Jump to content

What should stay and what should go in 10th?


Recommended Posts

For me I hope there’s nothing like born soldiers any where in the game.

i hope multiple ‘basic’ infantry datasheets remains a thing even if the regimental names in those sheets are dropped.
 

Well yeah born soldiers is about the only thing in the current codex that I hope isn’t represented in 10th

well that and strats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stay: Flavor. It's kind of a Monkey's Paw situation. I wish for less strats, and I get less strats... just ones I don't want. For flavor I like the idea of custom regiment traits (or force organization, or however it'll work going forward). To some degree I'd like to avoid meme wars further feeding pop culture caricatures of the lore. I love krieg... but the number of times I get asked where my shovel is at during a tourney...  

 

Go: Esoteric, abstruse rules and rules writing. That orders section. I had to read that way too many times. 12-year-old me couldn't do it. We need fresh recruits. Simple is good. Of course I'm a walking contradiction to some degree here as I want simple but also want playable flavor.

 

I'm going to feel real conflicted if Kasrkin and sentinels go to garbage tier, and chimeras and hellhounds are s-tier. I've yet to get that Dorn painted - so it better keep good rules. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Caine 24th said:

Stay: Flavor. It's kind of a Monkey's Paw situation. I wish for less strats, and I get less strats... just ones I don't want. For flavor I like the idea of custom regiment traits (or force organization, or however it'll work going forward). To some degree I'd like to avoid meme wars further feeding pop culture caricatures of the lore. I love krieg... but the number of times I get asked where my shovel is at during a tourney...  

 

Go: Esoteric, abstruse rules and rules writing. That orders section. I had to read that way too many times. 12-year-old me couldn't do it. We need fresh recruits. Simple is good. Of course I'm a walking contradiction to some degree here as I want simple but also want playable flavor.

 

I'm going to feel real conflicted if Kasrkin and sentinels go to garbage tier, and chimeras and hellhounds are s-tier. I've yet to get that Dorn painted - so it better keep good rules. 

 

 

 

I’m in the same boat, I absolutely LOVE our army trait options, but want to keep things simple and not be so lethal.

 

cut like 90% of the strats, WLTs and relics, and I think a lot of the complexity goes away.

find some way to simplify fights first/last  rules so you don’t need a flowchart to navigate that mess any more lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO big assumption time. The stratagem bloat will only go away until the codex comes out. Current game there is 6ish stats that you'll use every game. Codex comes out for 10th. you've got 6 "Detachments" each with 6 strats. Still have 36 strats in the army, probably still only have 6 in the book that you'll want to use. Nothing has really changed except you have a limited choice of strats per the detachment you bring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mertbl said:

SO big assumption time. The stratagem bloat will only go away until the codex comes out. Current game there is 6ish stats that you'll use every game. Codex comes out for 10th. you've got 6 "Detachments" each with 6 strats. Still have 36 strats in the army, probably still only have 6 in the book that you'll want to use. Nothing has really changed except you have a limited choice of strats per the detachment you bring. 

They’ve outright said they’re cutting down the number of strats for this edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondaries in there current form should go, list tailoring to secondaries needs to go. If secondaries stay then it should be that both players play the same secondaries in the game (be it each player selects one each or they are random cards per turn). I always struggle to remember my own secondaries let alone know what my opponents secondaries do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like an odd take, that your #1 wish is for the default doctrine to go away. I don't really get your gripe with it at all, or why this specific one gets your blood pressure up so much. How is hitting on 6s auto-wounds any more or less "boring" than say +1 to hit against monsters/vehicles, or any of the very specific traits that only work when taking a specific type of list.

 

The default trait is always going to be one that can easily be applied to the whole army, regardless of what units you take, and which ideally complements the basic playstyle of the army without being overly complicated. Hence Born Soldiers = better shooting.

 

And while I'm sure the specifics will change for 10th, that general principle isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sairence said:

Seems like an odd take, that your #1 wish is for the default doctrine to go away. I don't really get your gripe with it at all, or why this specific one gets your blood pressure up so much. How is hitting on 6s auto-wounds any more or less "boring" than say +1 to hit against monsters/vehicles, or any of the very specific traits that only work when taking a specific type of list.

