In advance of tomorrow's balance update I've compiled some of the officially confirmed changes alongside some rumours that have been floating around for the last few days.
Officially confirmed via GW social media:
Grey Knights, Imperial Guard, and Votann will get boosts
Tyranids will not change in the balance dataslate
"Some points changes" for Tyranids compared to the printed codex (note that this book most likely went to print before 10e was released)
With preview copies of the changes in the hands of content creators, many rumours are currently circulating online. Several of these refer to some fairly substantial changes in the core rules:
Mortal wounds (or possibly just devastating wounds) no longer spill over to other models
Abilities that allow free 0 CP stratagem use are limited to once per battle round, and can only be used on 'Battle Tactic' type strats.
Overwatch excludes indirect fire
Indirect fire is now a -1 BS modifier instead of -1 to hit.
Custodes unit sizes lowered to max of 5
Desolation marines have a fixed unit size of 5
Various direct points nerfs to Custodes, Eldar, GSC
Core rules "changes", which seemed like really strange walk backs of fixes implemented in 9th edition. Fixes that were made for extremely good reasons. Fixes whose root causes are still present in 10th edition. Fixes that were obviously needed to anyone with memory greater than a goldfish.
yes, the same as how the T'au +1BS can stack with a further +1.
a BS adjustment makes a lot more sense
also really hoping on the mortals not spilling stuff, even though my hammerhead has managed to get Marines and orks to stand in a nice line to get a few of them a couple of times
Stormonu wrote: Out of curiosity, how does/what units does this affect vs. just being a -1 to hit?
Indirect fire is now a -1 BS modifier instead of -1 to hit.
A BUNCH of indirect fire units have rules or access to rules that negate hit modifiers for some reason.
typical GW though that, have a rule that does something, with a penalty, then give access to that rule with a way to mitigate the penalty for more favoured factions at that moment in time
H.B.M.C. wrote: MW not spilling sounds like a typical blanket solution to a specific problem.
So... exactly what GW would do.
probably, never did quite get why though when someone dies their mates drop dead in sympathy
what they should have done is have a USR that can be applied, or not say [SPLASH] indicating damage rolls over, even if say [DEVASTATING [SPLASH]] so it only applies on devastating not other wounds if required
easy to add it to things that should have it, and remove it from things that should not
H.B.M.C. wrote: MW not spilling sounds like a typical blanket solution to a specific problem.
So... exactly what GW would do.
I'm torn on this one. On one hand, there are certainly weapons I love having this effect on and it feels super cool when a single hit explodes and takes out a bunch of models. On the other, its really really janky on high volume, multi damage stuff and does not work as intended at all. I'm okay with it going away, but there's a few guns I would love to have some kind of "explosive damage" keyword that would produce a similar effect.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So….the Haruspex remains 120 or 125 points (because I’m yet to see the Codex points with my own eyes)??
Are they quite mad?
they do have a history of making very small tweaks on things that don't really do anything, and now with points eaten in larger chunks a unit taking a +/- 10 point or whatever adjustment is largely pointless
Nah. The effect is just as bad for any Devastating Wounds weapon that has more than Damage 1. Doubly bad is the weapon also has Anti. It is bad rules for a lucky (or no so luck Anti) wound to turn an AT weapon into a horde killer. Many weapons have multiple profile options for just this sort of trade off.
While I appreciate that it's not as bad as the 9th ed Space Wolf book getting changes before it even arrived for customers, it's not a great feeling that GW released a compact print rulebook a month ago that will already be out of date.
The Phazer wrote: While I appreciate that it's not as bad as the 9th ed Space Wolf book getting changes before it even arrived for customers, it's not a great feeling that GW released a compact print rulebook a month ago that will already be out of date.
I find your arguments uncompelling and entirely unconvincing.
Again, the issue isn't MW or how they're applied. It's some specific rules or combinations of rules that are the issue.
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
There is nothing wrong with Mortal Wounds.
There is nothing wrong with Devastating Wounds.
There is nothing wrong with Anti and Devastating Wounds.
The problem is Stands of Fate allowing you to create a 6 using Fate Dice and how it interacts with the rules above?
Personally, the only problem I see here is that Devastating Wounds creating Mortal Wounds causes high Damage weapons to transform from Anti-Tank/Monster weapons into Anti-Horde weapons. Strands of Fate merely exacerbates the existing problem.
For example: It is bad rules interactions that has a Thundercoil Harpoon that hits at a squad of 1 Wound Infantry models to kill nothing 1/6 of the time, kill one model very dead 2/3rds of the time, and wipeout 12 models 1/6 of the time.
What is the key culprit in this rules monstrosity? Devastating Wounds turns the 1 attack for 12 Damage into 12 Mortal Wounds.
How would I fix it? By simply replacing this sentence:
Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, a Critical Wound inflicts a number of mortal wounds on the target equal to the Damage characteristic of that weapon and the attack sequence ends.
With:
Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, a Critical Wound cannot have any saving throws, including Invulnerable Saves, made against it.
alextroy wrote: How would I fix it? By simply replacing this sentence:
Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, a Critical Wound inflicts a number of mortal wounds on the target equal to the Damage characteristic of that weapon and the attack sequence ends.
With:
Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, a Critical Wound cannot have any saving throws, including Invulnerable Saves, made against it.
A lot of people discussing the rumours expect this to be the case. It may be that the usual telephone game effect is causing issues with how the changes are being described.
I'm anticipating wraithguard and wraithknights will be nerfed into the dirt, while Fire Prisms, Night Spinners, Hornets, War Walkers, and other eldar vehicles remain a scourge on the rest of the player base.
The GK changes better be substential, because right now the only thing that does damage in the GK codex, besides Draigo, are DV spaming Librarians. If their damage gets nerfed and can't spread, then the faction really will have 0 ways to do any damage.
If true, and past rule changes make me think it very much can be true, this means that again instead of fixing the real problem aka eldar units and the interaction of antiX with DW, we get a boomerang nerf.
But who knows. Maybe we get blessed ammo back and every Stormbolter will be str 5 ap1. heck maybe even the NDK sword will get a d2 profile on swing.
1. Fixed squad sizes suck. I have 10 man desolator squads, which means I now have to try and hack apart a weapon on 1 guy in each squad to give him a vengor and make him the sgt.
2. Desolators are the only thing keeping marines (besides Deathwatch/DA) out of the trash tier.
3. Eldar will probably still dominate after this balance pass because they're so far ahead of everyone else. It would take a MASSIVE nerf to get them to a 50% win rate.
4. I hope, but have no faith, that my little space dwarves get the buff they need. They're still paying for the REEEEEEing across the internet at a 9th edition codex that 99% of the playerbase didn't even play against before it was nerfed.
xttz wrote: In advance of tomorrow's balance update I've compiled some of the officially confirmed changes alongside some rumours that have been floating around for the last few days.
Officially confirmed via GW social media:
Grey Knights, Imperial Guard, and Votann will get boosts
Tyranids will not change in the balance dataslate
"Some points changes" for Tyranids compared to the printed codex (note that this book most likely went to print before 10e was released)
With preview copies of the changes in the hands of content creators, many rumours are currently circulating online. Several of these refer to some fairly substantial changes in the core rules:
Mortal wounds (or possibly just devastating wounds) no longer spill over to other models
Abilities that allow free 0 CP stratagem use are limited to once per battle round, and can only be used on 'Battle Tactic' type strats.
Overwatch excludes indirect fire
Indirect fire is now a -1 BS modifier instead of -1 to hit.
Custodes unit sizes lowered to max of 5
Desolation marines have a fixed unit size of 5
Various direct points nerfs to Custodes, Eldar, GSC
Well, if this is a complete least, at least Sisters and Deathguard won't have to share the spotlight anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One sob list went down 95pts. 3 more 175-185. Death guard locally went often 200 down. My daemon league list from 50 short to 50 over. Custodians max 5.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Death guard detachment rule got additional rule. 3effects to choose. Worsen enemy to hit/save/oc while in contagion
Overwatch can't be used on Titanic units
Towering keyword removed from terrain rules
Free stratagem abilities that don't confirm a specific name can only be used on Battle Tactics
Eldar Phantasm is infantry-only, plus various 10-20% points hikes
How did the Harpy go up in cost? And the Tyrannofex up by 55 points? And the Hierodules by even more? None of them got any better. Hell, the Tyrannofex is worse in the new 'Dex.
Guard got quite a few cuts in point cost, there are some units that got a massive bump in cost though, that Manticore bump yikes, but will it fix things? They mentioned a boost, but is just slashing points enough?
changes are in red, doesn't have the "before" values though
I was hoping for a “Unit A: +5 points” kind of list. Makes it easy to see at a glance what the changes are, instead of cross referencing new/old. Just being lazy and seeing if someone already did the work.
changes are in red, doesn't have the "before" values though
I was hoping for a “Unit A: +5 points” kind of list. Makes it easy to see at a glance what the changes are, instead of cross referencing new/old. Just being lazy and seeing if someone already did the work.
H.B.M.C. wrote: How did the Harpy go up in cost? And the Tyrannofex up by 55 points? And the Hierodules by even more? None of them got any better. Hell, the Tyrannofex is worse in the new 'Dex.
Well the new Tyrannofex ability of ignoring one attack after rolling completely is now better vs the new devastating wounds ability. Still the 245 points is absolutely idotic.
I do miss the days when 40k was simple enough at its core to properly balance instead of being a mess of complex special rules interactions resulting in very broken lists or armies.
Should have locked it down on 5th edition with the iteration from that point coming in the form of updated codexes.
It was great when editions got the main codexes or army books released and the game was in a good state for the last 2-3 years of its edition, with supplements, campaign books and expansions providing new content after that point.
3 year release cycles get expensive and difficult to keep up with.
changes are in red, doesn't have the "before" values though
I was hoping for a “Unit A: +5 points” kind of list. Makes it easy to see at a glance what the changes are, instead of cross referencing new/old. Just being lazy and seeing if someone already did the work.
As expected, the Devastating Wounds change will likely have some unintended knock-on effects. I don't think DW were a problem in themselves. It was weapons with multi-damage or the ability to "cheat" out the DW in unintended ways that was the problem.
It's not a good look to see such fundamental changes to core rules so soon after an edition is released. This was all stuff that players picked up on before even playing a game of 10th.
Votann change is, honestly, really dumb. (Now you start the game with +1 to hit and damage rolls against _4_ units)
Its compensating way too hard for the mediocre base BS.
They needed a change, obviously, but this a weirdly hamfisted way to not admit that they overcompensated hard and overdid the baseline nerfs.
When their codex rolls around, they're simply going to rework the army. Other detachment rules simply aren't going to match having that many judgement tokens in play, and its not functional to have this 'bad stats' workaround.
