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.

Simply fix Fate Dice as one per unit per phase.

Voss wrote:
I do think devastating wounds is the problem child, but the biggest problems are interaction with [Anti] and dice substitution.

I don't think GW will give it up entirely, but if its changed to only on a natural 6 and doesn't trigger off [Anti], its a lot less oppressive. Happily there's some precedent for this already in the day 2 nerf to the Death Watch Hellfire Rounds stratagem.

The biggest problem is some armies are dependent on MW for their 'all-comers' toolbox (especially anti-armor), and Devastating Wounds is the primary (and in some cases, only) mechanism.

I Agree. Broadly there is not much about 10e i don't like but the prevalence of weapons with both anti-x AND devastating wounds i think is going to need addressing at some point. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with either the Anti-x rule or devastating wounds rule in isolation but when you give weapons the ability to inflict mortal wounds on less than a 6 to wound and effectively ignore both the targets toughness AND armour in one fell swoop it feels a bit much. Then layer on things like strands of fate where you can swap in a guaranteed 6 and still trigger these effects which just compounds the issue. Time will tell i guess.

Not sure why there’s all this discussion of nerfing points costs or changing baseline rules interactions. Just make Fate Dice count as a modified dice roll.

Problem solved.

Datacards and rulebooks etc next week preorders.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Not sure why there’s all this discussion of nerfing points costs or changing baseline rules interactions. Just make Fate Dice count as a modified dice roll.

Problem solved.

Fate dice are a particular problem and I agree some sort of cap on how many can be used per unit per phase and certainly having them not count as unmodified rolls would certainly fix that problem. There is still a broader issue bubbling away under the surface though with the way [anti] and [devastating wounds] interact. I may be wrong and time will tell. So far though it stands out to me as a likely problematic pairing.

Most reports I have seen or read so far seem to have way too many MWs for my liking.

a_typical_hero wrote:
A problem I see with the current approach to points is: How much can you actually trust GW to keep the current loadouts legal?

We see it right now with Vanguard Veterans where a pair of lightning claws (iirc) is not a possible loadout anymore. Sucks to be you if you have your models like this, even though there are enough bits in the box to do it.

Who here has enough faith in GW to go out and buy, build and paint 30 Death Company Marines now with Jump packs, Power fists and Inferno pistols?

If you want to stick to WYSIWYG, I see it as a deeply problematic development. Even if this stays legal for the whole edition, it might already change again in ~3 years and then you are stuck with a lot of useless plastic.

100%. I lost all faith in that when they released the last CSM book. Unless someone wants to build the unit precisely like the instructions tell them, then I would assume at some point this edition, you'll be screwed over.

I agree that is a serious issue GW needs to get on top of, because I feel it directly impacts the appeal of the game/hobby.

I would love if they announced some sort of policy that they will stick to regardless of edition/army. Obviously it would take a solid 3-5 years to be worth trusting, but that it would take so long is an indication of how bad the problem is. [/wishlist]

 SgtEeveell wrote:

The cards in the files are 5x7.5 inches for some reason. It doesn't seem to be any of the standard European A5 or A6 sizes either so I have no idea why they picked that. My printer can't do borderless so there's about a 1/8-1/4 inch white border around it but otherwise they look fine.

GW always makes their cards a weird size. The Blood Bowl and Necromunda cards, most of the Warhammer Quest cards...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Only a new edition can inspire THIS much salt from Dakka. Seriously guys, it is still just a game. Man dollies on a table going 'pew! pew!' at each other. We can (and will) still have a lot of fun if we can focus on having it and put criticism in the background for a few hours.

Its about a 5 000 dollar hobby investment for me, over the years. So not just a game.

Add to it a $1000 weekend a year for a tournament where I'm among the beer 'n pretzel people, rules affecting quality of fun had.

I want to turn your argument on its head. It is for us casual gamers that rules and some semblance balance is important. The competative crowd does not give a crap about the rule-set being lazy or a masterful effort, they are going to pay 2 play (win) and play their netlist anyway. And I wish them the best.

A few of the more mature ones may make some admission that "yeah, thats a bit silly" about the rule as the they synergize it to get rerollable rerolls on the rerolling, like they did with the 10 free rhinos for the gladius force. The power gamers enjoy the game no matter what. And good for them

Casual players prefer intuitive rules that mostly makes sense, which imo is why a shallow game like Mordheim has had such a revival imo, even it is damned unbalanced. Compare to 40k and the terrain rules of 9th alone

"You're taking the mishandling of your favourite hobby by the IP owner too seriously" is a sucky take.

 Sarigar wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:

 Gert wrote:

The points came out yesterday, it's entirely reasonable for people to have played 10th by now.

I'm playing a game tonight.

I'm bringing 30 JP Death Company, 30 powerfists and 30 inferno pistols
20 stormshield/plasma pistol jp vanguards
5 Sanguinary guards
Dante & Astorath

I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.

