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.

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

This seems to be a problem caused by a whole cascade of terrible rules, all stacked atop one another.

- Devastating Wounds. Mortal Wounds on 6s was common enough in 8th/9th that it wasn't unreasonable to make it a USR. However, perhaps as a result of wanting to make the most of their USR, we've seen Devastating Wounds rolled out to far more weapons/units. More importantly still, the rule has undergone a number of key changes:
- Mortal Wounds are inflicted on a critical, not on a straight 6 (so there are now many ways to do Mortal Wounds on a 4+ or 5+, rather than only ever on a 6+). This in particular seems like a mechanic that only exists for a few specific weapons/units but which has been extended to the main USR. At the very least, it feels like something that should be a variable (e.g. have "Devastating Wounds [6+]", "Devastating Wounds [Critical]" etc.) so that you can control whether or not a given weapon/unit's ability to deal Mortal Wounds can be improved or not.
- Mortal Wounds are inflicted instead of the normal damage (rather than in addition to it). This might have been a slight nerf had it not been for...
- Instead of just doing 1 extra Mortal Wound, you now inflict as many as your weapon's normal damage. So instantly the potential is ramped up substantially. Because clearly GW learned nothing from the Succubus. This can make weapons very swingy and also have the weird effect of making low-RoF weapons with high damage suddenly able to mow down hordes of infantry with the right rolls. Or a little help from Fate . . .

- This brings us neatly to Fate Dice. Even apart from anything else, Fate Dice are a rather strange and nonsensical mechanic to begin with. With SoB, Miracle Dice as a global mechanic is a reasonable abstraction because whether or not a given prayer is answered is outside the direct control of any SoB unit. However, with Eldar, one cannot help but feel that this mechanic should be tied to Farseers for the obvious reason that they are the ones doing the foreseeing and trying to meddle with destiny.
Anyway, mechanically speaking Fate Dice have several issues:
- They don't scale with battle size (you get the same amount whether you're playing 500pts or 2000pts).
- They're extremely front-loaded (Remember how CPs were changed to a gradual mechanic because front-loading them drastically increased the alpha-strike potential? Pepperbridge Farm remembers but clearly no one at GW does.)
- They count for criticals and so proc. Mortal Wounds.
- There are no limits on how many you can spend at any one time (so if a certain unit has a powerful but swingy gun with the potential for extremely high damage output, you can freely just spend a pile of dice to guarantee ridiculous levels of damage).


It feels like the first attempt by some fans to write 40k rules, rather than ones put out by a profession company with 9 prior attempts under its belt.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Poorly.

They will nerf weapons and abilities whilst simultaneously increasing the points. They will introduce blanket game-wide restrictions on unit types because of some powerful units (or just one unit) in one army. Other armies will suffer due to the changes they make.

Are D-Cannons a problem given that you're limited to 3, rather than 9?

This, sadly.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Strands of Fate is way too strong of a mechanic even if they pulled Dev wounds off of everything in the army. There's a reason Sisters don't start the game with 12 dice.

ERJAK wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Strands of Fate is way too strong of a mechanic even if they pulled Dev wounds off of everything in the army. There's a reason Sisters don't start the game with 12 dice.

Agreed and there is no reason why Eldar should but still waiting on GW to bother looking at the obviously broken stuff

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

Right, changing the 6 = +1 MW like in 9e might fix D-Cannons but then it makes Assault Cannons remarkably better. On the other hand the assault cannon has never struck me as a devastating weapon, Sustained Hits seems to make a lot more sense for the various rotary cannon type weapons out there.

On the topic of fixes, you could instead decouple Fate Dice from Criticals with a rule stating that substitutions for Fate Dice do not trigger effects relying on Critical Hits or Critical Wounds. I would not apply this to Miracle Dice though since they don't need to share the nerf CWE gets.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

Right, changing the 6 = +1 MW like in 9e might fix D-Cannons but then it makes Assault Cannons remarkably better. On the other hand the assault cannon has never struck me as a devastating weapon, Sustained Hits seems to make a lot more sense for the various rotary cannon type weapons out there.

On the topic of fixes, you could instead decouple Fate Dice from Criticals with a rule stating that substitutions for Fate Dice do not trigger effects relying on Critical Hits or Critical Wounds. I would not apply this to Miracle Dice though since they don't need to share the nerf CWE gets.

The issue isn’t purely one of DW being too good on Eldar; it’s their ability to force it. So while that change would be a buff to assault cannons, it wouldn’t be that hard of a buff given the marine player can’t just sub in a bunch of sixes to force proc it whenever they want.

That’s the biggest problem with Eldar. Not just the damage potential they have at the high end with the DW mechanics, but the fact that they have a super easy no-fuss means by which to activate it on demand. And that its even sillier because that means of bypassing rng in turn has its own rng protection, via allowing you to continue to reroll and fish for sufficient sixes.

