What does everyone think of 10th so far?

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

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.

 

Exactly. It creates a meta where you build your list to give up as few secondary points as you can, while tailoring it offensively to score as many as possible, preferably by selecting those that do not interact with your opponent directly. You end up with some armies just maxing out secondary VP by simply existing, and they brought enough of an eclectic mixture that even dying in droves limits the VP surrendered. Every list then starts to look the same and too much of the strategic decision-making is centered around list building, theoryhammer, and laying down and executing the same gameplan every match.

 

Apparently, ask a competitive player to engage in a game mode that requires them to adapt and bring a flexible list and it all of a sudden becomes "too random" to the point they blame the loss on drawing the wrong cards.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Lemondish

[Kallas]

31 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Apparently, ask a competitive player to engage in a game mode that requires them to adapt and bring a flexible list and it all of a sudden becomes "too random" to the point they blame the loss on drawing the wrong cards.

 

Tempest literally hinges on what cards you draw when. Like, that's exactly the design of the game mode. Not everyone who dislikes it is a WAAC player, and not everyone who plays competitively builds perfect lists around scoring max/giving up minimum points: some people just want a game where you can make decisions without suddenly the game going, "actually go throw your units over there for some reason or you start losing."

 

Tempest isn't an inherently better or worse mode, but it is more random - for some that's not good, for some like you that's good. Stop presenting that it's just better when it's just your preference.

[WrathOfTheLion]

My personal preference is that the game is decided at runtime, on the table. I'd be glad to see them put the boot down on the more recent trend of the outcome almost being completely decided based on list building.

 

Randomized primaries/secondaries at the very least should make that less common for standard matched play, I don't know if tournaments will adopt it or keep to fixed secondaries.

 

If we're lucky, they'll at least scrub faction secondaries, which are a disaster for balance.

Edited May 1, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Kallas]

3 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Randomized primaries/secondaries at the very least should make that less common for standard matched play, I don't know if tournaments will adopt it or keep to fixed secondaries.

The previewed mission pack has Fixed or Tactical (random) secondaries on a per-player basis, so one player could do Fixed while the other does Tactical.

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 minute ago, Kallas said:

The previewed mission pack has Fixed or Tactical (random) secondaries on a per-player basis, so one player could do Fixed while the other does Tactical.

Interesting. I'd need to go back and look, but I would assume the tactical ones should score more? There should be an incentive to taking random ones.

 

It should at least somewhat incentivize more balanced lists, as even just one opponent taking those random secondaries can throw a lot of uncertainty into the mix. This is a good thing, the less rote repetition, the better.

Edited May 1, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Kallas]

1 minute ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I would assume the tactical ones should score more?

This is all we know.

 

The secondaries shown aren't even shown as Fixed/Tactical, or if there is any difference in them. We just know that, "Each player starts with two Secondary Missions, and can either choose Fixed Missions – which remain in place the whole battle, reliable yet predictable – or take a risk with Tactical Missions, which offer greater rewards but must be replaced with a randomly-drawn card each time they’re completed. Both players can choose a different way to score, so you can play to the strengths of your army."

 

So it sounds like Tactical does yield more, but obviously carries the risk of drawing duds.

[WrathOfTheLion]

It does sound like faction secondaries are gone, thankfully. While cool in concept, all that ever did was make certain factions auto-score with their easy ones, and they're too attractive for GW to try to balance with, as thumbing the scale on scoring does pretty directly translate to tournament win-rate percentages. Battle tactics for Sigmar have the same problem, where factions that have easy ones to score are always combined with whatever the best standard one is to make them easily maxed.

[Kallas]

Yeah, faction secondaries have been all over the place - some have been utter trash and never used, and some have been so good they're always taken. Some of them changed as Balance Dataslates happened: the big one being Necrons, who suddenly got basically free points when they handed out Core to pretty much everything, letting them score some of their secondaries super easily.

 

The problem isn't the fixed nature of secondaries, it was simply that not enough care was put into balancing them. I can see the point in faction secondaries - it gives an objective that feels like a specific faction might want to accomplish (eg, Herd The Prey for Drukhari, as they surround their enemy) - but the balance was always wonky, so removing them is overall fine as long as we have enough secondaries available to make things interesting.

 

Honestly, the Only War system sounds good so far, even if I am uncertain about the Gambits (which from the one we've seen is pretty hard to benefit from). The option to choose Fixed or Tactical means people can play what they want.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I like the idea of gambits, although they're only going to be useful in certain scenarios. The one we've seen is going to be preferable for a force that's dominant on the table, but lower on points. Say World Eaters perhaps is playing against Eldar, and have done a lot of work, but the Eldar scored huge on primaries the first half of the game. The World Eaters player can get a chance to make a comeback on scoring, even if they'd normally not be able to win based on just objectives over two turns.

 

We'll have to see what the other ones look like, but I kind of get the idea that they're going to be tailored for possibly upsetting certain scenarios like that, not making a force that's really losing just randomly get a win.

