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.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Indeed. If I'm reading it correctly, the Devastating Wounds change also means any FnP vs Mortals no longer applies which has a pretty big secondary impact on the game.

Do mortal wounds even really exist at this point? Or has the change to devastating wounds effectively eliminated them from the game? Hmm- flipping through : a few aura abilities, psychic things, self damage and charge abilities.
It does mean that quite a few units are overpaying for a now largely irrelevant defense mechanism.

So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.

However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.

What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.

Are mortals dead as a result?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.

However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.

What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.

Are mortals dead as a result?

It's inadvertently opened up a load of game design space though to introduce them back in without devastating for some other abilities.

Off the top of my head only Grenades and Tank Shock were the MW that often get used (besides Devastating Wounds). Daemon Princes and a few others get MW on charges as you mentinoed.

The Custodes detachment gives a 4+++ FnP vs MW which is now severely limited to the point where it might not even come up when you play the game. Rather disappointing.

Tyranids still can in principle generate a lot of mortal wounds via Mawlock, spore mines and such.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.

However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.

What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.

Are mortals dead as a result?

There are still a few pseudo-psychic powers that do it. The Plasmancer has a rule that allows it to select a unit in 18" and do D3 or D3+3 mortals, depending on a dice roll, for example. They're pretty rare, but they do exist. It obviously has a major knock-on effect on the value of the various FnP against MW abilities. File that one under unintended consequences.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
So the devastating wounds change. I am not against it infact i quite agree with it.

However it does beg the question. What is left that deals mortal wounds? Pretty much all things in the game that delt "mortal wounds" was because of devastating wounds. The anti infanty, the psychic attacks etc etc.

What is left that still deals genuine mortals and not devastating, I have had a look through marines and I am struggling to find any.

Are mortals dead as a result?

Winged Hive Tyrant, Zoanthropes, Mawloc.

All from abilities, rather than weapons though.

Slipspace wrote:
As expected, the Devastating Wounds change will likely have some unintended knock-on effects. I don't think DW were a problem in themselves. It was weapons with multi-damage or the ability to "cheat" out the DW in unintended ways that was the problem.

It's not a good look to see such fundamental changes to core rules so soon after an edition is released. This was all stuff that players picked up on before even playing a game of 10th.

As you stated - this only really affects bigger guns. Beyond Custodes ( and other models with saves vs MW ) losing situational durability what would the other unintended consequences be? I can't really think of much since on smaller weapons the effect is pretty identical.

It is terrible for their print material to be utterly useless again, but if they're going to fix this then nothing can be verboten.

Since nerfing Custodes was an objective, I'm not sure doing so can be seen as unintentional.

The update as a whole looks like a significant change that should hopefully shake up the meta.

Although I'm not too hopeful for DE. Feels like with the nerf to Ravagers, which I imagine remain auto-takes, you end up neutral to slightly ahead. Maybe there's a build without them. Still feel looking at the sometimes dramatic points cost reduction on other bad factions (perhaps especially Tau) its got a bit lost in translation.

Dudeface wrote:

So would you rather increase stats and pay more points or pay fewer points and have "bad" stats? They won't magically increase the to-hit for an entire army and not put the cost up and leave an easy reach hit buff in play. Also why is 50% with selective access to +1 to hit "bad"?

i think most LoV players would rather pay more points, as they want an army of pretty tough, semi-elite level guys, rather than a horde army

I am honestly positively surprised.
Sure, judging by the armies i understand, there are a few cases of "probably not enough" and " too much", but its all quite reasonable.
TS feel like they got it a bit too hard, but again: maybe not.

The change to LoV token is fluffy and reasonable buff. As are most changes in wording.
I still think torrent and overwatch should just not work - but its the only one that feels like an actual miss.

JFC the Tyrannofex change breaks the 1000pt list I rushed to complete and bought foam for and have yet to play a game with.

Tyel wrote:
Since nerfing Custodes was an objective, I'm not sure doing so can be seen as unintentional.

There is a difference between a nerf and making a faction ability functionally useless, esp compared to Fate or Faith Dice, or Oath of Moment. Plus they increased points and seem to have removed a number of unit size options for Custodes.

Has the new rules and points been updated for you yet in the app? I don't see it yet.

I’m not seeing the Indirect Fire change that was mentioned before. Am I missing it or did it not make it thru?

CoALabaer wrote:
I am honestly positively surprised.
Sure, judging by the armies i understand, there are a few cases of "probably not enough" and " too much", but its all quite reasonable.
TS feel like they got it a bit too hard, but again: maybe not.

The change to LoV token is fluffy and reasonable buff. As are most changes in wording.
I still think torrent and overwatch should just not work - but its the only one that feels like an actual miss.

With one exception - I think CK are really getting kicked in the nuts - points increases, no titanic OW, and can't see through ruins. Insane bravery at once per game might help in some scenarios, but otherwise no buffs for them at all. They were teetering at 47% ( according to GW ) so this may prompt them to slide.

