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

[The Unseen]

9 hours ago, Rogue said:

 

This is where I disagree, I think. In some cases, yes - an acolyte can either have an auto-pistol or a hand-flamer as a sidearm; the hand-flamer is always better.

 

But you're really talking about upgrades here. In other places, there are real options. My neophytes can have seismic cannons or mining lasers. One is better into infantry, the other into armour. Both loadouts have value to me in different situations. Similarly, all of my special weapon options have value. You could argue that the value is uneven (fair enough), but it's very situational. Webbers aren't great into most targets, but are excellent (relatively) into heavy armour, if you can get within 12" to use them. If that's my plan, webbers can be pretty valuable. Personally, I see more value in flamers and grenades, but that's my choice.

 

But again, if your problem is that plasma pistols are better than bolt pistols for the same cost, why not just take plasma pistols? And if loading up on plasma pistols bothers you for whatever reason, then take bolt pistols instead. No-one is stopping you doing either.

 

Firstly, I am actually talking about those pistols. I care slightly more, as I play BA, so I have more special pistol choices, which are now not really choices at all. Secondly, most armies have easy access to anti-infantry firepower, everything has it, and its effectively free. What is much harder to get is stuff that can kill big stuff now, since without dedicated weapons you aren't doing anything but scratching the paint. If your basic troops can all grab hand flamers, in what world are you taking the anti-infantry heavy weapons? You aren't; unless they were much MUCH cheaper than the anti-tank and you already had enough anti-tank in your list. No marine list is going to bring a heavy bolter in any place you could take a lascannon.

 

And I'm sorry, I don't really feel like ripping apart entire squads of painted models with chainswords, bolt pistols, and power weapons because now suddenly the only load-out appropriately valuable for the cost I'm forced to pay is all inferno pistol+power fists. But rather than fix the problem of wargear costs not being adequately tuned, you just take whatever, and if you built your models "wrong" your units can be hilariously over-priced for their effectiveness. RIght now a unit of 6 DC marines with chainswords and bolt pistols (A unit made up of models I have built, painted, and used) are worth the exact same "pts" as 10 of them all equipped with power fists and inferno pistols. What in the actual world are you smoking if those 2 units should be at all comparable in price in your mind?

[Rogue]

That's an artificial comparison, though. Because five of those bolt pistol marines would be half the price of ten inferno pistol marines. 

 

What's stopping you getting some marines with inferno pistols and power fists in your army?

[Captain Idaho]

12 hours ago, jaxom said:

It's kind of funny, I was thinking about really simple ways to balance this without bespoke rules for each weapon. I came up with something like RELIABLE X: X times per game you can automatically wound your opponent if you hit. Why does the Colonel use his laspistol instead of a plasma pistol? Because it's never let him down when it mattered.

 

Connecting it back to the LRBT example, if one where to look at balancing it, adding +2" of Movement and/or an extra Wound (more engine space inside because no ammo, interior side armor where the sponson would go) would be another example of how each option has a benefit.

 

Oh I totally agree with stuff you've given as an example, but in a new edition. I've said it before; we should use stats and rules to differentiate between units rather than piling special rules onto every single unit like in AoS.

 

At the moment, that's just more rules to keep track of, so something would have to give.

 

(Personally by extending the ranges of stats further than they have you could balance the game and weapons easier without special rules).

[Rogue]

On the "upgrades are just auto-picks now" front, it occurs to me that in the case of unit upgrades, where you go from not having a thing to having it (like a cult icon), you could give the unit the associated bonus anyway. 

 

Take the icon. Which you do, because it's free, and doesn't stop you taking any of the other available options. You also take it because it gives you regenerating neophytes. Good fun all round. 

 

But it would be just as easy to say that all neophyte units can regenerate, icon or not. The icon model then becomes cosmetic - have one if you like the look, don't if you don't. You're not 'penalised' either way.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I've said it before; we should use stats and rules to differentiate between units rather than piling special rules onto every single unit like in AoS.

 

At the moment, that's just more rules to keep track of, so something would have to give.

 

That is another thing adding to the disparity in power between armies. We got some rules turned into USRs, then everything got its own special rule or rules. Some are very powerful, others not so much.

