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.

 Gert wrote:
I'd argue a lack of a surge compared to the more recent editions is more down to circumstance than the quality of rules.

Compared to 8th, 10th isn't coming off of a widely hated version of the game. Even with its faults 8th was leagues ahead of 7th in terms of rules quality which got a lot of previous players back into the game.

And as for 9th? Well, we aren't in global lockdowns or restrictions anymore. Most people are back to the previous way of life (if altered in many cases with working from home) and the surge we saw with 9th isn't down to good rules but people looking to pick up something that isn't video games or TV in lockdowns.

The cost of living in most countries has risen pretty heavily as well so the chances are people aren't really looking to buy tonnes of luxury goods when some previously stable families are now towing the poverty line.

That isn't to say people's opinions on the new rules aren't valid, just that now more than ever things have gotten in the way of a big boom of new starts.

Limited production runs and rampant scalping are also taking a bigger bite than ever out of the crowd that might potentially be jumping on board with the new edition. Persistent supply chain issues are making newer GW products unobtainable in some countries.

Im enjoying it thus far, I play Necrons and they felt terrible at the end of 9th; Now they feel like a real army. Cult is really powerful, probably too much so but Im not complaining about that lol. Overall Im enjoying it more since the army I have the most of is actually useable but god List Building sucks now, so much less choice, less interesting. Melee feeling worst when 9th already felt like a capital S Shooting game is a bummer and Command Reroll only applying to specific rolls is terrible, seems built to lead to a bunch of feel bad moments where your cool ability that goes off on a 2+ is, of course, gonna roll a 1 and then you cant fix it with the Reroll strat because it only applies to Generic Rolls not special faction/unit stuff now. I've already lived thru some *brutal* examples of this and it just feels like a change that directly leads to a worst time and terrible feel bad moments. Im positive on it but really only because my biggest army is actually capable of surviving past Round 3 now, so not glowing praise.

I'm only a couple of games into 10th. The experience playing my craftworlders and my drukhari were night and day.

My drukhari felt awkward to write a list for, and I was paranoid I wouldn't have enough anti-tank. Then on the table, they only killed a single unit (a wave serpent) in my first 1k game.

My craftworlders could be taken in small, cheap units that were easier to mix-and-match. I still leaned into anti-tank options to be safe, but the detachment ability rerolls and strands of fate meant that I wiped out my opponent's vehicles by turn 2 (still 1k points). All my units were long-ranged except for my howling banshees, so I was able to keep my distance. Between war walkers Scouting, Strands of Fate, my warlock's Quicken, and the Phantasm stratagem, I also felt more fast/agile than my drukhari even though the core of my drukhari list was 3 units of scourges. (Who can move-shoot-move now).

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but so far it feels like the edition's core rules are fine but the specific indices have some real winners and losers.

I've had four real games and its been enjoyable. Two of the games were very close and two were situations where one of went for the gambit. All games went to Turn 5. The rules have been, more or less, clean. Perhaps its just that I was jaded of the 9th Ed missions and Secondaries, but I am really enjoying the mission deck. Its like they took three years off to figure out how to make the old Maelstrom Missions work and they did a great job.

I was very happy to get the rules and Indexes for free, but this launch does feel like a Beta.I've been lucky, I suppose, to have not faced any Towering models, nor have I faced one of the power-houses.

I haven't found list-building to be a chore with my Dark Angels. For now its a new challenge.

In my little scene (town of 120K), our upcoming tourney sold-out with something like 40 spots. This compares to roughly a dozen players for recent Horus Heresy and Age of Sigmar tournies. This Edition has brought out about a dozen new players for the upcoming tourney. Early days, but there is a lively 40K turn-out on our 40K day at the FLGS.

After another week of gaming, I decided to give w40k some rest. GK the way they are now, are early 8th ed level of fun. Each time I play them I wonder, why am I not playing AoS. Any hopes for a quick fix to bad armies, after the pseudo fix to the best armies, went up in smoke after this week. But that is a me, and some other people problem. The people with highly optimised armies and graced with good rules, are having a lot of fun. It is rather odd to see a Quarter of an event being take up by eldar and almost another one by knights (24 people store event), while some armies (DG, Ad Mecha, GK, various melee marines of both chaos and not chaos kind, DE.) not beign represented at all. The mirrors are going to be big next week at my store.

I have played 4 games of tenth. I have loved all of them. None of the game ended with anyone tabled, and lethality is way down.

My only complaints would be devastating wounds is far to good on anything that has multi-damage.

