10th edition tournament results - it doesn't look good

[Rain]

@The Unseen Preach brother. The argument that MW are needed to mitigate rerollable 3++ saves and the like is like arguing that you need to wear a bomb suit when going outside to mitigate your propensity to jump in front of cars. You can just choose not to jump in front of cars, and GW can just choose to not allow rerolls of invulnerable saves under any circumstances as a core game rule built into the invulnerable save mechanic. They can then limit 3++ in general to characters and not hand it out to Terminators with shields. “Problem” solved.

[MegaVolt87]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

@The Unseen Preach brother. The argument that MW are needed to mitigate rerollable 3++ saves and the like is like arguing that you need to wear a bomb suit when going outside to mitigate your propensity to jump in front of cars. You can just choose not to jump in front of cars, and GW can just choose to not allow rerolls of invulnerable saves under any circumstances as a core game rule built into the invulnerable save mechanic. They can then limit 3++ in general to characters and not hand it out to Terminators with shields. “Problem” solved.

 

Better yet, eliminate the problem entirely with only 4++ being the top invuln just like how it used to be. It worked fine then as the top save. 

[Evil Eye]

Completely agree re: MW. They were a classic SLAGIATT (seemed like a good idea at the time) and GW has doubled down on them. I actually don't think the idea of instant destruction is inherently bad, as you need some kind of way of representing the fact that sufficiently powerful weapons will instagib weaker foes, but giving everything multiple damage and MW spam out the wazoo ain't it and frankly Instant Death was a lot less silly. Probably helps ID was hard to get prior to the excesses of mid-to-late 5th. I recall the 4E Tyranid book was remarkably good in 5th (prior to its replacement) because the "Synapse Creatures and Tyranids in Synapse range get Eternal Warrior" rule helped mitigate the sudden influx of ID-causing attacks and high strength weapons a lot of 5th Codexes could field, and when it was axed for the new Codex the army suffered. Warriors with their T4 were hit especially hard.

[jaxom]

I like Mortal Wounds and what they represent, but they definitely need to be handled with care.

[Helias_Tancred]

I believe we've all been unwitting beta testers until some future date when GW is going to begin releasing codexes. Overall I like 10th edition, but they have a serious problem doing a decent to good job at balancing factions. They use the rules to sell models, there is no getting around that source of corruption when it comes to designing the rules for the 40k armies, but outside of that they still have done a subpar job going back multiple editions when it comes to a loose power balance among the factions. If some of the discrepancies between the factions weren't so extreme I would not be saying this. 

 

Patterns tell truths. They always do. 

 

 

[jaxom]

21 minutes ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

I believe we've all been unwitting beta testers until some future date when GW is going to begin releasing codexes.

If they were up front about this, I think the community response would have been positive. Do a soft launch with indexes, generate tons of playtest data from a variety of player-types through regular feedback surveys, then do a hard launch with codexes. The problem is the time line for profit. I think it'd be hard to take the data, do a full codex, print it, and distribute it for sale in a time frame which would please the cash-counters.

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

I believe we've all been unwitting beta testers until some future date when GW is going to begin releasing codexes.

Given their typical production timelines, the first batch of Codexes (Marines and Tyranids) have already been written and sent to printers. The first batch are due in Autumn, which means that they're likely either already fully printed, or in the process of being printed.

[MegaVolt87]

Its pretty simple whats going on at the moment. Imagine two lines-

 

_________ dmg stats

--------- defence stats

 

If these were on a chart, ideally they would be largely even in how they scale, but they aren't.

 

Now this is how GW is currently "fixing things" with a new line-

 

===========

 

They just turned it into effectively the same line and moving both at the same time, effectively changing nothing. 

 

EDIT- example, if the lines were liner, the 4++ would be sufficient as an invuln. If the dmg has crept, the invuln has gone to 3++ etc. The line has changed, but we still have the problem of spiked stats, nothing has been improved. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by MegaVolt87

[Blurf]

On 7/4/2023 at 5:54 PM, Rain said:

@The Unseen Preach brother. The argument that MW are needed to mitigate rerollable 3++ saves and the like is like arguing that you need to wear a bomb suit when going outside to mitigate your propensity to jump in front of cars. You can just choose not to jump in front of cars, and GW can just choose to not allow rerolls of invulnerable saves under any circumstances as a core game rule built into the invulnerable save mechanic. They can then limit 3++ in general to characters and not hand it out to Terminators with shields. “Problem” solved.