Indeed. If I'm reading it correctly, the Devastating Wounds change also means any FnP vs Mortals no longer applies which has a pretty big secondary impact on the game.
Voss wrote: Votann change is, honestly, really dumb. (Now you start the game with +1 to hit and damage rolls against _4_ units)
Its compensating way too hard for the mediocre base BS.
They needed a change, obviously, but this a weirdly hamfisted way to not admit that they overcompensated hard and overdid the baseline nerfs.
When their codex rolls around, they're simply going to rework the army. Other detachment rules simply aren't going to match having that many judgement tokens in play, and its not functional to have this 'bad stats' workaround.
So would you rather increase stats and pay more points or pay fewer points and have "bad" stats? They won't magically increase the to-hit for an entire army and not put the cost up and leave an easy reach hit buff in play. Also why is 50% with selective access to +1 to hit "bad"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Red Hobbit wrote: Indeed. If I'm reading it correctly, the Devastating Wounds change also means any FnP vs Mortals no longer applies which has a pretty big secondary impact on the game.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Indeed. If I'm reading it correctly, the Devastating Wounds change also means any FnP vs Mortals no longer applies which has a pretty big secondary impact on the game.
Do mortal wounds even really exist at this point? Or has the change to devastating wounds effectively eliminated them from the game? Hmm- flipping through : a few aura abilities, psychic things, self damage and charge abilities.
It does mean that quite a few units are overpaying for a now largely irrelevant defense mechanism.
So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.
However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.
What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.
However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.
What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.
Are mortals dead as a result?
It's inadvertently opened up a load of game design space though to introduce them back in without devastating for some other abilities.
Off the top of my head only Grenades and Tank Shock were the MW that often get used (besides Devastating Wounds). Daemon Princes and a few others get MW on charges as you mentinoed.
The Custodes detachment gives a 4+++ FnP vs MW which is now severely limited to the point where it might not even come up when you play the game. Rather disappointing.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.
However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.
What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.
Are mortals dead as a result?
There are still a few pseudo-psychic powers that do it. The Plasmancer has a rule that allows it to select a unit in 18" and do D3 or D3+3 mortals, depending on a dice roll, for example. They're pretty rare, but they do exist. It obviously has a major knock-on effect on the value of the various FnP against MW abilities. File that one under unintended consequences.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.
However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.
What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.
Slipspace wrote: As expected, the Devastating Wounds change will likely have some unintended knock-on effects. I don't think DW were a problem in themselves. It was weapons with multi-damage or the ability to "cheat" out the DW in unintended ways that was the problem.
It's not a good look to see such fundamental changes to core rules so soon after an edition is released. This was all stuff that players picked up on before even playing a game of 10th.
As you stated - this only really affects bigger guns. Beyond Custodes ( and other models with saves vs MW ) losing situational durability what would the other unintended consequences be? I can't really think of much since on smaller weapons the effect is pretty identical.
It is terrible for their print material to be utterly useless again, but if they're going to fix this then nothing can be verboten.
Since nerfing Custodes was an objective, I'm not sure doing so can be seen as unintentional.
The update as a whole looks like a significant change that should hopefully shake up the meta.
Although I'm not too hopeful for DE. Feels like with the nerf to Ravagers, which I imagine remain auto-takes, you end up neutral to slightly ahead. Maybe there's a build without them. Still feel looking at the sometimes dramatic points cost reduction on other bad factions (perhaps especially Tau) its got a bit lost in translation.
So would you rather increase stats and pay more points or pay fewer points and have "bad" stats? They won't magically increase the to-hit for an entire army and not put the cost up and leave an easy reach hit buff in play. Also why is 50% with selective access to +1 to hit "bad"?
i think most LoV players would rather pay more points, as they want an army of pretty tough, semi-elite level guys, rather than a horde army
I am honestly positively surprised.
Sure, judging by the armies i understand, there are a few cases of "probably not enough" and " too much", but its all quite reasonable.
TS feel like they got it a bit too hard, but again: maybe not.
The change to LoV token is fluffy and reasonable buff. As are most changes in wording.
I still think torrent and overwatch should just not work - but its the only one that feels like an actual miss.
Tyel wrote: Since nerfing Custodes was an objective, I'm not sure doing so can be seen as unintentional.
There is a difference between a nerf and making a faction ability functionally useless, esp compared to Fate or Faith Dice, or Oath of Moment. Plus they increased points and seem to have removed a number of unit size options for Custodes.
CoALabaer wrote: I am honestly positively surprised.
Sure, judging by the armies i understand, there are a few cases of "probably not enough" and " too much", but its all quite reasonable.
TS feel like they got it a bit too hard, but again: maybe not.
The change to LoV token is fluffy and reasonable buff. As are most changes in wording.
I still think torrent and overwatch should just not work - but its the only one that feels like an actual miss.
With one exception - I think CK are really getting kicked in the nuts - points increases, no titanic OW, and can't see through ruins. Insane bravery at once per game might help in some scenarios, but otherwise no buffs for them at all. They were teetering at 47% ( according to GW ) so this may prompt them to slide.
I'm super happy with the changes as a slaanesh daemon player, only thing to go up was Shalaxi, everything else went down 10 - 20 pts each honestly a massive buff.
The devistating wounds change is also a buff to slaanesh daemons since most of their attacks are 1/2 damage, so just flat ignoring invul/armour is better for them since it gets around rules that gives FNP vs mortal wounds.
Prometheum5 wrote: JFC the Tyrannofex change breaks the 1000pt list I rushed to complete and bought foam for and have yet to play a game with.
I think the Crudd's favorite thing is to sneak a random, unneeded, vindictive Tyranids nerf into each balance pass. That was just such a pointless kick in the nads and it actually hurts since the Fex is the only solid ranged AT.
On the whole, I think this was probably one of GW's better updates; of course it had some wacky, hamfisted stuff like the Votann update (...why couldn't they have changed their BS on at least a few units, Dudeface? Is what they did to Skitarii any different really?) but it does feel like they whacked the Eldar and GSC whackamoles.
CaulynDarr wrote: Riptides and Fire Prisms are now the same cost at 180. Day one the Riptide was 110 points more expensive than the Fire Prism.
Guys, guys...I don't think 10th edition was done when they shipped it.
I had the same thought. Even when they actually did a "rip and replace" of the game (7 -> 8e, which was a much bigger overhaul than this one), it still wasn't as out of whack as it was this time.
And on another note... idk how Sisters players feel but I still wouldn't be happy. Points changes don't change the fact that they still can't kill tanks.
I think the Death Guard changes are interesting, its in addition to the "Nurgle's Gift" Aura, so still has the -1 Toughness stuff in an expanding bubble, but gains one of the three options - picked pre-game not in list building so always can pick the most suited
- -1BS & -1WS to cut enemy damage output is useful, especially as a stat modifier its in addition to the +/- to hit modifier
- -1 save is potentially huge on some elite armies making massed small arms and massed melee weapons a lot better, given on a 2+ save unit this will double the number of failures
- -1Ld & -1OC (to a min of 1) is much more situational, but I suspect is again decent against elite armies (the -1OC) and against cheap horde ones where perhaps they depend upon stratgems
leopard wrote: I think the Death Guard changes are interesting, its in addition to the "Nurgle's Gift" Aura, so still has the -1 Toughness stuff in an expanding bubble, but gains one of the three options - picked pre-game not in list building so always can pick the most suited
- -1BS & -1WS to cut enemy damage output is useful, especially as a stat modifier its in addition to the +/- to hit modifier
- -1 save is potentially huge on some elite armies making massed small arms and massed melee weapons a lot better, given on a 2+ save unit this will double the number of failures
- -1Ld & -1OC (to a min of 1) is much more situational, but I suspect is again decent against elite armies (the -1OC) and against cheap horde ones where perhaps they depend upon stratgems
first two seem stronger
i was talking with friends this week about how i would love if DG had a "build your own contagion" mechanic and that i'd actually commit to them if they did.
yes the -1 isn't huge, where it helped was bringing dreadnoughts down to wounding on a 4+ not a 5+ and similar stuff, also hurting marines on a 3+ not a 4+.
Tyran wrote: 8e index were in general much smaller. IIRC they didn't had relics, stratagems or even sub-faction rules.
And to be blunt it still was a mess balance wise, although better than what it replaced.
10e index is much bigger, but it is quite half-backed.
8th was a mess, but the janky interactions were a lot more evenly spread across factions rather than concentrated in a handful.
Plus we didn't have the same level of game results being publically recorded to actually see all of the trends & issues. That data makes a huge difference to both action and perception.
Deathwatch got hit hard. Our strats only hit "bolt Weapons" (of which isn't clear as the PDF and the app have different lists of what these are) which makes sense logically but really hurts the army, vets went up 10ppts, the proteus kill team is 180 for 5 vets and 360 for a 10 man proteus team, which they aren't worth in any world. The primaris kill teams went down but not enough to make them worth taking (as their issues are structural) besides Indomitor, because it's guns either do or don't benefit from the DW strats still depending on the version of the list you use. Throw in we have a single strat that benefits from the Captain's ability and we're pretty much screwed hard now. Looks like we'll be joining the rest of marines in using Gladius.
And on another note... idk how Sisters players feel but I still wouldn't be happy. Points changes don't change the fact that they still can't kill tanks. And hey Daedalus is back, tell us how they are actually just being played wrong again!
That's basically the jist of it.
Multimeltas need to be more effective or they're just going to struggle and becoming a cheap horde army that still can't kill tanks wouldn't fix it.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: Deathwatch got hit hard. Our strats only hit "bolt Weapons" (of which isn't clear as the PDF and the app have different lists of what these are) which makes sense logically but really hurts the army, vets went up 10ppts, the proteus kill team is 180 for 5 vets and 360 for a 10 man proteus team, which they aren't worth in any world. The primaris kill teams went down but not enough to make them worth taking (as their issues are structural) besides Indomitor, because it's guns either do or don't benefit from the DW strats still depending on the version of the list you use. Throw in we have a single strat that benefits from the Captain's ability and we're pretty much screwed hard now. Looks like we'll be joining the rest of marines in using Gladius.
The quadruple tap seems a little egregious. I don't think the changes are unmanageable, but they absolutely did their best to beat the DW out entirely.
That said, Thief, Teleportarum, and Tome are all still powerful reasons to take Black Spear.
Voss wrote: Votann change is, honestly, really dumb. (Now you start the game with +1 to hit and damage rolls against _4_ units)
Its compensating way too hard for the mediocre base BS.
They needed a change, obviously, but this a weirdly hamfisted way to not admit that they overcompensated hard and overdid the baseline nerfs.
When their codex rolls around, they're simply going to rework the army. Other detachment rules simply aren't going to match having that many judgement tokens in play, and its not functional to have this 'bad stats' workaround.
