What does everyone think of 10th so far?

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Not a fan of gambits.

 

Seems to be a pretty divisive move.

 

I think they're brilliant. For me the appeal of Tempest is that you have to adapt to your situation. For conventional matched play, you can build a list designed to max out secondaries (in some cases regardless of what your opponent does). Matched play can then become more of an exercise in executing a particular plan and disrupting your opponent's ability to execute theirs, with few decisions made in the game. This is still a valuable skill, but for me personally, I find it's a little too set-piece and predictable. You're approaching almost every match with the same plan and flexibility is neither built into your list or a factor in your plan.

 

I personally much prefer being rewarded for having taken several flex tools in my list, and having to adapt on the fly, and testing my opponent's ability to do the same. I think that's part of why Tempest feels more balanced as a game mode, and why Gambits really excite me. I do accept that many don't feel this way and would prefer that if they are winning the match, nothing should get in the way of that win. If they have an alpha strike army that's really strong, if they had a string of great rolls, or if they just triggered the right stratagem combos at the right time, many feel it's an earned victory even if the last several turns mean nothing. I suspect Gambits then feel like they're being robbed.

 

But with this, there's a very slim chance at a turnaround. You need at least one unit in a corner outside your own deployment zone, and depending on these deployment maps that could mean you need to cross no man's land into your opponent's side of the board. That's one unit that is not battle shocked and not engaged in combat, and you need to make this choice in the third battle round only when it's clear to you that you won't be able to compete on the primary. As the opponent, you have two turns to counter this, while no longer having to compete for the same primary objectives.

 

I suspect very few games will actually turn to this and win because it is such a huge risk and the only time you want to do it is when things are close, but not close enough that you feel you can compete on primary scoring. This does not look like it will result in this ever being something you intentionally build around and pick consistently. But today, if you cannot catch up in any way on primary scoring, then the final turns in the game are pretty worthless to play. Nobody feels good finishing a game where it's essentially impossible for them to come back, and I don't think I've ever enjoyed a game where the outcome was pretty much determined by the end of turn two.

 

But I respect and understand that many will feel different about that. It's unfortunate, because I think we could all have so much fun with this.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Lemondish

[WrathOfTheLion]

Missions with fixed secondaries like the current matched play 9E aren't that interesting to me.

I like the idea of the gambits, it adds more play into the game, but isn't quite as controversial as implementing the double turn from AoS might be.

[Tacitus]

20 hours ago, Lemondish said:

I can definitely see how folks could feel a bit shook at the idea of abandoning an edition where a particular faction could have support in a Codex that is in turn expanded on via supplements, campaign books, and armies of renown. Going from this to an edition wipe that resets everything with a baseline Index would be difficult to accept right away. I understand that.

 

But it isn't like the idea of building a subfaction, lore friendly representation is gone with this new edition-long system.

 

And further, it isn't like the current way this is handled is particularly effective.

 

Take Raven Guard, for example. Apparently so sneaky they ambush you with Centurions (absurd), and try to avoid fights by staying at arms length. Hardly proper Astartes behaviour if you ask me...

 

But imagine a detachment that provides bonuses to the types of sneaky units a force like this would be drawn to, and the best part is that you don't have to paint your guys as RG or a successor to make use of it because every Marine force can be sneaky.

 

Until we see the Codex, all we have is speculation of course, but the potential this detachment system has in being able to create hyper focused army styles that encourage you to play a specific style should not be ignored at this stage. There's value in not being locked into a specific set of rules because you painted yourself one way.

Well ranged vs melee preference is part of the fluff/flavor.  Think Imperial Fists (Bolter specialists) vs their own Black Templar successors - The Shooters stayed with the fists, then more assault oriented went with Sigismund.  And that Ravenguard Fluff you're talking about is trying to put Seal Team 6 into a Chapter.  Infiltrator CQBs, with sniper overwatch, some HAHO/HALO jumpers or Helicopter Deployments (Jump Marines, etc)

 

And yeah it is like that's all gone.  All Marine chapters (as reported so far) will be playing (at least from the outset) off the same 2 page rules using the same formation.   Your Raven Guard will not be sneaky at all.  You say to imagine a detachment that does all these things - and we do have to imagine because there isn't one.  There's no Deathwing/Ravenwing/Wolf Lord Keywords, and so on.   

