, 5/6ths... of the factions" - but that seems a bit limiting.
I suppose the question is around that word experience. Combat patrol does use the entirety of the core rules, so it might be fair to say you're happy with the rules within the confines of a smaller game. It's not the same experience as a 2k army using a mission deck however, but it is the same rules.
Tyel wrote: This is true - but your opponent now has more units to kill your 2-3 anti-tank units.
Right, but now you have redundancy against bad dice, more options to put stuff in reserves, etc. With 500 point games RNG has too much of an effect because one attack decides the game. If your one anti-tank unit dies you lose. If your anti-tank unit rolls hot and kills their one tank on turn 1 you win. But when you're talking about 5-10 anti-tank units vs. 5-10 tanks you start getting to the point where you're rolling enough dice for things to reliably be close to the average. Some exchanges go your way, some go your opponent's way, and usually there's enough balance that you end up with a meaningful game. And even if the dice are against you that one tank isn't your entire army, you still have other units that can hope to score some VP and keep you in the game.
It's also a matter of decision points. With only 1-3 (meaningful) units per side max there's not a lot of strategy involved. You know what your one unit needs to do, you know what your opponent's one unit needs to do, and after turn 1 it's very often clear who the winner is and there's no need to play out the rest of the game. At 2000 points with more stuff on the table you have a lot more room for "if X then Y" chains and weighing different options with fewer obvious correct answers.
The top player was Aeldari, and he quickly blew his opponents off the table each round. Maybe that's a feature of 10th and not a bug?
Or the eldar is busted. At least fate dice got nerfed quite a bit but they still have too cheap units.
[qupte]Our results were, perhaps, atypical due to the brief given to us by the TO going in (keep it friendly)? I do think that they need to lock the developers in a building for a month with some competitive players to fix the balance. They also need to remove Towering or make it as Line of Sight is reciprocal.
Make it what?
Towering as is works both way. He sees you, you see him.
One way tournaments can help with towering is upgrade terrain. Towering still needs to physically see the enemy so good 4-5" solid walls will cover from towering. You could model boards over windows in ruins etc if you don't want to go just for big foam walls.
Having played where physically big enough terrain pieces to block entire knight for several editions helps here.
I didn't write that very well at all. The 8th Ed fix to Knights and shooting everything was for TOs to make the huge Ls. Then in 9th LOS for Knights was not reciprocal - which led to feels-bad moments for Titanic. Now we are back to either house-ruling ruins (all the windows are covered) or big Ls. We had a league with WTC terrain during 9th and it sure looked ugly.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: It's also a matter of decision points. With only 1-3 (meaningful) units per side max there's not a lot of strategy involved. You know what your one unit needs to do, you know what your opponent's one unit needs to do, and after turn 1 it's very often clear who the winner is and there's no need to play out the rest of the game. At 2000 points with more stuff on the table you have a lot more room for "if X then Y" chains and weighing different options with fewer obvious correct answers.
I agree - that's why I'm not a fan of armies which are 2 WKs, 3 Fire Prisms and the Yncarne, Belakor and 5 Greater Daemons, 3 bricks of Custodes that with character attachments are 550-600 points each, knights etc.
Some armies go wider than others but that's not universal.
Re: the Oath of Moment discussion, I think limiting it to INFANTRY would help a bit, but I'm not sure if that would limit it too much.
The Doctrines are what they should've done from the beginning with that idea, too. AP bonuses were hard to keep track of, though my brain isn't exactly 'normal'.
SM are over-tuned right now, but I definitely like how the core ideas work.
Doing a bit of 10th. Liking it mostly. I feel like warhammer 40k is always at it’s best before the inevitable codex bloat. I don’t like the approach to special weapons or that we only get to pick what’s in a box now. I do very much like that gw is dipping their toes into alternate unit activation. We have some abilities now that’s used during the opponents turn. I like that, 40k has always had the issue of being very passive when it’s not your turn.
RaptorusRex wrote: Re: the Oath of Moment discussion, I think limiting it to INFANTRY would help a bit, but I'm not sure if that would limit it too much.
The Doctrines are what they should've done from the beginning with that idea, too. AP bonuses were hard to keep track of, though my brain isn't exactly 'normal'.
SM are over-tuned right now, but I definitely like how the core ideas work.
meaning the target can only be infantry or the benefit only applies to infantry? Because both are pretty bad changes IMO.
Very rough so far. 1-1-2 record, so I've seen all the results.
Had an incredibly boring game last night. Playing crusade, 1000 pt armies.
The main mission required a character and unit to interact and not shoot and charge to score each turn. Most of my secondary missions required units to not do anything to interact to score points. My opponent had lots in deep strike so my shooty units had nothing to shoot at for the first few turns.
So I sat around sitting on objectives with my combat units doing nothing else. Blood Angels didn't get a charge all game.
I got way ahead on VP, because I knew I had to, as from previous experience I knew my opponent would wipe me off the board by turn 3. I was ahead by about 60 VP, then got wiped out (by turn 4 I had 1 unit). We then calculated out the last 2 turns to see if he could get enough VP to overtake me.
Ended up 80something -77 for him.
I don't mind the loss, but not doing anything with my units for the whole game - even though they scored tons of VP and I almost won - was really dull.
Combine this with 3 of my units in my Crusade army being squatted (Assault, Scout snipers and landspeeder) makes me much less inclined to play 10th anymore.
I used all first born units (so that I could say my Sons of the Rock have played 10th). My opponent had a good mix of tanks and infantry.
We played the mission from the book as the cards looked too complicated for a first game.
My list
Terminator Captain attached to Terminators (5]
Librarian attached to Tac squad with ML and PG Tac Squad with Melta and Multimelta in Drop pod
Scout snipers with ML Whirlwind
Vindicator
Speeder with HB Speeder with MM
Enjoyed the game which we called after turn 3 (ran out of time] with Marines probably on top but still plenty of guard on the table.
Takeaways
Oath of Moment is good but it takes most of 1500 Pts. to kill one Leman Russ even with Oath, except for a Vindicator linked to a Speeder, that doesn’t need the help.
Melta feels really ineffective.
Everything having different abilities was cool but it was a lot of moving parts to remember and part of the army choices was “these are the ones we’ve got cards for”, allied with not going to play Aeldari because that doesn’t feel like fun for anyone.
Precision on the Snipers forced some very careful positioning of characters.
Particularly when we realised it didn’t trigger on critical hits. In the end combined with a plasma overheat it killed a Colonel.
Battle shock didn’t make a lot of difference but I could see that changing as we play into it a bit more.
Used most of my command points on Command re-rolls, definitely felt there was a real balance in using them or keeping them and probably will get better with practice. The captains stratagem rule felt really good.
Lethality is definitely down, watching terminators rapid fire an infantry squad and have it survive was a bit of a shock. Cover is ubiquitous and effective.
Overwatch was the other thing I spent CP on and it was probably a waste, though the threat of suffering it from a Hellhound rooted my tactical squad in place!
From the other side the guard were in the game and had plenty of tools, having a Command tank shoot on death was a nasty surprise, and Executioners live up to their name! Oath of Moment is one of those rules that you can’t do much about from the other side and probably will take a bit of getting used to.
Overall, a good start and looking forward to another game. Delighted with how many quirky old models have rules available and also that all the terrain I’ve bought will see some play as well
Ashitaka wrote: Very rough so far. 1-1-2 record, so I've seen all the results.
Had an incredibly boring game last night. Playing crusade, 1000 pt armies.
The main mission required a character and unit to interact and not shoot and charge to score each turn. Most of my secondary missions required units to not do anything to interact to score points. My opponent had lots in deep strike so my shooty units had nothing to shoot at for the first few turns.
So I sat around sitting on objectives with my combat units doing nothing else. Blood Angels didn't get a charge all game.
I got way ahead on VP, because I knew I had to, as from previous experience I knew my opponent would wipe me off the board by turn 3. I was ahead by about 60 VP, then got wiped out (by turn 4 I had 1 unit). We then calculated out the last 2 turns to see if he could get enough VP to overtake me.
Ended up 80something -77 for him.
I don't mind the loss, but not doing anything with my units for the whole game - even though they scored tons of VP and I almost won - was really dull.
Combine this with 3 of my units in my Crusade army being squatted (Assault, Scout snipers and landspeeder) makes me much less inclined to play 10th anymore.
If you're playing Crusade, can't you use the Legends cards for those "Squatted" units? Crusade is the best place for Legends units.
Being Legends should only restrict them from use in tournaments.
Also- I don't have the Crusade book to hand, but man, in a Crusade game where all of my opposition is being held in reserve, I'd be hitting my Agendas to earn XP. In Crusade, VP was always far less important to me than XP- winning is fun and all, but if I get to level 3-4 units postgame, who cares if I lost?
I'd have to check the book to find an Agenda that I could do without killing units; certainly there aren't a lot of Agendas out there right now because we don't have dex-based bespoke agendas yet, but I feel like there should have been at least one that your army could have been working on while you were waiting for his reinforcements to arrive.
meaning the target can only be infantry or the benefit only applies to infantry? Because both are pretty bad changes IMO.
OoM should be a "once per battle" for one phase
meanwhile eldar re-roll their stuff all the time, and in case of stuff like prisms they have an OotM always on, on different targets and on demand they don't have to mark any unit? How about before sub 50% win rate armies get changed, GW starts nerfing the top 1-3 armies first.
But then again the last changes give us a page of weapon options for an autarch, but no one thought that maybe thunder hammers should be added back to GK, to at least characters.
If you're playing Crusade, can't you use the Legends cards for those "Squatted" units? Crusade is the best place for Legends units.
Being Legends should only restrict them from use in tournaments.
Yes, we can still use them because we're playing for narrative - it just leaves a bad taste.
I'll look into agendas. He had some units on the table but most were completely out of sight (they had indirect) and the one I could see - he played a strat so that I couldn't shoot them from more than 12" away. (He later did this on 2 units, as they had the special rule that you could target them with a 0cp strat that had already been used)
Playing in to armies with around 70-80% win rates(higher when played by skilled players) is never enjoyable, unless you also happen to play a 70-80% win rate army, that doesn't get hard countered by the other. Such match ups can make for some very exiting games.
Karol wrote: Playing in to armies with around 70-80% win rates(higher when played by skilled players) is never enjoyable, unless you also happen to play a 70-80% win rate army, that doesn't get hard countered by the other. Such match ups can make for some very exiting games.
only if the only thing you look for in a game is the outcome, i've had plenty of fun playing bad armies against the top ones, because my opponent was a fun player.
Okey go to someone who has an army which has no chance to win against a properly build good army, and who can't just change a game or army, and ask them how much fun do they have doing pick up games. Especialy around normal new players. Go ask a new players whose friend picked "good" factions and he picked a bad one, how much fun is he having getting farmed by them.
