10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46

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**

Tyel wrote:
I'm seeing this argument, but why do you "need" all this stuff? I mean I can understand why (points depending) you'd want Eldrad and a Farseer in the list. But that would probably be for the wider game benefit than just babysitting some D-Cannons all game. So the argument of "its 600 points" doesn't really wash.

I feel the functionality of guaranteed mortal wounds is less cracking knights and more deleting elite infantry. You can always fish for 6s anyway (with the detachment reroll) - but if you need it, you have it.

The whole issue is Eldar are going to be fast and reliable. This means you can gamble - and usually win.

I pretty much agree with this. I just think some people just aren't considering some of the logistics of making this problem tick, which may or may not be blowing it out of proportion.

Why DG are being considered bottom tier is the view (mainly driven by Terminators+Plague Marines) is that they'll be slow and not especially reliable. So you can't gamble as hard. If stuff gets stuck out of position, you are likely hoping on very long range charges and that's it. A DG list which is PBCs, MBHs, FBDs and maybe Mortarion might get around this. But if those units are inefficient for the points, the whole roster won't have legs.

One thing DG benefits from in 10th that they don't have now is dumping out PM from a rhino after it moves, which is a considerable increase in mobility. Will it matter? I'm unsure as we haven't seen a lot of synergy in theirs supporting units that help DG units themselves - ( other than the very nice fights first ).

**Karol**

Jidmah wrote:

Money is just one type of motivation. Companies like WotC or GW (or any gaming company, really) get away with paying less (and driving people to work more) because people are willing to work for their hobby despite that, because being able work on a cool product you enjoy is much more fulfilling than working on things you don't care about just to get money. Both EA games and Ubisoft have offices in my general area and both pay significantly less money and offer significantly less benefits than my employers did, yet they never seem to have trouble to fill their openings while pretty much everyone else is.

Of course, you can't do completely without skill, but a single skilled and motivated dev is usually sufficient to turn a team of five or six motivated people into a great and productive team.
Six skilled and unmotivated people will deliver something like 9th edition's app. It works exactly as written in the specification, with no thought wasted on whether those specs made sense.

In general, you earn much more money if you create software for industry appliances, insurance companies, power plants or large discounters, but you are a lot less likely to go the extra mile for a system that monitors a blast furnace than you would if you were building the army builder for the very game you are going to play twice a week.

However, I feel like this is going waaaay off topic now, we should create a separate thread for this if people are really interested in discussing this.

Everything is money. Benefits, the ability to show at the next job that you worked for X on the Y project and you made money. There is a reason why in sports some people are willing to join federations and club and warm a bench for a seson. The 1 skilled and 5 non skilled people sounds like a bad reality. We even have a proverb about it. Still it is better to have 6 skilled people working on a project, then 1 being tortured by the inability of 5 other people who can't keep up, or worse who unload, especialy during crunch time, all the work load on the person who knows what they are doing.
For me GW is not going to make an army builder, that is good, because they don't have to. Their products sell anyway. Other companies established or new, if they try or would try to what we call "pulling a GW" they would go down hard.

**tneva82**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?

Do you have all of the 10th info?

I think points are perhaps the only real remaining piece for the 'D-Cannon problem'. We should have all the necessary rules details.

Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.

And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight

**Trickstick**

Karol wrote:
The good thing is that there are a lot of index list that feel like that. At least to me. The DE, the ad mecha, the IG.

From what I can tell from looking at Guard, there are some very spicy combos in there. Like 2+ rerollable indirect fire, or regenerating 4++ kreigers. They really feel like an army that can pound you into oblivion if given half a chance.

**Daedalus81**

tneva82 wrote:
Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.

And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight

I don't think it matter much what else others will do, because the effect is pretty measurable as it stands right now. I can't see anything in Nids that rises to that level even if they have some very interesting things like spore mines.

And obviously Eldrad won't be crazy points. I do expect Eldar points to go up. It's entirely possible they don't. Nothing about what they're doing means there won't be a messy launch. And that's fine as long as they address it with some relative speed.