So would you rather increase stats and pay more points or pay fewer points and have "bad" stats? They won't magically increase the to-hit for an entire army and not put the cost up and leave an easy reach hit buff in play. Also why is 50% with selective access to +1 to hit "bad"?
Because of the way math works. Particularly the game math, and the hard inability to stack modifiers. If you're giving a faction functionality through modifiers, they're basically immune to further buffs. If you're making them this widespread on turn 1 (and the ability to spread more tokens through enhancements and enemy attacks), you're simply creating an artificial baseline. You might as well start over and make that the default statline (or rather, go back to the default statline they had a year or so ago).
Their detachment ability is 'mathematically suck less' which functionally ruins the design space for other detachments.
Voss wrote: Votann change is, honestly, really dumb. (Now you start the game with +1 to hit and damage rolls against _4_ units)
Its compensating way too hard for the mediocre base BS.
They needed a change, obviously, but this a weirdly hamfisted way to not admit that they overcompensated hard and overdid the baseline nerfs.
When their codex rolls around, they're simply going to rework the army. Other detachment rules simply aren't going to match having that many judgement tokens in play, and its not functional to have this 'bad stats' workaround.
So would you rather increase stats and pay more points or pay fewer points and have "bad" stats? They won't magically increase the to-hit for an entire army and not put the cost up and leave an easy reach hit buff in play. Also why is 50% with selective access to +1 to hit "bad"?
Because of the way math works. Particularly the game math, and the hard inability to stack modifiers. If you're giving a faction functionality through modifiers, they're basically immune to further buffs. If you're making them this widespread on turn 1 (and the ability to spread more tokens through enhancements and enemy attacks), you're simply creating an artificial baseline. You might as well start over and make that the default statline (or rather, go back to the default statline they had a year or so ago).
Their detachment ability is 'mathematically suck less' which functionally ruins the design space for other detachments.
Prometheum5 wrote: JFC the Tyrannofex change breaks the 1000pt list I rushed to complete and bought foam for and have yet to play a game with.
This makes me a bit sad to read. Just such a downer for a start to a army.
Reminds me of the time near the end of 7th when I finally got my big Lion's Blade Strike Force all assembled and ready to play for a tournament, and then thanks to my job not letting me have the time off (I work retail and it was the day of high school graduations) I didn't even get to play it. And then 8th dropped and most of what I had gathered was now useless. A lot of players have similar sad stories I'm sure.
But seriously pour one out for the Tyrannofex. Whoever made this dataslate needs to show us on the doll where they got touched by one. I myself picked one up for my budding Tyranid army as a source of anti-tank, and now it's been relegated to shelf duty and will probably be among the last of my bugs to get paint. And meanwhile the Haruspex, which is a worse looking model in every way, is still somehow only 125 points and absolutely kicks ass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZergSmasher wrote: I actually wonder if Exaction Squads will get a points bump to make them less of an obvious choice over some factions' cheapest objective holders.
And on another note... idk how Sisters players feel but I still wouldn't be happy. Points changes don't change the fact that they still can't kill tanks. And hey Daedalus is back, tell us how they are actually just being played wrong again!
That's basically the jist of it.
Multimeltas need to be more effective or they're just going to struggle and becoming a cheap horde army that still can't kill tanks wouldn't fix it.
There's...some play in a couple of different skew lists now.
5+ immolators, 2 Exorcists, Paragons+Morvenn, Castigator, 3 Units of Rets. You have enough melta shots to kill things by sheer weight of dice (and -4AP, which is still really nice) and enough incidental anti-infantry to sweep anything short of an endless horde list.
How well you can play the objective game...we don't really talk about that.
The other one is an anti-infantry skew where you're basically hoping to run into endless horde lists for 5 rounds, while beating TAC and Vehicle skew lists by playing the mission way better than your opponent.
Neither is exactly great and I'd be very surprised if we aren't still bottom 3 winrate, but at least we get more stuff now?
Prometheum5 wrote: JFC the Tyrannofex change breaks the 1000pt list I rushed to complete and bought foam for and have yet to play a game with.
This makes me a bit sad to read. Just such a downer for a start to a army.
I'm in the same boat with Knights. I have three Questoris, Lancer, Castigator, Dominus and six Armigers all in sub-assembles with a wrecked Chaos War Dog and Ravager for a display board. I have been rushing to build and paint since 10th hit and haven't had a single game... but have had so many nerfs come down I am not going to shelve the army.
This edition's balance issues are just ridiculous.
I'm annoyed at the points/balance changes but I think I might actually be more annoyed about the implications of Core Rules changes this early. My Leviathan rulebook and the mini Core Rules book I just received in the mail are now both incorrect.
NAVARRO wrote: It's the 2nd time LOV got points reduction right? It's almost like you need to continuously buy more and more each update just to keep it up.
I also don't see these little guys has hordes type army at all, if thats the way its going.
Either way peeps may as well just wait for the DEX and new models...I think we are just back again on a never ending loop of bloated rules updates.
What did you want them to do in this circumstance? Please don't fall back on "get it perfect first time", what could they have done to rectify the problem they're seeing?
NAVARRO wrote: It's the 2nd time LOV got points reduction right? It's almost like you need to continuously buy more and more each update just to keep it up.
I also don't see these little guys has hordes type army at all, if thats the way its going.
Either way peeps may as well just wait for the DEX and new models...I think we are just back again on a never ending loop of bloated rules updates.
What did you want them to do in this circumstance? Please don't fall back on "get it perfect first time", what could they have done to rectify the problem they're seeing?
NAVARRO wrote: It's the 2nd time LOV got points reduction right? It's almost like you need to continuously buy more and more each update just to keep it up.
I also don't see these little guys has hordes type army at all, if thats the way its going.
Either way peeps may as well just wait for the DEX and new models...I think we are just back again on a never ending loop of bloated rules updates.
What did you want them to do in this circumstance? Please don't fall back on "get it perfect first time", what could they have done to rectify the problem they're seeing?
Adjust the rules to make Squats less hordey.
I suppose the only way they can do that now is to re-write their entire index to some degree though, change every profile and readjust the points, which is likely a larger undertaking than they can manage in this pass. It's a bit of a catch 22. They maybe should and tbh it'd put me off buying any atm.
Alas for the poor Norn Emissary. Lost its 4+ FNP vs Dev Wounds AND went up 5 points and its not even in peoples hands yet. Double nerfed before release.
Because they did neither. When the specific problem here is the Wraithknight needs taking round the shed and having the proverbial bolt put through its head, you do that. Not do wild swings that affect a ton of more units, creating more inadvertent problems and invalidating a rulebook that is barely 2 months old, when everyone knows exactly what unit is actually the target of these changes.
So glad I've not given 10th a look at all. I look forward to OPR actually releasing a competent updated rule set on Saturday with GDF 3rd edition.
Outside of some weird point changes and misses I honestly think this was a really good update. I'm actually interested in 40k again. I haven't been interested in singles play this edition to this point and now I am.
Because they did neither. When the specific problem here is the Wraithknight needs taking round the shed and having the proverbial bolt put through its head, you do that. Not do wild swings that affect a ton of more units, creating more inadvertent problems and invalidating a rulebook that is barely 2 months old, when everyone knows exactly what unit is actually the target of these changes.
So glad I've not given 10th a look at all. I look forward to OPR actually releasing a competent updated rule set on Saturday with GDF 3rd edition.
What inadvertent problems? They changed a rule that caused a lot of problematic interactions, there's been multiple devastating wound interactions in more than 1 army that has been too much, so I don't think altering the rulebook is a travesty exactly.
NAVARRO wrote: It's the 2nd time LOV got points reduction right? It's almost like you need to continuously buy more and more each update just to keep it up.
I also don't see these little guys has hordes type army at all, if thats the way its going.
Either way peeps may as well just wait for the DEX and new models...I think we are just back again on a never ending loop of bloated rules updates.
What did you want them to do in this circumstance? Please don't fall back on "get it perfect first time", what could they have done to rectify the problem they're seeing?
Adjust the rules to make Squats less hordey.
I suppose the only way they can do that now is to re-write their entire index to some degree though, change every profile and readjust the points, which is likely a larger undertaking than they can manage in this pass. It's a bit of a catch 22. They maybe should and tbh it'd put me off buying any atm.
I cant backseat game design or even release schedule management. It's a big machine and cant stop... we know that. But exactly where that leaves LOV?
Its clearly not an ideal situation to have and does leave a bad taste to anyone Starting as an Elite technological advanced race with respect for their lives etc to move towards errrr, disposable bodies, force of numbers race, just because game designers messed up... 3 times.
Solution? Wait for 1.5 years for when 10th is half its full age and Votann new dex comes with more models. Maybe then that will be addressed. From now till then what is the point of building a list that changes every few months?
Well you could always just quit. Better option than just complain and get biood pressure up. For hobby should only do stuff you enjoy. Better for health(
tneva82 wrote: Well you could always just quit. Better option than just complain and get biood pressure up. For hobby should only do stuff you enjoy. Better for health(
We're about to play a game of Space Weirdos and I'm working on hybridizing that with the campaign systems from Necromunda and Shadow War: Armageddon. I've plenty of better things to do than try to chase the moment in time where my hobby progress lines up with GW's rules tinkering.
Because I mean Kyn are still T5 Sv4+ even at their most disposable. They are pretty much as elite as the Sisters of Battle, which is as elite as you can get without being Marines.
The talk of horde Votann is more a question of how can the fix the army beyond making it cheaper. Just making things cheaper doesn't fix the issues but does make the army bigger and bigger. It is no where close to a horde army, but you still need more models to fill a points level than before. However, the players want better models, not cheaper/more models.
LoV is still a slow, short-ranged army almost completely void of synergy and choices thats actually pretty boring to play in 10th
Pts-decreases and 3 additional Ruthless Efficiency-uses* will no doubt make them a "better army" in the sense that their win% will go up, but the core-issue with the army is exactly the same as it was before this update.
(*This one actually annoys me since we saw now with DG that GW can actually write new rules if they want to - but instead of re-writing or giving new rules to the LoV-tokens, they doubled-down on a bad system instead.)
LoV-players generally want their units to be better - not cheaper.
Speaking as an Eldar player: we didn't get nerfed nearly enough to dethrone us as the top faction. Especially considering the nerfs our primary competition took that hit them a lot more severely than ours did us.
We took some reasonable cost increases and our most abusive units suffered a well deserved kick in the nuts. In isolation, these are entirely appropriate and well considered nerfs. It's just that our nerfs don't exist in isolation.
Genestealer Cults probably aren't competitive anymore at all, and Custodes were taken out behind the shed and shot. Unless some other faction got some massive buffs I'm not seeing, I'd expect Eldar to remain at the top of most tournaments. Maybe Necron silver tide could give us trouble?