I mean...armor saves are just a mechanic to mitigate large volume damage.

AP is just a means to mitigate armor saves.

Invulnerable saves are just a means to mitigate AP

Mortal wounds are just a mechanic to mitigate Invulnerable saves.

Feel No Pains are just a mechanic to mitigate mortal wounds.

 

So obviously the problem is armor saves.

 

Or maybe a mechanic is just a mechanic and its implementation is what makes it good or bad.

[MoshJason]

Invuln saves with no way to bypass them made sense in 7th where most armies didn't have access to invuln saves, except for maybe on characters? Sisters were the only faction I generally played against that had an invuln on every model - most factions had them on a characters, and a 5++ was considered good - now it's considered standard. We need MWs to get through things that have 4++ or better - otherwise, there's no consistent *big* guns. Like, the Harpoon that the Giant Knight has *needs* to do MW vs vehicles, or it'll be way too common to have it get blocked, and it's a single shot. I'd argue that the Deathstrike Missile needs to get it's MW's back, because not having it do MWs makes it not feel like a Nuke.

[spessmarine]

Ignore invulnerables conditionally is an option too.

Similar to mortal wounds when you get down to it, but I prefer it as it feels more bespoke rather than something that got washed in from AoS.

Edited July 8, 2023 by spessmarine

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 hours ago, Blurf said:

I mean...armor saves are just a mechanic to mitigate large volume damage.

AP is just a means to mitigate armor saves.

Invulnerable saves are just a means to mitigate AP

Mortal wounds are just a mechanic to mitigate Invulnerable saves.

Feel No Pains are just a mechanic to mitigate mortal wounds.

 

So obviously the problem is armor saves.

 

Or maybe a mechanic is just a mechanic and its implementation is what makes it good or bad.

Kinda right kinda not.

It's not logical to say the first mechanic is the problem when it could be none, any or all. 

It is bang on to say implementation is key.

Once that is done right the latter mechanics may not be needed. In actuality your argument proves that point nicely. 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[Blurf]

On 7/7/2023 at 11:22 PM, MoshJason said:

Invuln saves with no way to bypass them made sense in 7th where most armies didn't have access to invuln saves, except for maybe on characters? Sisters were the only faction I generally played against that had an invuln on every model - most factions had them on a characters, and a 5++ was considered good - now it's considered standard. We need MWs to get through things that have 4++ or better - otherwise, there's no consistent *big* guns. Like, the Harpoon that the Giant Knight has *needs* to do MW vs vehicles, or it'll be way too common to have it get blocked, and it's a single shot. I'd argue that the Deathstrike Missile needs to get it's MW's back, because not having it do MWs makes it not feel like a Nuke.

Uh...bruh, in 7th edition, every army worth playing had access to a 2++ rerollable. 5++ wasn't even considered an invul. It was more of a cute party trick.

[Blurf]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:42 AM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Kinda right kinda not.

It's not logical to say the first mechanic is the problem when it could be none, any or all. 

It is bang on to say implementation is key.

Once that is done right the latter mechanics may not be needed. In actuality your argument proves that point nicely. 

 

 

The first mechanic was actually damage.

And what we've learned here is that if you simply remove damage, all the other mechanics become null and the game is fixed.

10th edition 40k, Friendship is Magic!

 

[Rain]

6th edition was a cluster, and though I didn’t play it, my understanding was that 7th was somehow even worse. So yes, 2++ rerollable saves are a mistake and should not exist. So what? That doesn’t mean that MW *should* exist to counter such BS, it just means that said BS should not be added to begin with. Because MW are a kludge that devalues the survivability of everything, and don’t just counter otherwise unkillable units. There were no MW in 3rd through 5th, and it was mostly fine.

 

There were outliers like Draigowing and Nob Bikers in 5th which were too hard to kill for the health of the game, but even that was caused by wounding rules (and FnP, another needless arms race mechanic) more than anything. The only 2++ was a nonrerollable shadow field on the otherwise super squishy T3 Archon, and it was completely lost as soon as it was failed.

[Plague _Lord]

2 GTs used the new points and nerfs to fate dice... Both won by Eldar. Cmon GW, try playtesting your balance changes to see if they have the effect you intend!! 

 

Oh and Deathguard another weekend of 27% winrate... 

