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

[Doghouse]

4 hours ago, phandaal said:

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.

 

It's the fixed units that kills it for me, I love converting officers or characters from single models from units but this edition it means it impacts an entire unit of models. Fixed wargear is fine and I can live with that, I just wished they compromised and gave us a rule for points per model so we can take units of seven, eight or nine. I'd even entertain power level for each model if they could make it work.

 

I'm dabbling with AoS at the moment and found it's easier to accept the fixed stuff because it's established and that is generally accepted how the game works but for 40k it feels forced for no reason other than marketing. They really do not need to do this when the products are already flying off the shelves, I've bought entire units or vehicles for single parts in the past it's what lots of hobbyists do just look at the sheer number of threads on piles of shame.

[Captain Idaho]

Getting back to business with the balance, tournament data etc... as time has gone on more and more Eldar winning tournaments have emerged. And not just winning but dominating the top spots.

 

And when a tournament isn't won by eldar, they come second or third. 

 

I think GW have noticed. Opportunistic advertising aside, I actually believe the role of 10th has been pretty poor. That's a topic for another day, but focusing on game balance for this thread, GW all of a sudden employing someone to oversee Stu Black's team tells us they're not happy with the way it runs currently.

 

Of course we have no idea it's about balance purely, after all it could he a commercial reason or expansion of the team. However, the design team IS responsible for game balance and even if they acknowledge they're in need of expanding, we'll take that as a sign there is a need for more games developers....

 

I dunno, it's an take on the job position, a little bit of a hot one, but then maybe not so hot? It makes sense.

[Ahzek451]

18 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

That's a topic for another day, but focusing on game balance for this thread, GW all of a sudden employing someone to oversee Stu Black's team tells us they're not happy with the way it runs currently.

 

Where did you hear this from?

[Captain Idaho]

The job can be found:

 

here

[Cactus]

Maybe I'm too cynical but the emphasis on increasing productivity says to me that the developers told management they didn't have enough time to work on 10th edition and the 'solution' is to add a new management layer to make them work harder. It doesn't fill me with hope.

[Plaguecaster]

Have they announced when in September they will release the next attempts at balance 

Hopefully not too far near end of month as really has been a massive motivation killer for my death guard just the months of waiting just for the supposed fix to the massive mess they are 

[jaxom]

16 hours ago, Plaguecaster said:

Have they announced when in September they will release the next attempts at balance 

Hopefully not too far near end of month as really has been a massive motivation killer for my death guard just the months of waiting just for the supposed fix to the massive mess they are 

Don't think so.

[Wolf Guard Dan]

Hopefully soon. They were unlikely to release anything before NOVA. I’m hoping Monday gives us the updates!

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if they reworked some of the core rules.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I don't think they have the resources or time to completely revamp so many armies. Especially Tau, LoV, and Death Guard. Complete re-works is the only way those three armies have any chance currently. It's absolutely awful how bad they are too. I'm not confident in them fixing things, maybe they will prove me wrong.

[Kallas]

7 minutes ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

I'm not confident in them fixing things, maybe they will prove me wrong.

Even if they do manage it, they will throw it all out of the window in the next edition change anyway.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

I don't think they have the resources or time to completely revamp so many armies. Especially Tau, LoV, and Death Guard. Complete re-works is the only way those three armies have any chance currently. It's absolutely awful how bad they are too. I'm not confident in them fixing things, maybe they will prove me wrong.

 

There are people in the know on some of the upcoming changes. On the Votann Discord there is someone with some familiarity thanks to their website. They would not share specifics, obviously, but they did say that Votann "have a long way to go to hit 50-55%."

 

So take that as you will. The dumpster diving factions may need several major balance passes before much changes there.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I'd like to see them get Death Guard at least playable, even if not in ~50% range. If they can get them to low 40s even in the near term, I think that'll be a lot better for those that just want to pull the army out.

Edited September 2, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Rain]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

There are people in the know on some of the upcoming changes. On the Votann Discord there is someone with some familiarity thanks to their website. They would not share specifics, obviously, but they did say that Votann "have a long way to go to hit 50-55%."

 

So take that as you will. The dumpster diving factions may need several major balance passes before much changes there.

LOV’s wild swing in power from one of the most broken armies ever conceived to a bottom 3 “probably just play another game for a while” army really says a lot about the care given to rules design.