And the nice thing about that is everything they put out right now is digital so they don't have any big excuse to not deal with stuff that is clearly out of whack.

**Karol**

tneva82 809431 11545581 wrote:

Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.

And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight

Well they can't put 3x12 wounds, thanks to full re-rolls, in to three different targets while having only one tank in LoS. Phantasm more or less makes it impossible for a single unit moving less then 8" to reach a single unit of eldar in melee. In any enviroment where 6's enhance rolls, being able to just get them is a super powerful rule. Their relics are annoying especialy the phoenix thingy, because with how hard it is to kill them, a farseer standing up on a +2 is not something one wants to see. Blade storm on a fully unit of jetbikes with scatter lasers is killing medium and elite infantry and even has chance to damage lighter tanks. All the dreads for other factions lost the -1D rule. For eldar their war walker,dreads etc actualy gained rules. A warwalker has more rules then a GM NDK, better stats, better guns, better BS and is harder to kill. while being just a regular vehicle.
Among the index armies there are good and bad armies, but Eldar are like early 9th harlequins or pre nerf DE codex in 9th level of powerful. Stuff like the D-canons is just one of many things they have. They practicaly have no handicaps, and the one they do have, which is being caught in melee with some units, is made hard to impossible to achive by a combination of eldar speed and stratagems. And this is just the index. When the codex come out they will have more detachment, more stratagems for them and who knows maybe even a new unit.

**EviscerationPlague**

Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?

Do you have all of the 10th info?

We have enough, and it wasn't hard with even minimal info to figure out the power combos. People do it here, in Reddit, various Facebook groups.

GW gives no reason for "wait and see" to be a response that you feel so intent on giving, and look at the power we had to not "wait and see" with Votaan.

**Dudeface**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?

Do you have all of the 10th info?

We have enough, and it wasn't hard with even minimal info to figure out the power combos. People do it here, in Reddit, various Facebook groups.

GW gives no reason for "wait and see" to be a response that you feel so intent on giving, and look at the power we had to not "wait and see" with Votaan.

You don't even have points yet. You're broadcasting it's good and fair for an event hosting a 10th ed tournament with a cut off before the launch box release date, to ban eldar players who have produced a grand total of 0 data to support the banning, to not turn up after buying tickets to a 9th ed event. It's bs and shouldn't stand. Even if the concern is correct over the d-cannons, banning a full army is too strong of a response when you can simply ban a unit or houserule strands.

**EviscerationPlague**

Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?

Do you have all of the 10th info?

We have enough, and it wasn't hard with even minimal info to figure out the power combos. People do it here, in Reddit, various Facebook groups.

GW gives no reason for "wait and see" to be a response that you feel so intent on giving, and look at the power we had to not "wait and see" with Votaan.

You don't even have points yet. You're broadcasting it's good and fair for an event hosting a 10th ed tournament with a cut off before the launch box release date, to ban eldar players who have produced a grand total of 0 data to support the banning, to not turn up after buying tickets to a 9th ed event. It's bs and shouldn't stand. Even if the concern is correct over the d-cannons, banning a full army is too strong of a response when you can simply ban a unit or houserule strands.

Nah, that doesn't send a message to GW's writing team.

And yes, as long as we get correct info via leaks or GW, I believe tournaments and stores banning entire armies is good for the long term health of the game. If GW doesn't want to try to get it right the first time with obvious issues, we shouldn't try to accommodate their rules as such.

All you're doing is showing why banning Votaan worked out in the end.

**Gert**

Every day I am vindicated in my disdain for competitive events.

