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

[Rain]

Right, specialized troops units can still be good, especially if priced competitively. For World Eaters, Berzerkers (while a tad overcosted in my opinion) with an attached character are still the bread and butter unit.

 

Of course that’s also because WE lack a Chosen or Possessed equivalent, and Termies/8Bound are too expensive to spam. I guess you could maybe make a Termie list, but 8Bound are far too fragile for the huge points cost to base an army around in my opinion.
 

Finally, Berzerkers are deadly enough in combat against most opponents to do meaningful damage, especially with a character attached. Which is the key. A jack of all trades unit just doesn’t get much done, so why bother.

[Rogue]

14 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

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.

 

No, I didn't think you were, but the two you mentioned did seem to sum up two commonly taken positions.

 

And I agree - every faction should be like GSC in that their battleline units should be worthwhile; and every faction should be unlike GSC, in that the way this is achieved should be unique to that faction.

[Captain Idaho]

Games Workshop compounded the troops conundrum (holding objectives, are they worth it etc) with the points turning into power level. It's essentially made the game have much less granularity, so now something is either a bargain or not worth taking at all.

 

Little hyperbole intended, but it's incredible how many units people either think are great or are worthless and if you have little or no restrictions, just load up on the bargain units and leave everything else.

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Games Workshop compounded the troops conundrum (holding objectives, are they worth it etc) with the points turning into power level. It's essentially made the game have much less granularity, so now something is either a bargain or not worth taking at all.

 

Little hyperbole intended, but it's incredible how many units people either think are great or are worthless and if you have little or no restrictions, just load up on the bargain units and leave everything else.

 

Yeah. Having time to really think about it, PL can work, but the game needs to be built around that idea from the ground up. Options need to have meaningful tradeoffs, without some things being strict upgrades. But given the established lore and knowledge of what different weapons "do" they can't really equalize a bolter with a lascannon. Maybe that's why Primaris are generally spam units of a set weapon, as that kind of model fits PL much better than a squad of guys with basic small arms that have the "option" of free upgrades to special and heavy weapons.

 

Really, PL is best for a system with no wargear options at all, which is what GW appears to be moving toward with the removal of the armory, all options being on the datacard, no points costs, etc.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah I believe GW would love to just drop all options if they could wave a wand and have it done.

 

Power level doesn't work with 40K, until all the options are gone really. But I don't want to play AoS in space, hence why I'm not happy with 40K and not touched it since my first game.

[Sergeant Bastone]

Why take a unit with a special weapon when you can take a unit where everyone has a special weapon?  That's going to be much, much stronger, and frankly is not accurately reflected in points costs.

 

Objective Control is cool in theory but doesn't really work.  Nobody has ever tried to take an objective off me by out OC-ing my guardsmen; you just kill them.  

 

Guardsmen are good for doing actions since i don't really care about their shooting but really 5 Scions (60 points) can deep strike in and do that better than a min squad of Guardsmen (65 points).

[Sergeant Bastone]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

Yeah. Having time to really think about it, PL can work, but the game needs to be built around that idea from the ground up. Options need to have meaningful tradeoffs, without some things being strict upgrades. But given the established lore and knowledge of what different weapons "do" they can't really equalize a bolter with a lascannon. Maybe that's why Primaris are generally spam units of a set weapon, as that kind of model fits PL much better than a squad of guys with basic small arms that have the "option" of free upgrades to special and heavy weapons.

 

Really, PL is best for a system with no wargear options at all, which is what GW appears to be moving toward with the removal of the armory, all options being on the datacard, no points costs, etc.

I find it a bit surprising that they didn't even try to do this.  By moving the BS/WS to the weapon profile they could have easily made a power weapon 3+ while a power fist is 4+.  A laspistol/bolt pistol/plasma pistol could be 3+/4+/5+.  Instead we just have one option that is always better.

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

I find it a bit surprising that they didn't even try to do this.  By moving the BS/WS to the weapon profile they could have easily made a power weapon 3+ while a power fist is 4+.  A laspistol/bolt pistol/plasma pistol could be 3+/4+/5+.  Instead we just have one option that is always better.

 

The funniest part is that there was more of this in older editions (pre 8th, I didn't play 8th or 9th, so I don't know how things were) when all upgrades had costs. Plasma weapons always had a risk of blowing up the user as they could not be fired at a low charge to avoid "gets hot", heavy weapons meant that the unit could not move to fire them, power fists struck at I1, etc. Even then, these upgrades were usually worth the extra points despite the tradeoffs and the increased points cost. Now you can move full movement and fire your lascannon at a measly -1 to hit vs. remaining stationary, and the lascannon is free. They double dipped the problem.