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Missions with fixed secondaries like the current matched play 9E aren't that interesting to me.

I like the idea of the gambits, it adds more play into the game, but isn't quite as controversial as implementing the double turn from AoS might be.

I'd like to see the main mission be known, (at least some) secondaries and gambits be secret.  The Mains should be fairly simple to score, the secondaries should be more difficult, the gambits being even higher risk/reward.   These things should be mimicking the Fog of War.  Theoretically you know what the "enemy" is doing in a given area (the main) and you may know some secondary reasons but not all, and it could all be a giant trick/trap. 

[Lemondish]

54 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

You say to imagine a detachment that does all these things - and we do have to imagine because there isn't one.  There's no Deathwing/Ravenwing/Wolf Lord Keywords, and so on.   

 

 

That's just the cost of a full reset of the rules. It will take some time for these things to settle out. It wasn't like moving to 8th edition included rules for sneaky beaky Marines right away either.

 

We got through that dark time, and it'll happen again - we'll adapt and manage. Always do :)

 

[Tacitus]

49 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

 

That's just the cost of a full reset of the rules. It will take some time for these things to settle out. It wasn't like moving to 8th edition included rules for sneaky beaky Marines right away either.

 

We got through that dark time, and it'll happen again - we'll adapt and manage. Always do :)

 

Escept they didn't really have it.  You did still have rules telling Black Templar not to take Libbies, or DA to avoid PA Veterans etc. 

[Sir Clausel]

I like that tempest becomes the standard play style. It is a very fun way to play.

After having thought about the gambits i think they will be okay. The only thing i dont like is rhe one we have shown you have to do something very difficult and then roll the dice. There is already a lot of dice rolling that decides the game. But having done something very hard only to not roll high enough just feels meh to me? Cant think of other objectives other than psychic ones that require dice rolling. And they dont require a high roll. 

But the one we have been shown at least dont seem like it will matter very often. So maybe gambits will just be something that never matters? I dont know. But i like the fact that they are thinking of comeback mechanics.

[Kallas]

11 hours ago, Lemondish said:

Tempest feels more balanced as a game mode

It's really not more balanced, it's just random. It's why I hated Maelstrom, and why Tempest doesn't do it for me, though it is less bad than Maelstrom.

 

You drew crap cards? Well, sucks to be you. Your opponent drew good cards? Ok, well now the game is just tilted in favour of one player just because they could get their cards done easily, and you couldn't. Hell, after a couple of tries when it first came out I stopped bothering, but watching Tabletop Tactics who use it often, I see this happen all the time. One player draws great cards and the other players draws bad card, and the game ends almost exactly as it looks like it will: one player gains a big advantage early (because they don't need to throw units away to achieve their goals like their opponent does) and then they draw the harder cards - but because they've gained the advantage early, they can easily absorb any losses and keep going.

 

The GT packs have their problems too, but they're not random. You make your decisions, putting the onus firmly on the player to make good decisions (and with three secondary choices, you have more room to pick solid ones: typically, people struggle to pick a third, but the first two options are generally something that their army can acheive) and then follow through. Tempest is just "go do a thing that your army might suck at" (Tau say hi to Blood and Guts).

 

10th's mission system looks to be something of a middle ground, with the Fixed and 'Tactical' (I think they wanted to avoid saying random, which is what they are...) secondary missions being a choice by each player; and then Gambits are just typical GW "roll a dice to win!" type add on. At least they look not super easy to do, and they are telegraphed early on Turn 3, so it might not be awful and will definitely need to be played to really see if they're alright or not. But not a fan of randomness in how missions work, and Gambits are very much in the random category.