**leopard**

Gert wrote:
Every day I am vindicated in my disdain for competitive events.

some games are suited to competitive environments, had a lot of fun with Flames of War's 3rd edition for example, heck warhammer was fun if you were careful to pick events where even seriously players knew to lighten up a bit with slightly silly scenarios designed to break up the meta a bit

I've done two 40k "events", on an actual tournament which scored firmly as "never again", and the second an interclub challenge where fortunately they had a player with the same rough ability as me.. that was gun because while competitive it wasn't too serious

40k can be a lot of fun, if both players approach it with the mindset of "how do I make this game fun for my opponent?" (this doesn't mean not trying to win btw), but its not and likely never will be tightly written enough for an actual competitive event - if you want that give the background over to the guys who wrote Star Fleet Battles, you will get a very tightly written game.. but it won't be 40k

some people love the min/max "I won in the list building phase", and fair play to them, when they find like minded players, I just want to spend a few hours killing time with friends and maybe chucking a few dice, letting legends be born, and legends be killed.

**Karol**

D canons aren't even peak of the eldar problem. It is just one thing.

**EviscerationPlague**

Gert wrote:
Every day I am vindicated in my disdain for competitive events.

Yes, imagine demanding GW put more effort into their rules and that's your vindication against comp players LMAO

**vipoid**

Trickstick wrote:
Karol wrote:
The good thing is that there are a lot of index list that feel like that. At least to me. The DE, the ad mecha, the IG.

From what I can tell from looking at Guard, there are some very spicy combos in there. Like 2+ rerollable indirect fire, or regenerating 4++ kreigers. They really feel like an army that can pound you into oblivion if given half a chance.

Point of order - kreigers can't regenerate at all.

Their dataslate includes the rules for a medi-pack but they have no way to actually obtain one. So GW might as well have written instructions for playing the banjo on their dataslate for all the difference it makes.

**Trickstick**

vipoid wrote:
Point of order - kreigers can't regenerate at all.

Their dataslate includes the rules for a medi-pack but they have no way to actually obtain one. So GW might as well have written instructions for playing the banjo on their dataslate for all the difference it makes.

Oh sure, I pointed that out to people myself. However, I think it is pretty safe to assume that will be fixed in the first faq, if GW has any claim to competence at all.

Another fun rule people may not have seen: you can use plasmaguns to divert psyker hazardous wounds onto the lesser models then regenerate the dkok plasmagunner (pending medipack fix).

**ERJAK**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Gert wrote:
Every day I am vindicated in my disdain for competitive events.

Yes, imagine demanding GW put more effort into their rules and that's your vindication against comp players LMAO

There's a specific type of person that believes that problems only exist if people talk about them.

They don't blame GW for writing terrible, exploitable rules, they blame players for mentioning the terrible exploit.

It would be harmless if it didn't also carry over into real life issues.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.

And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight

I don't think it matter much what else others will do, because the effect is pretty measurable as it stands right now. I can't see anything in Nids that rises to that level even if they have some very interesting things like spore mines.

And obviously Eldrad won't be crazy points. I do expect Eldar points to go up. It's entirely possible they don't. Nothing about what they're doing means there won't be a messy launch. And that's fine as long as they address it with some relative speed.

And the nice thing about that is everything they put out right now is digital so they don't have any big excuse to not deal with stuff that is clearly out of whack.

A lot of the problem could be solved by just pulling devastating wounds off of units that look like they're perfectly fine already without need to barf out a bunch of mortals.

That said, until we get all the sheets and points, who knows if it's even necessary? Maybe guardians are their only battleline have the stats of Grots but cost 35pts per model so THAT'S why everything else is so good.

**Gert**

You wanna change that there post before we have a problem?

**H.B.M.C.**

vipoid wrote:
Their dataslate includes the rules for a medi-pack but they have no way to actually obtain one.

Don't they start with one, and you can inexplicably replace it with a plasma gun?

**Trickstick**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Their dataslate includes the rules for a medi-pack but they have no way to actually obtain one.
Don't they start with one, and you can inexplicably replace it with a plasma gun?

The plasma isnt a medipack replacement. The vox or plasma is a lasgun replacement.

But I think that we can all agree that the lack of medipack equipment is just a mistake that will be fixed by an errata, no?

