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

[Lexington]

15 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Well this begs to differ:

 

 

Actually found on their website... shameless.

 

Wow. Well, guess I’ll take this acknowledgement of balance issues - shameless opportunism and all - over their old Baghdad Bob routine. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Lexington

[Doghouse]

Yeah that's really bad if true.

 

For me the whole problem is we have no idea what is going to happen to factions between codex releases (or potentially after going by the LoV fiasco). The rage will be high if they use that kind of marketing to get people to buy into an army then nerf it.

 

I personally think it's possible most of the new codexes are formatted and ready to print and it could be too late to change anything significantly.

 

No plans I have for anything I want to build feel safe to be honest so for the time being I am going to work on some Arbites and if things go south in September's 'patch' I'll probably take a long break sit the rest of the edition out and try something new like AoS or stick to Blood Bowl or something.

[Interrogator Stobz]

It's all true Brother.

In the lead up to tenth GeeDub stated those things; there are articles here on the BnC with all the info but I can't remember which ones.

[Brother Christopher]

2 hours ago, Doghouse said:

No plans I have for anything I want to build feel safe to be honest so for the time being I am going to work on some Arbites and if things go south in September's 'patch' I'll probably take a long break sit the rest of the edition out and try something new like AoS or stick to Blood Bowl or something.

 

That's a good short-term plan. For sitting an edition out, I'm not sure - it didn't work for me in 9th ;) This is the crux of the problem - by their incompetence (or malice?), GW estranges a lot of people from their game and products. I am quite sure that a good game to accompany their model ranges would benefit them in the long run and spare the community many disappointments.

 

The issues with an unwieldy and imbalanced game are particularly serious for people who have lives outside of the hobby sphere. Me, I realistically could fit 1-2 games a month. That's why I was looking forward to the 10th edition reset. Indexhammer could have been a solution to my issues with 9th and could have been a nice framework for me to use my miniatures in a simpler and more stable environment. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's the same thing all over again, but in a record time frame. With my workload and other activities I can't be bothered with the game because it's more than plausible that between my sessions the game changes dramatically (point values, army rules or core rules). It's board games and OnePageRules for me.

[Redcomet]

20 hours ago, Flaherty said:

GW's in a tough spot. They are currently:

 

- Balancing two flagship game lines (40K/AoS)

- A third army game whose proponents are clamoring for more unbalancing elements (HH)

- That third game has a new sub-game attempting to combine two other game systems with ill-fitting rules

- Two Skirmish games lines that tie into the flagship game (WC/KT)

- A third skirmish game that has some overlap with the first flagship property

- A fourth game reviving old rank and flank playstyles is coming soon

- A board game/LCG that ties into the second flagship game

- A sports game

- A series of board games with planned expansions

- A game based on a top 20 entertainment IP 

 

- A line of repackaged versions of the above for sale in Mass Market Retail venues like Target and B&N

 

This is, of course, a prison of their own making, but I'm honestly shocked by the level of quality they deliver given the resources at their disposal. So far as I know, they don't hire world-renowned game designers but rather let enthusiastic fans turned employees pilot the ship.

 

I think this challenge is also complicated by the fact that games of this sort can only ever get so competitively balanced. The imbalance in army forces and decade long release/upgrade schedules makes anything approaching the level of balance of Magic incredibly hard to believe.

 

I don't begrudge anyone their opinions, I've just come to accept that this format is always going to require more of a social contract than truly competitive genres.

 

 

How do you know what resources they have? You must have specific knowledge about allocating of it…

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I agree with @Karhedron in his data analysis/stress test. By breaking the meta in competitive play, we see a shift in local meta.

 

Unfortunately I have seen almost 0 casual play/narrative/crusade with the new 10th edition.

 

Limited options on terrain features etc has really destroyed all desire for me to want to continue playing.

 

We're almost 3 months into 10th, and it still feels bad, heresy is the better system for sure.

[phandaal]

4 hours ago, Doghouse said:

No plans I have for anything I want to build feel safe to be honest so for the time being I am going to work on some Arbites and if things go south in September's 'patch' I'll probably take a long break sit the rest of the edition out and try something new like AoS or stick to Blood Bowl or something.

 

Yeah, at this point it feels like taking a break for some miniatures-agnostic games is the right call. OPR & The Doomed look pretty simple to pick up.

 

No need to buy/build/paint a whole new army. Just do something else while GW smashes their rules apart for the next 12+ months.

 

At some point things will be in a workable state with 40k.

[Doghouse]

5 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

It's all true Brother.

In the lead up to tenth GeeDub stated those things; there are articles here on the BnC with all the info but I can't remember which ones.

 

That's not good.

 

2 hours ago, Brother Christopher said:

SNIP

 

I can relate to that. I'm just going to paint twenty Arbites because I have always thought they were great. I actually sat all of ninth edition out after missing the start hoping tenth would be something easier to get into.  I just ordered the Cities of Sigmar set so will probably try that instead.

 

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

SNIP

 

Yeah, sometimes a break is good.