[Lemondish]

3 hours ago, Kallas said:

You drew crap cards? Well, sucks to be you. Your opponent drew good cards?

 

I disagree that this is possible. The truck is to have built your list to address these possibilities. Blaming the cards on your inability to adapt is poor sportsmanship ;)

 

Even if that was the case, which again, my experience says otherwise, how is it any different from choosing the wrong faction in matched play today? Oh, your opponent chose Necrons or Sisters of Battle? Well then they have easier secondary missions than you, and can do them without engaging with you in any way. Enjoy!

 

Across hundreds of games, Tempest has resulted in far closer matches to me than traditional matched play. I'll take that any day over the extremely predictable and unimaginative alternative.

 

But to each their own.

[Captain Idaho]

It's pretty much confirmed by all the datasheets they've shown that every single unit is getting 1 or more special rules. I'm very disappointed in this, as it doesn't decrease mental load but increases it!

 

If the base rules and stats, alongside wargear and army special rules, aren't enough to provide a difference between units then the game is flawed. 

 

As it is, I think the base game rules, stats, wargear and army special rules does provide sufficient reasons to not need such a deluge of additional rules for EVERY UNIT.

 

I can see this edition giving me another headache.

[Kallas]

24 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

I disagree that this is possible. The truck is to have built your list to address these possibilities. Blaming the cards on your inability to adapt is poor sportsmanship ;)

Ah yes, drawing Capture Enemy Outpost turn one is such a skill issue 

 

24 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Even if that was the case, which again, my experience says otherwise, how is it any different from choosing the wrong faction in matched play today? Oh, your opponent chose Necrons or Sisters of Battle? Well then they have easier secondary missions than you, and can do them without engaging with you in any way. Enjoy!

Because you are choosing your secondaries based on your list, your opponent's list, the terrain and the mission. You have agency in these decisions (not your opponent's list, of course!) and while you're right that some factions do have an easier selection of some secondaries, some of that is balanced out by unit costs, movement, etc.

 

Drawing a bad hand of objectives is not playing badly. Even if you have a take all comers list, how do you Capture Enemy Outpost turn one? Going second, your opponent draws aggressive cards and floods the midfield, now you draw Area Denial on turn two - whoops, guess you're not scoring that!

 

24 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Across hundreds of games, Tempest has resulted in far closer matches to me than traditional matched play. I'll take that any day over the extremely predictable and unimaginative alternative.

I've had extremely close and interesting games with the GT pack. When I went to the Goonhammer Open in October, I had some very fun games that were fun because we were both playing our objectives and denying each other - it was a give and take where our decisions mattered, rather than what random draw we got given. I'll take that any day over the extremely unpredictable and unimaginative alternative where players' decisions don't really matter.

 

Edit: To add to this, I had several very memorable games there, where interesting situations happened because of secondary choices. One opponent chose Bring It Down to try and get points for killing my Land Raiders, and it ended up with his Chaplain on Bike getting squished between two Land Raiders in the final turn (Heroic Intervention[Space Wolves], plus a whiff of his dice meant my LRs got to roll a bunch of dice).

Edited April 29, 2023 by Kallas

[Tacitus]

21 hours ago, Sir Clausel said:

I like that tempest becomes the standard play style. It is a very fun way to play.

After having thought about the gambits i think they will be okay. The only thing i dont like is rhe one we have shown you have to do something very difficult and then roll the dice. There is already a lot of dice rolling that decides the game. But having done something very hard only to not roll high enough just feels meh to me? Cant think of other objectives other than psychic ones that require dice rolling. And they dont require a high roll. 

But the one we have been shown at least dont seem like it will matter very often. So maybe gambits will just be something that never matters? I dont know. But i like the fact that they are thinking of comeback mechanics.