Yeah are right though, people can have fun just because they are around fun people. But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.
Yeah, you can have fun playing snakes and ladders if your opponent is a fun person to spend time with. That is due to the person, the game is immaterial.
Karol wrote: Okey go to someone who has an army which has no chance to win against a properly build good army, and who can't just change a game or army, and ask them how much fun do they have doing pick up games. Especialy around normal new players. Go ask a new players whose friend picked "good" factions and he picked a bad one, how much fun is he having getting farmed by them.
I
Yeah are right though, people can have fun just because they are around fun people. But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.
1) The fun comes in seeing how well you can do with the bad army.
2) just because the tourney stats say <army> has x win % doesn't mean that's how it's going to play in our game. I guarantee you that the kid playing the GSC in our shops league is NOT enjoying those tourney lv win rates.
3) Sometimes you build something purely for theme%narrative. Ex: I built a Tryanid list that's virtually impossible to actually win with. Fortunately, narrative wise, all I'm really trying to do is infect you bia the Parasite or kill you with spore mines.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yeah, you can have fun playing snakes and ladders if your opponent is a fun person to spend time with. That is due to the person, the game is immaterial.
If you're going to "play" a boring non-game like that then why have the game at all? Why not just hang out with people if the goal is purely about the social stuff?
(For the record I don't think 40k is quite a non-game on that level.)
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yeah, you can have fun playing snakes and ladders if your opponent is a fun person to spend time with. That is due to the person, the game is immaterial.
If you're going to "play" a boring non-game like that then why have the game at all? Why not just hang out with people if the goal is purely about the social stuff?
(For the record I don't think 40k is quite a non-game on that level.)
because enjoyment is subjective? If two peeps are down to play snakes and ladder, theyre free to do so without requiring the "PaintingOwl seal of approval"
I'll look into agendas. He had some units on the table but most were completely out of sight (they had indirect) and the one I could see - he played a strat so that I couldn't shoot them from more than 12" away. (He later did this on 2 units, as they had the special rule that you could target them with a 0cp strat that had already been used)
I'm with my books now, and I just looked into it for you. I forgot that GW eliminated actions this edition- there aren't many Agendas that would have actually worked for you. Most that sort of fit your situation involve finishing the game with units in the enemy deployment zone... and that doesn't really work for you, because when his reinforcements show up, they had the firepower to take care of your units in his DZ.
It might have divided his forces though- he may have chosen to menace the units in his DZ rather than focusing to shift your controlling units off their objectives. In a best case scenario, he divides have deepstrikers in such a way that he deprives you of neither the VP he needs to win, nor the XP that help you get leverage in the ongoing campaign.
If he focuses on depriving VP, you max XP; if he focuses on depriving XP, you were far enough ahead to win. If he divides? You've got a shot at having your cake and eating it too. Still, it was easier in 9th when actions existed- I may have misspoken when I suggested playing the Agendas, because it's far harder to do now than it was.
OoM is a good but pretty unimaginative rule (and also quite limited vs. alot of armies) - but seeing as SM are currently sitting firmly at lower mid-tier and aren't exactly winning tournaments left and right, I find the discussion about nerfing/removing it to be both random and slightly funny.
Karol wrote: But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.
because the models ARE part of the fun....
To use your argument . For you. w40k is a game, the enjoyment from playing a game shouldn't come from the fact that you have to do outside activities and only do it with fun people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 810750 11572062 wrote:
1) The fun comes in seeing how well you can do with the bad army.
2) just because the tourney stats say <army> has x win % doesn't mean that's how it's going to play in our game. I guarantee you that the kid playing the GSC in our shops league is NOT enjoying those tourney lv win rates.
3) Sometimes you build something purely for theme%narrative. Ex: I built a Tryanid list that's virtually impossible to actually win with. Fortunately, narrative wise, all I'm really trying to do is infect you bia the Parasite or kill you with spore mines.
We don't have any kids playing the game at the store. The games costs too much to be played by kids. A kid would also wouldn't do that well with GSC. What I do get to see, is what happens when some people start w40k, and two of the 5 pick knights and custodes. Everyone else in the circle is having zero fun. The dudes are both sitting at 100% win rates at the store noob summer event, and both are playing with the christmas boxes. As point one goes, I find nothing fun in playing an army that costs like custodes, but has lower stats, can't melee, can't shot and the game play is base around hidding and praying the opponent is bad and doesn't know your army rules/stratagems. Which works 1-2 times per player. Part 3 is only a thing for people who have big collections and have a chance to play vs others who have big collections too, and who are willing to play unoptimised list. If Jimmy decides he wants to make a"phobos" army and his friend has 2000pts of custodes, another has 2000pts of knight and another has 2000pts of regular sm builds, he will invest a lot of army in to an army which will lose all the time. And losing all the time is not fun.
Karol wrote: But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.
because the models ARE part of the fun....
To use your argument . For you. w40k is a game, the enjoyment from playing a game shouldn't come from the fact that you have to do outside activities and only do it with fun people.
TBF wh40k is a multifascited hobby. There are better games, theres better lore, theres better crafts. But wh40k has all of it in one
The 10th edition was completely disliked.
Too raw and unfinished. too broken. no sinergy.
I dropped it and moved on to playing necromunda, mordheim, and infinity.
MinscS2 wrote: OoM is a good but pretty unimaginative rule (and also quite limited vs. alot of armies) - but seeing as SM are currently sitting firmly at lower mid-tier and aren't exactly winning tournaments left and right, I find the discussion about nerfing/removing it to be both random and slightly funny.
only real issue I have with OoM, having been on the sharp end of it is how it does not scale with game size and like the HH reactions is nasty in smaller sized games
Karol wrote: But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.
because the models ARE part of the fun....
To use your argument . For you. w40k is a game, the enjoyment from playing a game shouldn't come from the fact that you have to do outside activities and only do it with fun people.
yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun
I play with a small circle of friends, mostly at my place in my game room, and we play casually competitive. That means, yes, we're experienced players, but we like to keep the games relatively friendly for the most part.
So far, it has been enjoyable, we've had some amazing cinematic moments (a cultist using a flamer to take the last 2 wounds off the sanguinor, he's has a name now and is getting a custom figure).
However, we have also ran in to "thats way too good for a fun game" moments (a knight tyrant, in cover, with panoply enhancement is super gross).
What's working for me with 10th edition is keeping it friendly. I like to have fun with my friends, and I value that over the importance of winning a game of toy soldiers. YMMV
I'm not sure. I've yet to even get a formal game going. I've played Combat Patrol with my Grey Knights, but I've been giving my Word Bearers more and more attention.
It feels so...Well, incomplete. I know it's everything on an index. But I'm not entirely sure how I feel about all of it. Maybe I'm just a boomer who can't move on from 5th-8th ed.
13thWarrior wrote: I'm not sure. I've yet to even get a formal game going. I've played Combat Patrol with my Grey Knights, but I've been giving my Word Bearers more and more attention.
It feels so...Well, incomplete. I know it's everything on an index. But I'm not entirely sure how I feel about all of it. Maybe I'm just a boomer who can't move on from 5th-8th ed.
Could you expand on what about you feel is incomplete other than the obvious lack of more than one Detachment option for indexes?
In case of GK it is stuff like. Having 5 melee weapons consolidated in to one. We don't get power fists "str 8" weapons, there was no update to make the army be able to deal with targets of any kind, swarms, marines, elite and especialy anything of a monster or tank class, nevermind a knight level model. There are no psychic powers and the rules that are on the units are the same kind of rules other armies have on their units, on top of that a lot of them feel as if someone wrote them in a rush not checking or knowing the units. The person who wrote the GK rules clearly didn't know that a GK Captin is like a marine Lt, for some reason GKGM are hitting with heavy weapons on a +4, which means that when regular marine characters hit on a +2(or +3 with fists or hammers), the GKGM is the least martial of all marine leaders. There are special rules that are copies of same rules other similar armies have (stratagem for free), yet somehow the GK are once per game, and not once per turn. Which means that if a GK character uses it, it is less special then those of other factions. GK stuff has psychic slapped on everything, but there are no benefits from it. Psychic abilities aren't cheaper, better or even different then regular indentical or similar rules, with one "but". And it is the fact that they aren't beneficial for GK, but every rule that targets psychic stuff with double the power. For nothing.
On top of that GK players get to see 1ksons still have a psychic phase, so it may sting a little too.
or TLTR the GK rule set feels as if someone told Bob the internet AoS player, to write GK rules fast, because everyone forgot that they have to be done.
So about 20 more games & a bit over two months since my last post in this thread.....
Overall? So far so good.
This despite several new annoyances caused by the most recent balance sheet.
●The change made to Dev Wounds feels like a case of bait & switch. Sure, I see the problem they were trying to fix, but still.
●Titanic units can no longer fire overwatch - for reasons.....
! I still have not seen any of the game breaking, world shattering, apocalyptic effects of the new pts scheme that so many were ranting about in the weeks right after launch.
Of course I allready knew I wouldn't....
All that happened locally (the most important area playwise as far as I'm concerned)? There was some minor grumbling. And then everyone, including the grumblers, just got on with 10e list building & playing games.
I've since pulled two more of my old forces out if storage & put them back into the rotation.
●August was my Tau.
1st time they've seen use since 5e.
I added 3 new models to the collection - 1 modern Broadside, 1 Enforcer Commander, & 1 Sunshark Bomber.
The Tau have preformed well in each game they've been in.
●Sept saw my Eldar returned to use after a similar length hiatus.
Like the Tau, I've added new models to this force for the 1st time in decades - an Autarch & 3 units of Skyshrouds.
The Skyshrouds will hit the table sometime here in Oct.
In the coming weeks I'll evaluate how the new SM codex effects my SM forces.....
Karol wrote: In case of GK it is stuff like. Having 5 melee weapons consolidated in to one. We don't get power fists "str 8" weapons, there was no update to make the army be able to deal with targets of any kind, swarms, marines, elite and especialy anything of a monster or tank class, nevermind a knight level model.
Bruh, you can complain about weapon consolidation but you CANNOT seriously say that you are unable to deal with Swarms/Marines/Elite.
Stormbolters can deal with swarms.
3/4 melee attacks at 6 -2 2 are made to kill marines and do decent against termis.
Not being able to kill monsters/vehicles is a valid complain but please don'T make yourself look like a fool and say that GK can't kill anything.
! I still have not seen any of the game breaking, world shattering, apocalyptic effects of the new pts scheme that so many were ranting about in the weeks right after launch.
