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

[sairence]

16 hours 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.

 

I'm on board with this. Competitively we have massive issues at the very top and at the very bottom, that seriously need to be adressed.

 

If we exclude those, the stuff in between is honestly mostly fine. Yeah, some armies are a little too good and some not quite good enough, but that to me is in the realm of nornal balancing measures. So it's really just the outliers that really shouldn't have happened.

 

Likewise, the internal balance for some Codexes is surprisingly good. At this point with my Knights, I've genuinely found that I could construct lists that let me make arguments for including pretty much any Questoris, Dominus or Armiger chassis there is, depending on what I pair it with. 

 

Edit: pretty sure they said middle of September for the update. The expectation I've seen is second week of the month.

Edited September 4, 2023 by sairence

[TrawlingCleaner]

As posted in the NRBA by @Triszin, the dataslate is due on Thursday:

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do here, Core Rules changes are desperately needed on top of Index changes IMO.

 

On the topic of codex creep, it's yet to be seen fully but the Tyranid codex seems pretty tame in comparison to the Indexes. The detatchments to watch are Crusher Stampede (lots of tools to wreck with) and Endless  Swarm (tonnes and tonnes of movement shenanigans). I don't think you're missing much by playing an Index army.

Obviously, lots to be seen yet but the start is promising 

[Captain Idaho]

Balancing Assault Bolters and Plasma on Inceptors is one thing, but the level of rules intricacy necessary for a bolt pistol to be worth while vs a plasma pistol, for example, makes power level impractical for the scale game 40K is.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Balancing Assault Bolters and Plasma on Inceptors is one thing, but the level of rules intricacy necessary for a bolt pistol to be worth while vs a plasma pistol, for example, makes power level impractical for the scale game 40K is.

You give the BP more shots to make it better against hordes I guess. Bolt (machine) Pistol. But then you have to also balance that against various other options, and it just becomes a mess given the options that we already have. It could have “kind of worked” from a blank slate that only allowed a few options, each with a tradeoff, just as points “kind of worked.” There would still be “meta builds” that “everyone uses” according to the internet, but at least off-meta builds would not be strictly worse. Ah well. This discussion has been going in circles for a few pages now.

[Doghouse]

I'm interested to see if it changes any of the Tyranids Codex rules and whether they will take into account the imminent release of the Space Marine codex, this could serve as a good bench mark moving forwards as to how they will impact new codex releases.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah, 3 shots per bolt pistol, or auto pistol etc. I could see that.

 

Basically we all agree with the principle that to get power level to work, we'd need big fundamental changes.

 

I'd favour a "Type" system so weapons do better or worse against weapons not of their preferred target etc. Like Nu Epic.

 

Yep I'm converted to that system. 

[LSM]

4 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Balancing Assault Bolters and Plasma on Inceptors is one thing, but the level of rules intricacy necessary for a bolt pistol to be worth while vs a plasma pistol, for example, makes power level impractical for the scale game 40K is.

 

Yeah... you could get rid of the non-[Hazardous] option, or greatly reduce it's potency. (Like... keep the AP but drop the S to 3 if you're putting it in safe mode.)

 

But like others have said, those are Big Changes to people's idea of what a Plasma weapon is, so...

Edited September 4, 2023 by LSM

[Schlitzaf]

I mean hitting on 3’s vs hitting on 4’s a tbing + Bolt Weaponry has more supporting abilities (or will come codex maybe).

[Sergeant Bastone]

8 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Balancing Assault Bolters and Plasma on Inceptors is one thing, but the level of rules intricacy necessary for a bolt pistol to be worth while vs a plasma pistol, for example, makes power level impractical for the scale game 40K is.

I think they should just give up and call them all 'pistols' with one profile.  That way i don't feel bad for running all of my laspistols and bolt pistols as plasma.

 

Points would be even better but if they're too lazy for that i think the above approach is good.