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's because they're only focussed on selling a product instead of selling an experience. Pre 8th 40k (and 7th really) was a tabletop wargame, with a lot of details for specific interactions. People really liked it for what it was.

 

But restrictions and limitations don't make no sales. That's why allies were introduced in 6th, and then the three or four additional allies that didn't count towards the actual ally cap that got rolled out. And then formations/detachments. And then the contortions to army building underwent from 8th-10th. It's also why you can have limitless split fire now, why you can charge at different stuff you shot at, why there's no penalties to movement, and no terrain slowing movement. Any decision point that caused players to stop and think got tossed out the window to avoid "feels bad" moments like rolling 1" going through difficult terrain, or having to choose between units for the FOC slot.

 

People just want to move their magic cards up behind los and then combo down their opponent at the perfect opportunity.

Edited August 29, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

It's because they're only focussed on selling a product instead of selling an experience. Pre 8th 40k (and 7th really) was a tabletop wargame, with a lot of details for specific interactions. People really liked it for what it was.

 

But restrictions and limitations don't make no sales. That's why allies were introduced in 6th, and then the three or four additional allies that didn't count towards the actual ally cap that got rolled out. And then formations/detachments. And then the contortions to army building underwent from 8th-10th. It's also why you can have limitless split fire now, why you can charge at different stuff you shot at, why there's no penalties to movement, and no terrain slowing movement. Any decision point that caused players to stop and think got tossed out the window to avoid "feels bad" moments like rolling 1" going through difficult terrain, or having to choose between units for the FOC slot.

 

People just want to move their up behind los and then combo down their opponent at the perfect opportunity.

 

Oh, I know. I actually quit in 6th because of allies breaking the game, and everything moving toward a boring and flavorless soup of random units from different factions bashed together in a cynical ploy to sell models from different armies to the same individual customer. I followed the game until 7th to see if things would improve. They--did not, so that was that until late 9th.

 

Things are better now, at least for very casual play, but only because allies were a total dealbreaker to me. I feel like I'd enjoy the rules of HH more, I just don't find much appeal in the aesthetic. I love(d) the sandbox feel of the 40k setting, and the wide range of factions, xenos, etc. HH feels too limited, and with a known resolution and end. Just doesn't work for me. I'm looking forward to the Old World though. Though that does have a known resolution, the world itself is deep, and End Times/AOS are so <redacted> that I just consider them non-canon. So, Old World is its own thing in my mind, with an interesting world and lore, which is the number one thing that I look for in my toy soldier games. A deep, interesting world with a sense of wonder and verisimilitude to suck you in.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Rain

[jaxom]

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

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.

^100% this. There can be some degree of overlap in role, but if the mechanics are effectively the same between a troop unit and a non-troop unit it will always come down to points efficiency and/or survivability. I think it's why Infiltrators and Incursors still see play; they bring something unique besides guns and bodies.

 

4 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Yeah. Having time to really think about it, PL can work, but the game needs to be built around that idea from the ground up. Options need to have meaningful tradeoffs, without some things being strict upgrades. But given the established lore and knowledge of what different weapons "do" they can't really equalize a bolter with a lascannon. Maybe that's why Primaris are generally spam units of a set weapon, as that kind of model fits PL much better than a squad of guys with basic small arms that have the "option" of free upgrades to special and heavy weapons.

 

Really, PL is best for a system with no wargear options at all, which is what GW appears to be moving toward with the removal of the armory, all options being on the datacard, no points costs, etc.

4 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah I believe GW would love to just drop all options if they could wave a wand and have it done.

 

Power level doesn't work with 40K, until all the options are gone really. But I don't want to play AoS in space, hence why I'm not happy with 40K and not touched it since my first game.

