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

[Karhedron]

A goof point. I know several people spotted that daisy-chaining Fate dice with Devastating Wounds could be used to reliably generate a ridiculous number of MWs with D-Cannons or Wraithknights.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yep, the 'global' points balance can definitely be improved by their unofficial playtesters data.

But the glaring broken combos needed a better Editor prior to release. 

[MegaVolt87]

I think a Marco view of design is needed for 40k. My ideal vision would be- 

 

- Classic heavy AT weapons should be a -1 to hit against infantry.

- Vehicles should be immune to chip damage from infantry small arms.

- Vehicles should be vulnerable to melee from infantry.

- Walkers should be vulnerable to prolonged close/ melee contact with infantry. Remember the boxnaught in the OG Dawn of War cinematic with the ork magnetic charge? 

- Sniper class weapons, low RoF, high range, bonus to hit, ld debuff. Locked to max 5 man units of specialists infantry. Do nothing vs vehicles. 

- Assault units that can change charge stance, reckless- more attacks, easy to hit, measured- drastically less attacks vs taking less casualties. Risk vs reward gameplay for melee.

- Return of character challenges- can duck the fight, but get a resolution penalty, but might still have a chance because sarge is swinging still. If you accept/ challenge, flip the bonus to you for winning. 

- return of sweeping advances- Say you win a melee vs a shooting unit but don't wipe it, you can sweep, but risk last stand shooting before you hit again. Or play it safe by using another melee unit or gun it down with another. More risk vs reward play. 

- Powerful psykers, specialists that however have an explorative weakness. eg- a buff caster that gets pasted in melee vs a melee powerhouse that is vulnerable to ranged, no utility buffs etc. 

- Aircraft- move fast, hard to hit, though poor accuracy. Slower moving, better shooting but more vulnerable to ranged shooting. Again, risk vs reward. 

- Better terrain- stacked boards make alpha strikes less of an issue, ranged units need to position not 24/ camp, assault units have cover to advance, you have a layered ranged killbox, but not fully safe etc. GW needs to make real terrain again and keep it on range production. 

- Meaningful Ld- doesn't make sense you quit meaningful cover only to get gunned down in the open. But, you are in trouble if melee units come to flush you out after. 

- True LOS- from tank weapon mounts, infantry heads etc. 

- Return meaningful movement- old infiltration, deepstrike etc. The game was peak when it actually punished sloppy movement and positioning. 

- Limited re-roll/ mitigation mechanics in everything. Should be room to punish the reckless and a greed payoff if the punish fails. 

 

These are just at the top of my head,I could make more if I really thought on it. I want a return to when the game rewarded planning, the risk vs reward plays and running a TAC list wasn't a handicap vs the one trick pony lists becoming really safe that is the game now. Skew lists now are all feast, they have no real disadvantages like they used to for the power spike. The game was healthier when a TAC list could potentially wall a skew list, and TAC vs TAC lists were like Cao Cao tactician mirror matches. 

[TheArtilleryman]

3 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

I think a Marco view of design is needed for 40k. My ideal vision would be- 

 

- Classic heavy AT weapons should be a -1 to hit against infantry.

- Vehicles should be immune to chip damage from infantry small arms.

- Vehicles should be vulnerable to melee from infantry.

- Walkers should be vulnerable to prolonged close/ melee contact with infantry. Remember the boxnaught in the OG Dawn of War cinematic with the ork magnetic charge? 

- Sniper class weapons, low RoF, high range, bonus to hit, ld debuff. Locked to max 5 man units of specialists infantry. Do nothing vs vehicles. 

- Assault units that can change charge stance, reckless- more attacks, easy to hit, measured- drastically less attacks vs taking less casualties. Risk vs reward gameplay for melee.

- Return of character challenges- can duck the fight, but get a resolution penalty, but might still have a chance because sarge is swinging still. If you accept/ challenge, flip the bonus to you for winning. 

- return of sweeping advances- Say you win a melee vs a shooting unit but don't wipe it, you can sweep, but risk last stand shooting before you hit again. Or play it safe by using another melee unit or gun it down with another. More risk vs reward play. 

- Powerful psykers, specialists that however have an explorative weakness. eg- a buff caster that gets pasted in melee vs a melee powerhouse that is vulnerable to ranged, no utility buffs etc. 

- Aircraft- move fast, hard to hit, though poor accuracy. Slower moving, better shooting but more vulnerable to ranged shooting. Again, risk vs reward. 

