Sarigar wrote:
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.

Breton wrote:

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?

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
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.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Sarigar wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
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.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Disagree and very premature to simply dismiss terrain. Many players and tourney organizers are running the same terrain they had a week prior in 9th edition. Now, models with Towering simply shoot right through that existing terrain where in 9th they were simply unable to in many cases (Area Terrain specifically). Locally, we immediately felt the difference in game mechanics and we play using GW GT Tournament terrain placement/rules. Towering models ability to shoot vastly improved.

I'm perplexed why you think example battlefields demonstrates GW intention. They even state on p.51 of the Core Rules under the 'Matched Play Focused' board: "but they have been set up more evenly across the battlefield, and the middle contains terrain features that block visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other". That is factually incorrect when it comes to the Towering keyword. Towering models are shooting across the table because none of the terrain in the middle blocks LOS. If terrain where that height AND had solid walls, then the statement by GW could be considered more accurate. I'd argue it is more a product placement advertisement of their terrain kits and card tiles.

I do think GW intended for the game to dish out this many Mortal Wounds. I think GW is backpedaling now because of the public outcry over it. Fate Dice will get drastically mitigated, Desolators get a points increase (as Mike Brandt indicated in the interview) and then we wait for the next army to rise to the crop with Aeldari Mortal wound capability mitigated. And even now, there are Necron builds that can withstand the amount of Mortal Wounds Aeldari are able to put out.

I simply think adjusting terrain keeping the Towering keyword in mind will mitigate the issue rather than GW stating they are changing the rules one week after official Leviathan boxset release.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't think windows should matter for terrain. It's a serious issue for a few different reasons that the pretty ruins terrain features that GW tries to sell create a worse gameplay experience than styrofoam blocks.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
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.

Saying boards are designed for 9th right now and not 10th is kind of nonsense sorry.

We now actually have recommended GW terrain layouts and they have no mention or support for GIANT true-LOS blocking terrain pieces. Towering is apparently very much intended, for the moment at least.

The lack of invun on a WK is also not super relevant either. It will have an effective 1+ save because of easy access to cover in almost all situations and AP is generally lower across the board.

I do agree that GW will probably take a sledgehammer to fate dice though. And WK's and D-cannons. All the while leaving the actual core rules unaddressed so the next mortal wound spam problem the next rung down on the ladder will oppress people for however long it takes GW to realise the core rules are the main issue.

Disagree and very premature to simply dismiss terrain. Many players and tourney organizers are running the same terrain they had a week prior in 9th edition. Now, models with Towering simply shoot right through that existing terrain where in 9th they were simply unable to in many cases (Area Terrain specifically). Locally, we immediately felt the difference in game mechanics and we play using GW GT Tournament terrain placement/rules. Towering models ability to shoot vastly improved.

I'm perplexed why you think example battlefields demonstrates GW intention. They even state on p.51 of the Core Rules under the 'Matched Play Focused' board: "but they have been set up more evenly across the battlefield, and the middle contains terrain features that block visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other". That is factually incorrect when it comes to the Towering keyword. Towering models are shooting across the table because none of the terrain in the middle blocks LOS. If terrain where that height AND had solid walls, then the statement by GW could be considered more accurate. I'd argue it is more a product placement advertisement of their terrain kits and card tiles.

I do think GW intended for the game to dish out this many Mortal Wounds. I think GW is backpedaling now because of the public outcry over it. Fate Dice will get drastically mitigated, Desolators get a points increase (as Mike Brandt indicated in the interview) and then we wait for the next army to rise to the crop with Aeldari Mortal wound capability mitigated. And even now, there are Necron builds that can withstand the amount of Mortal Wounds Aeldari are able to put out.

I simply think adjusting terrain keeping the Towering keyword in mind will mitigate the issue rather than GW stating they are changing the rules one week after official Leviathan boxset release.

I'd recommend you read GW's actual tournament pack with terrain guidelines.

It does mention providing some true LOS blocking, but gives no indication of how much should be used, or how it should be placed, and the terrain maps themselves very much do not support it. Even on current terrain maps that have some LOS blocking pieces, like UKTC, what happens is everything gets piled into the big square windowless ruin and whatevers left over, infantry especially, gets stuffed into the small windowless rectangle in our dzone. The rest of the terrain on the map may as well not exist and it makes it practically impossible to move out or play any objectives vs Towering models.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't think windows should matter for terrain. It's a serious issue for a few different reasons that the pretty ruins terrain features that GW tries to sell create a worse gameplay experience than styrofoam blocks.

 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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"?

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"?

Daedalus is generally know for running mathhammer in ways that support his point but is deceptive or wrong, and he does it often enough that it's conscious lying on his part. I've been in threads where he's called out on it and he generally tries to avoid engaging with people who show his math is wrong.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meh? First off, why are you using something with a 5++ as your example target, when something without one would look "worse"?

Daedalus is generally know for running mathhammer in ways that support his point but is deceptive or wrong, and he does it often enough that it's conscious lying on his part. I've been in threads where he's called out on it and he generally tries to avoid engaging with people who show his math is wrong.

But, using a target without an invul would actually help support Daed's point. I don't think that he’s attempting any such shenanigans here. Just seems to be an odd choice for an example.

redboi wrote:
Eldar are overtuned cheese what else is new. I've played off and on since 3rd and Eldar always oscillate between above average and insufferably OP

shortymcnostrill wrote:

redboi wrote:
Eldar are overtuned cheese what else is new. I've played off and on since 3rd and Eldar always oscillate between above average and insufferably OP

I hope they fix the obvious overperformers, that'll allow us to judge the balance of the rest of the units in the dex. I don't want to powergame the combo of the month, I just want to play fluffy aspects and not get obliterated *cries in howling banshee*

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
2 changes :

Make fate dice count as modified dice rolls .

Remove the ability to use fate dice on damage rolls.

That way, Eldar keep their "all as planned" army rule but lose the forced spike devastating wounds. Either you make sure you wound OR you fish for a 1/6 chance to do mortals

 General Kroll wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
2 changes :

Make fate dice count as modified dice rolls .

Remove the ability to use fate dice on damage rolls.

That way, Eldar keep their "all as planned" army rule but lose the forced spike devastating wounds. Either you make sure you wound OR you fish for a 1/6 chance to do mortals

This is far too sensible and easy a change for them to actually do it.

ERJAK wrote:

It makes their damage a lot worse, but ultimately just means they'll use the dice to tank your first 15 meaningful shots instead.

It's worse, but I'm not sure it's ENOUGH worse.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

It makes their damage a lot worse, but ultimately just means they'll use the dice to tank your first 15 meaningful shots instead.

It's worse, but I'm not sure it's ENOUGH worse.

Lethality is a much bigger problem than tankyness, my suggestion was a "first pass" at it, then if they were to implement that, wait a bit to see if their resilience becomes overwhelming.

I'm pretty sure a wraithknight being hard to kill is much less a problem than it dumping 20 mortals in one attack

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh the whole eldar fiasco is exactly what comes from relying on competitive players to come up with the mechanics for an army. Theyve got 0 interest in what the "Spirit" of the army is supposed to be - they want the things that make it competitive to stay.

We could have had some kind of cool Battlefocus capability - maybe buffed from its 9th ed incarnation but with a limited range so it's not just "The thing where you pop your war walker out and crack off a couple shots then pop back behind LOS blocking cover". But they asked a comp player what the core of eldar was and they said

'fate dice and expert crafters.'