 

I ran into this when I was first homebrewing for 10th. Some people liked the one-and-done unit costs so I tried to make it work. For example, Captains can take Plasma Pistols, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols so I replaced the last two with:

• Bolt pistol > Master-Crafted Bolt pistol
  • [PISTOL, DEVASTATING WOUNDS] 3A 2+BS 4S 0AP 2D
• Heavy bolt pistol > Master-Crafted Heavy bolt pistol
  • [PISTOL, DEVASTATING WOUNDS] 2A 2+BS 4S -1AP 2D

 For the Terminator Captain, similarly trying to level out the power of each option and giving each a role:

• Combi-weapon > Master-Crafted Combi-weapon
  • [ANTI-INFANTRY 3+, ANTI-MONSTER 5+, ANTI-VEHICLE, DEVASTATING WOUNDS]  24” 2A 3+BS 4S 0AP 1D
• Storm bolter > Master-Crafted Storm bolter
  • [RAPID FIRE 2, SUSTAINED HITS 1] 3A 2+BS 4S 0AP 2D
• Power fist > Master-Crafted Power fist
  • Melee 5A 3+WS 8S -2AP 4D
• Relic Weapon
  • [SUSTAINED HITS 2]  Melee 6A 2+WS 5S -2AP 2D
• Thunder Hammer > Master-Crafted Thunder Hammer
  • [ANTI-MONSTER 5+, ANTI-VEHICLE 5+, DEVASTATING WOUNDS] Melee 5A 3+WS 8S -2AP 2D
• Twin lightning-claws > Master-Crafted Twin lightning-claws
  • [SUSTAINED HITS 1, TWIN-LINKED] Melee 7A 2+WS 5S -2AP 1D

 

 

[ThePenitentOne]

5 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

It's because they're only focussed on selling a product instead of selling an experience....

 

That's why allies were introduced in 6th, and then the three or four additional allies that didn't count towards the actual ally cap that got rolled out. And then formations/detachments.

 

I agree with much of your post- I don't particularly split fire.

 

But as for the part I left in the quote block, for me allies are fluffy :cuss:, not just a marketing strategy. I LOVE allied armies, and I feel like the only Imperial army that actually enters into a theatre of without allies is the guard, and that's usually because they got bushwhacked by invaders while the more elite and less numerous Imperial forces are too far away to lend support. 8th ed. was ally heyday; by 9th, they tried walking it back with purity rules and limitations on multiple sub factions working together.

 

They compensated for 9th's increased restriction on allies by giving us two cool things: Torchbearer Fleet rules (Admech + Custodes + Primaris Greyshields seeking then joining Firstborn Chapters as reinforcements) and Armies of Faith (Sisters + Marines + Guard). What's cool is that these were Crusade specific rules, so there was no way to build a Torchbearer Fleet or AoF for a single stand-alone battle, which pretty much means "If you want the shiny, play through the story and earn it, because we won't give it to unless you do."

 

To a lesser extent, I feel the same about detachments. They were always role-playing tools for me, that allowed me to tell the stories of various sub-groups within my army.

 

You say before 7th, 40k was more of a wargame, with wargame characteristics and people liked it for what it was. I don't disagree.

 

But I ALSO think you could say that before 8th, many people saw the potential for 40k to be a rare and beautiful unicorn- an army scale role-playing game that used miniatures as an integral game element. These folks may have started with Rogue Trader, which was, in many ways, already the roleplay/ wargame hybrid. People who feel this way kept waiting for an edition that could become the thing they had been awaiting for three decades.

 

That unicorn, my friends, was 9th edition Crusade.

 

Now I know, the vast majority of people who play 40k ARE wargamers, who prefer wargaming; I am not disputing that. But the roleplaying potential has been there all along, and only Rogue Trader and 9th ed Crusade went all the way down the rabbit hole. 8th came close, paving the way for 9th, and 10th is struggling to maintain the illusion by letting Crusade linger, but there isn't enough customization left in the core rules to support it.

 

 

 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

I agree with much of your post- I don't particularly split fire.

 

But as for the part I left in the quote block, for me allies are fluffy :cuss:, not just a marketing strategy. I LOVE allied armies, and I feel like the only Imperial army that actually enters into a theatre of without allies is the guard, and that's usually because they got bushwhacked by invaders while the more elite and less numerous Imperial forces are too far away to lend support. 8th ed. was ally heyday; by 9th, they tried walking it back with purity rules and limitations on multiple sub factions working together.

 

They compensated for 9th's increased restriction on allies by giving us two cool things: Torchbearer Fleet rules (Admech + Custodes + Primaris Greyshields seeking then joining Firstborn Chapters as reinforcements) and Armies of Faith (Sisters + Marines + Guard). What's cool is that these were Crusade specific rules, so there was no way to build a Torchbearer Fleet or AoF for a single stand-alone battle, which pretty much means "If you want the shiny, play through the story and earn it, because we won't give it to unless you do."

 

To a lesser extent, I feel the same about detachments. They were always role-playing tools for me, that allowed me to tell the stories of various sub-groups within my army.