Of course I allready knew I wouldn't....
well no gak. It's not something that makes the game unplayable . It's still poor game design
yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun
But it isn't w40k. Same way buying a t-shirt isn't playing football. The question in the thread is how is 10th going for you and not "how is painting going for you". There are limits to how far one can stretch what w40k in 10th is. What is next, being around people making 10th good? With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game. I mean I fully expect one day to hear that in order to have fun in w40k, you have to be "rich, happy and healthy". Although this probably won't happen as it is part of a slavic proverb.
yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun
But it isn't w40k. Same way buying a t-shirt isn't playing football. The question in the thread is how is 10th going for you and not "how is painting going for you". There are limits to how far one can stretch what w40k in 10th is. What is next, being around people making 10th good? With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game. I mean I fully expect one day to hear that in order to have fun in w40k, you have to be "rich, happy and healthy". Although this probably won't happen as it is part of a slavic proverb.
oh please just shut it.
Painting IS part of the hobby, and i was giving it as an answer to YOU asking "why would someone spend 1000's of dollars to buy an army thats not fun to play.
You don't NEED to have multiple armies, a house, a car and all these things you listed to have fun either. You just need to be part of a less sociopathic community. And don't bs me with the "the only people that play are in the store" BS, thats just false, theres always gonna be people that play garagehammer (not in a litterall garage, juste making it clear so you can't use that to cry about how not everyone can have a garage)
yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun
But it isn't w40k. Same way buying a t-shirt isn't playing football. The question in the thread is how is 10th going for you and not "how is painting going for you". There are limits to how far one can stretch what w40k in 10th is. What is next, being around people making 10th good? With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game. I mean I fully expect one day to hear that in order to have fun in w40k, you have to be "rich, happy and healthy". Although this probably won't happen as it is part of a slavic proverb.
As someone who doesn't really care for painting...
Painting is 100% part of the hobby. Some people, like me, focus on the gaming side. Others focus on the painting side. Others focus on the books and lore and such. None of that is a wrong way to do 40k-it's whatever you have fun with.
Karol wrote: In case of GK it is stuff like. Having 5 melee weapons consolidated in to one. We don't get power fists "str 8" weapons, there was no update to make the army be able to deal with targets of any kind, swarms, marines, elite and especialy anything of a monster or tank class, nevermind a knight level model.
Bruh, you can complain about weapon consolidation but you CANNOT seriously say that you are unable to deal with Swarms/Marines/Elite.
Stormbolters can deal with swarms.
3/4 melee attacks at 6 -2 2 are made to kill marines and do decent against termis.
Not being able to kill monsters/vehicles is a valid complain but please don'T make yourself look like a fool and say that GK can't kill anything.
! I still have not seen any of the game breaking, world shattering, apocalyptic effects of the new pts scheme that so many were ranting about in the weeks right after launch.
Of course I allready knew I wouldn't....
well no gak. It's not something that makes the game unplayable . It's still poor game design
Poor design or not, it really hasn't affected the fun of any of our games. So....
Karol wrote: With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game.
sigh....
House/housing? You'll need that anyways. Maybe you'll be able to play games there. Maybe not.
Transportation of some kind? Odds are you'll need that anyways. Might as well use it to also get to the local game shop. High Income? You'll want your income to be as high as possible anyways. Comes in real handy for housing/transport/food/bills/supporting your family/etc. And yes, affording your hobbies.
Multiple armies - you don't need multiple armies. Just enough pts of one you really like to give you some options. And a case big enough to hold it.
But friends....
Having friends involved in the same hobbies as you absolutely has a direct impact on the fun.
I was very into 40k at the end of 9th. I was finally getting into the 9th chaos daemon codex with some nurgle daemons and having a blast.
10th edition rules seem ok, but the changes to unit sizes, the power level disguised as points army building, and the general changes to building your army killed all enthusiasm I had for 40k.
I haven't played a game of 10th, and haven't spent any money on 40k since it hit.
I really have no interest in playing until points/upgrades, army building, etc are fixed.
I have some friends who are playing. A few new guys in the group, but a few of the long term players are not playing as much or at all, like me.
I will probably give 10th a go at some point, but I really, really have no enthusiasm for it at this point. I have tried multiple times to get pumped building a list that sounds fun...but then I see all the stupid unit size restrictions and get annoyed and go do something else.
10th has killed 40k for me, at least temporarily. I have no idea why they tried fixing something that didn't need fixing.
I'm really looking forward to trying out the new Marien Codex.
I've got a very silly "Oops, all Dreadnoughts!" list that I want to try out, and now there's the vehicle-detachment that might make it even better. Or I could try the one that gives all weapons Assault, which I think would work equally as well for a Dread-heavy army by keeping them mobile without sacrificing firepower.
Karol wrote: With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game.
sigh....
House/housing? You'll need that anyways. Maybe you'll be able to play games there. Maybe not.
Transportation of some kind? Odds are you'll need that anyways. Might as well use it to also get to the local game shop. High Income? You'll want your income to be as high as possible anyways. Comes in real handy for housing/transport/food/bills/supporting your family/etc. And yes, affording your hobbies.
Multiple armies - you don't need multiple armies. Just enough pts of one you really like to give you some options. And a case big enough to hold it.
But friends....
Having friends involved in the same hobbies as you absolutely has a direct impact on the fun.
I hate to be the one to say it, but at the end of the day there is a certain level of cost associated with this hobby - same as any other. And while there are ways you can reduce this with second-hand models from ebay, playing smaller games like Kill Team etc; if you can't afford it then you are going to struggle to participate.
I'd love to be able to take a sports car on track days - but I couldn't afford the costs involved with tracking my sports car, and ultimately had to sell it when we had our second child anyway.
I'm sure yachting is bloody good fun - but there's no way I can afford a yacht. Or a pony to play polo.
I used to work on a golf course, and I'd see people who had individual golf clubs that cost about the same as a warhammer army...
Closer to the real world, there are new PC games and Xbox Series X games I'd love to play - but at the moment I can't afford to buy a gaming PC or a new XBox.
I don't think anyone wants to be snobby, or exclude people, or gate-keep the hobby - but yeah, it costs, and if you can't afford it we can't really help with that.
Karol wrote: With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game.
sigh....
House/housing? You'll need that anyways. Maybe you'll be able to play games there. Maybe not.
Transportation of some kind? Odds are you'll need that anyways. Might as well use it to also get to the local game shop. High Income? You'll want your income to be as high as possible anyways. Comes in real handy for housing/transport/food/bills/supporting your family/etc. And yes, affording your hobbies.
Multiple armies - you don't need multiple armies. Just enough pts of one you really like to give you some options. And a case big enough to hold it.
But friends....
Having friends involved in the same hobbies as you absolutely has a direct impact on the fun.
I hate to be the one to say it, but at the end of the day there is a certain level of cost associated with this hobby - same as any other. And while there are ways you can reduce this with second-hand models from ebay, playing smaller games like Kill Team etc; if you can't afford it then you are going to struggle to participate.
I'd love to be able to take a sports car on track days - but I couldn't afford the costs involved with tracking my sports car, and ultimately had to sell it when we had our second child anyway.
I'm sure yachting is bloody good fun - but there's no way I can afford a yacht. Or a pony to play polo.
I used to work on a golf course, and I'd see people who had individual golf clubs that cost about the same as a warhammer army...
Closer to the real world, there are new PC games and Xbox Series X games I'd love to play - but at the moment I can't afford to buy a gaming PC or a new XBox.
I don't think anyone wants to be snobby, or exclude people, or gate-keep the hobby - but yeah, it costs, and if you can't afford it we can't really help with that.
Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.
Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?
Having played 10th again last weekend some thoughts from me:
+ the overall base rules are fine, game is running smooth
+ I llike the changed overwatch stratagem and everything that's a kind of reaction
+ fewer CP make you really think about how to use them
+ USRs are good to see again
+ I actually like the individual special rules of the units. The game is pretty flavourful despite being in the indexstage, unlike 8th were playing with an index felt like playing an alpha-version (which it was, obviousely)
- why is there no reference page in the rules document? The structure of the rules is all over the place and USRs are spread everywhere. You'd think they'd get that right by now.
- Power level points... well, it makes you take every possible upgrade, listbuilding is more like solving a puzzle, though
- there should be some "difficult terrain" to make armies slower, I can still easily get into CC by turn two with footslogging armies, if I had taken aggressive positioning even turn 1 would have been easy
- maybe I'm the only one, but I think how 8th and 9th handled psychic stuff was actually the best version of 40K - game is still too lethal, I killed about 40 Space Marines in a single turn and game was over at the end of turn 2 - and I wasn't playing a competitive list
- long term the continued killing of options like we see in Space Marines could be the main reason to push me to OPR (again), really, the basic approach to 10th isn't bad, but they're shooting themselves in the foot with their stupid no models, no rules policy, kits dictate rules, no legends in their army builder
- GW is dumb as sh1t for putting their armybuilder behind a paywall after one month. Hello again, Battlescribe!
These are more cons than pros, but still, I think 10th base rules are the best I've played for 40K so far (been here since end of 5th), but unfortunately there are many things outside of the base rules that seem like an attempt to kick out players that played prior editions and collected GW minis for more than 3 years.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Having played 10th again last weekend some thoughts from me:
+ the overall base rules are fine, game is running smooth
+ I llike the changed overwatch stratagem and everything that's a kind of reaction
+ fewer CP make you really think about how to use them
+ USRs are good to see again
+ I actually like the individual special rules of the units. The game is pretty flavourful despite being in the indexstage, unlike 8th were playing with an index felt like playing an alpha-version (which it was, obviousely)
- why is there no reference page in the rules document? The structure of the rules is all over the place and USRs are spread everywhere. You'd think they'd get that right by now.
- Power level points... well, it makes you take every possible upgrade, listbuilding is more like solving a puzzle, though
...
- GW is dumb as sh1t for putting their armybuilder behind a paywall after one month. Hello again, Battlescribe!
Fellow 5th edition baby here. Agreed on all the above points.
- there should be some "difficult terrain" to make armies slower, I can still easily get into CC by turn two with footslogging armies, if I had taken aggressive positioning even turn 1 would have been easy
Is this a bad thing though? One of the common complaints about 5th-7th was that footslogging armies basically had to spend half the game getting shot off the table before they were allowed to do anything. Now, my melee units only have to spend one turn getting into position (less if my opponent is aggressive). I've been kiting hard with my eldar lately, backing away from short-ranged enemies while I soften them up. So staying away from most melee armies is still a valid tactic; it just costs you positioning/VP to do so. That's a decent place to be, I think. Then again, most of my melee units feel a little limp this edition, so maybe I'd rather trade difficulty of delivery for effectiveness upon delivery.
- maybe I'm the only one, but I think how 8th and 9th handled psychic stuff was actually the best version of 40K
Valid opinion is valid. Personally, 10th's approach is basically what I've been wanting for a while now. What did you prefer about 9th's approach?