 

If a power fist is always gonna be better than a power sword just call it "sergeant's weapon", etc

Edited September 4, 2023 by Sergeant Bastone

[sairence]

5 hours ago, Doghouse said:

I'm interested to see if it changes any of the Tyranids Codex rules and whether they will take into account the imminent release of the Space Marine codex, this could serve as a good bench mark moving forwards as to how they will impact new codex releases.

 

Can't give you a direct quote, but saw a reply from an official page that there's no rule changes for Nids. 

 

So at mist there might be some updated points in the MFM.

[ZeroWolf]

21 minutes ago, sairence said:

 

Can't give you a direct quote, but saw a reply from an official page that there's no rule changes for Nids. 

 

So at mist there might be some updated points in the MFM.

There's been slight changes here and there to datasheets apparently. Someone gave a few examples in the codex tyranids thread.

[OldWherewolf]

On 9/3/2023 at 1:06 PM, caladancid said:

 

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.

Firstly, just because something changes doesn't mean it was a failure.  It could just mean that there was a learning, or adjustments as other things have changed.  For example, GW should drop the Nova cannon, and just add [ignores cover] to the battle cannon.  At one point in time (several editions ago...) the NC had a purpose.  Now, not so much.  So just drop it. 

 

Secondly, (Eldar and GSC aside) the armies in each tier are pretty well balanced against each other, it's just that the tiers aren't well balanced across each other.  The ones at the bottom need points & rules adjustments, the ones in the middle just needs rules tweaks (like necrons).  PL isn't playing a factor here.

 

Thirdly, PL is just fine.  It's not a question of whether this meltagun should be 5 points or 0 points, it's whether or not the unit can do it's job on the battlefield.  5 points  on a unit here and there only matters if you have points left over once you've determined the purpose of a unit in your army.  We take options based on if that option will contribute to the unit doing it's role.  Take a Chimera for example.  You ALWAYS take the turret HB.  Why?  Because the Multi-Laser can't do anything, much less it's job.  But that's largely irrelevant, because the point of a Chimera is a battle taxi, not a firepower platform.  Same for the LRBT with Battlecannon.  It doesn't matter if you take HBs or PCs, because the unit, with or without sponsons, can't do it's job.

 

So there's no problem with PL.  Micro-adjustments won't make the difference that rules changes and macro-adjustments will.  And the proof is that in 9 editions, the micro-adjustments have never made as much of a difference as the rules & macro-adjustments.

[Captain Idaho]

Games workshop haven't been changing points for 9 editions though. That only started in 8th.

 

Power level absolutely is a problem in game balance because you are limiting your options to balance the game.

 

On a less balance approach but more theme, power level is a problem because it renders some choices obsolete more than before. We used to have many a discussion on the forum about whether it was worth it to upgrade to a plasma pistol or not and when balanced there was nuance to such things.

 

More importantly, what if I want to take my vehicles without Hunter Killer missiles, because I didn't like how they looked as an accessory? Or I don't want 10 Death Company with Storm Shields and Thunder Hammers? Power level absolutely makes a one best way clearer.

[Scribe]

Anecdotal but I ran into few of my old friends who were part of my 40k group at its peak. One now play tests and is credited in other systems, the other kept up through 9th.

 

Both tried to get back into 10th, but the laughable release killed all interest.

 

Even for Gw this is a poor showing.

[Emperor Ming]

42 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Power level absolutely is a problem in game balance because you are limiting your options to balance the game.

Exactly and how in holy terra can a lascannon/similar other race anti tank weapon, be the same value as a heavy bolter

 

It makes no sense

[Schlitzaf]

18 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Exactly and how in holy terra can a lascannon/similar other race anti tank weapon, be the same value as a heavy bolter

 

It makes no sense

Because HvyBolter is same value

[OldWherewolf]

5 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Exactly and how in holy terra can a lascannon/similar other race anti tank weapon, be the same value as a heavy bolter

 

It makes no sense

100%

 

 

 

50 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Games workshop haven't been changing points for 9 editions though. That only started in 8th.

 

Power level absolutely is a problem in game balance because you are limiting your options to balance the game.