- Better terrain- stacked boards make alpha strikes less of an issue, ranged units need to position not 24/ camp, assault units have cover to advance, you have a layered ranged killbox, but not fully safe etc. GW needs to make real terrain again and keep it on range production. 

- Meaningful Ld- doesn't make sense you quit meaningful cover only to get gunned down in the open. But, you are in trouble if melee units come to flush you out after. 

- True LOS- from tank weapon mounts, infantry heads etc. 

- Return meaningful movement- old infiltration, deepstrike etc. The game was peak when it actually punished sloppy movement and positioning. 

- Limited re-roll/ mitigation mechanics in everything. Should be room to punish the reckless and a greed payoff if the punish fails. 

 

These are just at the top of my head,I could make more if I really thought on it. I want a return to when the game rewarded planning, the risk vs reward plays and running a TAC list wasn't a handicap vs the one trick pony lists becoming really safe that is the game now. Skew lists now are all feast, they have no real disadvantages like they used to for the power spike. The game was healthier when a TAC list could potentially wall a skew list, and TAC vs TAC lists were like Cao Cao tactician mirror matches. 

Slightly off topic but there are some really nice ideas in here. I especially like the points about small arms fire being unable to harm vehicles. That’s how it always used to be with older editions. If your armour penetration value wasn’t high enough, it was impossible to damage. Now, at a certain point, an autocannon is no stronger than a lasgun at armour piercing. Only problem is, now that vehicles have toughness the same as monsters and characters, bringing this back would make some other things OP. Change one thing, break another. It’s a bit like coding, making a war game :)

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Most of these suggestions are just 7th edition and prior rules...or current heresy style play.

[Captain Idaho]

The way 10th edition has been handled from a balance perspective, alongside the legends debacle and even my painted and paid for miniatures being replaced, has seen me disengaged with 40K for the first time ever.

 

I'm happy to see an attempt at balance since release, though I'd argue it should have been attempted before release. Having read the rules, most veterans of the game established what was broken in minutes. Seconds even for the case of Eldar!

 

40K lost me. I started playing Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus and soon to be Legions Imperialis due to cheaper costs (and a 3D printer from a friend) and purchase most of my products from Ebay.

 

Will 40K be balanced perhaps. Folk will enjoy the game probably and I'm glad for that. I'm not investing and giving the company much less money than ever before. If I'm doing it, I'm sure there's others who feel the same.

 

I do have existing Necrons so maybe I'll pick them up one day, but financially speaking... nope. They lost me.

[MegaVolt87]

2 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Most of these suggestions are just 7th edition and prior rules...or current heresy style play.

 

Counter argument- do we really need to drastically re-invent the wheel each time or can we wind back the clock to what worked while we have another go at something completely new next time? I liked how 9th was 8th with a haircut, while 10th is learherface for a makeover.

 

Making 10th a haircut of 9th would have been plenty, the core rules was fine, it's the army bloat, strats bloat that made it bad. Remember the 8th ed malestorm of war missions? Those were good too, but were put in the garbage instead. Look at the sorry state of crusade in 10th, it's not going to be half as good as it was in 9th. GW has a terrible track record of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for 40k, such a waste. 

[DemonGSides]

5 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

Counter argument- do we really need to drastically re-invent the wheel each time or can we wind back the clock to what worked while we have another go at something completely new next time? I liked how 9th was 8th with a haircut, while 10th is learherface for a makeover.

 

Making 10th a haircut of 9th would have been plenty, the core rules was fine, it's the army bloat, strats bloat that made it bad. Remember the 8th ed malestorm of war missions? Those were good too, but were put in the garbage instead. Look at the sorry state of crusade in 10th, it's not going to be half as good as it was in 9th. GW has a terrible track record of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for 40k, such a waste. 

 

I think it mostly is a haircut. There's some sizable changes but nothing is as big as the change from 7th to 8th.

 

Crusade rules could be pretty easily ported over if you really wanted to; GW should have done the work to keep codexes valid instead of invalidating them every few years. It'd go a long way. 

[phandaal]

38 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

The way 10th edition has been handled from a balance perspective, alongside the legends debacle and even my painted and paid for miniatures being replaced, has seen me disengaged with 40K for the first time ever.

 

I was very much on the fence with the combination of Power Level, the Votann Index not being a finished product, and the generally stupid rules interactions for so many other armies. The huge points cuts in the latest balance patch are actually what pushed me over the edge.