[caladancid]

As the Eldar continue to absolutely dominate NOVA, I just am convinced this edition is a wash.

 

Power levels have done the opposite of balance the game, they've made it less balanced and less fun.

 

It is completely wild to me that a company would look at two games (40k and AoS) and decide hey lets make the bestselling game look more like the not bestselling game. The only hint of copium I have left is that maybe somehow the design team has been left to its own devices and at some point QA/upper management will actually tag in.

 

More likely is that the higher ups are entirely consumed with the warehouse/stock issues and the design team has just been and will continue to be let run wild.

[spessmarine]

5 hours ago, caladancid said:

The only hint of copium I have left is that maybe somehow the design team has been left to its own devices and at some point QA/upper management will actually tag in.

 

More likely is that the higher ups are entirely consumed with the warehouse/stock issues and the design team has just been and will continue to be let run wild.

 

Amusing because my take away or speculation is the opposite in that upper management is causing issues directly or indirectly.

[OldWherewolf]

I have to disagree that this edition is a wash.  In the past, the game has been in a far worse state for far longer (like the entirety of 7th edition...), and a good chunk of 9th.

 

We really haven't had our first balance patch yet, and I expect some major shakeups, as GW has to do something about the current state of the game balance-wise.

 

That being said, I don't think GW needs another manager.  They need a mathematician/programmer to start datamining their points costing.  That graph I put together ~1.5 years ago could do more for balance than GW just guessing over and over.

 

I also don't think PL is a problem.  The problem is the weapon options aren't comperable, and we, as players, are expecting a million different perfectly balanced options.  It would be better if there were less, but clear-cut options.   For example, there's no point on the LRBT for tanking HBs, you're better off taking PCs.  So drop the PC option, and up the shots on the HB and/or give it anti-infantry 3+.   Then give the MM Anti-vehicle/fortification/monster 4+.  Now you're making a decision about what you want the unit to do, instead of just going weapon by weapon and picking the best one.

[Rogue]

I did a fair bit of math-hammer on the GSC codex in 9th edition, and time and again the answer to "What's the best weapon selection for this unit?" was "Depends what you want to do with them". Likewise at a unit level - different units did different things, but you'd get roughly the same type of bang for your buck, but in different formats. It was really well balanced in that respect.

 

Take the current neophytes. The seismic cannons are generally the 'best' option, and are certainly the most effective into infantry. But if I want to kill tanks, I'm better off with mining lasers. Similarly, flamers are great into most things, but grenade lauchers are far more useful if I want to sit on an objective and shoot things more than 12" away. And webbers aren't very good, unless I'm hitting heavy armour at close range, at which point they're suddenly one of my best options.

 

Because the choices are balanced, the points are less important - everything is valuable in the right context (except heavy stubbers, but no-one was taking them even when they were cheaper than just taking another neophyte).

 

I'm not a big fan of power levels (too used to points, and I enjoy the tinkering that power levels broadly eliminates), but I think they can work if the options are balanced within the unit.

 

I'll also throw this in - when news of the Tyranid codex dropped, I (wrongly) assumed that it would herald a return to points. And I found myself thinking "That'll mean putting away all the toys again - no more icons, no more 'Well I might as well throw it in because it's effectively free'" and that was a bit sad. I've enjoyed going all in with my units in a way that I don't usually; I'm no longer choosing between an upgrade or an extra body or whatever - I can just take stuff. And that's fun.

[phandaal]

11 minutes ago, Rogue said:

I'm not a big fan of power levels (too used to points, and I enjoy the tinkering that power levels broadly eliminates), but I think they can work if the options are balanced within the unit.

 

It is more than just having to balance all of the options with each other. In this current system, every option has to also be balanced with no options at all.

 

Using everyone's favorite army, Votann, as an example - there is legitimately no point to not taking every upgrade you can take on Warriors. The baseline unit might as well not exist.

 

Likewise for Berserks. Not taking a mole grenade launcher is a downgrade over taking one, even in melee.

 

For bikes, you should also load up on everything you can take. There is no drawback to adding wargear on top of a normal bike.