 

You say before 7th, 40k was more of a wargame, with wargame characteristics and people liked it for what it was. I don't disagree.

 

But I ALSO think you could say that before 8th, many people saw the potential for 40k to be a rare and beautiful unicorn- an army scale role-playing game that used miniatures as an integral game element. These folks may have started with Rogue Trader, which was, in many ways, already the roleplay/ wargame hybrid. People who feel this way kept waiting for an edition that could become the thing they had been awaiting for three decades.

 

That unicorn, my friends, was 9th edition Crusade.

 

Now I know, the vast majority of people who play 40k ARE wargamers, who prefer wargaming; I am not disputing that. But the roleplaying potential has been there all along, and only Rogue Trader and 9th ed Crusade went all the way down the rabbit hole. 8th came close, paving the way for 9th, and 10th is struggling to maintain the illusion by letting Crusade linger, but there isn't enough customization left in the core rules to support it.

 

 

 

 

 

Allies were definitely fluffy back in 3 with daemon hunters and witch hunters, and it's pretty good now honestly.

 

But how they got implemented in 6th-8th was one million percent a sales booster over anything else. I get that you felt like allies and were fantastic narrative tools for you to explore more options, and they were when used in that way, but that's not actually how those rules got consumed. We got stuff like the tau fire base in every marine list in and maugen ra double shooting the Aquila stronghold in 6th, and Omni present loyal 32 in 8th. It was notable too, that all the detachments in 7th just happened to include units no one really bought.

 

I think Crusade is great for what it offers, but I also don't think it needs the modern editions mechanics to have happened. That being said, I also never once thought that the wargame I enjoyed should transition into an rpg experience; I though necromunda and inquisitors whole point was to offer that.

Edited August 30, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[ThePenitentOne]

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

I think Crusade is great for what it offers, but I also don't think it needs the modern editions mechanics to have happened. That being said, I also never once thought that the wargame I enjoyed should transition into an rpg experience; I though necromunda and inquisitors whole point was to offer that.

 

I would say that the mechanics for Agendas, and the in-built scaling/ escalation mechanics of 9th were the two things necessary to support Crusade. Agendas were patterned off secondaries, though they do differ significantly. Strats also help support Crusade, because battle honours can be built around them.

 

Now, if by modern mechanics, you mean 10th edition mechanics, I agree, because I don't know if there's enough customization in the core mechanics of 10th to adequately support Crusade- they've killed one game size by forcing it to be either Combat Patrol or Boarding Action; they've eliminated some scaling mechanics, they've eliminated requisition strats and by removing the psychic phase, they eliminated an entire category of Battle Honours. They have no core generic Agendas- every Agenda is connected to the Tyrannic War.

 

Also, I'm not suggesting that 40k transition to an RPG experience- I'm only saying that I like that there is an Alternative play mode that has strong RPG characteristics. I think a strong, balanced ruleset for stand-alone wargames must always continue to exist, side by side with the RPG hybrid.

 

Also- I still have the Inquisitor book. If they republished the rules, redesigned to accommodate the existing range rather than a ridiculous 54 mm scale, I'd buy that book. I also like both Necromunda and Kill Team Spec Ops- all of these systems cater to the RPGer in me while still letting me use toy soldiers in a meaningful, fully integrated way.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Also- I still have the Inquisitor book. If they republished the rules, redesigned to accommodate the existing range rather than a ridiculous 54 mm scale, I'd buy that book. I also like both Necromunda and Kill Team Spec Ops- all of these systems cater to the RPGer in me while still letting me use toy soldiers in a meaningful, fully integrated way.

 

How about Gorkamorka? Great game, probably could still play it with existing models. That would be nice to see republished in full.

[ThePenitentOne]

I wish I had purchased Gorka Morka!

 

[Captain Idaho]

We all do but that is off topic unfortunately.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

We all do but that is off topic unfortunately.

 

Ok but what if, like, there was a 10th Edition tournament with Gorkamorka rules? That would be rad.

 

Yes, I am hanging on by a thread here, please GW fix these dog:cuss: Votann rules.

[Captain Idaho]

If there's a 10th edition tournament with Gorkamorka rules I'll start the thread myself! In the meantime, let's leave this thread be to it's specific rule.

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I agree about the flavor 9th offered narrative players was hands down the best edition we've had for that.

 

7th editions rules themselves were good, everything based around the rules is what ruined it. TAUDAR, trip Tide, etc. Toxic.