I'm super happy with the changes as a slaanesh daemon player, only thing to go up was Shalaxi, everything else went down 10 - 20 pts each honestly a massive buff.

The devistating wounds change is also a buff to slaanesh daemons since most of their attacks are 1/2 damage, so just flat ignoring invul/armour is better for them since it gets around rules that gives FNP vs mortal wounds.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Has the new rules and points been updated for you yet in the app? I don't see it yet.

You might need to force an update. I had to go to the play store and update it

Where's the suggested GK lethality increase GW? All I see is strat nerfs and point reductions to give us -maybe- a 5 man strike squad?

Whats the purpose of barely buffing but essentially not touching one of the worst factions in the game?

 Prometheum5 wrote:
JFC the Tyrannofex change breaks the 1000pt list I rushed to complete and bought foam for and have yet to play a game with.

I think the Crudd's favorite thing is to sneak a random, unneeded, vindictive Tyranids nerf into each balance pass. That was just such a pointless kick in the nads and it actually hurts since the Fex is the only solid ranged AT.

On the whole, I think this was probably one of GW's better updates; of course it had some wacky, hamfisted stuff like the Votann update (...why couldn't they have changed their BS on at least a few units, Dudeface? Is what they did to Skitarii any different really?) but it does feel like they whacked the Eldar and GSC whackamoles.

Riptides and Fire Prisms are now the same cost at 180. Day one the Riptide was 110 points more expensive than the Fire Prism.

Guys, guys...I don't think 10th edition was done when they shipped it.

Nothing they ever is when marketing strategy depends on change

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Riptides and Fire Prisms are now the same cost at 180. Day one the Riptide was 110 points more expensive than the Fire Prism.

Guys, guys...I don't think 10th edition was done when they shipped it.

I had the same thought. Even when they actually did a "rip and replace" of the game (7 -> 8e, which was a much bigger overhaul than this one), it still wasn't as out of whack as it was this time.

And on another note... idk how Sisters players feel but I still wouldn't be happy. Points changes don't change the fact that they still can't kill tanks.

Edited for rudeness - ingtær.

I think the Death Guard changes are interesting, its in addition to the "Nurgle's Gift" Aura, so still has the -1 Toughness stuff in an expanding bubble, but gains one of the three options - picked pre-game not in list building so always can pick the most suited

- -1BS & -1WS to cut enemy damage output is useful, especially as a stat modifier its in addition to the +/- to hit modifier

- -1 save is potentially huge on some elite armies making massed small arms and massed melee weapons a lot better, given on a 2+ save unit this will double the number of failures

- -1Ld & -1OC (to a min of 1) is much more situational, but I suspect is again decent against elite armies (the -1OC) and against cheap horde ones where perhaps they depend upon stratgems

first two seem stronger

8e index were in general much smaller. IIRC they didn't had relics, stratagems or even sub-faction rules.

And to be blunt it still was a mess balance wise, although better than what it replaced.

10e index is much bigger, but it is quite half-baked.

leopard wrote:
I think the Death Guard changes are interesting, its in addition to the "Nurgle's Gift" Aura, so still has the -1 Toughness stuff in an expanding bubble, but gains one of the three options - picked pre-game not in list building so always can pick the most suited

- -1BS & -1WS to cut enemy damage output is useful, especially as a stat modifier its in addition to the +/- to hit modifier

- -1 save is potentially huge on some elite armies making massed small arms and massed melee weapons a lot better, given on a 2+ save unit this will double the number of failures

- -1Ld & -1OC (to a min of 1) is much more situational, but I suspect is again decent against elite armies (the -1OC) and against cheap horde ones where perhaps they depend upon stratgems

first two seem stronger

i was talking with friends this week about how i would love if DG had a "build your own contagion" mechanic and that i'd actually commit to them if they did.

Guess i know what my next army is lol

Have Death Guard here, have had a couple of games (and by a miracle won both), the -1T thing helps deal with bigger stuff.

I suspect the ability to cut the damage output of enemy melee units or drop their saves will both be interesting, and both rewards being aggressive

leopard wrote:
Have Death Guard here, have had a couple of games (and by a miracle won both), the -1T thing helps deal with bigger stuff.

I suspect the ability to cut the damage output of enemy melee units or drop their saves will both be interesting, and both rewards being aggressive

-1 is less impactful than it was in 9th because of the toughness range expanding, i firmly believe it shouldve become +1 to be wounded instead.

yes the -1 isn't huge, where it helped was bringing dreadnoughts down to wounding on a 4+ not a 5+ and similar stuff, also hurting marines on a 3+ not a 4+.

+1 to wound would have hit a lot harder

 Tyran wrote:
8e index were in general much smaller. IIRC they didn't had relics, stratagems or even sub-faction rules.

And to be blunt it still was a mess balance wise, although better than what it replaced.

10e index is much bigger, but it is quite half-backed.

8th was a mess, but the janky interactions were a lot more evenly spread across factions rather than concentrated in a handful.

Plus we didn't have the same level of game results being publically recorded to actually see all of the trends & issues. That data makes a huge difference to both action and perception.