Played my first (of two) games today with my DA vs BA with 10 JP Death Company/Lemartes and Dante/10 Sanguinary Guard. I go first and fire 10 Desolation Marines Castellan Launchers and Vengor at the Death Company. With Oath of the Moment, Dev Doctrine (Gladius Detachment), and Bolter Discipline enhancement, 10 Death Company got picked up. Turn 2, rinse and repeat vs the Sanguinary Guard. We called the game bottom of turn 2.

Second game the BA player swapped out the JP DC and Sanginary Guard for assault elements in Impulsors and and additional Drop Pod. Game was much closer.

We are under the initial impression that jump pack Marines are over costed, especially considering how fly interacts with terrain. Hope your game fares better.

Yeah, I got creamed by turn 3 by a dude bringing marines with names I dont recognize, and they gunned my DC down. The 20 Vanguards were supposed to hold objectives, but got cleaned out too. Oh well, just to get started with 10th it was ok, I'm going to half heart the whole edition anyway

The poster asking if you would trust GW enough to actually model 30 marines with a special weapons loadout is raising an interesting question. My answer is of course not. The BA I played yesterday were part of an Archangel formation/detatchment from 7th (?) who got free power swords and more. Usually came up against gladius forces with a dozen free razobacks.

So I guess the answer is -no-. It is GWs business model to release rules that causes tinkering and disarray in the armies of the existing playerbase, only to repeat about every 18 months or so. I can see why fundamentalist Stillmanism has had a minor revival among some players, at least in fantasy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Only a new edition can inspire THIS much salt from Dakka. Seriously guys, it is still just a game. Man dollies on a table going 'pew! pew!' at each other. We can (and will) still have a lot of fun if we can focus on having it and put criticism in the background for a few hours.

But 40k is a serious game, played by serious people, who are too serious for petty concepts such as 'fun', why have fun when we can math hammer the system into oblivion!

You must have missed the memo.

In all honesty I think GW can not win, the player base complained the game was too simple, so GW added more and more to it, to make it more convoluted and appealing to the tournament crowd. End result we got 9th edition, which was largely called a bloated mess. So GW cut out a lot of the fat to make the game more streamlined and simple... which now gets called dumbed down.

Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, it has always had a very vocal and disgruntled fan base that seem to not like anything GW do.

Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Datacards and rulebooks etc next week preorders.

Did there really need to be another week for what is essentially two books and some cards? This is getting tedious.

I mean lets face it a lot of the complaints about GW making it more complex were things like how information was scatter shot through publications all over the place. Even within a publication - eg a codex - you had a lot of page flipping to get all the information or build a list. Then you add in the expansion books, updates, update documents and all and it was just messy.


And that's a huge issue if you're trying to make a game with lots of choices because you will get a lot of "this is too complicated" issues. However they might not relate to the actual complexity of the mechanics, just accessing all the information.



3rd and 4th ed I feel had good books. There were lots of weapon and upgrade choices, but the layout was logical and easy to follow.

 stonehorse wrote:


Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.

3rd ed.

I feel 3rd was simple and unashamed of it. It played like an early 2000s game and was slightly ahead of its time. Later editions went back to being more like clunky 90s games imo.

Size and footprint of army is another deal. We're not really in skirmish territory anymore imo.

I for one prefer the easier points costs, and the "take whatever you want" system. I just feel it must be balanced or ironed out a bit. I also like the fixed unit sizes a lot. If we could just get rid of fliers and knights and go back to the larger table sizes, at least for some scenarios, I would feel we've made a return to a mere sleek and elegant 40k version with 10th.

 Overread wrote:
I mean lets face it a lot of the complaints about GW making it more complex were things like how information was scatter shot through publications all over the place. Even within a publication - eg a codex - you had a lot of page flipping to get all the information or build a list. Then you add in the expansion books, updates, update documents and all and it was just messy.


And that's a huge issue if you're trying to make a game with lots of choices because you will get a lot of "this is too complicated" issues. However they might not relate to the actual complexity of the mechanics, just accessing all the information.



3rd and 4th ed I feel had good books. There were lots of weapon and upgrade choices, but the layout was logical and easy to follow.

Mechanical, 40k has always been simple. However ot has a lot of things that become hard to keep track of and interact in odd ways. 9th too much to try to keep prominent in the mind. If 40k was someone's only hobby, then I am sure they would manage fine, but for other people who have a wide selection of hobbies ot made it neigh impossible to enjoy. Each time I went back to the game, there had been a drastic rules change that caught me, and made me feel like I couldn't play/enjoy the game.

This is part of the reason I have gone back to playing out of print editions if games, they arw a finished product, and are not going to be changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 triplegrim wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:


Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.

3rd ed.