Edited May 1, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
missing word

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

Tempest literally hinges on what cards you draw when. Like, that's exactly the design of the game mode.

 

That's not been my experience. I do not win because I drew a card I banked on or lose because I drew one I'm weak at. You build your list and play the game based on those strengths, which is why WAAC players can't hack it - they fail to recognize value of units outside mathhammer, meta usage, and YouTube tier lists.

 

Maybe it's faction based, we do lack a few in our club. What faction do you play and what was your experience with Tempest? It's been exclusively all I've played for such a long time now that we're coming up on hundreds of matches. It's exactly the type of test I feel truly represents competition and challenge because you aren't gaining any benefits for picking the right faction that has the most passive secondaries.

 

Now with this being the standard game going into 10th edition, we'll start to see the impact of balance in this context rather than the frankly simplified and predictable grand tournament nonsense.

 

But I feel like we're going in circles on this. I love tempest and feel it will improve 40k for the better by being a bigger piece of the game. You feel differently. That's okay, but we also aren't going to be convincing each other no matter how long we chat about this.

[Kallas]

4 hours ago, Lemondish said:

That's not been my experience. I do not win because I drew a card I banked on or lose because I drew one I'm weak at.

I mean, that wasn't what I was saying in that quoted post: Tempest is literally based on a random draw. It is.

That's not saying it is worse because of that: my preference is not random, your preference is random; but Tempest is random, by design - you are literally drawing cards at random every turn to fill up to three active objectives.

 

4 hours ago, Lemondish said:

You build your list and play the game based on those strengths

This is literally every game. The difference is whether you get random objectives or have objectives that you've chosen yourself.

 

4 hours ago, Lemondish said:

which is why WAAC players can't hack it - they fail to recognize value of units outside mathhammer, meta usage, and YouTube tier lists.

4 hours ago, Lemondish said:

simplified and predictable grand tournament nonsense.

I'm fine with other people enjoying the game differently, but you're clearly just wanting to feel superior about this.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

My agreement with Lemondish is based entirely on the fact that each Tempest Secondary is worth usually five points, and you get three per turn.  Drawing one per turn that is physically impossible to complete is possible but still gives you the opportunity to max out your secondary score across five rounds.

 

I get not liking the reactive nature of the cards, but that's exactly what I do like about it.  I love Tempest and I loved Maelstrom before it, and I have always been very good at these game modes.  Is it because I always got lucky with the card draws?  Possibly, but I'd like to think that I'm just that good at thinking on my feet and reacting to rapidly changing battlefield conditions.

[Sea Creature]

19 hours ago, Lemondish said:

 

I never understood this criticism.

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

There must be a reason TOs don’t use it for their tournaments.

[Lord_Ikka]

Depending on how the cards are designed this sorta-of Tempest of War style deck could be fun and good for the game. I like the idea of gambits making the last couple of turns possibly game-changing, when quite often they are just talked-out because one side clearly lost by turn 3. 

 

My big pessimistic thoughts are based on the secondaries (I like the idea of random deployment/primaries)- if you have to have required units in your army to complete them (i.e.- psykers or something similar) then that will box out a couple of armies to start off with (Necrons, Knights, Tau, etc...), or if a significant portion of the secondaries require you to do certain things like actions (effecting armies like Knights or Custodes that just don't have the number of units to do actions and still fight effectively) or move quick to take certain objectives (Death Guard will just bleed points in that case). 

 

I'm ok with some random factors, even in a competitive setting, but don't want the game to punish people for simply playing a faction, not a specific themed list but an entire faction, that can't score certain secondaries. Punishing a WE or Necron player because they can't score any secondaries that require a psyker is just a bad game design, not a good way to encourage list diversity.

[Kallas]

5 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

setting, but don't want the game to punish people for simply playing a faction, not a specific themed list but an entire faction, that can't score certain secondaries. Punishing a WE or Necron player because they can't score any secondaries that require a psyker is just a bad game design, not a good way to encourage list diversity.

And Tempest even has accommodations for some of this (eg, Bring It Down is discarded and you redraw if your opponent has no targets in their list). Presumably they will carry this across to the Open War system.

 

Personally, I'm fine with someone choosing to play random secondaries, but I prefer fixed; so Open War does sound like a good strategy, since it caters to both groups.

 

I'm just kind of tired of people equating the GT pack with mindless boring play, as if that's the standard, that everyone's playing to have the mathematically best options instead of preferring the structure to randomness. Not everyone plays 100% hardball all day every day, but that doesn't mean they want randomness in every aspect of the game.

[phandaal]

13 hours ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

My agreement with Lemondish is based entirely on the fact that each Tempest Secondary is worth usually five points, and you get three per turn.  Drawing one per turn that is physically impossible to complete is possible but still gives you the opportunity to max out your secondary score across five rounds.