I'm a custodes and daemons player and I'm loving 10th so far, obviously daemons are a bit weaker but not horrible to field. Only thing I'm sad at really is taking away the psyker phase(I'm one of the weird ones that liked 7th ed psyker phase dice battles xD)

3 weeks & 7 fun games into 10th & the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

At the local shops we've added at least a dozen new players to the game. And our 1st 10e Crusade is about to launch. Last count we had 20some people signed up for it.

So life is pretty good.

ccs wrote:
the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.

ccs wrote:
...the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

No one has claimed anything like that.

I mean I don’t really care for rules systems. They seem to come and go. Games are so tough to organise that it feels like everything’s changed by time you get around to it.

I liked monstrous creatures feeling like monsters with my Tyranids. Good old days.

Don’t like that they’ve done exactly what I thought they’d do with Sisters. Let’s nerf damage on the glass cannon army, not bring any of their special rules like sacred rites into the profile and let’s charge them marine points for a t3 1A 1W model that hits in CC on a 4. Only it’s worse because I didn’t think they would nerf the characters, nerf the unit sizes, remove units from the game and make melta horrible at doing what it’s meant to do. Yeah, I’ll wait for the codex.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.

Walked into my FLGS for some paints this weekend and they were hosting a tournament. I don't think I've ever seen so many Imperial Knights in one place.

 Vankraken wrote:


Walked into my FLGS for some paints this weekend and they were hosting a tournament. I don't think I've ever seen so many Imperial Knights in one place.

Not surprised. Easy army to collect. Meta atm. But also few units so it feels easier to play and manage the game. Knights on knights probably a fun match up.

ccs wrote:
3 weeks & 7 fun games into 10th & the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

The game would be better with perfect imbalance instead of every upgrade being an auto-include, why are you fighting so hard to keep internal balance terrible? If you really hate sponson-less Leman Russes so much why not argue that taking sponsons should make Leman Russes cheaper?

Now that we're actually coming up to a month since proper release I've been seeing more local discontent amongst many of the more casual players. Many of the weird foibles and awkward mechanics are starting to become more apparent even to them. The charge/fight phase is the big one as previously it seems like a lot of them were just playing it like 9th's without the massive extra movement shenanigans you could pull off. Unfortunately that isn't how 10th's charge/fight phase actually works so now that they're actually playing the system by its rules even the casual beerhammer guys are getting annoyed by it; the ones with melee armies especially.

It's the same thing with the terrain system. They praised it initially for being simpler, no toe-ins and having less terrain types, but the strict wholly within requirement for LOS means that some units get completely screwed over depending on the type of board you end up getting.

Of course these were all concerns raised by people who were more into the mechanics of the game and during the honeymoon period are things you could probably ignore.

It is "straightforward". That's what it is for me. It is fun, but the inbuilt unit combinations are somewhat hurting the actual gameplay. When I lock a build every game with it plays the same way. I don't know if it is the same for other people aswell, but I've had 3 games with my last list and each and everyone just plays out the inbuilt combos hence all three games were very much the same. That's 10th edition for me - I build my army (deck) and it plays this way and this way only and each game with it is pretty much the same. It is still fun, though, the above is just my impressions not a real complaint. My feeling is that it will be really interesting for the first couple of months, but will wear out much quicker than 9th did.

0 new people so far in the club that joined or at least visited because of it.

The tournament group in the club all switched afaik, but I'm not sure how happy they are at the moment, as I'm not really in contact with them.

2 out of 16 people from the homebrew group tried 10th once and said it was okay.

Personally, I don't think there is much wrong with the core rules. Every edition got some parts better and some worse. The upcoming codizes will decide wether this is a good or bad edition.

Rather piss poor. I've played/watched 6 games, they're all over by turn 3. Melee being gutted and very few useful AT guns available for most armies means high T spam is often unkillable, unless you're spamming Lethal Hits. 8th edition indexes were better balanced.

This makes me think GW play tested this game with a requirement of 6 Battleline choices per list they used. In no other army construction method does this edition make sense. "Bring w/e you want, if you get tabled it's GG regardless of points earned" Also OC 2 is stupidly small for Battleline. When a single OC1 model can remove 3-6 OC2 models. The OC doesn't matter if they're dead.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.

How do you make a non tournament list with something like custodes ,tournaments list 3 units of guards 3 characters, or knights , or 1ksons or generaly every good army there is like GSC, eldar etc. You take what is lore accurate, often don't even spam stuff, run singles or dups of stuff. And you practicaly have 90% of a tournament list, on the flip side if you would try to play a non tournament version of a bad army, then good luck trying to play DG without mass artilery and PM or non 5/5/3/3 GK.

