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.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees issues pairing the [anti] keyword with [devastating wounds]. I'm sure some folks think it's cool but I think it will make for pretty dull none-interactions where you just sit and watch your opponent roll to hit and wound then just take models off. No save, no inv. MAYBE a FNP if you're lucky. I think individually they're both cool but paired together not so much.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Kale wrote:
Not happy with deathwatch, but at least they are just 'ravenous hoards' style get you by jobs. Remember how bland that was when WH changed editions?

Hopefully they will get a better set in the codex

Funny you should say that, as it's still remembered as the one time that Warhammer was most well balanced ^^. This does not seem to be the case now.

8th Indexhammer was NEVER balanced, why do people keep saying that?

While there were some unbalanced elements it felt balanced for a lot of people. 8th changed a lot of paradigms, people were learning and in my experience had a lot of fun smashing blobs of infantry together, enjoying the new split fire rules then trying to figure out which of their non troop options were worth taking from game to game. It wasn't perfect, but it was considerably lower power than 8.5, 9th and soon to be 10th. It was fun, and it felt balanced even if it wasn't.

Da Butcha wrote:


Agreed. It seems odd for a design team to think that universal special rules help reduce confusion when the same rule appears in multiple datacard, but uniform weapon profiles do NOT reduce confusion, when the exact same model bit has a different profile when it is on a different datacard.

It's still allegedly a miniatures wargame, but the designers are telling us that specific design elements of the model line, have different rules profiles when they appear on different models---AND that other, differing design elements have the SAME rules profile, when they appear o

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable cognitive load, but it's really odd that the design team decides to simplify and rationalize certain rules, then goes out of their way to make sure that same weapon ≠ same rules sometimes and different weapon ≠ different rules sometimes.

If it was just 'we can only fit this much on a datacard', I would be disappointed, but it would be logically consistent. However, they then throw additional weapons on a 'wargear' card anyway. If you're going to do that, why bundle various weapons together?

Also, if simplification is the goal, why refer to power weapons in some places as power weapons, and in other places, as something else? Isn't creating multiple terms for the same thing precisely not simplifying it?

I don't think it's about simplification or hatred of USP's..... USP's are HARD to balance. When you change a USP, because one unit is OP. U Change the game for every single unit using that usp.

Advance and charge with + 2 to the charge roll and +1 attack; might be ok on intercessors but totally broken on other units.

Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...

RedNoak wrote:
Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...

It is for this reason I have some hope in the midterm success of the 10th edition rules paradigm. It might take a few attempts, but with GWs recent efforts on constantly finetuning balance and actually adressing existing problems... yeah this could work out.

and having USR "advance + charge"
USR "+x to charge roll"
and USR "+X attack on charge" was too complicated?

you create the amount of USR that you need to design all units in advance and instead of changing the special rules you change which units get them and in what form

for the very same reason "anti Keyword X" should not be a USR as it might be good on one unit but too strong on another

 Darnok wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...

It is for this reason I have some hope in the midterm success of the 10th edition rules paradigm. It might take a few attempts, but with GWs recent efforts on constantly finetuning balance and actually adressing existing problems... yeah this could work out.

The problem is that "midterm success" these days is about one year out of three in an editions cycle. There's the early days when only a few codexes are out. (The "JuSt WaIt AnD SeEeEeE!" phase) There's maybe some middle section with a semi reasonable state of balance. And these days it seems that there's a "late edition" phase where GW is fething it up specifically so that the next edition can be ThE MoSt BaLaNcEd EvAr. SM 2.5 in 8th. Removing points for huge numbers of options in 9th. Even in mid 9th they were slapping on rules like AoC, which they later took out again.

What a mess. Churn for the churn god.

Some more concrete points on why i dont like the DW index.

Unit construction, I cant use my current units as they are so need to remove models and make new once.

Combat squading, usually only have five squads with two bolters each plus special weapons and now i must have atleast four bolters and everything in a big group.

Character leaders, my characters cant join the KT units for example my chaplin on a bike.

Unit abilities, this is mostly the spectrus unit but it was kinda fun to have al the phobos unit abilities in one swiss knife KT and now they only get a movement ability.

New models, no KT to put the new flamer and missile models in.

Weapon options, weapons that are an option on the standard SM units cannot be taken in a KT.

Unsure on whether mortal wounds are the actual issue, or the interactions causing devastating wounds from critical wounds.

One solution is to sack off mortal wounds, and make devastating wounds +1D and an additional -2 of AP. Meaning invulnerable saves no longer have a counter - this is probably not ideal.

The other is that critical wounds don't cause devastating wounds unless it is an unmodified 6 on the roll still. E.g. anti infantry still cause a critical wound on a 2+ or 4+ or whatever, but won't cause a devastating wound unless it is still a roll of a 6, and never make it modifiable.

I actually think Hellstorm wargamings 'joke' of playtesting for £500 an hour would probably be good thing for GW to invest in at the moment, the new edition is actually already broken.