- game is still too lethal, I killed about 40 Space Marines in a single turn and game was over at the end of turn 2 - and I wasn't playing a competitive list
Interesting. Can you share a little about your list? In my latest 2k game running lots of ranged anti-tank units, I only ended up killing like, 25ish marines by the end of the game. Granted, I was using a lot of single-shot guns and had some dreadnaughts/tanks to deal with.
...
- long term the continued killing of options like we see in Space Marines could be the main reason to push me to OPR (again), really, the basic approach to 10th isn't bad, but they're shooting themselves in the foot with their stupid no models, no rules policy, kits dictate rules, no legends in their army builder
...
These are more cons than pros, but still, I think 10th base rules are the best I've played for 40K so far (been here since end of 5th), but unfortunately there are many things outside of the base rules that seem like an attempt to kick out players that played prior editions and collected GW minis for more than 3 years.
Largely agree with you here. No-models-no-rules is a bad policy that seems to be leading to some sub-optimal rules choices. My impression is that this is a lingering fear response to the lawsuit back in the day. Which is a shame, because I really doubt nmnr has resulted in a bunch of extra sales for GW, and it definitely hasn't stopped third parties from making totally-not-made-with-40k-in-mind products. So the end result is that it feels like GW is removing/not adding a bunch of options to the game that would facilitate the customization I used to love for fear of missing out on hypothetical sales of models they don't want to make.
It doesn't feel like GW is actively trying to kick anyone out, but it does feel like they're neglecting to think about the impact of certain decisions on their players.
But yeah, I'm enjoying 10th overall. For all my little frustrations during the list-building and conversion part of the hobby, the game currently plays very smoothly on the table. All the little special rules GW has given things go a long way towards making more units feel valid rather than just being suboptimal versions of other units. The detachment rules in the tyranid 'dex are fun and fluffy and change the way various units play. I'm hoping that trend continues in future books.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.
Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?
Howabout more sensible updates, rather than knee-jerk whiplash inducing updates. Smart decisions rather than dumb ones. That'd be nice.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.
Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?
Howabout more sensible updates, rather than knee-jerk whiplash inducing updates. Smart decisions rather than dumb ones. That'd be nice.
Care to elaborate with an example or two? The only one I can think of for 10th is the towering issue resulting in some odd points changes.
GW over the last 6 years have simultaneously been to fast and too slow, gone too far and not far enough, all in the same updates. Always interesting to see which individual chunks bother people most.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.
Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?
Howabout more sensible updates, rather than knee-jerk whiplash inducing updates. Smart decisions rather than dumb ones. That'd be nice.
Care to elaborate with an example or two? The only one I can think of for 10th is the towering issue resulting in some odd points changes.
GW over the last 6 years have simultaneously been to fast and too slow, gone too far and not far enough, all in the same updates. Always interesting to see which individual chunks bother people most.
8th Edition lasting three years.
9th lasting three years too.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.
Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?
Howabout more sensible updates, rather than knee-jerk whiplash inducing updates. Smart decisions rather than dumb ones. That'd be nice.
Care to elaborate with an example or two? The only one I can think of for 10th is the towering issue resulting in some odd points changes.
GW over the last 6 years have simultaneously been to fast and too slow, gone too far and not far enough, all in the same updates. Always interesting to see which individual chunks bother people most.
10th is young. I'm sure there will be plenty of problems. But right off the bat, finally giving nice rules to Scout Snipers and Assault Squads, and then removing them from the codex. And no longer paying points for upgrades is just a bad move, causing all sorts of other knock-on issues. The current Wraithknight status where one build is much more competetive than the other, but it only having a single point value is a nice example of that. Also, why are my Tyranid Warrior squads only limited to six models? Dumb, unnecessary stuff. Combi-weapons.
9th? Ok, removing points for wargear costs on a lot of units in late 9th too. Such as Sternguard Squads, where they were an absolute bargain when equipped with all Combi-Weapons. Back when they were real combi weapons.
Armor of Contempt appearing as a rule for SM armies, and then disappearing half a year(?) later. The Tyranid Codex having a bunch of really cool options in it when it releases, only to get nerfed within weeks (?). Leagues of Votaan with a similar experience with it's power level. The Guard Infantry rule where they fish for mortals using Lasfire.
8th? SM Codex 2.0.+ supplements. Rule of 3 being introduced as a hack-fix. There's plenty there if you go fishing.
I started in 2nd edition, which lasted 5 years. 3rd lasted 6, and 4th was a pretty incremental tune-up of third, lasting another 4. A big tweak for 3rd ed was Terminators getting a 5++ save. Of course 3rd was a big shakeup early on, but was overall pretty stable once it got going even though a number of new armies were introduced.
Insectum covered a bunch already, but hey, here's some more:
1. Ork and AdMech armies dominating (as in Turn 1 wipeouts) in tournaments because of their aircraft. GW's solution? Limit all aircraft across the game to 2 per army. Knee jerk blanket solution to a specific problem. 2. Indirect Fire weapons proving to be quite dangerous in 10th. GW's solution? Just up the cost on everything with Indirect fire, even if that means that units that don't have the Indirect Fire rule suffer as a result (yes, I'm talking about this).
Im not really into it. The simplification is a turn off for me. I don’t mind the rules being a little faster, but I miss psychic powers and the psychic phase (I want my librarian to have choice). I want vanvet weapons back. I want variety in my combi weapons. I want more choice as to what type of character can lead a unit.
I don’t like the significant loss of the older models, even though we knew it was coming, most of the replacement models are dog crap.
So put all this together and I’m almost at the point of sitting 10th out and focusing more on other game systems.
Insectum7 wrote:10th is young. I'm sure there will be plenty of problems. But right off the bat, finally giving nice rules to Scout Snipers and Assault Squads, and then removing them from the codex. And no longer paying points for upgrades is just a bad move, causing all sorts of other knock-on issues. The current Wraithknight status where one build is much more competetive than the other, but it only having a single point value is a nice example of that. Also, why are my Tyranid Warrior squads only limited to six models? Dumb, unnecessary stuff. Combi-weapons.
The vast majority of those fall into what I think you brand as "dumb" which is subjective. I'm with you on wraithknight and the paying for upgrades (largely because they left some choices as straight upgrades for some reason).
Squad sizes, combi weapons and the marine range being trimmed back is going to be subjective.
9th? Ok, removing points for wargear costs on a lot of units in late 9th too. Such as Sternguard Squads, where they were an absolute bargain when equipped with all Combi-Weapons. Back when they were real combi weapons.
Armor of Contempt appearing as a rule for SM armies, and then disappearing half a year(?) later. The Tyranid Codex having a bunch of really cool options in it when it releases, only to get nerfed within weeks (?). Leagues of Votaan with a similar experience with it's power level. The Guard Infantry rule where they fish for mortals using Lasfire.
8th? SM Codex 2.0.+ supplements. Rule of 3 being introduced as a hack-fix. There's plenty there if you go fishing.
Rule of 3 was a needed knee jerk and is now 5 years old, it was introduced and kept. There's a mixed bag in that nids and votann were poorly balanced at time of writing, so getting nerfed in weeks should be praised in that instance, rather than letting it stew.
Some of the other stuff is subjective and the marines supplement structure makes sense on one hand but not on others. I see what they wanted to address but caused more problems.
JNAProductions wrote:
8th Edition lasting three years.
9th lasting three years too.
Understood, but by the 3 year mark, on both occasions people were ready for/asking for a change. More with 9th than 8th admittedly.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
1. Ork and AdMech armies dominating (as in Turn 1 wipeouts) in tournaments because of their aircraft. GW's solution? Limit all aircraft across the game to 2 per army. Knee jerk blanket solution to a specific problem.
2. Indirect Fire weapons proving to be quite dangerous in 10th. GW's solution? Just up the cost on everything with Indirect fire, even if that means that units that don't have the Indirect Fire rule suffer as a result (yes, I'm talking about this)
Full agree on the blanket points changes, it's the same thing as with the towering points hikes. The flyers thing again, it wasn't well or evenly applied, it's a recurring issue for flyers though and I think they are a problem in that they maybe shouldn't exist to be honest, but that's subjective.
Thanks for the comments, I was looking for examples relevant to 10th ideally but I didn't spell that out too well, so that's on me. But a chunk of things listed are thing people wanted at some point, so it's hard to really say if they're a bad knee jerk or not.
You can dismiss a lot of complaints as subjective if you like, but a whole bunch of those complaints are shared by many others. Being subjective doesn't also make something immune to being dumb either.
Example: the rule of three being kept-knee-jerk-rraction doesn't make it not incredibly dumb.
But the greater point is that it's been a roller coaster, often quite unnesessarily.
JNAProductions wrote:
8th Edition lasting three years.
9th lasting three years too.
Understood, but by the 3 year mark, on both occasions people were ready for/asking for a change. More with 9th than 8th admittedly.
Yeah. . . Reason being the roller coaster of lousy design. The hope is always that GW will clean it up and make it better, but instead they just shift the lousy parts around a bit and ask for more money.
Insectum7 wrote: You can dismiss a lot of complaints as subjective if you like, but a whole bunch of those complaints are shared by many others. Being subjective doesn't also make something immune to being dumb either.
Example: the rule of three being kept-knee-jerk-rraction doesn't make it not incredibly dumb.
But the greater point is that it's been a roller coaster, often quite unnesessarily.
JNAProductions wrote:
8th Edition lasting three years.
9th lasting three years too.
Understood, but by the 3 year mark, on both occasions people were ready for/asking for a change. More with 9th than 8th admittedly.
Yeah. . . Reason being the roller coaster of lousy design. The hope is always that GW will clean it up and make it better, but instead they just shift the lousy parts around a bit and ask for more money.
Being subjective simply means it's based on personal feeling, I'm not saying it's not shared by many, I'm saying it doesn't make it objectively bad or dumb.
I don't consider the rule of 3 dumb, beyond singularly perfect balance between units, there is never a disincentive for spamming a particular unit if it holds even a marginal advantage.
There is an element of the GW roller coaster, I'd argue it felt less bad in older editions because there was the understanding that things took a long time to be resolved. If you got a dodgy book or an iffy rule, you knew that's what it was going to be like for the next 4-12 years depending on context and you learned to live with it.
With the pseudo-online-game balance cycles we have now, there's a bigger expectation on larger changes with a faster turn around. So dumb or otherwise you're seeing the changes they used to make every half a decade to decade and a half, every 3-18 months now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: Needing to massively nerf books within weeks of release isn't a positive...
Yeah hopefully it's a thing of the past, but I doubt it given their publishing process. The new design paradigm, if adhered to, should help mitigate it.
Being subjective simply means it's based on personal feeling, I'm not saying it's not shared by many, I'm saying it doesn't make it objectively bad or dumb.