Speaking as a non-competitive Eldar Player, I don't give a flying fart about the changes.
I kind of like the change to devastating wounds. It's functionally mortal wounds that just don't spill over the way they ignore saves, but now they CAN be affected by rules that are -1 damage and such, making certain tough things remain tough.
Overall, glad we're getting some fixes relatively quickly. Some will call this a problem, I see this as a win.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
drbored wrote: Speaking as a non-competitive Eldar Player, I don't give a flying fart about the changes.
I kind of like the change to devastating wounds. It's functionally mortal wounds that just don't spill over the way they ignore saves, but now they CAN be affected by rules that are -1 damage and such, making certain tough things remain tough.
Overall, glad we're getting some fixes relatively quickly. Some will call this a problem, I see this as a win.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
Agreed. People used to complain that gw didn't watch tournaments for broken combos and overpowered armies. Whining that GW didn't update/faq rules enough. I agreed with those complaints, but now they're complaining that things get updated too quickly or frequently.
I think these changes will mostly be good. I'm glad GW is taking an active role. The change to devastating wounds is how it should have been from the beginning. Glad they fixed it now, rather than later.
drbored wrote: Speaking as a non-competitive Eldar Player, I don't give a flying fart about the changes.
I kind of like the change to devastating wounds. It's functionally mortal wounds that just don't spill over the way they ignore saves, but now they CAN be affected by rules that are -1 damage and such, making certain tough things remain tough.
Overall, glad we're getting some fixes relatively quickly. Some will call this a problem, I see this as a win.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
Devastating wounds always been affected by -1 dam/halve damage etc.
drbored wrote: Speaking as a non-competitive Eldar Player, I don't give a flying fart about the changes.
I kind of like the change to devastating wounds. It's functionally mortal wounds that just don't spill over the way they ignore saves, but now they CAN be affected by rules that are -1 damage and such, making certain tough things remain tough.
Overall, glad we're getting some fixes relatively quickly. Some will call this a problem, I see this as a win.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
Devastating wounds always been affected by -1 dam/halve damage etc.
No changes there.
Nope, mortal wounds are handled as a pool of individual wounds, so can't be reduced was my understanding.
Agreed. People used to complain that gw didn't watch tournaments for broken combos and overpowered armies. Whining that GW didn't update/faq rules enough. I agreed with those complaints, but now they're complaining that things get updated too quickly or frequently.
lets put it that way:
9th Edi core was broken beyond fixing that only after 3 years a full reboot with new core rules was needed
Than 10th core was broken that it needed a re-write after 3 months
And this has a long tail as it means any of the Codices written with 10th, is from this day on outdated and broken as the rules they are written for does not exist any more
Everything that already went to the printer cannot be fixed before release and everything else is delayed, if GW even care to fix them before release
drbored wrote: Speaking as a non-competitive Eldar Player, I don't give a flying fart about the changes.
I kind of like the change to devastating wounds. It's functionally mortal wounds that just don't spill over the way they ignore saves, but now they CAN be affected by rules that are -1 damage and such, making certain tough things remain tough.
Overall, glad we're getting some fixes relatively quickly. Some will call this a problem, I see this as a win.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
Devastating wounds always been affected by -1 dam/halve damage etc.
No changes there.
Nope, mortal wounds are handled as a pool of individual wounds, so can't be reduced was my understanding.
For mw abilities yes. But as per rules commentary those were applied _before_ devastating wound changed to mortal.
It was specifically for devastating wounds. Doombolt etc d6mw were different.
Rules commentary had specific note about that. You disagree with gw ruling?-'
Agreed. People used to complain that gw didn't watch tournaments for broken combos and overpowered armies. Whining that GW didn't update/faq rules enough. I agreed with those complaints, but now they're complaining that things get updated too quickly or frequently.
lets put it that way:
9th Edi core was broken beyond fixing that only after 3 years a full reboot with new core rules was needed
Than 10th core was broken that it needed a re-write after 3 months
And this has a long tail as it means any of the Codices written with 10th, is from this day on outdated and broken as the rules they are written for does not exist any more
Everything that already went to the printer cannot be fixed before release and everything else is delayed, if GW even care to fix them before release
So 10th already starts at the worst point of 9th
Ah yes what a wonderful example of selective memory forgetting all the errata's 9th had from the start.
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
Nope, mortal wounds are handled as a pool of individual wounds, so can't be reduced was my understanding.
The issue is that the original core rules meant that damage reduction didn't work on dev wounds. Then they released a designers commentary that said actually it did, in spite of RAW. At least yesterday's change resolves that confusion.
tneva82 wrote: Ah yes what a wonderful example of selective memory forgetting all the errata's 9th had from the start.
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
Indeed. Both 8th and 9th had issues with core rules causing balance problems, but rather than correcting the rules they just nerfed the relevant units into disuse.
It's nice to see GW are now willing to make better targeted changes.
drbored wrote: Speaking as a non-competitive Eldar Player, I don't give a flying fart about the changes.
I kind of like the change to devastating wounds. It's functionally mortal wounds that just don't spill over the way they ignore saves, but now they CAN be affected by rules that are -1 damage and such, making certain tough things remain tough.
Overall, glad we're getting some fixes relatively quickly. Some will call this a problem, I see this as a win.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
Devastating wounds always been affected by -1 dam/halve damage etc.
No changes there.
Nope, mortal wounds are handled as a pool of individual wounds, so can't be reduced was my understanding.
For mw abilities yes. But as per rules commentary those were applied _before_ devastating wound changed to mortal.
It was specifically for devastating wounds. Doombolt etc d6mw were different.
Rules commentary had specific note about that. You disagree with gw ruling?-'
Valid, I'd missed that and I'm sure some others have as well, but the fact it runs against what feels like common sense to the point it needs a rule not in the rulebook itself is concerning.
Edit to highlight the point, here's the rules showing it to be counter-logical:
Spoiler:
The now defunct tyrannofex rule:
Resilient Organism: Each time an attack is allocated to this model, subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of that attack
So an attack must be allocated, which is in step 3, after the wound roll:
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player controlling the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit, as follows.
And devastating wounds was:
Weapons with [DEVASTATING WOUNDS] in their profile are known as Devastating Wounds weapons. Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, a Critical Wound inflicts a number of mortal wounds on the target equal to the Damage characteristic of that weapon and the attack sequence ends.
So they're converted to mortal wounds before the damage reduction can take affect
Nope, mortal wounds are handled as a pool of individual wounds, so can't be reduced was my understanding.
The issue is that the original core rules meant that damage reduction didn't work on dev wounds. Then they released a designers commentary that said actually it did, in spite of RAW. At least yesterday's change resolves that confusion.
Yeah that sums it up, I didn't go looking for it in a rules commentary because it seemed obvious, which gives the wrong outcome apparently.
Yeah, these changes are normal in the current GW support of their games. They analyze data from the competive scene / feedback from players and after a while compiling them, they do that. Since they were "accused" of not caring before because they made changes "not soon enough", now they let less time pass before acting.
Just ignore the usual people trying to make it look like it's "a fail" or "admission of a broken game" (mostly because they actually support other games / just want to prove their point / justify not playing this game). It's not. Changes aren't actually that big of a deal, it's just details that only the harrdcore competitive scene really cares about. Which is why I believe the competitive scene is a plague for all miniature wargames and only make it worse for those looking for fun, but that's another debate and it's certainly not GW at fault here trying to answer to their pleas. It's more a player mindset problem.
9th wasn't broken beyond repair, it was just bloated - the fate of all game systems trying to cater to the competitive scene after years of FAQ and erratas. After a while of that neverending cycle, you just realize it's not worth the hassle.
On the other hand, I totally understand casual players not being enchanted by changes so soon - because they don't especially play that often and that's indeed something new to learn and easy to overlook in games. That's another flaw of going competitive : you're constantly running after the new meta and it never ends. It's not a surprise some are "burnt out" and feel like it's more a chore than a game.
The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
Yeah, it's a competitive scene issue. That's why it was changed that way.
Of course for simplicity's sake, Mortal Wounds are the best way. But hardcore competitive players don't want it simple : they want it technical. Because that's their best way to play the game in their mindset.
If for you, competition, balance and technical rules leaving no room for player interpretation are the holy grail, it's no surprise you have changes like this in the rules.
But that doesn't make it "bad" in itself. Just for you.
Why wasn't it like this in the first place ? Well, precisely because of the feedback from competitive scene. And it's not GW's fault trying to take that into account.
Yup, 2 year of development. Other companies claim 7 for a boardgame in KS with changes that can be resumed on one page. I think GW is the fair one here. Otherwise, HBMC, feel free to develop your game on your own and see the exact same problems facing your player base when they tell you that your way to write rules sucks.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
2 years of development my ass...
So because there's more powerfui mechanism can't create weaker one and instead have game be broken.
Got you. You enjyy broken game. Guess you pissed off your eldar got nerfed.
Sarouan wrote: But that doesn't make it "bad" in itself. Just for you.
No, it's appalling rules design. They have literally created a redundant mechanic that is slightly different to an existing mechanic to hastily patch over rather than solve the actual problem. And all the while touting the grand return of USRs to the game.
We're not even 6 moths into this and it's already a gak show, with two nearly identical rules with similar names - Mortal and Devastating Wounds - and it's a bad look to be getting it this wrong this early.
The Indices are already riddled with unique unit special rules that do generally the same things but worded in slighly different ways (sticky objectives being one example). And now they're going to start messing with the core rules in this mannet?
Bad just for me? Buddy, this is bad for [b]everyone[/i].
Not everyone. The hardcore competitive scene will be fine with it.
Like I said, it's only natural to have this way because players constantly push for a more "competitive scene friendly" game. That's what nagging on points and "perfect balance" and other things like this eventually lead to.
Basically, it comes with the package.
As for casual players...they'll get annoyed, but it's a shrug in the end because it's ultimately just a detail of one special rule. Don't make a mountain from a mouse.
Seems more like a failure on your part to understand why this is terrible rules design and why this happening this early does not bode well for this edition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Seems more like a failure on your part to understand why this is terrible rules design and why this happening this early does not bode well for this edition.
No need to be hyperbolic. I totally see why you make it so crucial, but it's easy to counter with this simple fact : far from all units have this "devastating wound" special rule. If you play a game with no unit having it, there is no impact of this "terrible rule design" because it simply doesn't happen. And even in a game where a couple of units does have it, it's not like the hassle is really that much bothering when it happens (assuming they're not destroyed early in the game).
If you play a game with nearly all of the units have it, however (like, I guess...eldars? ) - I can see the impact more important there, indeed. But that's not the majority of games at all.It MAY be your majority of games played because of a specific list you play, sure...but then, that means it's not a "everyone" problem. It's a "you" problem trying to make it pass like a life-or-death issue for all players, so that you way to play is preserved.