I also then take on board a perspective someone had recently that I never really considered. Actually, the problem is not 'power gamers' already embedded into the hobby as such as I always thought it was. It's new players coming into the hobby.

They are unlikely to know or maybe even care that a combo is broken, and will deviate towards it ASAP - as that is what happens in video games, and sports, fantasy football etc now. Effectively, most new/young people are power gamers and are already aware of list building and tailoring in capacity anyway, and it is the norm for them. Anecdotally I see it with my nephew, he only cares about the most powerful units, not the ones that look cool (this is in contrast to me when I was joining the hobby around his age of 11).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Darnok wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...

It is for this reason I have some hope in the midterm success of the 10th edition rules paradigm. It might take a few attempts, but with GWs recent efforts on constantly finetuning balance and actually adressing existing problems... yeah this could work out.

The problem is that "midterm success" these days is about one year out of three in an editions cycle. There's the early days when only a few codexes are out. (The "JuSt WaIt AnD SeEeEeE!" phase) There's maybe some middle section with a semi reasonable state of balance. And these days it seems that there's a "late edition" phase where GW is fething it up specifically so that the next edition can be ThE MoSt BaLaNcEd EvAr. SM 2.5 in 8th. Removing points for huge numbers of options in 9th. Even in mid 9th they were slapping on rules like AoC, which they later took out again.

What a mess. Churn for the churn god.

Bold Statement:
10th index times will be more balanced than 8th index times.
And i fondly remember that time as the most fun i ever had with a new Edition.
So yeah, tinfoil hat evil and chaos all you want, i am optimistic.

But, if you do not like it, nothing is preventing you from playing whatever edition was good enough to bring you into the Hobby - or your own rules. Except of course if noone agrees with your analysis....

( Full disclosure: i hugely detested 9th Ed. so our group instead played through all previous ones (exc. 1st Ed) Every edition has gems and issues. 5th and 6th got the most Likes)

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I also then take on board a perspective someone had recently that I never really considered. Actually, the problem is not 'power gamers' already embedded into the hobby as such as I always thought it was. It's new players coming into the hobby.

They are unlikely to know or maybe even care that a combo is broken, and will deviate towards it ASAP - as that is what happens in video games, and sports, fantasy football etc now. Effectively, most new/young people are power gamers and are already aware of list building and tailoring in capacity anyway, and it is the norm for them. Anecdotally I see it with my nephew, he only cares about the most powerful units, not the ones that look cool (this is in contrast to me when I was joining the hobby around his age of 11).

I think you look at it from the wrong side. A new player will ask for advice or search for information on what they need to start or what to get next.

How many videos talking about the best units of each army are out there? How many of them rate them by their tabletop power compared to how cool the model looks or how compelling the fluff for it is? There is your answer why new people gravitate towards strong units.

bold statement given that without points we don't know anything about balance
so how can one know that 10th Index is better than 8th if we don't even have points yet

and than the edition cycle is not new

early edition, everything new first codex designed together, Update for each faction so that all are on the same level

mid edition, that show the design of that edition, good balance between those books

late edition, after the mid edition design shift, throwing everything out and just go in testing what people will accept/like

had that in 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, so expect that to happen in 10th as well

difference is that we now have only 3 years so the state of "balance" is just months

Mortal wounds aren't an issue. Neither is triggering critical wounds on a unmodified roll of less than 6. In isolation either mechanic can be cool and fun. The issue is when you create circumstances where you can layer them all together.

Anti X ignores Toughness basically which is fine, mortal wounds (devastating wounds) ignore saves which again is fine. When you stack those and allow an attack to basically ignore both Toughness AND saves I feel that's too much. This is particularly true if:

The X value in [anti] is too good;
The faction has some way (eg fate dice for Aeldari) that allow you to guarantee the necessary value.

For me there is nothing wrong with [anti] conferring auto wound on X but still only scoring a critical wound on a 6 or at best a 5+.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
Mortal wounds aren't an issue. Neither is triggering critical wounds on a unmodified roll of less than 6. In isolation either mechanic can be cool and fun. The issue is when you create circumstances where you can layer them all together.

Anti X ignores Toughness basically which is fine, mortal wounds (devastating wounds) ignore saves which again is fine. When you stack those and allow an attack to basically ignore both Toughness AND saves I feel that's too much. This is particularly true if:

The X value in [anti] is too good;
The faction has some way (eg fate dice for Aeldari) that allow you to guarantee the necessary value.

For me there is nothing wrong with [anti] conferring auto wound on X but still only scoring a critical wound on a 6 or at best a 5+.

I'd argue most of the mechanics in tandem aren't a problem, it's only when it affects too much at once, the scale and scope of hellfire rounds wasn't thought out at all. Even if it was a once per game limited to 1 kill team only and cannot be triggered by a captain, that limits it down massively from where it's at now and it's not even the most subtle or best solution. It maybe shouldn't be anti-infantry 2+ either, but 3+.

 kodos wrote:
and having USR "advance + charge"
USR "+x to charge roll"
and USR "+X attack on charge" was too complicated?

you create the amount of USR that you need to design all units in advance and instead of changing the special rules you change which units get them and in what form

for the very same reason "anti Keyword X" should not be a USR as it might be good on one unit but too strong on another

Still... USR's are for every unit using it. You can NOT fine tune USR's... That was the whole problem in past editions... On your example... U maybe WANT a unit to have all those benefits. But X is a tad too much, so instead of gimping EVERY unit using that USR by going X-1, you just edit the unbalanced unit in the first place.

