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

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah the game doesn't seem to have any lower offensive capability at all. The disgustingly resilient podcast talked about it - GW said there'd be less Mortal Wounds and there seems to be more than ever.

[MoshJason]

13 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah the game doesn't seem to have any lower offensive capability at all. The disgustingly resilient podcast talked about it - GW said there'd be less Mortal Wounds and there seems to be more than ever.

 

GW also said there be less rerolls, and then immediately went "THIS WHOLE ARMY GETS RE-ROLLS ON EVERYTHING, EVERYTURN."

 

Some factions clearly got the "no rerolls", "no mortals", "lower lethality" memo - see Sisters, Votan, Death Guard and all the low tier armies. 

[phandaal]

14 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah the game doesn't seem to have any lower offensive capability at all. The disgustingly resilient podcast talked about it - GW said there'd be less Mortal Wounds and there seems to be more than ever.

 

Adding new mechanics to easily proc Mortal Wounds on wound rolls as low as 4+ on top of easy reroll sources and dice fixing mechanics would lead to more Mortal Wounds? Who could have seen that coming?

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

Some factions clearly got the "no rerolls", "no mortals", "lower lethality" memo - see Sisters, Votan, Death Guard and all the low tier armies. 

 

Would seem clear that there was a few developers for the rules, and not all of them had the same vision.

[Rain]

1 minute ago, phandaal said:

 

Adding new mechanics to easily proc Mortal Wounds on wound rolls as low as 4+ on top of easy reroll sources and dice fixing mechanics would lead to more Mortal Wounds? Who could have seen that coming?

 

MW's in general are just a bad mechanic to have. "Your guy dies because my attacks have super mega shield piercing no taksies backsies" is a really difficult thing to balance because it has knock on effects for the balance of other units.  It makes making an actually tough unit very difficult, as both a high T, and an invuln save are negated by MW. This leaves just FnP, and jank like FnP against MW only, which is the "super dee duper force field that stops your super mega piercing." It's just dumb, and is the actual bad kind of bloat. Getting a save against weapons that would otherwise pierce your armor should be the purpose of invulnerable saves, and MW should negate regular saves only. All of this is to say nothing of the "feels bad" of having to just remove your big monster or tank or whatever without any shot at saving it with a roll that you get to make.

 

The critical wound, and anti mechanics are just barnacles on the sunken ship that is the entire concept of MW's, which should be scrapped wholesale, or made extremely rare or expensive. 

[Sothalor]

12 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Adding new mechanics to easily proc Mortal Wounds on wound rolls as low as 4+ on top of easy reroll sources and dice fixing mechanics would lead to more Mortal Wounds? Who could have seen that coming?

 

7 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Would seem clear that there was a few developers for the rules, and not all of them had the same vision.

 

Or is there an intersection of events here and there are developers who legitimately did not understand how layered rules interactivity would lead to certain outcomes?

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Sothalor said:

 

 

Or is there an intersection of events here and there are developers who legitimately did not understand how layered rules interactivity would lead to certain outcomes?

 

Given the history of 9th? Unless those dev's are brand new and were not trained up and educated on the history of the edition...and missed some pretty basic examples of game design?

 

Hard for me to come to that conclusion.

 

To me, its clear that some factions got looked at by a different person.

[Xenith]

I guess Fate Dice have the same issue as command points in 8/9th - starting with a full 12 is too strong as the incentive, and best use, is to spaff through them in t1/2 to get the advantage asap. Maybe starting with 6 the gaining a new one each command phase would work better? 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Xenith

[Ahzek451]

Just now, Scribe said:

 

To me, its clear that some factions got looked at by a different person.

I beleive it was all but said on Peachy's podcast that armies are divied out like homework assignments, some recipiants being mega fans of the army they received, some...not so much. Take a stab at which got which. 

In the last few years, thanks to the wonders of social media, ex-GW staffers from the rule and game dept. have all been spilling the beans on the inner workings of GW. It is more or less what you might think. Yes, there is a game dept. but it is not as well funded, given enough time, or taken as seriously as it should. And just like hollywood executive producers, people in the upper eschelons of command that don't know gaming, dictate to the game designers silly ideas. And/or "this model needs to sell, bump it up". 

Pretty much just enough to get by, and then fix it later. 