 

On a less balance approach but more theme, power level is a problem because it renders some choices obsolete more than before. We used to have many a discussion on the forum about whether it was worth it to upgrade to a plasma pistol or not and when balanced there was nuance to such things.

 

More importantly, what if I want to take my vehicles without Hunter Killer missiles, because I didn't like how they looked as an accessory? Or I don't want 10 Death Company with Storm Shields and Thunder Hammers? Power level absolutely makes a one best way clearer.

It only majorly started in 8th.  There were fixes before then.

 

5 points is one-quarter of of 1% of a 2K list.  It's a wash in the grand scheme of things.  The best balance of 9th was at the end, where GW went "free wargear!!!". 

 

Mathhammering PL makes things as absolutely clear as Mathhammering micro-points adjustments.  DC with THs could kill any unit in the game.  That's why you took it.  5 points here or there didn't matter.  We wouldn't take DC with chainswords because they did diddly squat.  If a unit can do it's job for X points, then you take it.  If it can't do the job, drop the points until it can. 

 

Worrying about a few points is like being lost in a forest, but saying a 1/4" tall weed is preventing you from finding your way out. 

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I just have no clue how they can fix Death Guard without a total revamp. And I would like for them to be decent.

 

That's obviously not for this thread to harp on again. But damn it's so bad.

[crimsondave]

6 minutes ago, OldWherewolf said:

100%

 

 

 

It only majorly started in 8th.  There were fixes before then.

 

5 points is one-quarter of of 1% of a 2K list.  It's a wash in the grand scheme of things.  The best balance of 9th was at the end, where GW went "free wargear!!!". 

 

Mathhammering PL makes things as absolutely clear as Mathhammering micro-points adjustments.  DC with THs could kill any unit in the game.  That's why you took it.  5 points here or there didn't matter.  We wouldn't take DC with chainswords because they did diddly squat.  If a unit can do it's job for X points, then you take it.  If it can't do the job, drop the points until it can. 

 

Worrying about a few points is like being lost in a forest, but saying a 1/4" tall weed is preventing you from finding your way out. 

 

Power level is a problem.

 

Example 8th guard squad.

 

4 points per

10 bare bones 40 points.

10 loaded (from memory, maybe not exact) plasma, lascannon, plasma pistol, vox was @ 75 points.

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, OldWherewolf said:

5 points is one-quarter of of 1% of a 2K list.  It's a wash in the grand scheme of things.  The best balance of 9th was at the end, where GW went "free wargear!!!". 

 

They did it for marines, which allowed some of them to compete with other factions that were already good. And it resulted in competitive lists adding an extra 500-800 points in some cases, so all those 5 point differences added up across the board. 

 

Even speaking 10th, some stuff is objectively an upgrade. Crisis suits with 2 more wounds than their starting profile are way better than....their base profile. Or having 4 more str 5 bs5 shots.

[Wolf Guard Dan]

17 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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.

My gaming group is similar in demographics. Warcry and Kill Team is what is being marketed to us. Who’s going to spend $200 on 2 warbands and a piece of terrain? A bunch of aging men/dads who will look at it and think “Hmmm that’s a nice piece of terrain”. Also after 25 years of collecting I do have a bunch of random pieces I can make into a warband/kill team.

 

As the balance gets figured out I’ve spent my hobby bandwidth on Warcry. 

[The Unseen]

2 hours ago, OldWherewolf said:

The best balance of 9th was at the end, where GW went "free wargear!!!". 

 

Mathhammering PL makes things as absolutely clear as Mathhammering micro-points adjustments.  DC with THs could kill any unit in the game.  That's why you took it.  5 points here or there didn't matter.  We wouldn't take DC with chainswords because they did diddly squat.  If a unit can do it's job for X points, then you take it.  If it can't do the job, drop the points until it can. 

 

Worrying about a few points is like being lost in a forest, but saying a 1/4" tall weed is preventing you from finding your way out. 

 

 

It absolutely was NOT the best balance time.