 

This applies to other armies as well. Many balance problems crop up by applying this Age of Sigmar Power Levels approach to a game that was not designed for it. There is a good reason why games designers generally apply a cost to taking something that is an upgrade over the baseline, and those options generally have different costs to avoid the balance issue of trying to make them all identical in power.

 

I actually cannot think of a non-GW game right now that lets you give your unit whatever wargear you want for no additional cost.

[caladancid]

54 minutes ago, OldWherewolf said:

I have to disagree that this edition is a wash.  In the past, the game has been in a far worse state for far longer (like the entirety of 7th edition...), and a good chunk of 9th.

 

We really haven't had our first balance patch yet, and I expect some major shakeups, as GW has to do something about the current state of the game balance-wise.

 

That being said, I don't think GW needs another manager.  They need a mathematician/programmer to start datamining their points costing.  That graph I put together ~1.5 years ago could do more for balance than GW just guessing over and over.

 

I also don't think PL is a problem.  The problem is the weapon options aren't comperable, and we, as players, are expecting a million different perfectly balanced options.  It would be better if there were less, but clear-cut options.   For example, there's no point on the LRBT for tanking HBs, you're better off taking PCs.  So drop the PC option, and up the shots on the HB and/or give it anti-infantry 3+.   Then give the MM Anti-vehicle/fortification/monster 4+.  Now you're making a decision about what you want the unit to do, instead of just going weapon by weapon and picking the best one.

 

Leafblower and Eldar lists of the past aside, the issue now is that PL exacerbates balancing problems, for exactly the reasons you lay out. Number one, saying that the answer is to toss options that have existed for a long time seems to be an admission of failure in their current design. Number two, there was a way in the very near past where a lesser option had a way to balance it against a stronger option.....points value.

 

You cannot easily fix PL problems without changing datasheets/codex entries substantially, which is something GW is historically very reluctant to do. If you crank points up, you are punishing people taking 'lesser' options even more. You might be able to reduce power level in lower performing units, but GW doesn't seem right now to be able to recognize why some units are worse than others.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah I can't get on board with power level because the fundamental principle is all options are equal which is just impossible, especially for upgrades. Some examples (leaving out strictly Firstborn choices as they're not going to survive 11th):

 

• It's always better to put a Hunter Killer Missile and addition Storm Bolter/Heavy Stubber on ALL your vehicles.

 

• It's always better to put a Hand Flamer on every model in a Genestealer Cult squad over the stock autopistol.

 

• It's always better to give a Primaris character a plasma pistol over a bolt pistol.

 

Sure the argument is the rules were insufficiently made to accommodate power levels (a failure in itself!) but the level of granularity required would take us to Rogue Trader days or even Inquisitor (54mm). Even then it wouldn't be more balanced.

 

I DO BELEIVE the game is poorer than what came before. There has never been an edition that had this high a proportion of dissatisfied customers at launch as 10th. Every edition I've played previously I've been excited for but this one doesn't get me or my gaming group on side and it is reflected in the levels of noise coming from dissatisfied people on social media so not "just me".

 

And it ain't getting any more balanced either. Codex creep hasn't even started yet and no one can honestly say Eldar are going to get worse in their Codex book. How do GW sell that one?

 

Lastly, constant balance patches were part of the reasons 9th groaned under the weight of itself. This edition required balance patches before it was officially released 

 

I'd be looking forward to 11th already if it wasn't for the fact I don't trust GW to undo the mistakes they've done with Power Level, special rules for EVERYTHING Legends etc. Making 40K AoS in space was a blunder and I doubt very much that'll be overturned now.

[Rogue]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

It is more than just having to balance all of the options with each other. In this current system, every option has to also be balanced with no options at all.

 

 

Yes, but also, No.

 

Why do you want to run a unit with no upgrades? Usually, because it's the cheapest way to get bodies on the table, but that no longer applies. Maybe because an unencumbered unit can do something a tooled up one can't, but as you point out, that's rarely the case. Perhaps because you just want to (in which case, you do you, and you probably don't care so much about points or optimisation anyway).

 

In 10th, like it or not, there's no need for or benefit to running a barebones unit. Which works (I guess) as long as that's how they're pointed up - set the cost for my neophytes on the assumption that I'm taking all four heavies, all four specials and the icon. Assume I'm upgrading all the acolytes pistols to hand-flamers.