I'd say Gambits will turn out to be a great idea with extremely poor implementation.  I'm betting the gambit will be either too good or all but impotent too often.   They're being advertised/assumed/interpreted as a last ditch last resort, when really they should be an alternative. 

[Tacitus]

13 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

It's pretty much confirmed by all the datasheets they've shown that every single unit is getting 1 or more special rules. I'm very disappointed in this, as it doesn't decrease mental load but increases it!

 

If the base rules and stats, alongside wargear and army special rules, aren't enough to provide a difference between units then the game is flawed. 

 

As it is, I think the base game rules, stats, wargear and army special rules does provide sufficient reasons to not need such a deluge of additional rules for EVERY UNIT.

 

I can see this edition giving me another headache.

Yeah, I've already been going down this road - Some of it is probably a USR being reprinted on the datasheet for clarity, but we're still moving from Book/Codex/etc level USR's going away yet still showing up on datasheets and the like.  This is a big part of why I was worried about the "fluff" rules going away.   I think the Keyword system was a powerful way of making USR's work.  But we're bringing USR's back and getting rid of the Keywords. 

[ValourousHeart]

15 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

It's pretty much confirmed by all the datasheets they've shown that every single unit is getting 1 or more special rules. I'm very disappointed in this, as it doesn't decrease mental load but increases it!

 

If the base rules and stats, alongside wargear and army special rules, aren't enough to provide a difference between units then the game is flawed. 

 

As it is, I think the base game rules, stats, wargear and army special rules does provide sufficient reasons to not need such a deluge of additional rules for EVERY UNIT.

 

I can see this edition giving me another headache.

 

If you are worried about mental overload, try this.

 

Start bringing a second army with you when you go to the club and tournaments. 

Then demand that your opponents use the army you know how to beat.  

Tell the judge they forfeited if they refuse to comply. 

Make sure you bring enough cash to grease the judges. 

 

[Blindhamster]

I’m pleased to see units getting a unique ability, it’ll help to differentiate them from eachother in interesting way

Edited April 30, 2023 by Blindhamster

[WrathOfTheLion]

We now know that Dark Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Deathwatch will be their own Codex again. So I think this is how they plan to address a lot of that.

[Captain Idaho]

3 hours ago, ValourousHeart said:

 

If you are worried about mental overload, try this.

 

Start bringing a second army with you when you go to the club and tournaments. 

Then demand that your opponents use the army you know how to beat.  

Tell the judge they forfeited if they refuse to comply. 

Make sure you bring enough cash to grease the judges. 

 

 

Ha ha well that gave my mind a headache just thinking about it!

 

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

I’m pleased to see units getting a unique ability, it’ll help to differebtiate them from eachother in interesting way

 

Well my friends who play AoS are keen on it too, saying it does work... so hopefully it will.

[Karhedron]

21 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

It's pretty much confirmed by all the datasheets they've shown that every single unit is getting 1 or more special rules. I'm very disappointed in this, as it doesn't decrease mental load but increases it!

 

Actually I think it is a lot better. Currently if someone targets my Infiltrators with a shooting attack, I have to flip to a different part of the codex and sort through stratagems and decide if I have enough to CPs to use Smoke Grenades or Transhuman Physiology. Maybe next turn I want to take them off the board with Guerrilla Warfare, same sort and flipping back and forth. Now all their rules will be on their datasheet. No flipping back and forth. If I want a unit with an ability on its sheet, I know it won't suddenly "switch off" because I have run out of CPs. Also, I don't need to sort through stratagems that trigger abilities on units I don't have in that particular game.

 

On a more basic note, I prefer unit abilities to things triggered by Stratagems. It never made sense to me that an Apothecary would lose the ability to get models back on their feet just because one unit had used Smoke Grenades and another had used their Transhuman Physiology that turn exhausting my CPs. I actually think Infiltrators are a good example of units with built-in abilities. They have a useful role and there is a good reason they are popular in Marine armies, even after AoO removed the Troop tax.