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Rogue said:

On the "upgrades are just auto-picks now" front, it occurs to me that in the case of unit upgrades, where you go from not having a thing to having it (like a cult icon), you could give the unit the associated bonus anyway. 

 

Take the icon. Which you do, because it's free, and doesn't stop you taking any of the other available options. You also take it because it gives you regenerating neophytes. Good fun all round. 

 

But it would be just as easy to say that all neophyte units can regenerate, icon or not. The icon model then becomes cosmetic - have one if you like the look, don't if you don't. You're not 'penalised' either way.

 

That's how Plague Marines are handling it in current edition.

[Rogue]

And how's it working out for you? 

[Karhedron]

5 hours ago, Rogue said:

What's stopping you getting some marines with inferno pistols and power fists in your army?

 

People who already have existing squads don't always relish chopping them apart. It didn't matter so much when points were granular as weaker options were usually cheaper. But if everything costs the same, you are actively handicapping yourself by taking a sub-optimal build.

 

There have always been optimal loadouts for a lot of squads but reasonable pricing for wargear mitigated the problem for those who were not dedicated to the competitive scene. Free wargear makes us feel like we are all being forced to play like top-tier tournement players. Free wargear does not encourage fluffy builds, it actively penalises anyone not using the optimum loadout.  

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah to add to that, I don't like how pintle mounted weapons look. If I don't add the upgrades to my vehicle I'm actively hurting its firepower.

[jaxom]

12 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

There have always been optimal loadouts for a lot of squads but reasonable pricing for wargear mitigated the problem for those who were not dedicated to the competitive scene. Free wargear makes us feel like we are all being forced to play like top-tier tournement players. Free wargear does not encourage fluffy builds, it actively penalises anyone not using the optimum loadout.  

It's kind of funny, but for years that's how I've felt about Space Marine 2x5-person squads versus 1x10-person with Combat Squads during editions where all Sergeants were automatically Veteran Sergeants and Combat Squad was done at the before the first round. For the same points cost, you get an extra attack and point of leadership if you take the 2x5 because there's now two Sergeants.

[Rogue]

No, I get that - once a model is done and varnished, that's it: no chopping bits off, no repainting.

 

But you can always get more models and gear them to the current hotness. With a deep enough bits box, you may already have enough of a particular weapon to hand. For example, I've not previously made use of my acolyte demo charges (preferring rock saws and the like), so when I decided to knock a few out, I had them waiting.

 

Maybe I'm just looking at this differently to everyone else, but it feels like there's a lot of voices saying something like "I want to have a really fluffy build that's also very competitive and can also be made using only the models that I already have", and I don't think that's realistic. Individually, any of those things are great, but they rarely line up, and that's been the case for a very long time (like the eternal "Why aren't troops any good?" debate).

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Rogue said:

And how's it working out for you? 

 

In the sense of I didn't have to chop any guys apart, it's been great.  In the sense that the rules suck, well, that has nothing to do with the Sigil/Icon, Death Guard rules in general are just terrible.  But not having to worry about if one guy is holding a fancy bell is a quality of life improvement, since they natively get the Lethal Hits that the Icon provided previously, we just also lost out on the other benefits.

[Rogue]

Is this whole "Hack my models up and reconfigure them every time the rules change" thing something that lots of people do, then?

 

It's not something I've ever considered, outside of stripping and rebuilding some RTB Imperial Guard (that I hadn't used in over twenty years) to give the a new life as brood brothers. That aside, I'd rather keep models as they are, and put together new ones if I really feel the need to adapt what I'm doing. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

It's kind of funny, but for years that's how I've felt about Space Marine 2x5-person squads versus 1x10-person with Combat Squads during editions where all Sergeants were automatically Veteran Sergeants and Combat Squad was done at the before the first round. For the same points cost, you get an extra attack and point of leadership if you take the 2x5 because there's now two Sergeants.

 

Well when it was introduced, a lot of units had an inflated base cost to account for said Sergeant with better stats. And you also couldn't take special or heavy weapons on tacs until you maxed them out. Got the best of both worlds really. 

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

No, I get that - once a model is done and varnished, that's it: no chopping bits off, no repainting.