 

Now, I might have other tactical considerations that outweigh this (I might see immense value in a hand-flamer bomb, so choose to leave out the mining tools and demo charges (for range) that would hamper this), in which case, I'm already making my own value judgements about what I want to achieve with the options available to me, and whether taking nominally less valuable options carries a strategic value of its own.

 

It seems that 10th is the edition of getting all the toys on the table because why not. So it doesn't need to balance with 'no upgrades', because that's no longer something you need (or want) to do.

 

To be clear, I'm choosing to argue sort-of-in-favour of power levels here because I can see how they lead into a more fun approach (more toys!); I'm still in no way convinced it's properly balanced, and I can see why it annoys more competitively minded players.

 

(And I'm also working in the theoretical space that assumes the current power levels are correctly balanced, which they probably aren't.)

[Dont-Be-Haten]

5 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah I can't get on board with power level because the fundamental principle is all options are equal which is just impossible, especially for upgrades. Some examples (leaving out strictly Firstborn choices as they're not going to survive 11th):

 

• It's always better to put a Hunter Killer Missile and addition Storm Bolter/Heavy Stubber on ALL your vehicles.

 

• It's always better to put a Hand Flamer on every model in a Genestealer Cult squad over the stock autopistol.

 

• It's always better to give a Primaris character a plasma pistol over a bolt pistol.

 

Sure the argument is the rules were insufficiently made to accommodate power levels (a failure in itself!) but the level of granularity required would take us to Rogue Trader days or even Inquisitor (54mm). Even then it wouldn't be more balanced.

 

I DO BELEIVE the game is poorer than what came before. There has never been an edition that had this high a proportion of dissatisfied customers at launch as 10th. Every edition I've played previously I've been excited for but this one doesn't get me or my gaming group on side and it is reflected in the levels of noise coming from dissatisfied people on social media so not "just me".

 

And it ain't getting any more balanced either. Codex creep hasn't even started yet and no one can honestly say Eldar are going to get worse in their Codex book. How do GW sell that one?

 

Lastly, constant balance patches were part of the reasons 9th groaned under the weight of itself. This edition required balance patches before it was officially released 

 

I'd be looking forward to 11th already if it wasn't for the fact I don't trust GW to undo the mistakes they've done with Power Level, special rules for EVERYTHING Legends etc. Making 40K AoS in space was a blunder and I doubt very much that'll be overturned now.

Speaking of AoS, been looking into it. Seems like that's the future for their two best sellers. OLD WORLD being forge world means not a lot of people here locally are going to invest much in it.

 

At least with AoS the rules are simplified and accepted right?

[Captain Idaho]

Interesting question... my gaming group likes ease of doing things. Late 30s people who have jobs, families, kids... ain't nobody got time for that.

 

So a big buy in, high investment game can be a problem. A bunch of them bought into AoS sure, but all of them said it isn't the right rules for 40K and so far there have been zero games of 10th for the lot of them.

 

The balance has been an issue for them, but also the investment in learning all the special rules and the lack of points granularity on army building.

 

It's been said before in this topic; replacing your highest selling game's rules with that of a lesser selling game's rules, with no customer consultation, zero beta testing and little insight into how the systems can and can't be integrated... just seems poor business sense and planning.

[Redcomet]

8 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Speaking of AoS, been looking into it. Seems like that's the future for their two best sellers. OLD WORLD being forge world means not a lot of people here locally are going to invest much in it.

 

At least with AoS the rules are simplified and accepted right?

The recent edition added some complexity to the pre game. But besides the game being skewed towards shooting and balance sometimes being iffy, yes the rules are quite well liked and accepted

[Karhedron]

Changing rules to balance weapon options can work and I think Inceptors are a good example of this. Previously, Plasma blasters were far better than assault bolters but now they are pretty well balanced. Bolters are better against most infantry, up to MEQs but Plasma offer better AP and the ability to overcharge to 3 Damage for threatening elite infantry and lighter tanks.

 

The same could potentially be done with other weapon options but would probably necessitate a bigger swing in weapon stats than players are accustomed to. There has never really been an edition where Heavy Bolters were equal in value to Lascannons (maybe way back in 2nd) so adjusting the stats so HB sponsons are equally viable to LC sponsons is tricky. I can see why GW are pushing the mono-loadout paradigm, even if I am not a huge fan of it.