[Kallas]

24 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

On a more basic note, I prefer unit abilities to things triggered by Stratagems. It never made sense to me that an Apothecary would lose the ability to get models back on their feet just because one unit had used Smoke Grenades and another had used their Transhuman Physiology that turn exhausting my CPs.

Yeah, I always disliked the Stratagems for things like Smoke. Guerilla Warfare is a good example of a good Stratagem, in my opinion: it's not a direct combat buff (eg, +1 to wound), it's something a unit typically couldn't do (ie, most units in 9th couldn't remove themselves and redeploy later), and it made sense as a strategic decision (ie, moving units) which tied in with Command Points.

 

Units having distinct abilities is, in my opinion, a good thing (as some others have mentioned already) because it gives units a bit more of a specific thing that only they do. We've only seen a few but things like the Incinerators forcing Battleshock tests out of sequence? Yeah, that's pretty interesting, and doesn't need to be a Stratagem that might be applied to other units: it gives those Incinerators something that's theirs and is not easily replicable by just bringing another unit that shoots Flamers more efficiently.

[Lemondish]

On 4/29/2023 at 10:43 AM, Captain Idaho said:

It's pretty much confirmed by all the datasheets they've shown that every single unit is getting 1 or more special rules. I'm very disappointed in this, as it doesn't decrease mental load but increases it!

 

If the base rules and stats, alongside wargear and army special rules, aren't enough to provide a difference between units then the game is flawed. 

 

As it is, I think the base game rules, stats, wargear and army special rules does provide sufficient reasons to not need such a deluge of additional rules for EVERY UNIT.

 

I can see this edition giving me another headache.

 

You could always just ignore the extra abilities just like you do now.

 

Or are you saying you know, for example, all a Terminator squad's 9 distinct faction, subfaction, and unit special rules available today without issue? Or what about how they interact with the 9 different army stratagem options available to them? If you can manage 9th edition today, I don't think you'll have much trouble with 10th.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Lemondish

[Sea Creature]

To me Tempest is a beer and pretzels style format - great for casual gaming but bad for competitive play… too much randomness.

[ValourousHeart]

17 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

We now know that Dark Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Deathwatch will be their own Codex again. So I think this is how they plan to address a lot of that.

 

The only question now is if the DA codex will be stand alone codex, or if it will need the SM codex for the basic marine units.  Oath of Moment is an interesting faction ability, but will it be for all marines, or just codex marines?

[Lemondish]

34 minutes ago, Sea Creature said:

To me Tempest is a beer and pretzels style format - great for casual gaming but bad for competitive play… too much randomness.

 

I never understood this criticism.

Randomness? In a dice game? Who would have thought.

[Tacitus]

17 hours ago, Kallas said:

Yeah, I always disliked the Stratagems for things like Smoke. Guerilla Warfare is a good example of a good Stratagem, in my opinion: it's not a direct combat buff (eg, +1 to wound), it's something a unit typically couldn't do (ie, most units in 9th couldn't remove themselves and redeploy later), and it made sense as a strategic decision (ie, moving units) which tied in with Command Points.

 

Units having distinct abilities is, in my opinion, a good thing (as some others have mentioned already) because it gives units a bit more of a specific thing that only they do. We've only seen a few but things like the Incinerators forcing Battleshock tests out of sequence? Yeah, that's pretty interesting, and doesn't need to be a Stratagem that might be applied to other units: it gives those Incinerators something that's theirs and is not easily replicable by just bringing another unit that shoots Flamers more efficiently.

I've always thought a lot of those stratagems could have been better.  Some sort of Must have 1+ CP to use, but cost 0CP and potentially keyword or bespoke based. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

7 hours ago, Lemondish said:

 

I never understood this criticism.

Randomness? In a dice game? Who would have thought.

Exactly. One thing I dislike the most is too few scenarios for an army to have to deal with. It would be better if they had to account for more things, instead of just crafting lists to deal with narrow situations, it'd hinder some of those special tailored builds.