 

I am not a speedy painter. When the rules and what constitutes a "standard" army swing wildly all over the place, I am not going to be dragged along with it trying to follow. Instead of that, I have continued to build and paint at my own pace, and have found a group of guys in the area to play games in a model-agnostic system.

 

It has been great! I can use the little dudes I have spent so many hours on without worrying that everything will be turned on its head and broken in the next few months. Just having fun, without all the stress... Who'd have thought?

 

Keeps me motivated to build and paint what I already have, and gets me excited for the next projects. So in that sense I should be thanking the rules team (or whoever is responsible - don't really care at this point) for finally kicking me over the edge! 

[Captain Idaho]

Indeed, it echoes what I've done - find a gaming circumstance that suits my personal circumstance.

 

Points granularity disappearing is particularly egregious in this game for me.

[TrawlingCleaner]

=][= Let's steer back to the topic at hand folks with 10th edition tournament results =][=

[Karhedron]

47 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

Counter argument- do we really need to drastically re-invent the wheel each time or can we wind back the clock to what worked while we have another go at something completely new next time?

 

Some changes were needed in 8th due to the rise of vehicles, particularly Knights. A lot of the compromises in 40K are due to the fact that an infantry horde needs to be able to fight a Knight Lance with roughly the same chance of victory as against any other opponent. A lot of the counter-intuitive moments in 40K arise from the fact that it is a simulation which has been stretched to the point that massed small-arms fire can bring down baby Titans.

[Noserenda]

Perhaps the topic name needs pruning if the results no longer look bad? 

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

Perhaps the topic name needs pruning if the results no longer look bad? 

 

"10th edition tournament results look passable just in time for codex creep."

[Lexington]

11 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

Some changes were needed in 8th due to the rise of vehicles, particularly Knights. A lot of the compromises in 40K are due to the fact that an infantry horde needs to be able to fight a Knight Lance with roughly the same chance of victory as against any other opponent. A lot of the counter-intuitive moments in 40K arise from the fact that it is a simulation which has been stretched to the point that massed small-arms fire can bring down baby Titans.

This is very true. The Imperial Knight model is one of the most amazing wargaming miniatures ever made for mass consumption, and I’m very glad it exists.

 

On the other hand, Knights - especially Knight armies - are probably one of the worst things that ever happened to 40K as a game.

[MegaVolt87]

4 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

"10th edition tournament results look passable just in time for codex creep."

 

I can't wait to spend AUD$92 for a dead tree brick with a barcode to put into an app that gets me the codex with a day one FAQ that may as well be a different codex at that point. Then we all get to meet up here and start the metawatch process from scratch here with codexes, but it won't be finished because 11th edition has been confirmed/ announced. 40k has never been better.  

[Helias_Tancred]

59 minutes ago, Lexington said:

 

On the other hand, Knights - especially Knight armies - are probably one of the worst things that ever happened to 40K as a game.

 

Amen!

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Thoughts about codex creep. What's more telling? Did they over correct on the index stuff? Will the need to fix so many issues delay several future codices? And what will become of implementation going forward on rules books?

 

If anything, all 10th has reaffirmed is there's no point charging $50 for a paperweight (hardback codex book). Charge $25 for a softback/digital copy. At least with a digital copy it isn't obsolete for the edition...I have zero reason to invest in anything 40k related; especially when the books and data cards are worthless a month after publication.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Schlitzaf]

I’d buy digital copies in a heartbeat for 20-30. For metro reading

[phandaal]

43 minutes ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Thoughts about codex creep. What's more telling? Did they over correct on the index stuff? Will the need to fix so many issues delay several future codices? And what will become of implementation going forward on rules books?

 

If anything, all 10th has reaffirmed is there's no point charging $50 for a paperweight (hardback codex book). Charge $25 for a softback/digital copy. At least with a digital copy it isn't obsolete for the edition...I have zero reason to invest in anything 40k related; especially when the books and data cards are worthless a month after publication.

 

People have mentioned before that at one point GW was considering separating books into rules and "other stuff." Maybe we see that for real some day.

 

The rules certainly are not worth purchasing when they come out unfinished, broken, and soon-to-be obsolete, so it would be nice to be able to get the other stuff on its own.

[Karhedron]

I agree that the state of the Codices with Day 1 errata is not ideal but is probably an subject for a different thread. Let's keep this one focussed on the state of the meta.