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

I mean, the 8th edition indexes were nothing like the 8th edition codexes (for better or worse).

Let's just hope GW's a bit more consistent with their rules writing this time. (lol)

ERJAK wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If I was to change it dev wounds would be mortals in addition to regular damage but gave a cap of 6 per unit, like many strats in 9th had.

That helps "haha, you land raider ceases to exist" - but I don't think stops the issue, which is that now people actually get a save, mortal wounds cascading through units represents a massive increase in damage.

I mean Eldar are probably the biggest culprits because they can guarantee it - but you have things like Biovores which can swing from doing nothing on low shots, to doing a bunch of mortals and just removing squads from the table as a result. Its always going to be hard to balance when the potential outcomes vary so much. People are always going to be rolling fewer or more sixes than they should.

Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Strands of Fate is way too strong of a mechanic even if they pulled Dev wounds off of everything in the army. There's a reason Sisters don't start the game with 12 dice.

The problem is not really with the amount of total dice. Going by 9th most Aeldari lists would have more fate dice in total, especially if they were Ulthwe, and they'd all be sixes.

Where the issue arises in 10th's version of the rule is that you're able to access all those dice at once and be able to use as many as you want at a single time on a single unit. A unit being able to use only a single dice per phase would drastically cut down on a lot of the nonsense, alongside a general change to dev wounds.

I mean in an ideal world I'd just much rather have 9th's version of the rule and ideally I'd just much rather be playing 9th in general. But that's not the world we live in.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

Several armies immediately crash and burn because they have few or even no methods of dealing with high toughness, high armor targets.

You can't simply take devastating wounds out of this system now, or massively rework it. It runs too deep as a solution to a lot of problems, from tanks to invulnerable saves.
You can reduce dependency on it, if you give the armies that need it proper AT weapons, but that's a lot of new units across multiple factions and can't be done quickly.

At that point you should also realize that it doesn't actually hurt eldar that much, because it doesn't address the actual problem (fate dice) and they DO have alternatives to MW, thanks to being designed back in second edition as a proper army with an expansive range and weapon options .

 Bosskelot wrote:

I mean in an ideal world I'd just much rather have 9th's version of the rule and ideally I'd just much rather be playing 9th in general. But that's not the world we live in.

Why not, do the rest of your player group prefer Xth? All my buddies are staying with 9th until when/if GW makes it appealing to us.

Voss wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

Several armies immediately crash and burn because they have few or even no methods of dealing with high toughness, high armor targets.

Maybe that's a problem with those units having absurd durability, or some armies not being designed well enough. After all Melta needs a fix already and there's a thread in the proposed rules for it.

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

If its a problem its not much of one. 6 shots, Devastate on a 6+ is 1 DW per activation. That's pretty minor.

Breton wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Most of the problem weapons in Aeldari currently had the same mechanics in 9th: with 6s triggering mortals, and it was always in addition to regular damage.

The actual difference was that a six just resulted in 1 mortal wound in addition. The WK had d3 mortals in addition and in the rare times you did see it, it wasn't even running that gun anyway.

Just making it 1 in addition (or even d3 in addition in the case of the cannon) and placing a cap of 6 ibflicted would instantly solve the issue. You could add the fate dice per phase cap on too to make extra sure.

Famous last words, but if you explicitly made Devastating Wounds "you inflict 1 mortal wound on a 6 in addition to regular damage" that's probably enough of a nerf to at least review and see what happens.

That makes Devastating Wounds on Assault Cannons dramatically better than it is now. That may or may not be a problem.

If its a problem its not much of one. 6 shots, Devastate on a 6+ is 1 DW per activation. That's pretty minor.

Hmmm...let me think...is there an army in the game...that has access to a decent whack of Assault Cannons...and enough reroll hits and wounds to make it a problem.

HMMMMMMM...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I hope they hit the top dogs and the bottom dwellers too.
I don’t know how they fix sisters, although dropping retributors points is.a must. Their lack of high end AT is a real issue as I think they messed up the exorcist stat line a while ago . Give the conflagration missiles indirect, but make the AT version direct and much higher strength and damage (because melta missiles).

I think the first step is take Anti-Vehicle 2+ off of Grav, and put Anti-Vehicle 3+ or 4+ on Melta. That's been the Anti-Vehicle element for so long and many factions/armies/units were designed around that division of labor, not some one-off element only really present on Space Marines.

AV3 on melta would make it the best weapon in the game again. People need to stop rushing to these seemingly simply fixes.