Theories on how rules should be designed in a game or not are fun, but in reality, it's only their actual application in the game and the feedback from players that matters.
Sarouan wrote: Yeah, these changes are normal in the current GW support of their games. They analyze data from the competive scene / feedback from players and after a while compiling them, they do that. Since they were "accused" of not caring before because they made changes "not soon enough", now they let less time pass before acting.
Just ignore the usual people trying to make it look like it's "a fail" or "admission of a broken game" (mostly because they actually support other games / just want to prove their point / justify not playing this game). It's not. Changes aren't actually that big of a deal, it's just details that only the harrdcore competitive scene really cares about. Which is why I believe the competitive scene is a plague for all miniature wargames and only make it worse for those looking for fun, but that's another debate and it's certainly not GW at fault here trying to answer to their pleas. It's more a player mindset problem.
9th wasn't broken beyond repair, it was just bloated - the fate of all game systems trying to cater to the competitive scene after years of FAQ and erratas. After a while of that neverending cycle, you just realize it's not worth the hassle.
On the other hand, I totally understand casual players not being enchanted by changes so soon - because they don't especially play that often and that's indeed something new to learn and easy to overlook in games. That's another flaw of going competitive : you're constantly running after the new meta and it never ends. It's not a surprise some are "burnt out" and feel like it's more a chore than a game.
While I get your point here, I disagree with the suggestion that only the 'hardcore' competitive players care about rule changes.
Anecdotally my first (casual) game of 10th was against an Eldar player who openly acknowledged how strong their rules were, specifically avoided taking highly competitive units like Wraithknights, and still the game was incredibly one-sided. While the quantifiable data used does come from a competitive environment changes like this do have a positive effect on more casual players too. Balance shouldn't be so far off that it's necessary for players need to agree handicaps to their lists beforehand.
These were overall positive changes for everyone, not just tournament players.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
It actually opens up more design space. Devastating Wounds may ignore Inv like Mortal Wounds, but seems meant for single shot high damage weapons not meant to take out crowds, while Mortal Wounds can be harder to damage mitigate (if they reverse the ruling back to the original RAW) and can "splash" across multiple models. Same difference as a single attack damage 6 weapon vs a 6 shot damage 1 weapon.
I think the problem is less about GW writing bad rules than it is GW being unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the lengths some people will go to to abuse the rules.
This change was because cheesy players were using an anti-tank weapon to delete whole squads of infantry - which is clearly NOT what GW intended.
While I get your point here, I disagree with the suggestion that only the 'hardcore' competitive players care about rule changes.
Anecdotally my first (casual) game of 10th was against an Eldar player who openly acknowledged how strong their rules were, specifically avoided taking highly competitive units like Wraithknights, and still the game was incredibly one-sided. While the quantifiable data used does come from a competitive environment changes like this do have a positive effect on more casual players too. Balance shouldn't be so far off that it's necessary for players need to agree handicaps to their lists beforehand.
These were overall positive changes for everyone, not just tournament players.
I do understand your point of view. That's why I don't see that change as really "bad design", merely an annoyance to apply a newly rewritten special rule so soon after the release of the game. It's indeed answering to feedback of players.
But let me tell you this : you say your game was one-sided and that your opponent aknowledged how strong their rules were and avoided taking "highly competitive units"...but did he consider that the other units in his army in comparison to what you have AND the victory conditions of the scenario maybe weren't also balanced ?
Balance isn't just a question of points or even rules. That's why they never solve the problem of having "unbalanced games", because there are other considerations. For example, in a game where you win by controlling objectives spread on the table, when one army only has infantry and the other has mainly highly mobile vehicles / bikes...it's clear the advantage goes to the side that is mobile.
This change of rules and even points don't ultimately changed that. The main reason eldars in combat patrol are so awesome is the actual content and type of units inside, when compared to the victory conditions of combat patrol scenarios and the content of other combat patrol boxes.
If you played, said, a scenario where the actual victory condition is to kill the eldar warlord, suddenly maybe it wouldn't feel so one-sided...or at least, from the same side than before.
Points are just a tool to help players balance their lists so that the game is fair. But the most important to keep in mind is that's just a tool...not the only thing that matters. Ultimately, it's a player's choice to decide which faction he plays and which units he picks while knowing what he will meet in game...as well as the level of said player (you don't play a normal game when you do an initiation, after all).
That's why when I play with a newbie, I make sure I take lists that have mostly the same "type"...like all infantry, or just the same amount of mobile units in each. That's what makes it truly felt balanced. The way you build your army list is actually telling if a player really cares about balance of the game rather than just looking for an easy victory. And that is entirely and solely a player mindset matter.
Data from tournaments can be skewed if a list is working due to some narrow selection of units.
When you look at 8th indexes, it was a strange time. The tournament scene was one cheese after another. Soup, first turn deep strike and unit spam for example were all problems that needed to be resolved.
But many of these lists were not things the average player had or ever aspired to have. You didn't spam Dark Eldar birds. Or Malefic Lords. Or 5 Stormravens. Mass Tau Commanders or Cullexus Assassins etc. If you played two lists drawn from normalish 7th edition collections, it didn't do too badly.
Obviously players evolved and some of the cheese started to push into the regular FLGS, but I feel it took some time.
By contrast barring a deliberate effort over the last 10 weeks or so, you should have ended up with a very powerful Eldar list unless you somehow owned 100 guardians. But it wasn't just Eldar. The problem with 10th edition was that you had a 7th edition style tier list of factions. Its not like a DG or LoV player could go "oh, its not Eldar, its only Necrons or Tyranids, we'll have a good game." Barring a significant skill differential, you probably lost.
Why 8th and 9th were often described as the most balanced 40k has ever been (and I know a lot of people hard disagree - and certainly there were times with broken factions) was because the majority of factions could have a game into the majority of other factions. Especially the last 6 months or so of 9th. This was not true in 7th, and has not so far been true in 10th. Hopefully this update will move things in that direction.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I think the problem is less about GW writing bad rules than it is GW being unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the lengths some people will go to to abuse the rules.
This change was because cheesy players were using an anti-tank weapon to delete whole squads of infantry - which is clearly NOT what GW intended.
They specifically made mortal wounds spill over to other models, something that wasn't previously true in 40k. And is how damage works in AoS, so this isn't some mysterious, unheard of rules interaction.
If they didn't intend mortal wounds to spill over and wipe out infantry squads, they're idiots. That's the entire effect of making that change!
I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.
bullyboy wrote: I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.
Then again...looking at 1st codex changes with codex aren't all that big. Some points change but as is could play index list almost as is.
But sure. Better option to leave problems as is? No point changes and rule changes beside codexes ever?
Is that REALLY what you would prefer? Seriously? So basically as codexes aren't changing much we now already would know who will win next 3 years.
Your post sounds like blaming the player for GW's rules. Somebody starting fresh into Warhammer with an Eldar combat patrol should neither be held responsible for them stomping the available competition, nor should it be required to research before the purchase wether it would be "ok" to play against others. Even long time players might not have the necessary collection to switch out problematic units or adapt to somebody else's list.
While I totally encourage to talk with the other player beforehand what kind of game you want to have, the need to do it in the first place arises in no small parts thanks to the "take whatever you want, but no more than 3x the same" coupled with not enough expertise or attention for internal and external balance between factions.
It is my choice to play Eldar and bring a Wraithknight, it is GW's responsibility to ensure I don't roflstomp everybody else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
2 years of development my ass...
If this was "at best, a quick fix" that creates a new mechanic that basically already exist, what was the better fix? The books are already published, so it is too late for "doing it right before publication" to be a solution for the existing problem.
1) A codex and what is now a rulebook should be background/minis/painting etc. hobby stuff only, available both as dead tree and PDF, and changed/updated (because new minis/background) no sooner than at least every 5 years.
2) All rules should be free and digital only, be it PDF or Apps thus allowing for the constant updates without invalidating any printed material.
3) Editions should last at least 5 years.
The GMG video sums up exactly how I feel about this. I cannot get over how fundamentally bad for players changing the core rules less than 3 months into the edition is.
Dudeface wrote: People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
The new edition is when you change/fix things.
The new edition should be sufficiently tested that it doesn't need to be altered within weeks of release.
We all know that you actually understand this, by the way...
Just the same as we all know you understand nothing will be printed without a typo, need altering or a clarification at a later date.
Once again, downside of printed media.
This isn't about a typo or a clarification though, is it.
This is GW straight up changing rules. This isn't fixing an error.
It is a rules, they're correcting a problem that by all accounts shouldn't be there. The root cause is both inadequate dev time and reliance on printed media.
However, we are where we are now. People want the game state improved, they have 2 choices, implement a change and invalidate a paragraph somewhere, or leave it as it is.
I won't disagree people are attacking the root cause, but we're past the point that can be changed. What people then do is whine when GW what they can now as if they have a choice now.
People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
There's no need to have a physical book, especially not one that costs what GW charge. There's also the seemingly mind-blowing concept of actually testing your game properly before you release it. This isn't a typo or some minor wording clarification in an obscure rule. It's fundamental changes to the core rules of the game within 3 months of release.
feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Dudeface wrote: feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Surely you can see why people are upset at having products they bought not being correct less than three months after purchase.
Dudeface wrote: feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Surely you can see why people are upset at having products they bought not being correct less than three months after purchase.
Of course I can, but there's a lot of talk out there about how 40k is on a precipice of dying and having a mass exodus depending on the quality of the fixes they put in. So instead here we are rehashing about how printed GW products have a shelf life of negative days and they shouldn't use them at all really.
Which, is obviously a brand new conversation and we should all be shocked by this sudden unprecedented behaviour from them /s
How much of the book has been changed? One page worth of edits for the core rules. It’s not like 3rd where you needed a binder of WDs as most of the core book had been updated/replaced near the end.
Yes, it would be better if GW could release a more polished product, but a couple pages of changes does not make the whole book obsolete.
Dudeface wrote: feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Surely you can see why people are upset at having products they bought not being correct less than three months after purchase.
Sure. Of course since change is page worth of stuff its so little that if that is too much we are back to how it was before. No changes in edition except codexes. Which don't do huge change now. So baslcallw 10th would be same all edition.
More like: GW doesn't fix problems. Players complain. GW makes changes to try to fix problems and in the process creates new problems, players say "No, not like that".
Tyran wrote: What is a horde army within this context?
Because I mean Kyn are still T5 Sv4+ even at their most disposable. They are pretty much as elite as the Sisters of Battle, which is as elite as you can get without being Marines.
They are not a horde army.
Profiles don't determine if its a horde army or not, points do. At 11ppm for their basic batteline option, they are a borderline horde army - you can easily build lists with 100-120 models @ 2000pts if you lean heavy into their infantry choices. The consensus is that they are still underpowered and overpriced, which means that unless GW does something more dramatic, they are facing another round of points cuts, which puts them more definitvely into horde territory.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
GW hasn't really embraced digital - their app requires you to buy a physical analog product in order to function.