I, and plenty of other people, at the competitive level, did in fact take chainsword DC. You took 1 squad of hammers, sure, but a 2nd squad was often run with just chainswords because if your opponent screened out the hammer wielders with infantry, you could then send in the chainsword squad and have them pick up a screening unit and then consolidate into another one, turning into a giant bump in the road PITA for armies that didn't have a lot of FLY. Because they were disposable because they were cheap enough. Whereas the hammer squad was literally almost twice the price and you wouldn't waste them like that.

And now chainsword DC may as well just not exist, because running them is actively detrimental, because your paying for all fists and inferno pistols. Power Level is bad, literally no one used it, even the most casual players, because it sucked; GW's own bloody community surveys showed that almost no-one actually used PL. So they decided that they would *MAKE* people use it.

[Kallas]

8 hours ago, OldWherewolf said:

The best balance of 9th was at the end, where GW went "free wargear!!!"

Are you high? This change was pretty widely lambasted because it threw balance out the window. Yes, it helped some of the worse performing factions, but it also threw out a ton of internal balance in the process - eg, Sternguard went from garbage to auto-include because they got like 10pts free; but then their internal faction competition got shafted by comparison; why would you ever take basic Intercessors or Tacticals for like 2pts less, when you could have free Combi-Weapons and extra Attacks on the Sternguard?

 

This is not the argument you think it is...

[Xenith]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:48 PM, Captain Idaho said:

• 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.

 

This has always been the case though, for as long as I've played 40k, however it's usually points that were the limiting factor. They were cool, thematic things, usually ignored for the sake of points, but now you get to take them. Is that a bad thing? (I know I'm always quoting you Idaho, but you make solid points, usually distilled, concise versions of what people are saying, and ones I think worth discussing).

 

As Phandaal says, balancing against a naked unit is hard to impossible, however in 40k it has also, always, been possible to take suboptimal loadouts on units (25pt power fist on a devastator sergeant?), and that has been a thematic choice down to the player. They were willing to sacrifice efficiency for style/WYSIWYG. This isn't just a balancing act, this is a seismic shift in meta in baseline optimisation. Previously, some units didn't have worthwhile upgrades, so you take them naked, however the new optimal is with wargear. It's a new way of approaching the game that requires a shift in mindset.

 

Unit loadouts have never been balanced, there's always been an optimal one (going back to 6x 5-man las-plas tacs in 3rd ed), and now it's just the same, just that the baseline unit is now the least optimal. 

 

Scrapping points allows for both styles of play - the optimally tuned loadout (let's face it, evn with granular points, most units already had an 'optimal' loadout that was the only one that saw competitive play anyway) and a WYSIWYG/style loadout that allows players to stick that power weapon on a unit that will never see combat because it looks cool, and no other reason. 

 

I know many will think I'm  GW sycophant for arguing the case for 'one unit, one cost', however believe me, this is more indifference - I also just want to put my toys on the table, so I dont have or want the headspace to let this make me upset , but I also think critically enough and objective enough (i.e. Long Fang) to see the merits in both systems.

[Rhavien]

8 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Exactly and how in holy terra can a lascannon/similar other race anti tank weapon, be the same value as a heavy bolter

 

It makes no sense

That entirely depends from what you are shooting it at? In the past, when tanks were expensive and their armor mostly whimpy a lascannon had to cost a lot of points, because they potentially could deal a lot of damage. 

Nowadays a heavy bolter has sustained hits and deals 2 dmg. Those are the kind of adjustments which level the weapons to each other. At least it's a start. 

 

-edit-

 

I want to add another point to the overall discussion.  Guys, would your point of view change if you already hadn't build and painted a lot of min/maxed squads? Imagine you would start anew. Would you enjoy it? Do you think you would miss it? 

For me, it's the uncertainty with GW how long this state will exist which bugs me. I could adjust and even actively welcome adding all those gubbins to my tanks and squads, but how many editions / codices till I'm stuck with a lot of expensive stuff on my models? 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rhavien