 

But you can always get more models and gear them to the current hotness. With a deep enough bits box, you may already have enough of a particular weapon to hand. For example, I've not previously made use of my acolyte demo charges (preferring rock saws and the like), so when I decided to knock a few out, I had them waiting.

 

Maybe I'm just looking at this differently to everyone else, but it feels like there's a lot of voices saying something like "I want to have a really fluffy build that's also very competitive and can also be made using only the models that I already have", and I don't think that's realistic. Individually, any of those things are great, but they rarely line up, and that's been the case for a very long time (like the eternal "Why aren't troops any good?" debate).

 

I feel you're looking into the game way too binary.

 

Firstly, people don't want to be penalised for taking anything but the very best choice.

 

Secondly, perhaps more importantly, a game can be both competitive and thematic. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I'd wager more people want a balanced approach but still want a themed list, than an unbalanced game or a hyper competitive game.

[redmapa]

Quote

but it feels like there's a lot of voices saying something like "I want to have a really fluffy build that's also very competitive and can also be made using only the models that I already have"

 

I dont think anyone is saying that, I'll repeat what others have written better than I could in this thread. The current system is a binary system for units that have too many options imo,  you either load up and use the most expensive options thus making the units point cost worth it or you dont and you are an idiot for paying all those points for a baseline unit whereas before you could bring what was a "bad" unit or choices and leverage those points into something else that would be a better choice both thematically and efficiently, now theres barely any movement in the cogs.

 

I think a good example are Devastators, Im paying the same points for Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas but one is clearly better for the overall army. Would I have brought HB Devs before? Maybe not but they were cheaper, I could've used those points elsewhere. Leman Russes are another example, last edition I had a naked Leman Russ tank, no sponsons just a lascannon and a battle cannon, it was cheaper and it allowed me to bring other things like Sentinels, maybe I could squeeze two naked Russes and make points for another thing, now? I pay the same points for a Russ, it can have nothing or a lascannon/MM/HK Missile/ Storm Bolter, which of those two am I going to bring now that there is no choice in regards to point? Its a binary question of what exactly am I paying for? The point cost is obviously for the fully kitted out Tank, why should I pay the exorbitant amount of points for a Russ that has nothing when it can have everything and is priced as if it had everything? So obviously the choice is for the full one, the naked is useless even to the narrative player because I cannot make my themed lists have power elsewhere while building a theme.

[phandaal]

Also worth reiterating that, beyond not wanting to take the "bad" option, there is actually another good reason to want to not put as many upgrades on a basic unit.

 

Let's say I have an army with 100 points left. The unit I want to include is 110 points with extra wargear, 100 without. So I take the less expensive version and am still able to get that unit in my list. With fixed costs, I cannot do that, because those wargear costs are baked in. The building blocks just do not fit together, end of story.

 

Hopefully people can see how this would complicate balancing as well, with the ability to either respond to points changes or not.

[Progenitor]

I wonder if this whole power level debacle has come from them focussing too heavily on Marines. We all know that Marines account for a large proportion of the overall GW sales, I mean, it's why we are all on this site isn't it? With Primaris Marine units now have a defined role. With 10th a lot of the variation has gone, there's only one version of Hellblasters now for example. So, with a power level approach to points it makes sense for new Marines because you've not really got a lot of customisation. Infernus Marines have flamers. Intercessors have bolt rifles (with an option for a couple of squaddies being able to take grenade launchers which enable a strategem). Inceptors have two options true, but a lot of the other units, outside of weapons on Sergeants don't really have the customisability that you used to get with Tac Squads, or Dev squads with being able to take a wide variety of weapons. 

 

Perhaps the game devs have just looked at making adjustments to the points based on these units that have defined roles and less overall options and just applied a very lazy blanket approach across the whole game, that may fit into the narrative we're guessing about something happening mid re-write and this new direction being pushed out faster than they could test. it kind of makes sense in my head that they could do this, especially if most of the testing was done with Marine units for Leviathan. 

[Sea Creature]

There’s plenty of units besides Marines that are highly customizable.

[Rogue]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I feel you're looking into the game way too binary.

 

Firstly, people don't want to be penalised for taking anything but the very best choice.