 

I get not liking the reactive nature of the cards, but that's exactly what I do like about it.  I love Tempest and I loved Maelstrom before it, and I have always been very good at these game modes.  Is it because I always got lucky with the card draws?  Possibly, but I'd like to think that I'm just that good at thinking on my feet and reacting to rapidly changing battlefield conditions.

 

Nice thing is the new system will let each player choose how they want to play. Some people enjoy responding to changing objectives, others want a more stable game plan. With the new mission pack, both groups can have what they want. I think that is a great way to handle things.

[Captain Idaho]

Space Marine faction focus article on WarCom:

 

• As well as Gravis and Terminator armoured troops, Centurions are up in toughness. So likely T6 Centurions now, as I can't see them getting higher than that.

 

• Oath of Moment tied in with Guilliman rules too. Interesting for what that means for other Detachments that might want to take Guilliman - will his rules change? It talks about "a second unit" etc so rules as written, he can't use that ability? The implications here are interesting regarding Detachment rules and new unit datasheets.

 

It's possible Guilliman just doesn't fit as efficiently into non-Gladius Detachments.

 

• Guilliman... what a beast! Quite thematic special rules and is flexible which feels feels very fitting. Also, at T9 he'll be harder to wound against even Melta!

 

• Land Raiders for the win. Great new weapons and rules. 12 slots in the transport section is especially nice, on an Assault ramp model!

 

• Seems like the Executioner Repulsor Heavy Laser Destroyer is going to see some play. That gun is incredible. Still not sure why it fires twice but never mind theme, it's abstraction is there for game balance.

 

• Combat Doctrines seem a little bit of book keeping for little benefit really. Very situational and once per turn is not a helpful combination.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Metzombie]

1 minute ago, Captain Idaho said:

• Oath of Moment tied in with Guilliman rules too. Interesting for what that means for other Detachments that might want to take Guilliman - will his rules change?

Oath of Moment has nothing to do with th Detachment. It is a rule all Space Marines, for now at least, allways have.

[Captain Idaho]

GW mentioned it would change I'm sure as new Detachments are created, but don't quote me on that for money!

 

Just as well there's no money involved, because this here explains it:

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/07/faction-rules-are-leaner-and-cleaner-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

 

It's the Combat Doctrines rules that are different with Detachments.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Marshal Mittens]

It seems ok. It does seem like they are gonna make S3 and S4 weapons pretty useless; everything's toughness is getting stretched. I think it's going to be Hero Hammer, Vehicle Hammer, and Monsterous Creature Hammer in 10; at least at first. 

 

Still, some positive changes. 

[spessmarine]

Weird to think Termies were T4 W1 in the past

 

[Marshal Mittens]

6 hours ago, spessmarine said:

Weird to think Termies were T4 W1 in the past

 

They made the game way more killy. T4, 1W 2+/5++ isn't that tough in a game with entire units of plasma or melta guns or the equivalent, or mortal wound spam. 

 

I still have some 3e codexes and sometimes think about playing some 3e games, but have not gotten around to it. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Marshal Mittens

[Tacitus]

7 hours ago, Marshal Mittens said:

They made the game way more killy. T4, 1W 2+/5++ isn't that tough in a game with entire units of plasma or melta guns or the equivalent, or mortal wound spam. 

 

I still have some 3e codexes and sometimes think about playing some 3e games, but have not gotten around to it. 

That's pretty incongruous to me.  I can't imagine thinking Hey.  Terminators.  Lets play some 3E. 

[Captain Idaho]

So thinking on weapon reveals in the Combat Patrol and likely consistency with main rules, plus it looks like both datasheets here:

 

 

I'd say we're seeing combi weapons definitely being this depressing profile. I mean, if they had to make it a combined profile, why not a more effective one? I just think it's trash and also fairly generic, especially as plasma, Flamers and meltas still exist.

 

I actually suspect the Codex will reintroduce them as more established weapons since there's been a negative reaction. Hopefully anyway.

 

****

 

Thunder Hammers... I think they just don't look so hot. Relying on 6s for Devasating wounds means every round you'd be lucky to get it through once, what with hitting on a 3 and only 5 attacks.

 

Comparatively, the Chain Fist would help more against vehicles (including Dreads) and provide the same results otherwise most of the time.

 

Power Fists look good. Hitting on a 2+ at S8 is effective. If you want to fight things T5, T6 and T7 this is the weapon for you. That includes Terminators. 

 

The Relic Blade is pretty good. An extra attack, still decent Strength vs infantry and D2, though might struggle against enemy Elites.

 

Twin Lightning Claws... pretty good. Functionally 2 attacks extra and twin linked makes them actually good blenders against infantry.

[Sir Clausel]

The combi weapons is a bit sad. If it atleast had 2 shots as a base i think they would be worth it. And maybe able to switch the "anti" to something else.

Thunderhammers im just not sure about. They got better vs 1 wound stuff with the devastating wounds but losing that extra dmg is rough.

Think i will make a sword and board terminator captain if i can.