 

I still believe that 5th edition was thr most internally balanced "competition" based rule set we've seen. Matt Ward codices ruined the edition. Phil Kelly, and Cruddace were much more tame, but had solid army rulesets.

 

Nothing 10th has done has impressed me so far. The Tyranid dex preview is very "meh" for me. 

[Antarius]

5 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

I agree about the flavor 9th offered narrative players was hands down the best edition we've had for that.

 

7th editions rules themselves were good, everything based around the rules is what ruined it. TAUDAR, trip Tide, etc. Toxic.

 

I still believe that 5th edition was thr most internally balanced "competition" based rule set we've seen. Matt Ward codices ruined the edition. Phil Kelly, and Cruddace were much more tame, but had solid army rulesets.

 

Nothing 10th has done has impressed me so far. The Tyranid dex preview is very "meh" for me. 

Yeah, I've not been playing the actual 40K wargame since the corona shutdowns, preferring to concentrate on smaller game systems (Necromunda mainly). Still, I was actually excited for 10th - everything they said about it seemed like the things I'd been wishing for, Then it dropped and, well, everything seems to be either "meh" or "doh!"; there's just nothing in there that really seems exciting (or even functional, I guess). And I'm usually all for seeing the positive side.

I think I might try out HH eventually. If not, I'll be going back to 7th or a mix of 4th/5th if I ever want to play army-scale 40k again. It feels pretty sad, because I've been following the game for almost 30 years, but I guess it's good in the sense that I will get to play editions I actually enjoyed instead of trying to keep up with the current state of the game.

[Ulfast]

It was both sad and intersting at the same time to see the result from Seasons Of WAAAGH!!! The GT. Top 6 players where all playing aeldari, mostly with wraithknights! I do believe even GW see that this is broken. I´m very much looking forward to what happend to the changes now in september.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

13 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Yeah, I've not been playing the actual 40K wargame since the corona shutdowns, preferring to concentrate on smaller game systems (Necromunda mainly). Still, I was actually excited for 10th - everything they said about it seemed like the things I'd been wishing for, Then it dropped and, well, everything seems to be either "meh" or "doh!"; there's just nothing in there that really seems exciting (or even functional, I guess). And I'm usually all for seeing the positive side.

I think I might try out HH eventually. If not, I'll be going back to 7th or a mix of 4th/5th if I ever want to play army-scale 40k again. It feels pretty sad, because I've been following the game for almost 30 years, but I guess it's good in the sense that I will get to play editions I actually enjoyed instead of trying to keep up with the current state of the game.

I had a similar experience. Covid took a lot of gaming on the Tabletop away from me. And GW went into overdrive with updates and changes so quickly that in the few actual games I played in 9th were wrong because I wasn't playing the most up-to-date variations of the game.

 

The new hyper competitive meta style game play took away the ability for me to play, because I didn't have chapter approved rules/books/insert other tournament pack. No one wanted to play PL or Crusade at any of my locals, and now 10th has completely removed generic options and flavor to build your own chapter.

 

I would've loved those rules growing up! Maybe we will see them again, and I can go back to playing my Carmine Blades Successors, and give them identity and back story the same way I have for my heresy armies.

 

The hybrid open war card deck as the core rules forcing you to do different things throughout the game really manipulates you into having to do things you don't want to do.

 

From a competitive stand point? I've been to, two regionals in the last month. ATC & TXO (America Team Championship, and Texas Open). The simplified terrain features, simplified rules are good for the hyper competitive communities, but don't translate well down to local meta when you just want to play casually on a good looking table.

 

Just last weekend I heard a few of the banger 40kers complaining that their friend wanted to play LoV and they basically were like, "I keep telling this guy don't do it, they suck."

 

Which is more telling than just, this army isn't in a great spot right now competitively...etc.

 

 

[phandaal]

The move to Power Levels is definitely hurting things, and that may actually be exacerbated by upcoming balance changes, as counterintuitive as that seems.

 

Turning units into Duplo blocks that can only ever be one cost completely removes the ability to respond to balance changes by adjusting wargear. Before, you could toss in weapons you previously could not afford, or tweak one unit's loadout so you could squeeze in another unit somewhere else.

 

Now? Good luck, hope your new block sizes fit together better.

 

On the more casual side, people with fewer units to play around with might find that their army no longer works at all if one of their units becomes a little too expensive. No way to drop wargear to get things back in line - it is all or nothing.

[Xenith]

In 10 days or so when we see the format and layout of the nids codex, wel'll have a better idea of where the game is going, and if we'll see more granular points or actually balanced options again.