 

Secondly, perhaps more importantly, a game can be both competitive and thematic. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I'd wager more people want a balanced approach but still want a themed list, than an unbalanced game or a hyper competitive game.

 

Probably. I'm trying not to, but yes, I can definitely tend towards black and white.

 

I still think 'penalised' is the wrong word (or perhaps the wrong mindset). That in itself is binary too - choices are either optimal or sub-optimal, and as soon as their sub-optimal, you'r being penalised. I'm trying to think of it as 'suited to different purposes', with the trade-off no longer being expressed in points (which are fixed), but in opportunities. if i switch out my seismic cannons for mining lasers, I've sacrificed general utility and excellent synergy, and gained better anti-tank. Whether it would have been cheaper or more expensive doesn't matter - what matters is whether or not my overall choices will allow me to kill the enemy and achieve primaries and secondaries.

 

And absolutely, thematic and competitive is the ideal. I just think that we're never going to get perfect theming or perfect competitiveness, and to hope that we get both at the same time? Well, hope, as they say...

 

 

1 hour ago, redmapa said:

 

I dont think anyone is saying that, I'll repeat what others have written better than I could in this thread. The current system is a binary system for units that have too many options imo,  you either load up and use the most expensive options thus making the units point cost worth it or you dont and you are an idiot for paying all those points for a baseline unit whereas before you could bring what was a "bad" unit or choices and leverage those points into something else that would be a better choice both thematically and efficiently, now theres barely any movement in the cogs.

 

 

Yeah, I get that, and I don't disagree. I guess I'm just in the place of thinking "10th is what we have now", and trying to find the positive aspects of it. I'm not against points and list-building subtlety, but we don't currently have that. And, as I've said elsewhere, I'm also finding power levels very freeing and fun, which is a factor too.

 

 

[Kythnos]

3 hours ago, Rogue said:

But you can always get more models and gear them to the current hotness.

 

Yes, you can do that. But for me that is not a very attractive reason to buy more of the units I already own. In growing my army I am looking to add new units that I did not possess before, instead of rebuying already acquired units to match current trends. 

 

That said, I seem to be one of the few players in this thread that mostly played with PL in 8th and 9th. The caveat being that it was only in my small circle of friends where noone maximizes shenanigans and that we mostly tried to adhere to wysiwig. I think both are prerequisites for this mode of army building. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Kythnos

[Rogue]

Well, same unit by name, but if it has a whole different load-out and/or battlefield function, then it's still adding something new.

 

And it doesn't even need to be a whole unit. I often find myself painting up the specific models I need, rather than churning out unnecessary rank and file. For example, I already have plenty of basic acolytes, but I don't have demo charges. So I'm currently painting four acolytes with charges, and they'll sub in for some mining tool guys - a whole 'new' unit and tactical opportunity from painting four guys.

 

And yes, I'd agree that WYSIWYG helps to prevent abuse of the power level system (and is a good way to play in general).

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

I still think 'penalised' is the wrong word (or perhaps the wrong mindset). That in itself is binary too - choices are either optimal or sub-optimal, and as soon as their sub-optimal, you'r being penalised. I'm trying to think of it as 'suited to different purposes', with the trade-off no longer being expressed in points (which are fixed), but in opportunities.

 

That is fair for some units but others are much more of a straight upgrade. A plasma pistol outperforms a bolt pistol in every way on the "safe" setting as well as offering the opportunity to overcharge if the situation merits it. This is why points upgrades are appropriate in some cases. Units like Death Company can replace their bolt pistols with plasma pistols wholesale for free. In 9th edition that would have been 50 points of free wargear for a full squad and the same again to replace chainswords with power fists.

 

I don't mind options which are sidegrades but some are too different in effectiveness to be fairly accommodated as free upgrades.

[Rogue]

Unless (and I'm assuming a degree of forethought that is in no way guaranteed) the fixed points assume that you will take the plasma pistols.

 

I mean, your right - some options are just flat better with no lost opportunity elsewhere. This is a prime example.

 

Then again, it can't be that good an upgrade, because it's not like Blood Angels (or Marines) are winning big all over the place.

[DemonGSides]

And they could very easily bring that bolt pistol up to "side-grade" level by simply increasing the number of shots it gets to take every turn.