A lot of it is just dumb. I'd argue that within the framing, possibly objectively so. But I'm not going to bother with that convo now.
I don't consider the rule of 3 dumb, beyond singularly perfect balance between units, there is never a disincentive for spamming a particular unit if it holds even a marginal advantage.
Rule of 3 is isn't dumb because it addresses a problem. It's dumb because it does it in the most ham-fisted way possible. In a "You can't take more than three Scout squads because people were spamming Hive Tyrants that we undercosted." kind of way. Also in a "I can take an army of nearly all Land Raiders, but not more than 3 squads of Tyranid Warriors with ranged weapons" kind of way.
There is an element of the GW roller coaster, I'd argue it felt less bad in older editions because there was the understanding that things took a long time to be resolved. If you got a dodgy book or an iffy rule, you knew that's what it was going to be like for the next 4-12 years depending on context and you learned to live with it.
Now we're back to the originating point. It's not that updates are bad. It's the way they are handled.
With the pseudo-online-game balance cycles we have now, there's a bigger expectation on larger changes with a faster turn around. So dumb or otherwise you're seeing the changes they used to make every half a decade to decade and a half, every 3-18 months now.
But is there really an overwhelming demand by players for "larger changes with faster turnaround"? Is this just a "kids these days" statement? I question the assumption being made here. I think what's happening is more a marketing-cycle drive than some sort of grass roots desire for monthly balance chaos.
Lord Damocles wrote: Needing to massively nerf books within weeks of release isn't a positive...
Yeah hopefully it's a thing of the past, but I doubt it given their publishing process. The new design paradigm, if adhered to, should help mitigate it.
How much faith should I have that they'll adhere to a design paradigm? I don't give it much.
Yeah. Marines can, ignoring special ones like the Excelsior and FW variants, can take 9 Land Raiders.
But perish the thought of taking a fourth unit of Genestealers. Such overwhelming power!!! *clutches pearls*
Rule of 3 is another one of those blanket solutions. It exists because of Tyranid players taking 5 Winged Tyrants from the Supreme Command detachment at the start of 8th. Winged Tyrants have been paying for it ever since, and the Rule of Three was a (typically GW) unthinking reaction that lacked any nuance or understanding of the basic problem itself.
This is why I regard their "metawatch" articles as pure comedy. They are the gameplay equivalent of phonetical singing: They can say the words, but I don't think they really understand what they mean.
With the pseudo-online-game balance cycles we have now, there's a bigger expectation on larger changes with a faster turn around. So dumb or otherwise you're seeing the changes they used to make every half a decade to decade and a half, every 3-18 months now.
But is there really an overwhelming demand by players for "larger changes with faster turnaround"? Is this just a "kids these days" statement? I question the assumption being made here. I think what's happening is more a marketing-cycle drive than some sort of grass roots desire for monthly balance chaos.
There was a slew of posts, topics, videos, threads about how "10th was already dead and would be the end of 40k" because of Eldar prior to that balance dataslate. So yeah, it's certainly a recurring message in the wider community, including the "famous" players refusing to attend events for 40k until Eldar were nerfed, starting from about 6 weeks into the edition.
Every balance dataslate there were cries of "It better be [insert faction]'s turn to get buffs due to X% winrate" followed by complaints they might need to wait 3-6 months for another turn. This is why we got Armour of Contempt in the first place, due to people wanting radical changes to prop up marine win rates.
I'm also tired of people celebrating point cuts whilst I'm on that rant as well, I don't think being asked to field more gak and subsequently buy more gak is a good thing generally. It definitely erodes some of the elite-ness of some armies and leads to stuff like the issue with sisters as seen in the other thread. Much rather have solutions that make them worth their value rather than a race to the bottom.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah. Marines can, ignoring special ones like the Excelsior and FW variants, can take 9 Land Raiders.
But perish the thought of taking a fourth unit of Genestealers. Such overwhelming power!!! *clutches pearls*
Rule of 3 is another one of those blanket solutions. It exists because of Tyranid players taking 5 Winged Tyrants from the Supreme Command detachment at the start of 8th. Winged Tyrants have been paying for it ever since, and the Rule of Three was a (typically GW) unthinking reaction that lacked any nuance or understanding of the basic problem itself.
This is why I regard their "metawatch" articles as pure comedy. They are the gameplay equivalent of phonetical singing: They can say the words, but I don't think they really understand what they mean.
its the same thinking that lead to the "no special characters" bans that thankfully are now a thing of the past, a few caused trouble so out they all go
I think the community doesn't expect quick-turm balance patches.
I think the community expects balance out of the gate.
No one goes into an MMO or RTS and says "if they don't patch every 3 months it's dead". Games stabilize over their lifetime, and many players prefer the polished, finished product over rounds of patches.
The problem with GW is that the game's churn IS THE POINT. Rather than being necessary to prevent BSODs or CTDs or ensuring compatibility with the latest NVIDIA drivers, the churn is just churn like meat in a grist mill.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Having played 10th again last weekend some thoughts from me:
+ the overall base rules are fine, game is running smooth
+ I llike the changed overwatch stratagem and everything that's a kind of reaction
+ fewer CP make you really think about how to use them
+ USRs are good to see again
+ I actually like the individual special rules of the units. The game is pretty flavourful despite being in the indexstage, unlike 8th were playing with an index felt like playing an alpha-version (which it was, obviousely)
- why is there no reference page in the rules document? The structure of the rules is all over the place and USRs are spread everywhere. You'd think they'd get that right by now.
- Power level points... well, it makes you take every possible upgrade, listbuilding is more like solving a puzzle, though
...
- GW is dumb as sh1t for putting their armybuilder behind a paywall after one month. Hello again, Battlescribe!
Fellow 5th edition baby here. Agreed on all the above points.
- there should be some "difficult terrain" to make armies slower, I can still easily get into CC by turn two with footslogging armies, if I had taken aggressive positioning even turn 1 would have been easy
Is this a bad thing though? One of the common complaints about 5th-7th was that footslogging armies basically had to spend half the game getting shot off the table before they were allowed to do anything. Now, my melee units only have to spend one turn getting into position (less if my opponent is aggressive). I've been kiting hard with my eldar lately, backing away from short-ranged enemies while I soften them up. So staying away from most melee armies is still a valid tactic; it just costs you positioning/VP to do so. That's a decent place to be, I think. Then again, most of my melee units feel a little limp this edition, so maybe I'd rather trade difficulty of delivery for effectiveness upon delivery.
That's a point where I'm not really sure how to do it better, but I see your point. I guess it would be nice to have something in between. Think about it: In 10th your infantry unit jumps over every barricade, runs through every wall and can jump over your own squads (I really like the last part, it's straightforward and a nice simplification). Bonus points for singing Queen's: "Don't stop me noooow, I'm having such a good time!" while doing so. It's just a little sad when you set up a nice looking table and the infantry basically ignores it.
- maybe I'm the only one, but I think how 8th and 9th handled psychic stuff was actually the best version of 40K
Valid opinion is valid. Personally, 10th's approach is basically what I've been wanting for a while now. What did you prefer about 9th's approach?
Yes, psychic attacks doing mortal wounds only was lame. But I liked the system. Make your test, enemy tries to deny, handle effect. Nice and simple and not just another shooting attack or unit ability. For me it would have sufficed to turn all these mortals into usual attacks without a hit roll.
Also, sorceror's changing their spells depending on which armor they wear is... strange.
- game is still too lethal, I killed about 40 Space Marines in a single turn and game was over at the end of turn 2 - and I wasn't playing a competitive list
Interesting. Can you share a little about your list? In my latest 2k game running lots of ranged anti-tank units, I only ended up killing like, 25ish marines by the end of the game. Granted, I was using a lot of single-shot guns and had some dreadnaughts/tanks to deal with.
I played Orks and the Waaagh-turn didn't work out for the enemy SM. 2 deffdreads, and a mega dread reached their lines to kill terminators, Squiggoth also killed some termies, flamers killed some phobos guys, lootas finished some suppressors, beastboss on squiggo finished 3 hellblasters... it might not have been exactly 40 Marines, but it was enough for my opponent to call the game after his turn. I had a mob of 20 boyz + warboss + weirdboy. The chars + nob + 10 boyz could fight in CC. Boyz alone have 40 attacks that all hit due to 2+ and sustained hits, all of them are S5 and AP-1... When the enemy countercharged in their turn with a unit of Vanguard Veterans and Shrike I just pulled of the Orkz never loses strat and everything exploded.
Spoiler:
...
- long term the continued killing of options like we see in Space Marines could be the main reason to push me to OPR (again), really, the basic approach to 10th isn't bad, but they're shooting themselves in the foot with their stupid no models, no rules policy, kits dictate rules, no legends in their army builder
...
These are more cons than pros, but still, I think 10th base rules are the best I've played for 40K so far (been here since end of 5th), but unfortunately there are many things outside of the base rules that seem like an attempt to kick out players that played prior editions and collected GW minis for more than 3 years.
Largely agree with you here. No-models-no-rules is a bad policy that seems to be leading to some sub-optimal rules choices. My impression is that this is a lingering fear response to the lawsuit back in the day. Which is a shame, because I really doubt nmnr has resulted in a bunch of extra sales for GW, and it definitely hasn't stopped third parties from making totally-not-made-with-40k-in-mind products. So the end result is that it feels like GW is removing/not adding a bunch of options to the game that would facilitate the customization I used to love for fear of missing out on hypothetical sales of models they don't want to make.
It doesn't feel like GW is actively trying to kick anyone out, but it does feel like they're neglecting to think about the impact of certain decisions on their players.
But yeah, I'm enjoying 10th overall. For all my little frustrations during the list-building and conversion part of the hobby, the game currently plays very smoothly on the table. All the little special rules GW has given things go a long way towards making more units feel valid rather than just being suboptimal versions of other units. The detachment rules in the tyranid 'dex are fun and fluffy and change the way various units play. I'm hoping that trend continues in future books.
Thank you for your elaborate answer. We'll see what the Codizes bring. Sounds cynical, but my Orks and DG lost many options in prior editions already, I don't think the Codizes can hurt them anymore (DG still has some Chars left that don't have specific DG models, they could be chopped I guess, since we lost Possessed in this round).
Unit1126PLL wrote: No one goes into an MMO or RTS and says "if they don't patch every 3 months it's dead". Games stabilize over their lifetime, and many players prefer the polished, finished product over rounds of patches.
Uh... there's a few cases where perhaps this isn't the case - but overwhelming yes, if an MMO or RTS isn't receiving regular content updates, then it will tend to be considered dead or at least dying.
The issue with 40k - which I think applies just as much to MMOs and RTS games and anything really - is that there's a massive divide between people who are playing every week and people who get in one game every 6 months. GW taking 3 months to fix a balance problem feels like an age to the first group, while the second scarcely notice.