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Yeah, at this point it feels like taking a break for some miniatures-agnostic games is the right call. OPR & The Doomed look pretty simple to pick up.

 

No need to buy/build/paint a whole new army. Just do something else while GW smashes their rules apart for the next 12+ months.

 

At some point things will be in a workable state with 40k.

 

This is the most level headed thing posted in a long time, and probably a great reminder to most people here; things suck right now, but they won't always suck.  We all want to play a fun game, regardless of what we think the current state of the game is.

[Sergeant Bastone]

Personally I really like 10th when you have a lower tier vs lower tier matchup (so like my Guard vs Grey Knights or Space Marines or similar).  The lethality and everything feels right.  It's like the person or people that designed the bad indexes actually read GW's design philosophy for 10th edition.  

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

This is the most level headed thing posted in a long time, and probably a great reminder to most people here; things suck right now, but they won't always suck.  We all want to play a fun game, regardless of what we think the current state of the game is.

 

Yep. I know my opinions on things are blunt most of the time, but most of us do want the same thing in the end. I might grumble on the forums but in real life I am just finding things I enjoy doing with my (limited) free time.

 

It was a real bummer for me to see my favorite faction - the dwarves - finally get their day in 40k only to get mudstomped for the designers' own failings. The bright side is there are plenty of systems out there where I can use and enjoy these great new models while GW gets things straightened out.

[DemonGSides]

And there's always the over-correction for particularly low hanging factions; lest we forget some of the glow-ups over the 8th and 9th meta, pretty much every faction at least did OK at some point in the life-time of the meta.

Index in 8th was a tumultuous time as well, albeit less tumultuous than this one.  10th probably wouldn't be so divisive if we weren't coming from a (relatively) stable 9th ed, as a lot of posters have pointed out.

[The Yncarne]

56 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

<snip>

The bright side is there are plenty of systems out there where I can use and enjoy these great new models while GW gets things straightened out.

 

Totally agree!

 

I'm done waiting for GW to get their act together on the rules side. I'm using my models in a different game that doesn't charge for digital army list creation or codexes. I don't worry about the rules changing on a whim. I play with others that have also reached their limit on the constantly shifting rules and options whether through incompetence, business model, inexperience, or something else. There's no need for me to halt my model-side work while I wait for somebody to "fix" the game side.

I actually thought 10th would lead to a larger exodus of players from 40K and it may still happen. But I had enough complaining and decided to act on it by moving on. That won't be for everyone, but I do encourage those with concerns about the direction of 40k to at least try something else. 40K will probably always be there to come back to.

[alfred_the_great]

What’s fascinating is that I’ve seen lots of social media posts saying people are having great fun with 10e. 
 

<shrug>

[MegaVolt87]

8 hours ago, Redcomet said:

How do you know what resources they have? You must have specific knowledge about allocating of it…

 

Investor reports, GW press releases, former staff commentary and just looking at how long things have been out of stock on the webstore and shipping delays (us and LGS). What recourses they have, they clearly need more. I am not opposed to GW's making the walled garden maze more complicated so people don't find an exit by expanding the catalogue range. GW has lost my money on 40k purchases as they are mismanaging it, but HH still keeps me in the walled garden. GW isn't only 40k and AoS these days. 

[jaxom]

31 minutes ago, alfred_the_great said:

What’s fascinating is that I’ve seen lots of social media posts saying people are having great fun with 10e. 
 

<shrug>

I'm not surprised. It's a good system overall when the two armies are built to the same level of competitiveness.

[Kallas]

48 minutes ago, alfred_the_great said:

What’s fascinating is that I’ve seen lots of social media posts saying people are having great fun with 10e. 
 

<shrug>

I mean yeah, GW is curating their comments so...

 

Not that other companies don't do it, but of course GW does it to create the perception of legitimacy. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, alfred_the_great said:

What’s fascinating is that I’ve seen lots of social media posts saying people are having great fun with 10e. 
 

<shrug>

I've played several 40k games in 10th, and I find that it is the opposite of that.

 

Troops don't matter, it's a bring whatever you want game now, and the terrain features are a joke. Unless you play by the strict tournament style single level LoS and obscuring walls put out by GW now, you can't even play a "balanced" game.

 

The only way I can participate now is if I bring cut throat unfluffy lists, because the deck of cards dictates how I play, not a base line mission with like minded goals behind then.

 

Idk, I keep coming off as this grumpy old dude and I am tired of hating a game I loved for so long.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten
Added in substance of 10th.

[Emperor Ming]

I'm certainly not a fan of no foc and bring whatever

[MegaVolt87]

3 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

I'm certainly not a fan of no foc and bring whatever

 

Well, even the novelty of that is drained with the firstborn retirement and Imperial Armour units going to legends. No FOC would have really moved firstborn units and HH plastic tanks and dreads sales. Missed opportunity. 

[DemonGSides]

14 hours ago, alfred_the_great said:

What’s fascinating is that I’ve seen lots of social media posts saying people are having great fun with 10e. 
 