**Canadian 5th**

It might even be fixed when the full suite of data slates are released.

**Breton**

Jidmah wrote:
Karol wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

Same. Motivated > Skilled. A motivated developer will eventually become skilled more often than not.

Yeah, but potentialy in 4-5 projects down the line, by which time your company can be dead by then. If people get paid, they work. There is a milion and one projects that were started by enthusiastic people, but never got finished. The thing with GW, or any other publisher doing hobby related stuff, is that they would like to pay people as if they were a small indy developer in the 80s. Even if they are WoTC or GW right now.

Money is just one type of motivation. Companies like WotC or GW (or any gaming company, really) get away with paying less (and driving people to work more) because people are willing to work for their hobby despite that, because being able work on a cool product you enjoy is much more fulfilling than working on things you don't care about just to get money. Both EA games and Ubisoft have offices in my general area and both pay significantly less money and offer significantly less benefits than my employers did, yet they never seem to have trouble to fill their openings while pretty much everyone else is.

How many of their openings stay filled? And how many are open again because by the time their dev is more proficient and not a recent college grad looking for their first job they've figured out they can go somewhere else for more money and just buy more toys?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
It looks like you can overwatch to place mines with Biovores? Also seems like fun to plunk mines out of sight via Rapid Ingress, but they'll need a decent advance roll to make an impact.

They will probably errata Biovore overwatching away. It happened in 8th too, I don't think GW likes the idea of that.

When something keeps coming back but goes away again its usually the opposite - GW REALLY likes the idea, but can't figure out how to do it right.

**H.B.M.C.**

Or they forgetting about the problems it caused, because they don't iterate, but reinvent the wheel every time and never learn from their mistakes.

I mean, nesting Tyrannocytes are back for, what, the third time now?

**Insectum7**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

I mean, nesting Tyrannocytes are back for, what, the third time now?

Are they?! Hahaha.

**H.B.M.C.**

Insectum7 wrote:
Are they?! Hahaha.

From the Index:

"This model has a transport capacity of... 1 Tyranids Monster model with a Wounds characteristic of 12 of less."

The Tyrannocyte has 10 wounds, and has the Monster keyword.

**JNAProductions**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Are they?! Hahaha.
From the Index:

"This model has a transport capacity of... 1 Tyranids Monster model with a Wounds characteristic of 12 of less."

The Tyrannocyte has 10 wounds, and has the Monster keyword.

One could argue that its rule requiring it be set in reserves makes that impossible. One COULD argue that.

I won't-I think GW just forgot to make matryoshka Tyrranocytes impossible.

**PenitentJake**

Tyrano-duckin.

**H.B.M.C.**

JNAProductions wrote:
I won't-I think GW just forgot to make matryoshka Tyrranocytes impossible.

For, as I said, the third Codex in a row, IIRC.

We laugh, because it's easier than crying.

**EviscerationPlague**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Are they?! Hahaha.
From the Index:

"This model has a transport capacity of... 1 Tyranids Monster model with a Wounds characteristic of 12 of less."

The Tyrannocyte has 10 wounds, and has the Monster keyword.

Is there an advantage to that to be exploited, or just an example of really poor writing?

**H.B.M.C.**

Poor writing.

There's no reason to nest you Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte.

It's just a silly unintended thing because they have (once again) failed to factor that into writing the rule.

[EDIT]: I checked. 8th had a specific note that a Tyrannocyte could not transport another Tyrannocyte. 9th and 10th do not have this note.

**Breton**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Poor writing.

There's no reason to nest you Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte.

It's just a silly unintended thing because they have (once again) failed to factor that into writing the rule.

[EDIT]: I checked. 8th had a specific note that a Tyrannocyte could not transport another Tyrannocyte. 9th and 10th do not have this note.

I'd say Jidmah was right, the RAW does prevent it - because if one Tyrannocyte is embarked it is not set up "high in the sky". The rule could/should have been clearer.