But even a relatively balanced game can grow stale, if the equivalent of the 55% faction is *always* the 55% faction, and vice versa with the 45% faction. Players tend to adapt as a consequence.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the community doesn't expect quick-turm balance patches.
I think the community expects balance out of the gate.
No one goes into an MMO or RTS and says "if they don't patch every 3 months it's dead". Games stabilize over their lifetime, and many players prefer the polished, finished product over rounds of patches.
The problem with GW is that the game's churn IS THE POINT. Rather than being necessary to prevent BSODs or CTDs or ensuring compatibility with the latest NVIDIA drivers, the churn is just churn like meat in a grist mill.
You have not met the aoe 3 de community, or even the aoe community in general?
Yes, psychic attacks doing mortal wounds only was lame. But I liked the system. Make your test, enemy tries to deny, handle effect. Nice and simple and not just another shooting attack or unit ability. For me it would have sufficed to turn all these mortals into usual attacks without a hit roll.
Ah. See, I didn't like having to do a psychic test because no one in the lore ever randomly fails to activate their powers except maybe especially untrained humans. Like, librarians never raise their hands to shoot lightning and then accidentally fart instead.
Similarly, I feel like the ability for enemies to deny the witch has been overemphasized for a while now. Very specific factions like Sisters or Space Wolves having anti-psychic wargear options made a certain amount of sense back in the day. Letting anything with Adamantium Will have a slim chance to deny in 6th was an okay little nod to the idea. But then from 7th onward, every psyker out there was busy just straight up making psychic effects not happen. To the point that in recent editions, tau and necron players were annoyed that they couldn't join in on regularly shutting down psychic effects like it's just an expected thing that you should semi-reliably be able to make the librarian fart instead of shoot lightning.
The current version reigns in the potency of powers a bit but also makes them more reliable. To each their own, but I prefer that, personally.
Also, sorceror's changing their spells depending on which armor they wear is... strange.
Totally agree with you there. Seems like it would be really simple to just list a few powers psykers can choose from. Preserve some of the customization that recent editions have been removing.
That said, I do see where tighter control over the powers a psyker has can be useful. For instance, my warlock on foot can Quicken (extra Move) his unit, but a warlock on bike can't. So this means that you don't get something like the double-moving shining spear/jetbike shenanigans that we saw in 8th and 9th.
alextroy wrote: So like 10th handles it. Most powers are automatic, but some require you to not roll a 1 on a d6 to succeed.
well except HH has the stat line of the wizard matter, and has three outcomes (1. it works, 2. it doesn't work & 3. you hurt yourself) in place of it working or it hurts. and its a 2d6 roll not a 1d6 so a bit more predictable.
plus you can generally get a half decent result with the lower power version, which isn't always "I do mortal wounds", and take the risk when it matters
so similar but not quite the same
oh and you have a range of powers to pick from, not just whatever is written on a stat card, so tends to be a lot more flexible with powers that are more than just a fancy way of resolving a shooting attack
Most psykers have a shooting attack with the "Psychic" tag, a tag that is only a bad thing (it has no value beyond making some targets less vulnerable to it).
Other psychic powers are abilities that stop working the moment the psyker doesn't have any more friends.
Is a mechanic that's 2+ to succeed, or BS 3+ so different from 2D6 6+ that it makes them no longer considered psychic powers?
In other words, what is the definition of a psychic power mechanic that is considered missing?
The only thing I can see that's relatively unique is the perils aspect. This is represented by the hazardous rule.
Having it's own phase is completely arbitrary, in universe they happen alongside everything else happening. There's not distinct about them that requires they happen all at the same time.
from 3rd onward psychic powers were either innate (warlock autopowers), or a psychic test but they happened in specific phases.
Then they created a power type list, when you break them down, they're shooting attacks, melee attacks, buffs or debuffs.
IMO there's no reason that psychic shooting or melee shouldn't happen in the shooting or melee phases.
Or that you need a special separate dice roll to generate it.
Hazardous reflects perils. If you need them to explode or something and affect the unit they're in, you could put a dot point in the hazardous rule:
Hazardous
- psychic - if a model is destroyed by a failed hazardous roll caused by a psychic tagged effect, the unit they are with also suffers 1D3 mortal wounds.
In other words, what is the definition of a psychic power mechanic that is considered missing?
The biggest mechanic that's missing is that now all identical datacards must have identical psychic powers.
Previously, taking two Terminator Librarians in an army allowed you to extend the portfolio of psychic abilities available to your army, now it does not. That alone makes the current system VASTLY inferior.
The second mechanic that's missing is power diversity. As HBMC mentioned, most buff powers now only apply to a unit the psyker leads; once they die, the psyker isn't really a psyker anymore... Or at least that power becomes useless. In 9th, these buffs could be auras, or they could be a single, targeted friendly unit. Having both possibilities provided additional diversity and depth, but either one would be better than what we have now, by virtue of being useful for the entire lifespan of the psyker, rather than the lifespan of their bodyguards. Debuffs also get a hit in 10th- there still are some, but not like there were.
The third mechanic that's missing is deny the witch. This is the bread and butter of SoB, SoS and Ordo Hereticus narrative gaming.
Perils of the warp, as you mentioned is another issue...I mean, once you'e taken all the flavour out of a smite attack by simply making it another gun, you might as well take more flavour out of psychic warfare by making perils nothing more than overheated plasma.
Those are four mechanical reasons why 10th edition psychic rules are a great big greasy steaming pile of kroot poop.
But that's not even the worst of it. Psychic phenomena is one of the narrative underpinnings of the game; it is a manifestation of the warp- it sustains daemons, it is a vector for chaos and it permits space travel; arguably the greatest achievement of the Emperor himself is the maintenance of the astronomicon, and the thousands of "innocent" psychic rounded up in the Blackships and sacrificed daily to it's sustenance is one of the grimmest, darkest elements of the game known for being grimdark.
Now psychic powers are a bodyguard buff or another gun. Big fething deal.
Not trying to play contrarian, I'm just personally not interested in bespoke rules for the sake of it.
The point of USRs is to provide a standardised framework within which all concepts are represented.
Devestating wounds for example is a generic rule that covers a wide range of phenomena. The warp vortex effect of a distort weapon is conceptually very different to the massive volley of fire from an assault cannon, but the rules abstract that into the same ability.
For the four points raised I agree in principle to a few.
The first 2 though - identical powers and no freedom to choose I think are deliberate design choices to 1 disincentivise spamming and 2 balance all the different instances of a psyker by giving them distinct niches.
If you can fill every psychic niche with one model, there's no reason to take the other versions. This is definitely an abstraction but I see the thinking behind it.
I do think that Buff psychic powers should be usable outside a unit and some psykers can do that (farseers for example) so it's clear they're fine with the concept, they just seem to have a clear vision for psykers in each army that is distinct.
As for perils and deny, those two are definitely important to the concept of psychic powers. Although from a game balance perspective, adding a negative on top of the chance to miss with an attack is pretty harsh. So then you're left with a decision, is the fact you get a psychic attack enough of a bonus to offset perils, or do you need to over pump the psychic attack to make it worthwhile. This was one of the reasons psychic powers were mortal wounds - powerful attacks offset by powerful downside.
But as said before, within the framework of the USRs perils can be represented by hazardous and they've clearly decided the ability needed to be buffed to make the risk worth it, hence the split profile.
With Deny, that one I think is affected by the buff concept not being an aura as much so the need for a deny aura is gone, making it more unit vs unit denial.
Within the current USR framework you've got 2 options to represent deny - an invulnerable save or FNP against psychic attacks.
You can also extend that to a psychic ability active on a unit that interacts with one of yours. Ie, Phobos librarian shrouding. With sobs you could have in act of faith have a rule that says they ignore an ability active on an enemy unit on a 4+ or whatever.
So a unit wants to target them and rolls a 4+, ignoring shrouding.
Hellebore wrote: Not trying to play contrarian, I'm just personally not interested in bespoke rules for the sake of it.
10th is riddled with them. GW's song and dance about the apparent "return" of USRs was utter hokum.
Hellebore wrote: The point of USRs is to provide a standardised framework within which all concepts are represented.
And maybe one day GW will actually start doing that. Or, rather, the 40k team will, 'cause the HH team seems to have it down pat.
But Psykers are a problem in 10th with the way powers are set. There's zero choice involved whatsoever. It's most apparent with Eldar, where what power your Farseer has is determined by whether he's sitting on a Jetbike or not. That's as much of a problem as powers that cease working when there's no one standing near him.
I mean, if, for example, the Librarians 4+ Invul save power:
A). Always worked on himself even when he was by himself. B). Could be cast on any unit within 6", but would only be a 5+ Invul save (ie. either 4+ on him & unit, of 5+ on someone else) then there'd be some choice there.
Unit1126PLL wrote: No one goes into an MMO or RTS and says "if they don't patch every 3 months it's dead". Games stabilize over their lifetime, and many players prefer the polished, finished product over rounds of patches.
Uh... there's a few cases where perhaps this isn't the case - but overwhelming yes, if an MMO or RTS isn't receiving regular content updates, then it will tend to be considered dead or at least dying.
The issue with 40k - which I think applies just as much to MMOs and RTS games and anything really - is that there's a massive divide between people who are playing every week and people who get in one game every 6 months. GW taking 3 months to fix a balance problem feels like an age to the first group, while the second scarcely notice.
But even a relatively balanced game can grow stale, if the equivalent of the 55% faction is *always* the 55% faction, and vice versa with the 45% faction. Players tend to adapt as a consequence.
Not Online!!! wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the community doesn't expect quick-turm balance patches.
I think the community expects balance out of the gate.
No one goes into an MMO or RTS and says "if they don't patch every 3 months it's dead". Games stabilize over their lifetime, and many players prefer the polished, finished product over rounds of patches.
The problem with GW is that the game's churn IS THE POINT. Rather than being necessary to prevent BSODs or CTDs or ensuring compatibility with the latest NVIDIA drivers, the churn is just churn like meat in a grist mill.
You have not met the aoe 3 de community, or even the aoe community in general?
I suppose I differentiate between "patches" and "expansions".
Patches to fix core game bugs is what I meant (or constantly reworking core mechanical functions).
Expansions to add new content is different.
If every 3 months, the necromancer class in an MMO went from the low mobility ranged healer to the mobile dps summoner to the area control tank, I think that the players who chose Necromancer for the flavor and play style might die of whiplash.
And if after 3 years it decided to be an FPS instead and all magic classes found themselves using guns with "THIS IS MAGIC" spray painted on the side, I doubt it would go over well.