GW hasn't balanced their game.O lawd they tryin', but its not there, nor has it ever really been there after years of attempts to do so over several editions.
GW is kind of responding to the community, in that they are addressing some of the issues we've been complaining about... but other issues get overlooked. Often they focus on addressing relatively minor issues with a heavy-handed approach while the things that the community demands the most get treated with gentle kid gloves that fails to actually address the problem.
Agreed. People used to complain that gw didn't watch tournaments for broken combos and overpowered armies. Whining that GW didn't update/faq rules enough. I agreed with those complaints, but now they're complaining that things get updated too quickly or frequently.
lets put it that way:
9th Edi core was broken beyond fixing that only after 3 years a full reboot with new core rules was needed
Than 10th core was broken that it needed a re-write after 3 months
And this has a long tail as it means any of the Codices written with 10th, is from this day on outdated and broken as the rules they are written for does not exist any more
Everything that already went to the printer cannot be fixed before release and everything else is delayed, if GW even care to fix them before release
So 10th already starts at the worst point of 9th
Im pretty sure the reason GW has a 3 month lag between the edition launching and the first codex is to allow them time to respond to immediate community feedback upon launch before they start sending publications to print. Printed materials are usually the last thing done before a product launch, because they have the shortest lead time and the books can be air-freighted globally in large quantities to ensure their availability on short notice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds. This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
2 years of development my ass...
Yeah, i've been a bit ambivalent on critical wounds vs mortal wounds myself. Its not clear to me if there is really any meaningful or significant difference between them, they are now so closely similar from a mechanical standpoint that the change basically just created bloat by having two redundant parallel mechanical concepts that accomplish essentially the same thing.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I think the problem is less about GW writing bad rules than it is GW being unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the lengths some people will go to to abuse the rules.
This change was because cheesy players were using an anti-tank weapon to delete whole squads of infantry - which is clearly NOT what GW intended.
This ignores the existence of anti-infantry weapons that were meant to use critical wounds to delete whole squads of infantry though. Those weapons were basically wrecked by the same nerf bat as the result of the devastating wounds change, because the change to devastating wounds was actually a change to critical wounds rather than a change to how the devastating wounds rule worked itself.
Dudeface wrote: People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
The new edition is when you change/fix things.
The new edition should be sufficiently tested that it doesn't need to be altered within weeks of release.
We all know that you actually understand this, by the way...
This. If GW actually embraced digital and did away with the rulebooks, like they should, it would be less of an issue. Rulebooks that have a designed obsolesence within 3 years of their release (and sometimes much less than that) are an awful waste of paper and ink, and at the price point GW charges for them are actually a total insult to GWs customers. That the contents of the books are in some cases now essentially invalid before they even deliver them to you is even worse. A FAQ/Errata to clarify errors is one thing, to invalidate entire pages and/or sections of the book is another.
I mean, GW is a miniatures company first and foremost, right? Why is it so married to the idea of rules publications then, its not core business - is it?
Dudeface wrote: People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
I'm glad you seem fully aware that GW simply being competent at their job isn't an option
GW has always been the McDonalds of wargames. I'm not sure why people remain surprised.
Not really though. There's been a noticeable downturn in quality (and uptick in churn) since 5th edition.
40k has never been a well-designed wargame. Thats not to say it wasn't a fun wargame, but there have always been various fundamental issues with the core gameplay loop and system logic, as well as the general underlying design philosophy, in large part due to it being a "mass battle" style wargame built on the bones of a skirmish game.
So we've gotten to the point where the goalpost has been moved to
"GW should sell us a fully tested edition!"
Ok. Baldur's Gate 3 was in development for 6 years. Even though its release was lauded as the most complete game ever, with no DLC or microtransactions in sight, it still had a bevy of issues that needed fixing only when it could be put into the hands of millions of people worldwide.
Game. Systems. Will. Never. Be. Complete. On. Release. This is true of Dungeons and Dragons. It's true of Pathfinder. It's true of Star Wars Legions. It's true of Warmahordes. It's true of tabletop and video games.
This is not a problem unique to Games Workshop, nor is it a problem driven by edition churn, it is a simple matter of fact that so many interactions of rules, points, and models cannot be accounted for even given years of testing by limited numbers of people.
If this dissuades you, guess what! They made the Core Rules free online! You don't have to buy the 60 dollar book, or the 25 dollar smaller book, you can print out the rules, commentary, and other things right here:
Go to your local office supply store, have them print these pages out in the binder and format of your choice, and reprint the pages that change when they do so.
The technology that some of y'all are suggesting is already out there and they've made it fully available to you.
I comparing 40k to BG3 seems wildly appropriate considering patch #2 broke the game for a lot of people and they can't even load a game without it crashing.
People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
its two different group usually.
And saying "GW should get it right the first time" is a valid thing to say considering GW's age
as I've noted, this is the 10th edition, by now the core rules should be watertight
Thats not really a fair assessment. 1st/Rogue Trader, 2nd, and 3rd were all very different games mechanically. 4th and 5th evolved from that. 6th was in many ways a radical departure from the 2-3 editions that came before but still built on the same core operating system, and 7th was a further evolution of 6th.
8th was essentially another whole new game built on a new set of core mechanics and rules systems, some of which bore a resemblance to previous editions, but others which were wholly new. 9th was a further evolution of that. 10th is similar to 6th in that its a more radical departure from the editions before it. It has a lot in common with 8th and 9th, but the addition of the [anti], [devastating wounds], [sustained hits], [lethal hits], etc. keywords and their widespread application across what feels like half of the weapons, models, and units in the game fundamentally alters the way elements interact on the tabletop vs how they functioned in the editions prior to it.
Point is, GW may have had 10 editions, but given how dramatic some of the revisions to the core operating system have been - especially in the jump from 7th to 8th - its not hard to figure out why the rules *arent* watertight after all this time.
drbored wrote: So we've gotten to the point where the goalpost has been moved to
"GW should sell us a fully tested edition!"
I'm astounded that we've gotten to the point where some consider expecting a functional product an unreasonable goalpost
This is not a problem unique to Games Workshop, nor is it a problem driven by edition churn, it is a simple matter of fact that so many interactions of rules, points, and models cannot be accounted for even given years of testing by limited numbers of people.
And yet most of them are spotted by a casual reader on their first pass.
Despite what some may think, there's nothing complex about 40k, certainly not like the thousands of plot and character interactions in a computer RPG. To equate the two is so laughable I'd be banned if I said what I really think of it.
10th Edition is functional out of the box. However, it is better if they fix the issues that have been noted. The problem is some people are making the perfect the enemy of the good.
chaos0xomega wrote: 40k has never been a well-designed wargame. Thats not to say it wasn't a fun wargame, but there have always been various fundamental issues with the core gameplay loop and system logic, as well as the general underlying design philosophy, in large part due to it being a "mass battle" style wargame built on the bones of a skirmish game.
It might never have been great, but from 3rd to 5th, there was an obvious throughline of design, with each edition building on and clearly trying to improve upon the prior (regardless of whether anybody necessarily agreed with changes made).
From 6th onwards editions became increasingly about adding MORE STUFF! (allies, fliers, fortifications, superheavies, formations) and making abrupt changes in core rules design, often with re-introduction of problems which had already been previously 'fixed'. The length of an edition also settled on an entirely arbitrary three year cycle which just feeds into the need to change rules direction frequently.
drbored wrote: So we've gotten to the point where the goalpost has been moved to
"GW should sell us a fully tested edition!"
Ok. Baldur's Gate 3 was in development for 6 years. Even though its release was lauded as the most complete game ever, with no DLC or microtransactions in sight, it still had a bevy of issues that needed fixing only when it could be put into the hands of millions of people worldwide.
Game. Systems. Will. Never. Be. Complete. On. Release. This is true of Dungeons and Dragons. It's true of Pathfinder. It's true of Star Wars Legions. It's true of Warmahordes. It's true of tabletop and video games.
This is not a problem unique to Games Workshop, nor is it a problem driven by edition churn, it is a simple matter of fact that so many interactions of rules, points, and models cannot be accounted for even given years of testing by limited numbers of people.
Baldur's Gate 3 was full of bugs in act 3 because it was moved to release one month ahead of schedule to avoid Starfield. You don't really believe any studio is able to collect, identify and fix 1000+ totally new bugs within 14 work days, do you? Financially it might have been the right decision, but it definitely soured an otherwise nearly perfect game and Larian received - rightfully - flak for it. The PS5 version is basically what you would have gotten originally minus the few hotfixes any maybe patch 2.
Your comparison falls flat, though, as Larian is not going to release the same game for the next 20 years while changing the underlying engine and ruleset every now and then. New problems showing up that need fixing is absolutely (Authority) caused by edition churn. Or would you argue that in 2023 the game wouldn't be in a better state, balance wise, if we never moved away from 5th edition and instead adjusted the few points that needed it?
Any number of models and profiles can be accounted for, if the underlying math is sound and only having a limited amount of people playtesting is a circumstance chosen by GW itself. Nobody is stopping them from a) staying with the same rules system instead of re-inventing the wheel every few years and b) making things public and asking for feedback before finalising it and sending it to be printed.
leopard wrote: Better is a hardcopy rulebook that comes in a binder, or pre-drilled to be inserted into a binder (stick a reference sheet on the inner covers)
ensure pages have some decorative artwork on them and that sections start on a new page (not on the back of the previous one)
when there are changes issue a printable PDF with the new pages that can be used to replace previous ones
leopard wrote: Better is a hardcopy rulebook that comes in a binder, or pre-drilled to be inserted into a binder (stick a reference sheet on the inner covers)
ensure pages have some decorative artwork on them and that sections start on a new page (not on the back of the previous one)
when there are changes issue a printable PDF with the new pages that can be used to replace previous ones
Hah, could you imagine the griping about that?
"GW makes you assemble your own rulebook!"
This makes me want to do an art piece of GW's rulebook on a sprue with separate FAQs as upgrade sprues. Sounds like an op-ed cartoon.
chaos0xomega wrote: 40k has never been a well-designed wargame. Thats not to say it wasn't a fun wargame, but there have always been various fundamental issues with the core gameplay loop and system logic, as well as the general underlying design philosophy, in large part due to it being a "mass battle" style wargame built on the bones of a skirmish game.
It might never have been great, but from 3rd to 5th, there was an obvious throughline of design, with each edition building on and clearly trying to improve upon the prior (regardless of whether anybody necessarily agreed with changes made). From 6th onwards editions became increasingly about adding MORE STUFF! (allies, fliers, fortifications, superheavies, formations) and making abrupt changes in core rules design, often with re-introduction of problems which had already been previously 'fixed'. The length of an edition also settled on an entirely arbitrary three year cycle which just feeds into the need to change rules direction frequently.