I said 3 OR 4. And no it wouldn't make Melta the best weapon in the game. Its still only 1-2 shots that will still whiff on T9+ MONSTERs and choke out on high quantity low quality - Only the Monster drawback really applies to Anti-Vehicle 2+ Grav. It makes it Melta one of the better anti-Vehicle weapons (as it probably should be) but that's about it. Its got a defined and specific/limited role there while putting it on Grav make Grav a little TOO versatile especially for a One Faction Element.

The owner at my FLGS spoke with someone at GW ( likely a sales guy ), but was told that indexes are temporary datasheets with the exception that Nids and Marines are likely close to their final versions. Grain of salt, but either way I wouldn't expect big changes to base weapon profiles. More likely the units themselves.

Do assault cannons become much better if devastating wounds changes to "you get a mortal and a regular hit" rather than "turn all damage into mortal wounds"?

I mean current rules an assault cannon is S6 AP-, Devastating Wounds.

So for the sake of example lets shoot into a Marine and for easy maths lets say you get 6 hits.
On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, 2 failures. 3 wounds into 3+ save means one goes through armour. So 1 mortal wound, one regular wound.

With the proposed uplift.
6 hits. On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, the 6 counts as a mortal and a regular wound. So 4 wounds onto armour, 4/3 go though.
So 1 mortal+1.333 regular wounds.

So you'd need 18 hits, or 27 BS3+ shots, to expect to do an extra wound into marines. Not sure that's a major uplift?

Oath of Moment etc will obviously boost this - but then it boosts everything.

Tyel wrote:
Do assault cannons become much better if devastating wounds changes to "you get a mortal and a regular hit" rather than "turn all damage into mortal wounds"?

I mean current rules an assault cannon is S6 AP-, Devastating Wounds.

So for the sake of example lets shoot into a Marine and for easy maths lets say you get 6 hits.
On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, 2 failures. 3 wounds into 3+ save means one goes through armour. So 1 mortal wound, one regular wound.

With the proposed uplift.
6 hits. On average 1 6 and 3 normal wounds, the 6 counts as a mortal and a regular wound. So 4 wounds onto armour, 4/3 go though.
So 1 mortal+1.333 regular wounds.

So you'd need 18 hits, or 27 BS3+ shots, to expect to do an extra wound into marines. Not sure that's a major uplift?

Oath of Moment etc will obviously boost this - but then it boosts everything.

Yeah Assault Cannons are not the place this goes nuts. In fact, its not much in Marines. Best you've got I'd guess is Cassius leading some Assault Marines and getting Devastating Wounds on 40-50 some Chainsword, Power Fist, and Eviscerator attacks - about 8 Devastating doing about 9 Mortals.

Apparently they are at least somewhat aware of the issue:

A few other documents were mentioned in the video that you should be aware of. The first of these contains the initial balance updates that will launch in early July, seeking to address some of the early imbalances that have emerged in the new armies. Chief among these will be changes to Fate dice used by the Aeldari, and forms of indirect fire.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/30/warhammer-40000-metawatch-storming-into-10th-edition/

Must have slipped by all that playtesting they said happened....

I think it will be a real shame if terrain and the Towering keyword interactaction is not addressed. Wraithknights shooting is really what has a lot of folks upset: it is not just about Fate Dice. I haven't seen Fate Dice be the issue except when combined with the above mentioned interaction.

I'm 2-4 so far in my games using Wraithknights. Fate Dice certainly dish out the damage with their Wraithcannons, but I've had players who can play around it. However, there was the initial shock of the amount of damage they inflict on the opening turn, which is where I suspect most of the drama comes from.

The bigger issue is that our terrain is designed for 9th edition. In 10th, those Wraithknights are cracking vehicles and Knights as there is no place to hide them (aside from Strategic Reserve, hint, hint).

Infantry can hide from Wraithknights on our 9th edition terrain and units such as Desolators and Hellblasters cripple or outright destroy a Wraithknight in one round of shooting as the Wraithknight can be seen and likely do not have an invulnerable save (I wanted 2 Wraithcannons for each one, for example).

There are armies out there that can even shrug off a Wraithknight shooting. Necrons have scarily resilient builds even against Mortal Wounds.

People quickly figure out to kill the Guardians to mitigate more Fate Dice. It took all of one game for opponents to see that.

But I suspect GW will take a sledgehammer to Fate Dice immediately and not allow the community time to adjust to 10th edition and cool models will go back on the shelf and watch something else become the new bogeyman. Then we get to see the internet complain about the new bogeyman and GW will come in and gimp it. Kind of like playing whack a mole.

Personally, GW should never put aircraft and super heavy models into the game. They are yet to get rules properly in place that interacts well within the game. But, here we are.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Unpopular opinion, but I actually don't give that much of a gak about Eldar. Or knights. Or any other OP army.(outside of my personal disdain for Strands of Fate)

I care about the dogshit armies. Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, Votann, whoever sucks right now.

