Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Problems.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say it ain’t so.

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

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

If only.

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

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

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

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

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

To once again quote The Lost World:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To once again quote The Lost World:

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

What are you referring to here with 10th?

 vict0988 wrote:

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

To once again quote The Lost World:

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

What are you referring to here with 10th?

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

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

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

Slipspace wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

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

To once again quote The Lost World:

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

What are you referring to here with 10th?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its like most triple AAA computer games -

If you don't want to hugely disapointed -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wraithknight Cannon went from :

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

to :

Blast D3 S20 AP4 2D6 Devastating Wounds

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't want to hugely disapointed -

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

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

Rules are transitive
Models are forever

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

The Wraithknight Cannon went from :

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

to :

Blast D3 S20 AP4 2D6 Devastating Wounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

They definitely should be priced in.

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

They definitely should be priced in.

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

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

They definitely should be priced in.

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

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

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

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

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

To once again quote The Lost World:

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

What are you referring to here with 10th?

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

They definitely should be priced in.

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

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

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

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

They definitely should be priced in.

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

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

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

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

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

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

They definitely should be priced in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ERJAK wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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