 

The default trait is always going to be one that can easily be applied to the whole army, regardless of what units you take, and which ideally complements the basic playstyle of the army without being overly complicated. Hence Born Soldiers = better shooting.

 

And while I'm sure the specifics will change for 10th, that general principle isn't. 

Because I already don’t like then anything can wound anything mechanic, and born soldiers exacerbates that mechanic. It’s a stupid lazy fix to the game to help the army be competitive, and in hindsight no wonder they have such a lazy fix, they knew 10th would be dropping only about 6 months after the codex dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started playing in 7th and lived through many games where 2/3 of my army was completely unable to interact in any damage-dealing capacity with my opponent. It made for incredibly non-interactive games. Wound rolls of 6 always suceeding was a necessary change.

 

Not going to argue that lethality should be toned down, but going by what they said in the previews that's happening.

 

As for Born Soldiers...it makes the biggest difference for our high volume guns, which are generally  low AP. So it's not like they leave no defence, it just gives basic guns a more meaningful impact. It's nowhere near Votann-level, where the mechanic was taken too far. Our only outlier is the Kasrkin-bomb, and that's mainly because the strat is only capped per target unit, not overall, which will hopefully be fixed in the dataslate this month.

 

PS: I am willing to bet that the codex was done many months before december and was meant to come out a good real sooner, if not for their supply chain issues. So the date of 10th is unlikely to have had much of an impact. Unlike for World Eaters, who were clearly already written with some of 10th in the rule designers heads.

 

Edited by sairence
Forgot something
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sairence said:

I started playing in 7th and lived through many games where 2/3 of my army was completely unable to interact in any damage-dealing capacity with my opponent. It made for incredibly non-interactive games. Wound rolls of 6 always suceeding was a necessary change.

 

Not going to argue that lethality should be toned down, but going by what they said in the previews that's happening.

 

As for Born Soldiers...it makes the biggest difference for our high volume guns, which are generally  low AP. So it's not like they leave no defence, it just gives basic guns a more meaningful impact. It's nowhere near Votann-level, where the mechanic was taken too far. Our only outlier is the Kasrkin-bomb, and that's mainly because the strat is only capped per target unit, not overall, which will hopefully be fixed in the dataslate this month.

 

PS: I am willing to bet that the codex was done many months before december and was meant to come out a good real sooner, if not for their supply chain issues. So the date of 10th is unlikely to have had much of an impact. Unlike for World Eaters, who were clearly already written with some of 10th in the rule designers heads.

 

I started in 3rd and played through 5th. 
i never saw a problem with keeping basic rifles from damaging big tanks.

 

as guard it’s never been hard to pack a lot of heavy and special weapons that can deal with vehicles into a list, same with marines.

 

i can’t speak to many other factions, but I can’t imagine it was ever that difficult for other factions, and if it was the better option would be to open more options to the struggling factions.

 

My last game with guard I had a single squad do 3 wounds to a knight with lasguns and no born soldiers, that’s absolutely stupid and asinine that can happen. It’s also pretty asinine that they made knights a playable army. An army full of super heavies kind of makes it necessary to deal with that army. 
 

Even if they wanted to put the codex out 3 months earlier 10th was done by then with just some finishing touches for marketing and promotion by then.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They’ve outright said they’re cutting down the number of strats for this edition.

They said there will be more core strats too. And 6 per detachment. If there are only 2 detachments per book like world eaters, sure mission accomplished. But its likely there will be more. Which puts us at square one overall but only 6(plus an increased number of core strats) per game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I started in 3rd and played through 5th. 
i never saw a problem with keeping basic rifles from damaging big tanks.

 

as guard it’s never been hard to pack a lot of heavy and special weapons that can deal with vehicles into a list, same with marines.

 

i can’t speak to many other factions, but I can’t imagine it was ever that difficult for other factions, and if it was the better option would be to open more options to the struggling factions.