If every 3 months, the necromancer class in an MMO went from the low mobility ranged healer to the mobile dps summoner to the area control tank, I think that the players who chose Necromancer for the flavor and play style might die of whiplash.
And if after 3 years it decided to be an FPS instead and all magic classes found themselves using guns with "THIS IS MAGIC" spray painted on the side, I doubt it would go over well.
Those are redesigns equivalent to releasing a new codex. If you want a modern example, look at the diablp 4 release process and all the bad press it gets from the community who stopped playing. No expansions, just balance patches being scrambled due to unpopular updates
one of the main complains with D4 start on was the full reset each season
and that it is a boring grind once you are done because there is nothing to do
comparing to 40k, you get the reset once you finished building your army gameplay gets boring because there is nothing exciting to do (because playing the same lists with the same people will lead to the same outcome)
so you get similar complains that there is story content/gameplay missing and it is mainly a "start from scratch" with each reset.
some people like that because it means they get something to do while other don't
like for 40k, people appreciate new units/items, new story campaigns, new scenarios and don't like resets, changes to the core mechanics, no new content outside the very same thing slightly changed and that is very similar to the problems with D4
kodos wrote: one of the main complains with D4 start on was the full reset each season
and that it is a boring grind once you are done because there is nothing to do
Maybe from some people, but since this is quite common in the ARPG genre, I don't think it was the biggest issue.
The core problem of D4 is that it has no end game. As a consequence if you are someone who's going to put 100s of hours into the game, there very quickly isn't anything to do. Which kind of means it sucks. Especially if you are hoping to stream these hundreds of hours to make a living.
Diablo 3 had the same problem on release - and, while there is some strange internet amnesia - prompted a very similar reaction at the time. Which sort of disappeared with the Reaper of Souls expansion (and many subsequent seasons).
But the thing is - for a more casual player, who might get 40-50 hours into the game over a few months this doesn't matter. They can "enjoy" Diablo IV without playing it into the ground. Most of them did - but now they've moved on to other things to sink their 40-50 hours into (BG3, Starfield, etc)
Which is the dichotomy I've talked about with 40k players. Between people who are playing almost every week - and so tend to want churn to stop the game growing stale, and ASAP balance patches because one bad game is too many. And people who play maybe once every 6 months, who aren't keeping up and perhaps can't keep up.
Personally though, I'm not sure what in 40k has been the equivalent of Necromancers moving from low mobility healers to mobile DPS summoners to area control tanks. At least in recent history (so.. 6.5 years to the start of 8th). Stuff gets buffed and stuff gets nerfed. Well this happens in MMOs and RTS all the time.
The way a Russ tank company fights in 4th edition compared to the way one fights now is just not even the same playstyle. It's sort of absurd to claim they are even in the same ballpark, playstyle and theme wise.
I think assuming that a Russ tank company would be consistent "in universe" and therefore would function "on the tabletop" in a consistent way wasn't a faulty assumption back when I bought into them.
kodos wrote: one of the main complains with D4 start on was the full reset each season
and that it is a boring grind once you are done because there is nothing to do
Maybe from some people, but since this is quite common in the ARPG genre, I don't think it was the biggest issue.
The core problem of D4 is that it has no end game. As a consequence if you are someone who's going to put 100s of hours into the game, there very quickly isn't anything to do. Which kind of means it sucks. Especially if you are hoping to stream these hundreds of hours to make a living.
Diablo 3 had the same problem on release - and, while there is some strange internet amnesia - prompted a very similar reaction at the time. Which sort of disappeared with the Reaper of Souls expansion (and many subsequent seasons).
But the thing is - for a more casual player, who might get 40-50 hours into the game over a few months this doesn't matter. They can "enjoy" Diablo IV without playing it into the ground. Most of them did - but now they've moved on to other things to sink their 40-50 hours into (BG3, Starfield, etc)
Which is the dichotomy I've talked about with 40k players. Between people who are playing almost every week - and so tend to want churn to stop the game growing stale, and ASAP balance patches because one bad game is too many. And people who play maybe once every 6 months, who aren't keeping up and perhaps can't keep up.
Personally though, I'm not sure what in 40k has been the equivalent of Necromancers moving from low mobility healers to mobile DPS summoners to area control tanks. At least in recent history (so.. 6.5 years to the start of 8th). Stuff gets buffed and stuff gets nerfed. Well this happens in MMOs and RTS all the time.
I don’t think you need edition changes for these things necessarily, campaigns would improve the experience for both camps. Battle for Konor or even what they did at the start of 10th can provide new aspects or ways to play even for players that play every week. Throw in new scenarios, custom detachments, hell, you could even do a big Made to order of older minis and allow their legends rules for all ways to play for the duration of a season. If you're smart you don't put it behind a 50€ book paywall.
The way a Russ tank company fights in 4th edition compared to the way one fights now is just not even the same playstyle. It's sort of absurd to claim they are even in the same ballpark, playstyle and theme wise.
I think assuming that a Russ tank company would be consistent "in universe" and therefore would function "on the tabletop" in a consistent way wasn't a faulty assumption back when I bought into them.
I think you are going to have to put a bit more detail in for me to understand the issue.
But yes, I can accept that a Leman Russ plays a bit differently in 10th to how it did in 4th, just 15-20 years ago.
So I think he's saying that, lore-wise, in-universe, a tank company will behave in a certain expected way. But in-game, the rules changes over the years have massively impacted on that, and there is now a mental stumbling-block between how one expects a tank company to work based the lore/setting and how it works in-game based on the tabletop rules. And that shouldn't happen.
I can understand the whiplash between Russes being unable to move or fire any secondary weapons if they fire their main gun, through being incredibly vulnerable to close assault, to Catachans having the best tank crews, to every vehicle having sponsons and pintle mounts...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Patches to fix core game bugs is what I meant (or constantly reworking core mechanical functions).
Expansions to add new content is different.
If every 3 months, the necromancer class in an MMO went from the low mobility ranged healer to the mobile dps summoner to the area control tank, I think that the players who chose Necromancer for the flavor and play style might die of whiplash.
And if after 3 years it decided to be an FPS instead and all magic classes found themselves using guns with "THIS IS MAGIC" spray painted on the side, I doubt it would go over well.
This is spot-on. Adding new content to keep a game interesting to dedicated players is fine. Radically changing how specific factions work, and then the core rules, is churn.
Look at Battletech, a game that still adds new content through new eras and sourcebooks for older ones, while maintaining backwards compatibility. Your venerable Mad Cat still works like a Mad Cat and still does everything you expect a Mad Cat to do, you just have new environments, new variants, new stories to engage in.
Tyel wrote: I think you are going to have to put a bit more detail in for me to understand the issue.
But yes, I can accept that a Leman Russ plays a bit differently in 10th to how it did in 4th, just 15-20 years ago.
An armored company went from a special list to part of the core rules to having to exploit variants to circumvent the ham-fisted Rule of 3. It involved special vehicles that are now banished to Legends or gone entirely.
It is centered on Leman Russes, which at different points in the game history could only fire their main gun and nothing else and had to be stationary (static gun-wall, sponsons suboptimal) or could move and fire defensive weapons (slow advance, sponsons are useful) or could stay stationary and fire the turret twice (static again, sponsons are useful) or could move at full speed while firing everything and with free sponsons (highly mobile, sponsons are mandatory). A Leman Russ has been at different times a bunker focused on its main gun, a mobile arsenal, or a decently speedy turret that had to hunker down to fire. Sometimes they've been glass cannons, sometimes they've been nigh-invulnerable but only from the front (requiring good positioning and mutual support), sometimes they've been durable all around.
Sometimes they've been able to take and hold objectives and are encouraged to get up to the front, sometimes they haven't and have to hang back while infantry do the job. Sometimes the iconic battle cannon is a big gun that mulches small units of Marines or big blobs of Orks equally well. Sometimes it's a dedicated anti-MEQ gun that needs other variants for anti-horde support. Sometimes it's a damp squib altogether and the variants are the true killers.
Then the Chimera that carries the supporting infantry has been at times a mobile pillbox that does nothing except get the dudes to the front line, a gun-truck that allows the occupants to shoot out and never have to disembark, or a light tank that gets the guys out ASAP and moves up with them while providing supporting fire.
Sometimes these vehicles are extremely vulnerable to assault and need infantry in close support to help screen. Sometimes these vehicles can fire all their weapons in close combat and mulch infantry that dare to attack them. Sometimes they can charge infantry first to disrupt them, but are vulnerable to getting bogged down. Sometimes every vehicle in the army carries pintle guns and hunter-killer missiles for supplemental fire, sometimes they're a waste of points.
You cannot extrapolate a coherent, consistent playstyle for an armored company across editions. The fundamentals of how the army works have changed so much, and the identities of the individual units that comprise it change with each new edition.
Honestly, 10th has successfully dissolved what interest I had in 40k.
The rules are just so bland and dismal that I can't even muster the enthusiasm to make a single list. And I say this as someone who used to make far more lists than I'd ever have the time to actually use.
I wasn't thrilled with the AoS-ification of 40k in 8th-9th but 10th has managed to be the worst of both worlds.
Character rules are vastly worse than 8th/9th or AoS, as well as being worse than the IC rules of yesteryear.
Aura rules have been replaced by a handful of endlessly repeated buffs which will no doubt solve something somewhere.
Psychic powers now allow for no choice and would be indistinguishable from regular guns and buffs without the Psychic tag.
Warlord traits are gone entirely. Artefacts are also all but obliterated.
Equipment has likewise been cut not just to the bone but through the bone and into the marrow.
Stratagems still exist, though. Because I'm so glad we've kept probably the worst thing to be introduced in 8th (and that's saying a lot).
Clearly others here are enjoying the ""streamlined"" rules, but for me they hold all the appeal of eating a bucket of wallpaper paste.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
Which ties back to the issue of how the way units work on the table doesn't match how they work in the lore, and so a lore-accurate force and a optimal, synergistic force tend to bear little resemblance to one another and the latter can change dramatically over time. I'm reminded of how Devastators are often depicted as carrying a mix of weapons so they can engage any threat, and how the rules have never actually supported that as a good strategy.
In a historical game you have an obvious baseline to compare against to ensure that your game functions as it should. Sci-fi/fantasy games have just their lore to maintain consistency with, and even that is easily ignored or retconned, so it's much easier for the vision of how units and armies function to drift over time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: Clearly others here are enjoying the ""streamlined"" rules, but for me they hold all the appeal of eating a bucket of wallpaper paste.
So tying back to the actual title of the thread: I'm not quite as harsh on 10th as you seem to be, but after playing it more I've come to feel like Grimdark Future does the 'streamlined 40K' with comparable depth but a fraction of the rules overhead. I can play pick-up games in an hour and with more interactivity between players, and I've been able to teach it to non-wargamers pretty easily.