<shrug>

 

I hate that my Death Guard feel like wet noodles, but otherwise the actual game system is pretty alright.  I like the way missions work, I like that there is flexibility in how you approach playing the game, and I like the idea of having less restrictive builds.

It isn't perfect; I wish there was more reasons to bring troops, whether that's a force org chart or some sort of troop tax, the game needs to enforce battle-line in some way.  There's definitely some clunkers in the indexes as far as balance goes, as it's pretty obvious there was a shift in design somewhere along the way and not everyone got the same love and attention.

I don't play competitively, so I haven't seen the "Need" to play competitively that others have mentioned above; if anything, the game feels more casual than ever.  As long as you're talking with your opponent it seems pretty easy to make sense of everything in a way that makes everyone happy, which is indicative of a good rules set, imo.

[Rogue]

Not a direct response to you, Demon, but I think that framing Troops as something you have to be made to take, either via compulsory force slots or a troop-tax, is the wrong way to look at it.

 

Instead, wouldn't it be better to just make troops good? Specifically, good at something that other units aren't. Maybe it's easier in factions with low unit counts, but at the moment I'm taking lots of neophytes and acolytes (the GSC battleline units) because they're good units in their own right.

 

Both give me access to weapon options I don't have elsewhere (like acolyte demo charges, or neophytes' abundance of heavy and special weapons). Both have good abilities that are exclusive to that unit: acolytes get to reroll 1s to hit in combat, and 1s to wound on objectives; neophytes can generate CPs, and gain regain up to 3+d3 models a round. And both synergise really well with characters and stratagems.

 

Look at the successful GSC lists at the moment - a ridgerunner, a unit of aberrants, some characters, and then as many battleline units as they can pack in. Make troops worthwhile, people will take them.

[SkimaskMohawk]

There's been a lot of feature creep over the years. 

 

Points have gone down, weapon output has gone up, availability of weapons has gone up, army building restrictions have gone down, points limits have gone up, ease of scoring objectives has gone up, wounds have gone up, etc...

 

So in 5th, only troops could score and you needed them to stay alive for the entire game. A 170 point tac marine squad could turn into two scoring units, and have a missile launcher which could one shot any vehicle it could penetrate (so everything but the heaviest vehicles like the land raider or monolith); the bolters also pierced the armour of all chaf. They were pretty good, in addition to being one of two mandatory troops options for the FOC.

 

Now, anything scores, and scores constantly. The utility of the bolter is gone. The usefulness of one-off special and heavy weapons is way lower. Many units can just do everything a tactical squad wants to do. Why take them?

 

Not every army suffers from this, but any generic utility troop tends suffer.

 

 

[Rogue]

Especially so with Marines, I suspect. You have so many units now that you can almost certainly find one that does whatever it is you want better than a tactical squad (or intercessors now, I guess).

 

Whereas (and apologies for banging the GSC drum, but it's the faction I'm familiar with) the  Cult have one shooty infantry unit. No-one else can fulfil that role.

 

Or to look at it another way: Cults only have six multi-model units (plus three vehicles and lots of characters). So a full third of our unit choices are battleline/troops. (And if you take into account that three of the non-battleline units are combat specialists of different shades, we only really have four options - shoot, fight, utility, bikes - in which case half of them are battleline; but that's pushing the point a bit, I think.)

[DemonGSides]

10 hours ago, Rogue said:

Not a direct response to you, Demon, but I think that framing Troops as something you have to be made to take, either via compulsory force slots or a troop-tax, is the wrong way to look at it.

 

Instead, wouldn't it be better to just make troops good? Specifically, good at something that other units aren't. Maybe it's easier in factions with low unit counts, but at the moment I'm taking lots of neophytes and acolytes (the GSC battleline units) because they're good units in their own right.

 

Both give me access to weapon options I don't have elsewhere (like acolyte demo charges, or neophytes' abundance of heavy and special weapons). Both have good abilities that are exclusive to that unit: acolytes get to reroll 1s to hit in combat, and 1s to wound on objectives; neophytes can generate CPs, and gain regain up to 3+d3 models a round. And both synergise really well with characters and stratagems.

 

Look at the successful GSC lists at the moment - a ridgerunner, a unit of aberrants, some characters, and then as many battleline units as they can pack in. Make troops worthwhile, people will take them.

I wasn't framing those two options as the ONLY options available, but I think we're in agreement.

I don't want every forces troops to be like GSC's, I like how GSC has a real stake in their troops because their troops are so synergistic.  If that same synergy is in every faction, it lessens how cool it is for any given faction.  But I agree that EVERY faction should have SOMETHING that cares about their Battle-line squads.

I just don't need 6 battle-line troops in every army.  Let that remain a Horde army type thing.  But by the same token, Intercessors are pretty meh besides their ability to grab an objective and keep moving forward.  There needs to be something else for other factions too.  I think the GSC does it right FOR THEM, but I wouldn't want the same for EVERY faction, if that makes sense.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Dr_Ruminahui
Same thing accidentally posted 3x has been removed