I don't disagree, though I will say (from my perspective), the 6th onwards "more stuff" trend was driven by community demand. I can recall participating in many threads on dakka and elsewhere in the 4th/5th era where we collectively wished for and whined about the lack of those things in the game and how awful it was that forgeworld stuff wasn't properly integrated into the ruleset, etc. Moral of the story is careful what you wish for I guess.
To me, there's a difference between an update modifying a special rule and a fully game system not working.
10th edition was working without it, it's just a "balance update" to cater to the competitive scene. You're not competitive scene ? Just play the usual way so far, it won't change anything for you.
People still play older editions even if they're not supported anymore. You can do the same, it simply implies talking with your game partner before a game about it. It's also the same if you're not in the know and want to be updated too.
It's not such a big deal, in the end.
As for recent editions of GW core games leaning heavily into the competitive scene...yes, it's a fact now. Like it or hate it, just play according to your tastes or play something else and wait for the storm to pass.
Sarouan wrote: To me, there's a difference between an update modifying a special rule and a fully game system not working.
10th edition was working without it, it's just a "balance update" to cater to the competitive scene. You're not competitive scene ? Just play the usual way so far, it won't change anything for you.
People still play older editions even if they're not supported anymore. You can do the same, it simply implies talking with your game partner before a game about it. It's also the same if you're not in the know and want to be updated too.
It's not such a big deal, in the end.
Looking at win rates, at what point do you consider a game not working? Let's say you play Wraithknight Eldar against your friend's Death Guard or Sisters.
Do you think further update iterations after the initial release should/would not concern you, since you are not participating in tournaments?
To me, the new Devastating Wounds change is welcome.
There was way too many armies/units that you can spam out Mortal Wounds.
I also welcome the new Death Guard rules, as now that army is playable. (tbf, the non-vehicles are still slow af) And that lends me to believe that the next update, LoV and Drukhari should see even more love.
To those criticizing GW, you may be justified in your positions but lets try to have some perspective here.
For years, ie, during 3rd-5th editions, we were demandingGW to be more engaged in updating the rules and particularly for the competitive scene. And now that they are engaged, it's.... not enough?
I think it's reasonable to assume that GW is going to get things wrong. I take heart, though, that at least GW is willing to fix certain armies/rulesin between codexes/editions.
So, if you think Eldar should be hit with more nerfs, the next update should address that.
If you think Tyranids or LoV needs more love, again, the next update should address that.
All these super-duper combo may not have manifested itself as strongly during play testing. The true test is seeing the armies/rules in the tournament scene, when you have dialed-in competitive generals looking to maximize their damage outputs whilst designing a list to counter the meta.
Fine tuning rules/armies isn't easy, and I'm happy that GW is at least willing to make updates at regular interval. I'm in this in the long haul, as I remember there was a time that the only updates GW was willing to engage were new codexs and FAQs.
a_typical_hero wrote: Looking at win rates, at what point do you consider a game not working? Let's say you play Wraithknight Eldar against your friend's Death Guard or Sisters.
Do you think further update iterations after the initial release should/would not concern you, since you are not participating in tournaments?
No, I'm saying that 40k v10 as a game system doesn't revolve only about Wraithknight Eldars, and that the game still works even if some units are unbalanced.
For example, play a scenario where a Wraithknight alone is fighting a whole army by itself. See if it's as "not working" as you claim then. The rules don't stop to function if "balance" is broken...like Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games says right, not everything needs to be balanced in a game at all times...just let people adapt and find new tactics. We did that in the old days of previous editions of GW core games (hell, we even did that for DECADES in Blood Bowl, which is also known to be unbalanced as hell between teams), we didn't die by doing it.
Will 40k work as well with this new change ? Of course it will. Does that mean it was "completely broken" before ? Well, no...it just means some games were indeed in the advantage of some factions in specific situations. "Some" isn't the same as "everything", though.
It just comforts me in thinking competitive play is always ruining the fun in games. People abusing way too good units won't disappear suddenly with the update, they'll still be there and will just find something else to abuse. Nothing in a game system will ever fix that mindset of theirs, and that is that mindset of theirs that's causing so much "unbalance" in games. Because they always feel justified to bring unbalanced armies because "ThE RuLEs aLloW mE tO Do iT".
I think cries that the rulebook is invalid are a little extreme. I also think considering the game non-functional is pretty out there. That said, I agree its essentially non-functional at a tournament level and if that's where you play, I think its a valid take. There's just a lot of people without Eldar armies out there and most of them don't even have particularly tuned armies at that. The game "functions" at that level just fine, though its not something I invest myself too greatly in the outcome. That should be a known quantity by now though. 40k has always been like that, though often not as egrigious at the top end of things.
The rulebook is certainly not invalid as a whole but having to 1) know an errata was released, and 2) now bring that errata with you to play with your brand new purchase both set a bad tone for the future of this iteration of 40k. GW seems fixated on catering to a tournament crowd that they can't make a game to please and the rest of the customer base suffers for it.
Prometheum5 wrote: The rulebook is certainly not invalid as a whole but having to 1) know an errata was released, and 2) now bring that errata with you to play with your brand new purchase both set a bad tone for the future of this iteration of 40k. GW seems fixated on catering to a tournament crowd that they can't make a game to please and the rest of the customer base suffers for it.
That's pretty much the main issue. That GW indeed changing core rules so soon after the release just to cater to the competitive scene is sending a signal to players they were suspecting already at the launch of this edition : that it will be another hell ride to follow to be "up to date" with the new meta.
Not sure there are enough competitive players ready to keep up that pace at any cost to really sustain sales on long term, but hey, it's not like Privateer Press tried that dead end too in the past. It worked so well for them, right ?
No, I'm saying that 40k v10 as a game system doesn't revolve only about Wraithknight Eldars, and that the game still works even if some units are unbalanced.
For example, play a scenario where a Wraithknight alone is fighting a whole army by itself. See if it's as "not working" as you claim then. The rules don't stop to function if "balance" is broken...like Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games says right, not everything needs to be balanced in a game at all times...just let people adapt and find new tactics. We did that in the old days of previous editions of GW core games (hell, we even did that for DECADES in Blood Bowl, which is also known to be unbalanced as hell between teams), we didn't die by doing it.
Will 40k work as well with this new change ? Of course it will. Does that mean it was "completely broken" before ? Well, no...it just means some games were indeed in the advantage of some factions in specific situations. "Some" isn't the same as "everything", though.
It just comforts me in thinking competitive play is always ruining the fun in games. People abusing way too good units won't disappear suddenly with the update, they'll still be there and will just find something else to abuse. Nothing in a game system will ever fix that mindset of theirs, and that is that mindset of theirs that's causing so much "unbalance" in games. Because they always feel justified to bring unbalanced armies because "ThE RuLEs aLloW mE tO Do iT".
I mentioned WK as they were the most egregious example I could think of. They are far from the only problematic unit. Some armies don't have or need a stark outlier at all, but are still better overall compared to others. We are not talking about 1% or 2% better, but rather "good" and "dumpster fire bad".
I'm all for custom scenarios, but they are irrelevant when talking about the balance side of a game. I can (and in fact did) come up with my own rules to get a balanced game for my buddies and me, but that won't help any of those people out there who go to a store and play against random people or who simply don't have an open minded playgroup.
GW should be able to deliver a balanced experience for everyone in their provided scenarios and armies. You said yourself in a previous post that the Eldar combat patrol is the best. How is somebody buying this box (which is advertised as a starter set to play against other starter sets, by the way) abusing models with their competitive mindset?
You shift the responsibility too much on the customer, imho.
I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.
Let's put it this way.
If you are expecting a perfect game from GW, you're not going to get it. Go out there, find another game that is 'perfect' to you, and go play that instead. Hit GW where it hurts, by zipping up your wallet.
And let me know when you find that 'perfect' complete game with a humongous model line that gets new releases weekly, gets quarterly balance updates and points adjustments, and has 30+ years of lore and story behind it.
In fact, don't let me know. Just keep it to yourself. I've got Tyranids to build.
bullyboy wrote: I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.
Then again...looking at 1st codex changes with codex aren't all that big. Some points change but as is could play index list almost as is.
But sure. Better option to leave problems as is? No point changes and rule changes beside codexes ever?
Is that REALLY what you would prefer? Seriously? So basically as codexes aren't changing much we now already would know who will win next 3 years.
That REALLY better?
Here, I’ll show how to reply like an adult.
1. I’d like the game system to last closer to 5 years, rather than 3.
2. I’d like that the last codex of the edition is out with at least 1 year of gameplay remaining (by all means, add campaign books for variety to get your constant “sell”)
3. I’d like a decently balanced reset at the very beginning (10th has been atrocious when you compare the likes of Votann, DG etc to Eldar, Custodes, GSC. This is supposed to be a professional company, not a 2 person fan fest operating from a garage)
4. I’d like that all codexes are tested vs each other from onset and when released, only add a few new units and flavor, not extensive changes that break the game.
Then, we wouldn’t need these fundamental fixes within a few months after launch, and massive points changes, etc.
drbored wrote: I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.
Let's put it this way.
If you are expecting a perfect game from GW, you're not going to get it. Go out there, find another game that is 'perfect' to you, and go play that instead. Hit GW where it hurts, by zipping up your wallet.
And let me know when you find that 'perfect' complete game with a humongous model line that gets new releases weekly, gets quarterly balance updates and points adjustments, and has 30+ years of lore and story behind it.
In fact, don't let me know. Just keep it to yourself. I've got Tyranids to build.
Who asked for a perfect game right from the start? We are on the 10th iteration and 3rd complete reset for the same product, by the way.
Is Microsoft forgetting all the bug fixes in the past and breaks pivot tables with every new version of Excel? Is Activision resetting the balance between guns with every release of CoD?
Or are the problems GW faces maybe unique to them because of their way of doing things?
GW could still release something every week easily if they would stop making new editions tomorrow.
People are in love with the IP, not the rules. I don't see why we shouldn't discuss their shortcomings here.
If this is your first edition then I can maybe understand the frustration that GW changes the rules. If however you've been here for years - decades - who are you kidding?
I'd prefer GW got it right the first time. But they clearly didn't here. Changes are the best thing to do.
bullyboy wrote: I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.
Then again...looking at 1st codex changes with codex aren't all that big. Some points change but as is could play index list almost as is.
But sure. Better option to leave problems as is? No point changes and rule changes beside codexes ever?
Is that REALLY what you would prefer? Seriously? So basically as codexes aren't changing much we now already would know who will win next 3 years.
That REALLY better?
Here, I’ll show how to reply like an adult.