 

My last game with guard I had a single squad do 3 wounds to a knight with lasguns and no born soldiers, that’s absolutely stupid and asinine that can happen. It’s also pretty asinine that they made knights a playable army. An army full of super heavies kind of makes it necessary to deal with that army. 

 

Great that it's never been an issue for you, truly. But personally it caused some pretty feels bad moments, when my army just wasn't able to interact with my opponent.

 

As for that Knight example...yeah, so? Have you seen how much exposed cabling there is on one of them? A Knight isn't going to care about a few wounds from massed small arms, unless it's already taken pretty heavy fire from bigger guns. So I don't see that as an issue, and I have a Knight army. There was a topic in the Amicus doing the math on just many Lasguns are needed to down a Knight. It's a non-issue.

 

But then again...if you still want to complain about superheavies being part of the game, knock yourself out. They're not going away. Which in turn means the rules need to allow for at least some interactivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sairence said:

 

Great that it's never been an issue for you, truly. But personally it caused some pretty feels bad moments, when my army just wasn't able to interact with my opponent.

 

As for that Knight example...yeah, so? Have you seen how much exposed cabling there is on one of them? A Knight isn't going to care about a few wounds from massed small arms, unless it's already taken pretty heavy fire from bigger guns. So I don't see that as an issue, and I have a Knight army. There was a topic in the Amicus doing the math on just many Lasguns are needed to down a Knight. It's a non-issue.

 

But then again...if you still want to complain about superheavies being part of the game, knock yourself out. They're not going away. Which in turn means the rules need to allow for at least some interactivity.

If 2/3 of your army weren’t able to interact with your enemy’s army it just means it was a poorly constructed list.

 

autocannons will be able to interact with everything assuming a T12 cap, and T needs to be more than double S to be immune.

 

it shouldn’t be hard to build a list with plenty of S6+ weapons for just about any faction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

If 2/3 of your army weren’t able to interact with your enemy’s army it just means it was a poorly constructed list.

 

autocannons will be able to interact with everything assuming a T12 cap, and T needs to be more than double S to be immune.

 

it shouldn’t be hard to build a list with plenty of S6+ weapons for just about any faction.

That is if you have said weapons after a few turns. A smart opponent will see those weapons and take them out. Then what?

I had the same issue in 3rd edition against an Eldar player that fielded as many wraithlords as he could. You needed to have a S5+ to even hurt them. Even with marines (wolves in my case), yes you can have a lots, but when you build for mostly CC and only one in a squad of 10 has said weapon, it sucks. 

 

Generally the everything can wound everything is a good rule that gives you a chance to harm your opponent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Focslain said:

That is if you have said weapons after a few turns. A smart opponent will see those weapons and take them out. Then what?

I had the same issue in 3rd edition against an Eldar player that fielded as many wraithlords as he could. You needed to have a S5+ to even hurt them. Even with marines (wolves in my case), yes you can have a lots, but when you build for mostly CC and only one in a squad of 10 has said weapon, it sucks. 

 

Generally the everything can wound everything is a good rule that gives you a chance to harm your opponent.  

i love the two opposing claims in this discussion.

one hand, people claim it doesn't matter the small stuff doesn't make a difference, on the other hand its super important that anything can wound anything...both claims/arguments are made every time this subject comes up and both can't be true

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i love the two opposing claims in this discussion.

one hand, people claim it doesn't matter the small stuff doesn't make a difference, on the other hand its super important that anything can wound anything...both claims/arguments are made every time this subject comes up and both can't be true

 

 

I made the claim that it's a small difference with little impact in the specific context of Knights. Against other armies with more standard statlines it can make a notable difference, and, as we've been saying for a while now, one that was needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tychobi said:

I think small maps should stay and Inquisitors should go in 10th edition.  That would make me happy 

 

I love the Inquisition and would be sad to see them disappear from the tabletop. 

 

That said, GW doesn't seem to have a solid idea of how to handle them. And that definitely needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

We lost like 3 datasheets, two of which can arguably be replaced by relatively equal or possibly better datasheets.

3? So Elysian Drop troops are still playable? Damn fool I am not to play them the whole edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.