Karol wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.

How do you make a non tournament list with something like custodes ,tournaments list 3 units of guards 3 characters, or knights , or 1ksons or generaly every good army there is like GSC, eldar etc. You take what is lore accurate, often don't even spam stuff, run singles or dups of stuff. And you practicaly have 90% of a tournament list, on the flip side if you would try to play a non tournament version of a bad army, then good luck trying to play DG without mass artilery and PM or non 5/5/3/3 GK.

I mean, its pretty simple really, in a casual TS list i'd chose :

not to run the flamer + ahriman blob
run a few vindicator/helbrutes
5-man termis instead of 10-man
no magnus
Tzaangors
Cultists
Horrors

Oh and the simplest part : i wouldnt spam the whole combos all game, maybe one twist of fate if my opponent is greatly getting control of the game.

Its really not hard to play more casually, even with a tournament list actually.

Karol wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
the world has not imploded because of whatever imbalance some claim the new pts scheme causes.

Only if you aren't playing tournament meta lists. The dumpster fire of a competitive meta demonstrated by the most recent major events is pretty clear proof that there are significant balance issues even if casual kitchen table games aren't abusing the worst of it.

How do you make a non tournament list with something like custodes ,tournaments list 3 units of guards 3 characters, or knights , or 1ksons or generaly every good army there is like GSC, eldar etc. You take what is lore accurate, often don't even spam stuff, run singles or dups of stuff. And you practicaly have 90% of a tournament list, on the flip side if you would try to play a non tournament version of a bad army, then good luck trying to play DG without mass artilery and PM or non 5/5/3/3 GK.

Most armies have enough options you can bring a friendlier list, just don't lean into the cheese like not taking a primus with gsc or just not comboing off every turn with Tsons. Knights are more of a state check than that says if you brought enough AT to down a Knight or 2 armigers per turn you win, if not, you lose so that ones a bit more on the opponent I think. Custodes though... there's just so few units to pick from and most are good that it is actually hard to not make a good army unless you REALLY trying or just pick overcosted FW units like venetari or the dreadnoughts. DG and GK are in a bad spot I agree but.. cmon.. you literally picked the 2 worst armies to compare with atm, it sucks but there's always a couple losers per edition, overall most armies are between a 45-52% win rate. Which is GW's goal percentage(45-55 actually but I feel that's a bit swingy, 48-52 would be more balanced but that's SO hard I don't blame them for that. 45-55 is fine really)

Wrong, there's only 7 armies sitting in the 45-55% win rate. If that's you, enjoy, otherwise it looks very imbalanced for everyone else.

Ecdain wrote:
Knights are more of a state check than that says if you brought enough AT to down a Knight or 2 armigers per turn you win, if not, you lose so that ones a bit more on the opponent I think.

Cries in Ork... at least we can never be beaten

So far we’ve only played balanced boarding actions and narrative missions.

That part I’ve loved.

I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)

So for learning and fun? A-
For people who want HH levels of competitive fun (which is what I play when scratching that itch): C- as it is

 Lobokai wrote:
So far we’ve only played balanced boarding actions and narrative missions.

That part I’ve loved.

I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)

I disagree. Tourney players should not be pandered to.

Neither should any other group.

 Lobokai wrote:
I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)

Tournament players don't care about the sponson issue, they just take all the best options and beat you with them. PL's problems hurt casual and narrative players, the people who pick options for reasons other than sheer point efficiency and win percentages.

Yeah all the true comp players have everything magnetized anyway.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
I can’t imagine as it is that the competitive players like it much. But all we need is a tournament pack with an FOC and a list of units that get a discount when underarmed (just to shut up the sponson moan, seriously has no one ever rebuilt a unit after an edition change?)

Tournament players don't care about the sponson issue, they just take all the best options and beat you with them. PL's problems hurt casual and narrative players, the people who pick options for reasons other than sheer point efficiency and win percentages.

Agreed, this is such a weird argument that keeps popping up. I'd imagine a tournament player would just take whatever is powerful. They'd easily spot weak units and simply wouldn't take them. A casual player will buy models they like the look or fluff of, only to find out on the tabletop that that unit has garbage rules. That's a feelsbad moment, and something I've experienced more than once. In fact, those experiences led me to start mathhammering in an attempt to gauge a unit's true effectiveness, since gw's points turned out to be less than reliable.

As a casual player trap choices are the worst.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Neither should any other group.

hate the players not the game /s