10th Ed has felt like an uncomfortable middle ground between streamlining in the interest of playability, but maintaining the legacy structure that makes the game ponderous and slow to resolve, and still having enough bespoke rules and layers of rules that the cognitive load remains high for a beer-and-pretzels sort of game. The force-building system has killed a lot of my interest too, taking a lot of the flexibility out of listbuilding with clearly right and wrong choices.
I wonder what the team behind 10th would have done if they were given a complete blank slate to rebuild 40K from the ground up, AOS-style, rather than still being stuck with what is fundamentally an 80s wargame.
Comperable depth? GW took away thunder hammers from my army. And army which has all damage put in to melee. They did it in an edition where dealing with hard targets is crucial.
Weapons rules for my dudes have psychic on them, when they are indentical weapons or rules "non psychic" factions have, which results in a ton of skew against certain armies. One could think that GW would balance that by giving GK some synergy with the psychic trait, which they splashed everywhere. But they didn't. To top it all of they gave us a ton of copy paste on top of "updated" profiles, which somehow made GK Grand Masters, Captins etc the least trained in using those all important melee weapons out of all marines. That happens to also be against the army lore, which puts big focus on weapon mastery.
Karol wrote: Comperable depth? GW took away thunder hammers from my army. And army which has all damage put in to melee. They did it in an edition where dealing with hard targets is crucial.
Weapons rules for my dudes have psychic on them, when they are indentical weapons or rules "non psychic" factions have, which results in a ton of skew against certain armies. One could think that GW would balance that by giving GK some synergy with the psychic trait, which they splashed everywhere. But they didn't. To top it all of they gave us a ton of copy paste on top of "updated" profiles, which somehow made GK Grand Masters, Captins etc the least trained in using those all important melee weapons out of all marines. That happens to also be against the army lore, which puts big focus on weapon mastery.
Thunder hammers wouldnt even fix GK's damage problems anyway.
vipoid wrote: Honestly, 10th has successfully dissolved what interest I had in 40k.
The rules are just so bland and dismal that I can't even muster the enthusiasm to make a single list. And I say this as someone who used to make far more lists than I'd ever have the time to actually use.
Hi, Vipoid. From past discussions, I feel like you and I share a lot of the same tastes. So with that in mind, I just wanted to chime in on this and encourage you to play a few games if you haven't had a chance yet. 10th's list building phase is definitely less fun now than in any other edition I've played, but one of the redeeming features of this edition so far is that the game does play pretty smoothly once I'm actually at the table. So while I'm definitely bummed out every time I reach for a non-existent wargear option or character customization option or want to take a 5 man version of a 10 man squad... 10th edition does make up for it somewhat by making the experience on the table less of a headache than in the last two editions.
Not exactly high praise, but I wanted to chime in and make sure you weren't missing some of the up-sides due to get stuck in the list building phase.
(It also helps that I've kind of shelved my drukhari until the codex comes out. Their current rules kept bumming me out when I went to build lists.)
vipoid wrote: Honestly, 10th has successfully dissolved what interest I had in 40k.
The rules are just so bland and dismal that I can't even muster the enthusiasm to make a single list. And I say this as someone who used to make far more lists than I'd ever have the time to actually use.
Hi, Vipoid. From past discussions, I feel like you and I share a lot of the same tastes. So with that in mind, I just wanted to chime in on this and encourage you to play a few games if you haven't had a chance yet. 10th's list building phase is definitely less fun now than in any other edition I've played, but one of the redeeming features of this edition so far is that the game does play pretty smoothly once I'm actually at the table. So while I'm definitely bummed out every time I reach for a non-existent wargear option or character customization option or want to take a 5 man version of a 10 man squad... 10th edition does make up for it somewhat by making the experience on the table less of a headache than in the last two editions.
Not exactly high praise, but I wanted to chime in and make sure you weren't missing some of the up-sides due to get stuck in the list building phase.
(It also helps that I've kind of shelved my drukhari until the codex comes out. Their current rules kept bumming me out when I went to build lists.)
I appreciate the thought and advice.
I'll consider giving it a go with Necrons and seeing if they're any fun in this edition. Maybe I can replicate my terrible (but fun) list from way back in 5th edition.
My beloved DE are just dead, though. If the 10th edition rules are wallpaper paste, the DE book is the contents of a septic tank.
I'll consider giving it a go with Necrons and seeing if they're any fun in this edition. Maybe I can replicate my terrible (but fun) list from way back in 5th edition.
You should be able to - unless you relied upon Pariahs and can't deal with the fact they've been gone for some time.....
But in exchange? Necrons have gained plenty of interesting options. At least IMO. And at the worst they all look cool.
Reanination protocols also work quite nicely now.
I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate, but here's one I'm having great fun annoying people with:
Max Scarab squads, plenty of tomb spider & reanimator support, add other stuff to taste (I like destroyes/heavy destroys, lokust lords, & deathmarks).
Slam those scarabs into melee & blow 1 up for MWs.
Reanimate them &/or replace them via spyders and blow mire up next turn.
I've scarab bombed a great variety of targets since July. Is it a tourney caliber list? No. But it's stupid fun.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate
If you're interested, it was a list made almost entirely of Immortal squads. If you had 2 Royal Courts, you could attach 2 Crypteks to each unit. So the idea was to have a bunch of semi-specialist units. You had the flamer guys for close-range anti-infantry, tesla ones for anti-tank, lance ones for long-range shots. Plus the various artefacts the crypteks had access to.
Not an amazing army but quite fun.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate, but here's one I'm having great fun annoying people with:
Max Scarab squads, plenty of tomb spider & reanimator support, add other stuff to taste (I like destroyes/heavy destroys, lokust lords, & deathmarks)
Slam those scarabs into melee & blow 1 up for MWs.
Reanimate them &/or replace them via spyders and blow mire up next turn.
I've scarab bombed a great variety of targets since July. Is it a tourney caliber list? No. But it's stupid fun.
I have a friend who told me of the old-timey scarab bombs of many, many editions ago. Would be interesting to see what they're like now.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
Game wise, 10th isn't bad But I constantly feel like an imbecile for only seeing the rules at surface level.
What I mean is, I can read and understand the rules. But when I watch tournament players ,they are doing a lot of "mastery" things that the rules don't tell you, especially in regards to movement. So it feels like I don't comprehend the game anymore, although I know the rules.
Part of that issue though I think is I'm used to playing with people who are so casual that they don't care to learn and improve their gameplay, they just want to push models and throw dice. So it feels like nothing is being learned, but on the flip side the other group I can play with is fairly competitive and I don't enjoy hyper competitive play either.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate
If you're interested, it was a list made almost entirely of Immortal squads. If you had 2 Royal Courts, you could attach 2 Crypteks to each unit. So the idea was to have a bunch of semi-specialist units. You had the flamer guys for close-range anti-infantry, tesla ones for anti-tank, lance ones for long-range shots. Plus the various artefacts the crypteks had access to.
Not an amazing army but quite fun.
Probably something similar. Immortals are Battleline, so you can have plenty of them. Beyond that you'll want to read the index & note what all the different characters do & who/how many can attach to wich squads.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate, but here's one I'm having great fun annoying people with:
Max Scarab squads, plenty of tomb spider & reanimator support, add other stuff to taste (I like destroyes/heavy destroys, lokust lords, & deathmarks)
Out of interest, how are you using Lokust Lords?
They all have Lords Blades or whatever the melee weapon is called atm & Res Orbs. I attach them to the Lokust/Heavy Lokust units. They're job is to provide a bit of melee support as needed to the squad, hand out a shooting buff, & most importantly buff the reanimation protocols.
I don't have alot of shooting in my Death By Scarabs list, so what I've got needs to keep firing as long as possible.
Slam those scarabs into melee & blow 1 up for MWs.
Reanimate them &/or replace them via spyders and blow mire up next turn.
I've scarab bombed a great variety of targets since July. Is it a tourney caliber list? No. But it's stupid fun.
I have a friend who told me of the old-timey scarab bombs of many, many editions ago. Would be interesting to see what they're like now.
Nowdays: at the start of the combat phase you pick 1 scarab base that's in engagement range & detonate it. Roll a d6, add +1 if the target is a vehicle.
1 = no effect
2-5 = d3 MW 6+ = d3+3 MW Now imagine that I've based the same enemy unit with 3 units of scarabs.... That's a fair+ # of MW done before we even start trading punches.
And then on my next turn reanimation & the spyders kick in & I can explode on the victim some more. My scarabs have downed everything from humble IG Infantry squads on up to Castelan Knights....
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
Tyrannic war veterans sure seems like nothing compared to the modifications made for Primaris. Holy f***.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
Tyrannic war veterans sure seems like nothing compared to the modifications made for Primaris. Holy f***.
TBF, a lot of the Primaris structure is Guileman saying the codex isn't foolproof and only an idiot would take it word-for-word literally. IIRC also him saying that breaking down the legions was the wrong move.
^Which is really just the GW marketing team speaking to encourage the purchasing of more kits by hyper-specializing the SM squads. It's junk.
Firstborn/true/realmarines could build very effective armies with multiples of the Tactical and Devastator boxes, and just swapping the weapons around. Meta chasing was weapon swaps and reorganizing models. Meta chasing with Primaris requires more new kits.
I am still enjoying 10th Ed. I've had about 20 real games at the FLGS and two tournaments.
The mission deck is great. I like the character rules. Vehicles are tougher. Core rules are smooth once you figure out the Lethal Hits/Critical Hits/Sustained Hits/Devastating Wounds etc etc. bit.
On the other hand, they really needed to playtest a bit more before they released the Indexes (well - one of them in particular). Some of the subsequent fixes have led to some tertiary effects. It is better to fix an Index than change core rules.
My Dark Angels today on the table were about 70% First Born models, and they did just fine. My lists for tourneys do, though, have plenty of Tacticus models and I am not snobby towards the Primaris bit. I am sad that my Bike Squadrons and Landspeeders are in Legends.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
I'm pretty sure if GW made a single notable change to the Astartes Codex (not to be confused with the Codex Astartes) in 10,000 years, my point would still hold.
My beloved DE are just dead, though. If the 10th edition rules are wallpaper paste, the DE book is the contents of a septic tank.
I still get an urge to run an all-infantry (well, and scourges) DE list, just out of spite and bull-headedness. It would probably suck, but there's something about the concept that amuses me.
Wracks and warriors restricted to (but access to) one of each gun (no matter how bizarrely mismatched they are) usually cures that urge. I just don't want to do that to myself in every shooting phase.
I still feel like the army is being punished for being able to turn 2 table enemies in 6th edition (well before the range revamp). I felt really bad for digging out my hodge-podge collection and just stomping all over the (relatively new) tyranid player. I wasn't trying or building for it, but... everything died.