I feel 3rd was simple and unashamed of it. It played like an early 2000s game and was slightly ahead of its time. Later editions went back to being more like clunky 90s games imo.

Size and footprint of army is another deal. We're not really in skirmish territory anymore imo.

I for one prefer the easier points costs, and the "take whatever you want" system. I just feel it must be balanced or ironed out a bit. I also like the fixed unit sizes a lot. If we could just get rid of fliers and knights and go back to the larger table sizes, at least for some scenarios, I would feel we've made a return to a mere sleek and elegant 40k version with 10th.

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Quite telling how having a fun time isn't mentioned/talked about in criticism of the new points system, all about not having the best performance.

 stonehorse wrote:

Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.

Ah, 3rd edition, back when GW stores had a 'pistol amnesty' program where one could turn in no-longer legal plasma pistols off your assault marines and get free bolt pistols to replace them.

 stonehorse wrote:

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.

As someone who's been to one locally hosted and very chill tournament in my entire 40k career...
I don't think I'll be playing 10th edition. Not right now, for sure. I'll follow the 40k news, I'll keep abreast of developments, but what I'm seeing just doesn't look fun.

There's some good stuff-morale is nice and meaningful, USRs returning is great and done reasonably well, the new weapon system has potential... But the overall game just doesn't appeal.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.

I think they're trying to say when you have a casual like minded group with their own perceptions of what is "good" and what pushes the envelope too far, then this edition likely makes it simpler/easier for them. They were not fussed about stacking 6 auras with a 5 cp strat combo to one shot units anyway.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.

A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!

A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.

Roll the dice and have fun!

*far too many variables for the game designers to factor in. It isn't a closed system, but rather an open system so can not be balanced.

and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve
while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years
don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)

the imbalance and "how far can I get with this" is what attracts competitive players, not casual ones
a casual player does not challenge himself to win, they just have fun with the stuff they like but as soon as one of the players needs to play bad for the others to even have a chance unless they buy into stuff they don't want there is a problem

 kodos wrote:
and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve

while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years

don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)

Because as you said the casual player will have fun.

Why have we made winning the ultimate goal?

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.

A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!

A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.

Roll the dice and have fun!

*far too many variables for the game designers to factor in. It isn't a closed system, but rather an open system so can not be balanced.

There's a difference between imbalanced, as-in, "Your list has 4% more mathematical efficiency than mine," and imbalance such as "We can tell who's gonna win before the game even starts."

Everyone has a different level for what's considered "Good enough" balance, but no one wants no balance at all. Games are best when they're close, and good balance helps achieve that.

always losing every single game without even a chance to win is only considered "fun" by very few people
people enjoy close games were both had a chance to win until the very end of it

but if you say casual players are the ones having fun playing games were they never have a chance winning, that is a very strange take as than everyone who plays to win is not casual any more
(so I guess the casual ones stop playing after 1st turn because non of them wants to win as this means no fun)

 stonehorse wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve

while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years

don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)

Because as you said the casual player will have fun.

Why have we made winning the ultimate goal?

Because facing opponents who intentionally plays less than their ability is boring af, and is much closer to playtime with your GI joes than actually doing a tabletop wargame.

If the army they have are so-so in composition and has lots of crap units, I dont care, but I expect the guy to give me a challenge and play as well as he can.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!

Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.

A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!

A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.

Roll the dice and have fun!

*far too many variables for the game designers to factor in. It isn't a closed system, but rather an open system so can not be balanced.

There's a difference between imbalanced, as-in, "Your list has 4% more mathematical efficiency than mine," and imbalance such as "We can tell who's gonna win before the game even starts."

Everyone has a different level for what's considered "Good enough" balance, but no one wants no balance at all. Games are best when they're close, and good balance helps achieve that.

Narrative play also helps achieve that, players don't always stick to the missions provided, but can make their own.

'Fancy those new Terminators you painted facing off against my small Tyranid force'
'Oh, could say their teleportation went wrong and they got stuck in the middle of a swarm'
'Exactly, now let's set the board up with loads of jungle terrain'.
'Could also have this unit of Scouts as a relief force sent to find the Terminators'
'OK, they arrive on turn... rolls a D6, 3. Turn 3 they arrive.'
'That is if my guys live that long!'

Etc.

Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.

 stonehorse wrote:
A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!

There is losing a game that was hard fought and tense till the end and there is losing against release week Dhrukari, AdMech, Orks, Custodes, Eldar. The latter makes you question why you bother at all with showing up to a game. 40k can and could be a hell of a lot more balanced than it was during its past 9 editions. It is just not a priority for GW. And I agree that a bad balance affects casual players more for the stated reasons.

 stonehorse wrote:
A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.

40k is not a wargame where you replay a famous battle with (semi) set forces on each side.You are free to play it like that, but the core of the game sees two equal armies duking it out. That's why both players use the same amount of points to muster an army.