[Redcomet]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:15 PM, Eilio Tiberius said:

I believe we've all been unwitting beta testers until some future date when GW is going to begin releasing codexes. Overall I like 10th edition, but they have a serious problem doing a decent to good job at balancing factions. They use the rules to sell models, there is no getting around that source of corruption when it comes to designing the rules for the 40k armies, but outside of that they still have done a subpar job going back multiple editions when it comes to a loose power balance among the factions. If some of the discrepancies between the factions weren't so extreme I would not be saying this. 

 

Patterns tell truths. They always do. 

 

 

 The codexes are already written and at the printers.

[Emperor Ming]

29 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

 The codexes are already written and at the printers.

Exactly, I think sometimes people are unaware of how far forward GW works

 

I wouldn't be shocked if someone said 11th was in the works. 

[ZeroWolf]

4 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Exactly, I think sometimes people are unaware of how far forward GW works

 

I wouldn't be shocked if someone said 11th was in the works. 

11th will have probably started preliminarily designs by now

[Kastor Krieg]

13 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

11th will have probably started preliminarily designs by now

We're way past that, I think. The Painting Phase has a fresh interview with Tom Hibberd who worked at GW desk in desk with Peachy. He left in 2016 and in the first minutes of the interview said GW has just released the last few products he was involved in. And his job was a Senior with hobby products (paints, tools, etc), so how much of a lead do the codices have, with all the testing, writing, editing, more writing, proofreading (text, if not rules, the text is actually quite fair quality for the amount from my professional experience!), then DTP, then printing in China and shipping across the world?

Yeah, I'd be amazed if they weren't testing and designing 12th edition now, to be released somewhere like 2030ish.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Kastor Krieg

[Scribe]

12 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

We're way past that, I think. The Painting Phase has a fresh interview with Tom Hibberd who worked at GW desk in desk with Peachy. He left in 2016 and in the first minutes of the interview said GW has just released the last few products he was involved in. And his job was a Senior with hobby products (paints, tools, etc), so how much of a lead do the codices have, with all the testing, writing, editing, more writing, proofreading (text, if not rules, the text is actually quite fair quality for the amount from my professional experience!), then DTP, then printing in China and shipping across the world?

Yeah, I'd be amazed if they weren't testing and designing 12th edition now, to be released somewhere like 2030ish.

 

 

I think this is probably correct in many ways. I'm going to build out my Knights to 2K, and call it a day for 40K, I just dont think GW has enough motivation to actually deliver a stable and finished product, before they blow it up again for the next edition.

 

Titanicus and Imperialis is where I'm going to put my remaining hobby days.

[sairence]

I doubt it's that far ahead for rules. I imagine by release you have the first year of codex releases done, then the rules team works on the remaining books, updates etc for a year at which point more and more people get tasked with the next edition. Would explain why at a certain in 9th for example there was a notable change in how books were done, if those were written after the intial release of the core rules. Really felt like the whole underlying design philosophy had changed.

 

Now, model releases on the other hand are a whole different kettle. We know those have often been done for many years before anyone outside GW ever gets to see them, so a 6-7 year gap there sounds entirely plausible.

[MARK0SIAN]

20 minutes ago, sairence said:

I doubt it's that far ahead for rules. I imagine by release you have the first year of codex releases done, then the rules team works on the remaining books, updates etc for a year at which point more and more people get tasked with the next edition. Would explain why at a certain in 9th for example there was a notable change in how books were done, if those were written after the intial release of the core rules. Really felt like the whole underlying design philosophy had changed.

 

Now, model releases on the other hand are a whole different kettle. We know those have often been done for many years before anyone outside GW ever gets to see them, so a 6-7 year gap there sounds entirely plausible.

I think this is probably a pretty accurate timescale. I feel like they spend the first year of an edition dealing with that one and gathering info on what works, what’s popular what’s not etc. If I remember it was about a year into 9th edition where they did that community survey that asked what people thought about the game, one of the questions was specifically about stratagems and one of the options was (quite tellingly) ‘There are too many of them’. That clearly played a part in how they designed 10th and how they marketed it. I know I and many others also complained in that survey that everything died to a stiff breeze. 
 

I feel like they take those initial findings and use them to develop the next edition over about 18 months in time to ship it off to the printers ready for the release of the new edition.

[Cactus]

To add to the above, one of the pre-recorded videos that came out around the 10th edition announcement described it as "a two year project".

[Ulfast]

I know from one interview of aGW staff that when the greater daemon, Lord of change, was released, the designers said that they had finshed with it 4 years earlier! So GW work a long time ahead. Nothing wrong with that, just intersting.