1. I’d like the game system to last closer to 5 years, rather than 3.
2. I’d like that the last codex of the edition is out with at least 1 year of gameplay remaining (by all means, add campaign books for variety to get your constant “sell”)
3. I’d like a decently balanced reset at the very beginning (10th has been atrocious when you compare the likes of Votann, DG etc to Eldar, Custodes, GSC. This is supposed to be a professional company, not a 2 person fan fest operating from a garage)
4. I’d like that all codexes are tested vs each other from onset and when released, only add a few new units and flavor, not extensive changes that break the game.
Then, we wouldn’t need these fundamental fixes within a few months after launch, and massive points changes, etc.
Point 2 and 4 are proably muturally exclusive I hate to say, 40k just has too many factions at this point. we MIIGHT be able to see more reasonable balance and testing agaisnt everrything else if we went back to the days of "6 factions or so" but no one wants to see their army squatted.
This devaluation of the object and relentless chase for the meta even before the meta is in place... 2 months is ridiculous... not even 1 dex has been released yet. Will only work against GW because erodes the casuals in favour of the pro gamers.
NAVARRO wrote: Ash Video is much like how I feel about things.
This devaluation of the object and relentless chase for the meta even before the meta is in place... 2 months is ridiculous... not even 1 dex has been released yet. Will only work against GW because erodes the casuals in favour of the pro gamers.
But for GW does it really affect them now? I think only the 6th-7th drop is the only time I really seen things change.
GW now just does what it does, and sells fine. And with so much advertisement for free online, they have a list of new players constantly to fill any loss. Even casual players seem to support GW where any other company in the industry would likely not fare well.
Well, I have the Tyranid Codex and the new cards due in the post. I’d already bought the index cards for the 8 armies I collect and paint. I had all the codices for my armies and rules for 9th and barely played. I’ve been buying codices and rulebooks since 3rd. I know the 3 year cycle’s been here for a while, and most of the editions since around 5th have major changes to ensure new rules are sold rather than perfecting the game, but I’d been buying anyway. I’m going to stop now and just play with what I’ve got, with the rules I have. GW’s loss.
More importantly, I know by the time I get my Leviathan box slowly painted, GW will already be releasing the new “bestest eva” 11th edition with all new “wargear-points™”
drbored wrote: I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.
Those aren't facts and logic, they're the sort of excuses people make when defending a corporation that defines their lifestyle and identity.
drbored wrote: I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.
Those aren't facts and logic, they're the sort of excuses people make when defending a corporation that defines their lifestyle and identity.
No, it is a fact, I can't think of any complex product running any kind of software or patchable features that isn't later refined. Games? Patched. OS? Patched. PC hardware? Patched if it can be via drivers/firmware, or has an obsolescence cycle. Many books? Reprinted with better editing. Board game? Often reprinted with errors resolved or errata online. Food? Sometimes recalled due to warehouse issues.
None of those things are "good", but they're reactive measures to something being less than perfect. Which is what I think the largest majority consider to be a market standard. That bar is slowly slipping in some fields such as video game quality admittedly.
You're not offering anything in counter point, instead just running with the weird angle of trying to suggest people are brainwashed and you're some hyper advanced giga Chad who lives by nobodies rules.
No, it is a fact, I can't think of any complex product running any kind of software or patchable features that isn't later refined. Games? Patched. OS? Patched. PC hardware? Patched if it can be via drivers/firmware, or has an obsolescence cycle. Many books? Reprinted with better editing. Board game? Often reprinted with errors resolved or errata online. Food? Sometimes recalled due to warehouse issues.
All of this is true but leaves out the small detail that GW is basically re-releasing the same product in a different engine (core rules), to stay with software analogies. Since the engine is a completely different one than before, all of the performance optimisations (balance adjustments) made are null and zilch. The advantage of the new engine? Physics (core rules) behave differently now. Not necessarily better, but different. They got rid of that one feature nobody liked anyway (stratagem bloat), but is a rewrite of everything the optimal way forward here? We got new bugs now (see this topic) that were not there before and lost features people liked (more granular points and unit options).
As others have said, no game is perfect on release. Be it a board tabletop game or video game, they all come with erratas and patches.
And I guarantee that the design and balance teams are predominantly not hyper-competitive wombles. So on the face of it, the rules look great when you're taking the average players collection of 'these guys look cool' minis. It's when you take a collection to an extreme that the rules start getting janky. Like when Orks took 180 fearless boys and won because you just couldn't kill them fast enough to get to the things that were actually dealing damage and winning games. Orks weren't broken, it was the rules being taken to a logical extreme that lots of armies couldn't handle. Same as when Knights are oppressive in the meta, it's all just skew.
And the point that the problems get found within days of release? That's because you've suddenly got millions of people suddenly looking at the rules and trying to find ways to break them.
Yeah GW designers definitely wouldn't have thought to use a Fate Dice'd 6 on a Wraithknight to suddenly turn an anti-tank gun into an all-purpose death ray.
These are the same folk that a few editions back buffed Librarians because everyone in the studio used Chaplains instead when the rest of the world considered Chaplains trash and Librarians as the best HQ choice in the Space Marine codex...
Afrodactyl wrote: As others have said, no game is perfect on release. Be it a board tabletop game or video game, they all come with erratas and patches.
And I guarantee that the design and balance teams are predominantly not hyper-competitive wombles. So on the face of it, the rules look great when you're taking the average players collection of 'these guys look cool' minis. It's when you take a collection to an extreme that the rules start getting janky. Like when Orks took 180 fearless boys and won because you just couldn't kill them fast enough to get to the things that were actually dealing damage and winning games. Orks weren't broken, it was the rules being taken to a logical extreme that lots of armies couldn't handle. Same as when Knights are oppressive in the meta, it's all just skew.
And the point that the problems get found within days of release? That's because you've suddenly got millions of people suddenly looking at the rules and trying to find ways to break them.
IIRC, when the video game Defender was in development, the top score was around 60K and the developers weren't sure if that could be beat. Then within a couple weeks of release there were players scoring into the hundreds of thousands. Not the same thing...but the point is that you can't *really* assess some things until it gets into the hands of a much larger audience including very skilled players.
Also...my stance on 40K continues to be that if GW was truly striving for balance, the game would look a lot different. It'd be a stripped-down, very simple but elegant ruleset with factions including a much more limited number of units. But that's a total non-starter. The players *want* all the rules complexity and for their models to stay playable and competitive forever. And of course they always want to sell players new kits, which means the faction sprawl is endless. GW could make a better 40K and in fact they do make better games if you play attention to the non-core products. They just don't want to, and the player base ultimately doesn't want what a better 40K would mean either.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled balance update Armageddon.
AduroT wrote: Kind of like how D&D is a complete failure as well, right? They’ve got their sixth edition coming out soon.
40k. Released 1987? 10 editions to 2023. Average 3.6 years between editions
D&D. Released 1974? 6 editions to 2024. Average 8.3 years between editions.
If 40k moved to 8 years per edition, I'd maybe get an army or 2 finished before it was altered.
AduroT wrote: Kind of like how D&D is a complete failure as well, right? They’ve got their sixth edition coming out soon.
40k. Released 1987? 10 editions to 2023. Average 3.6 years between editions
D&D. Released 1974? 6 editions to 2024. Average 8.3 years between editions.
If 40k moved to 8 years per edition, I'd maybe get an army or 2 finished before it was altered.
Sarouan wrote: The rules don't stop to function if "balance" is broken...like Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games says right, not everything needs to be balanced in a game at all times...just let people adapt and find new tactics. We did that in the old days of previous editions of GW core games
yeah, except in the old days of pre-8th, the 40k community was much smaller and didnt "solve the meta" in a week. Wraithknight was OP, Dev wounds WAS overbearing in the game.
I'm sorry but i don't understand how people agree with Ash, if you play 40k ultra casually like the people he laments for, then you're probably not even aware that GW made any rules changes.
tneva82 wrote: Well you realize you aren't target for gw anymore anyway? You got your army. Neeext!
Actually he is exactly the type of customer GW wants to have for every new edition they launch... He has 8 armies which he needs to buy codexes for and then buy more models for those same 8 armies to keep up with the updates. Look at Votann... you think you're sorted with 2000pts before?... guess again new rules means you need to buy around 300 extra points more in models...
Hell, anyone updating their armies 8 armies to this edition will cost them more than just buying one new full army.
I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units. Surely the advantage of units all having 'unique' weapons is so they can adjust offending units on the fly, while leaving the core rules intact. Just take Wraithknights D-Cannons and whatever else has similar issues. Reduce Damage stat by half, but then add a rule for the weapon that against Vehicles or Monsters you do double damage. There, now they are half as lethal against infantry, while my horrendously expensive hardcover book is correct for longer than Liz Truss's Premiership.
Dawnbringer wrote: I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units. Surely the advantage of units all having 'unique' weapons is so they can adjust offending units on the fly, while leaving the core rules intact. Just take Wraithknights D-Cannons and whatever else has similar issues. Reduce Damage stat by half, but then add a rule for the weapon that against Vehicles or Monsters you do double damage. There, now they are half as lethal against infantry, while my horrendously expensive hardcover book is correct for longer than Liz Truss's Premiership.
That fixes problem of mortal wounds only for some. Not enough. You would need to add special rule to every devastating wound weapon with damage value higher than 1...
That fixes problem of mortal wounds only for some. Not enough. You would need to add special rule to every devastating wound weapon with damage value higher than 1...
So annoyed your broken toys got fixed?
If they thought mortal wounds as a whole were an issue they'd have changed mortal wounds. I don't think rolling a 6 to wound with a Sternguard HB killing two guardsmen is that big of a problem. It was what was supposed to be dedicated anti-tank wiping whole squads. This was made too easy via the eldar index, which (outside the poor chumps that bought the Index Cards, which were known to be limited lifetime) could have just been changed via PDF.
And no, as they didn't reprint and offer me a free new copy of the hardcover rule book, they didn't 'fix' my 'broken toys'
Dawnbringer wrote: I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units. Surely the advantage of units all having 'unique' weapons is so they can adjust offending units on the fly, while leaving the core rules intact. Just take Wraithknights D-Cannons and whatever else has similar issues. Reduce Damage stat by half, but then add a rule for the weapon that against Vehicles or Monsters you do double damage. There, now they are half as lethal against infantry, while my horrendously expensive hardcover book is correct for longer than Liz Truss's Premiership.
So add more unit-specific rules instead of fixing what nearly everyone acknowledges is the rule that's the source of the problem?
) - I can see the impact more important there, indeed. But that's not the majority of games at all.It MAY be your majority of games played because of a specific list you play, sure...but then, that means it's not a "everyone" problem. It's a "you" problem trying to make it pass like a life-or-death issue for all players, so that you way to play is preserved.