I think fixing those armies so that those players can actually participate in the edition is a bigger deal than how many mortal wounds a Wraithknight does.

It's better to nerf from the top than to buff from the bottom, I think. That it it involves hitting fewer factions than having to buff all the underperformers. There's also a lot to be uncovered.

Agreed. I’d rather every army be on the weaker side than the stronger side. Makes for less lethality (like GW apparently wanted), and makes for longer games that aren’t just all the models shot off the table by turn 3.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
According to new warcom video, looks like it’s dropping next week. Points and balance check.

Should be fun watching them try to balance points in a game that no longer has them.

They might just split the wraithknight into 2 units, one with the scatter shield and one weapon and the other with two non sword weapons. Given they refuse to use upgrade costs.

From that perspective the problem is the shield. A 4+ invulnerable is good but not good enough on a model with a 2+ regular save to overlook a weapon as lethal as the heavy wraithcannon. If it added another bonus it might become more interesting - maybe letting it also add wounds like the custodes shield, or granting the benefit of cover.

Old rule scattershield used to bounce back wounds, that’s what it needs. Rebound MWs on successful save up to a max of x
I planned to just place a weapon over the top of mine since it’s never been good tbh

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hmmm......first off Breton suggested either AV3 or AV4 for melta. Would AV4 make melta the "best weapon in the game"? That's a 25% reduction in effectiveness. Also, why would making melta weapons good against vehicles (which is, y'know, what they're supposed to be), be "bad", and make them the "best weapon in the game"?

Because on the very basic math for AV4...

2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.55 / 2.4
1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 4.5 = 1

Then we're back to fast moving melta being the only game in town and the whole purpose of rescaling toughness is gone.

And melta being good at killing vehicles is not bad if it's pointed as such. Of course, because you defend everything about GW, you're fine with the paradigm where you can't adjust points, melta sucks at dealing with vehicles, and as a result, armies like Sisters are easily overwhelmed by vehicle heavy lists.

It'll be entertaining to watch the game evolve over the next 6 months as people get tired of braindead parking lots.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

The fact that in 9th MMs were massively better than say lascannons - and a major feature of why vehicles/monsters died when any unit equipped with them looked at them.
There's this strange idea on Dakka (less elsewhere tbh) that the issue was "plasma spam" - but that wasn't really a thing after 8th edition.

As it stands, shooting into say a toughness 10 3+ unit at BS4+.
Lascannon: 1*1/2*2/3*5/6*4.5=1.25.
MM: 2*1/2*1/3*1*3.5=1.16. Rising in 9" to 1.83.

Its a bit worse if the unit has say a 5++ or something - but so what.

Sisters have lots of problems. The fact they only have MMs isn't one of them. The fact Retributors are more expensive than Devs is a reasonable complaint.
Sure - if you make MMs sufficiently broken they will act as a crutch for the rest of the Sisters list. The problem however is that Space Marines can - and have done in 9th - happily spam Melta too.

If GW made an MM Anti-Vehicle 3+ then it expects to do double the damage in the above. That's double the damage in 18" to a Lascannon - and triple in short range. This is not reasonable.

Tyel wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
What exactly are you calculating here?

Also, how does this relate to other anti-tank weapons/upgrades available to the same or similar units?

The fact that in 9th MMs were massively better than say lascannons - and a major feature of why vehicles/monsters died when any unit equipped with them looked at them.
There's this strange idea on Dakka (less elsewhere tbh) that the issue was "plasma spam" - but that wasn't really a thing after 8th edition.

As it stands, shooting into say a toughness 10 3+ unit at BS4+.
Lascannon: 1*1/2*2/3*5/6*4.5=1.25.
MM: 2*1/2*1/3*1*3.5=1.16. Rising in 9" to 1.83.

Its a bit worse if the unit has say a 5++ or something - but so what.

Sisters have lots of problems. The fact they only have MMs isn't one of them. The fact Retributors are more expensive than Devs is a reasonable complaint.
Sure - if you make MMs sufficiently broken they will act as a crutch for the rest of the Sisters list. The problem however is that Space Marines can - and have done in 9th - happily spam Melta too.

If GW made an MM Anti-Vehicle 3+ then it expects to do double the damage in the above. That's double the damage in 18" to a Lascannon - and triple in short range. This is not reasonable.

How much damage does it do outside of 18 inches where the Knight can't charge you when/if it lives?
How much damage does it do to the Tyrannofex?

Old One Eye and his brood move 8". If you're inside 9" for the MELTA bonus, how many turns do you have to shoot and wear down the character and brood before they charge you? How many wounds will they have left? How many turns will the 4 Devs 40 some inches away?