I can understand the implicit simplicity of USR's is appealling... There is no denying that datacards are easier to balance by default

That was never the problem with USRs that is a problem with people not understanding how USR should work and be used

so GW has learned nothing from their past mistakes with USRs but is just repeating them and people defending it as being the only solution on how those things can work

Just for your example:
Anti Vehicle 3+ is too strong on some units, but because it is a USR you want to balance it by adding another USR that says "anti Vehicle rule on this units has -1"

and because this is not a good solution you suggest that there should be no Anti Vehicle USR but instead every unit gets their own version of an Anti Vehicle rules so that designers can adjust each unit on their own

the very obvious solution would be to have an "anti Keyword x+" USR and each unit can be adjusted on their needs
and if this is possible, than it is possible with any other rules as well

"+2 Attacks on Charge" is too strong on some units and to weak on others so it cannot be a "+x Attacks on Charge" USR but must be a +1A or +3A special rule on the datasheet is the biggest bs I have read regarding 10th in the last days

RedNoak wrote:
Still... USR's are for every unit using it. You can NOT fine tune USR's...

You can price USR differently for each unit based on how much impact it has on the unit's performance.
Packing too many effects into a single USR makes it increasingly unwieldy but could be avoided by splitting it up.

Haven't they literally fine tuned USR by giving them numerical values? What is anti 3+ vs anti 4+, if not fine tuning?

 Trickstick wrote:
Haven't they literally fine tuned USR by giving them numerical values? What is anti 3+ vs anti 4+, if not fine tuning?

I think it breaks down in the given case of DW because there are just too many combinations of stuff that you can potentially exploit, because you can mix-and-match with standard Astartes characters; the number of possible combinations skyrockets, and so there are degenerate optima.

This concrete problem has several causes:

- Mix-and-match Killteams where you can have three assault cannons and everybody else has Combi-Weapons
- The Hellfire rounds Stratagem being pretty overpowered for its cost and the number of uses it can have
- Mix-and-matching with standard Astartes to get access to an additional use of said Stratagem
- Deathwatch having Oath of the Moomins in addition to their own stuff, leading to re-rolls on stuff, notably on already overpowered Anti-2+, effectively fishing for MWs
- One Enhancement also allowing for an additional target for OoM, further increasing that problem

These things just stack too deep in combination.

 kodos wrote:
That was never the problem with USRs that is a problem with people not understanding how USR should work and be used

so GW has learned nothing from their past mistakes with USRs but is just repeating them and people defending it as being the only solution on how those things can work

Just for your example:
Anti Vehicle 3+ is too strong on some units, but because it is a USR you want to balance it by adding another USR that says "anti Vehicle rule on this units has -1"

and because this is not a good solution you suggest that there should be no Anti Vehicle USR but instead every unit gets their own version of an Anti Vehicle rules so that designers can adjust each unit on their own

the very obvious solution would be to have an "anti Keyword x+" USR and each unit can be adjusted on their needs
and if this is possible, than it is possible with any other rules as well

"+2 Attacks on Charge" is too strong on some units and to weak on others so it cannot be a "+x Attacks on Charge" USR but must be a +1A or +3A special rule on the datasheet is the biggest bs I have read regarding 10th in the last days

Umm gw has anti keyword x+ though?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/?=#warhammer-40000
(if you're in the States, switch to british to see the files)


Chaos has crept into the downloads section (no Knights. I think the cards are mixed with Imps?)

lol Ahriman on Disc doesn't do anything different....WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY

 Daedalus81 wrote:
lol Ahriman on Disc doesn't do anything different....WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Because Ahriman is still Ahriman?

Spawn are tough, but lots rules. I guess that works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
lol Ahriman on Disc doesn't do anything different....WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Because Ahriman is still Ahriman?

Yea, but putting him on a disc seems to utterly pointless. They could have made him a lone operative or something.

So chaos marine detachment rule.
Mark= crit more with a specifc type of dark pact per god in Fight or Shoot phase.

Or reroll 1s always. Glory to Chaos!... I guess..


Ouch. If you want multiple enhancements, you must multi-god. (chaos marines still, though daemons have the same problem)

Gah! Exalted on disc is different, but Ahriman is not....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But Magnus is a boss!

So unless I've missed something, Cultist restrictions seem to be gone?

If anything needs to be a USR that isn’t yet, it’s “one shot”
Yes it’s more or less self explanatory but every weapon that has it also has the explanation.

Armor of Contempt is 1CP
Infernal Rites is 2CP

Any opinions on whether Vashtorr has gotten any better than his mediocre introduction into 9th edition?

Ooh Deathguard Helbrutes are interesting.