 

[Darnok]

7 minutes ago, Xenith said:

I guess Fate Dice have the same issue as command points in 8/9th - starting with a full 12 is too strong as the incentive, and best use, is to spaff through them in t1/2 to get the advantage asap.

 

Yup. This mechanic scales extremely poorly, its effect drastically being better the smaller the game is.

 

I know this is about tournaments, and Combat Patrols are not even remotely related to that mindset... but guess what? Eldar get their whole 12 Fate Dice in normal CP games. I just hope this will get fixed sooner rather than later.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

14 minutes ago, Sothalor said:

 

 

Or is there an intersection of events here and there are developers who legitimately did not understand how layered rules interactivity would lead to certain outcomes?

 

I kind of wonder if they felt they went too far on their fast pass through the index and then just started adding things back in. 

 

4 minutes ago, Xenith said:

I guess Fate Dice have the same issue as command points in 8/9th - starting with a full 12 is too strong as the incentive, and best use, is to spaff through them in t1/2 to get the advantage asap. Maybe starting with 6 the gaining a new one each command phase would work better? 

 

 

 

I think a limit of one fate dice per phase may also help. 

 

Honestly though I'm kind of frustrated that they don't ask us how we feel about mortal wounds. It just doesn't seem to be popular mechanic, and it creates more headaches then its worth for them.

[Blurf]

24 minutes ago, Xenith said:

I guess Fate Dice have the same issue as command points in 8/9th - starting with a full 12 is too strong as the incentive, and best use, is to spaff through them in t1/2 to get the advantage asap. Maybe starting with 6 the gaining a new one each command phase would work better? 

 

 

If only there was another version of this rule out there that was much more fair...?

If they're going to give them additional ways to generate them, they start with 0. Just like sisters do. They're already a much stronger index with a much stronger detachment rule, there's no reason for their army rule to also be much stronger.

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah the game doesn't seem to have any lower offensive capability at all. The disgustingly resilient podcast talked about it - GW said there'd be less Mortal Wounds and there seems to be more than ever.

Speak for yourself. My army is MUCH less lethal.

[phandaal]

54 minutes ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

Honestly though I'm kind of frustrated that they don't ask us how we feel about mortal wounds. It just doesn't seem to be popular mechanic, and it creates more headaches then its worth for them.

 

I thought they got it when they mentioned "watching your opponent roll dice and tell you how many models to pick up" as a reason for the psychic phase being removed.

 

Then they just kinda spread that around to the other phases instead.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by phandaal

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Blurf said:

Speak for yourself. My army is MUCH less lethal.

 

Ha, yeah. Berzerker chainblades went from AP -3 in the 9th ed index (for a squad with an icon, which every squad would have) to AP -2 in the 9th ed codex, to AP -1 in the 10th ed index. Ouch. And for a unit that can only do anything in melee range. The Juggerlord's weapon is only AP -2, D2. Oof. 

[MoshJason]

3 hours ago, Sothalor said:

 

 

Or is there an intersection of events here and there are developers who legitimately did not understand how layered rules interactivity would lead to certain outcomes?

As someone who has worked on various table top games, I can tell you right now that shouldn't be possible. Though GW is not known for strong rules.

 

3 hours ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

I kind of wonder if they felt they went too far on their fast pass through the index and then just started adding things back in. 

 

Yeah, it's likely either that or that the time frame for the indexes were short and they didn't have a consistent idea of the vision until halfway through, leading to 

 having them written the dangerous ones first - and then going "Oh god, people want it toned down from 9th?" and making the weaker ones.

[spessmarine]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

 

MW's in general are just a bad mechanic to have. "Your guy dies because my attacks have super mega shield piercing no taksies backsies" is a really difficult thing to balance because it has knock on effects for the balance of other units.  It makes making an actually tough unit very difficult, as both a high T, and an invuln save are negated by MW. This leaves just FnP, and jank like FnP against MW only, which is the "super dee duper force field that stops your super mega piercing." It's just dumb, and is the actual bad kind of bloat. Getting a save against weapons that would otherwise pierce your armor should be the purpose of invulnerable saves, and MW should negate regular saves only. All of this is to say nothing of the "feels bad" of having to just remove your big monster or tank or whatever without any shot at saving it with a roll that you get to make.

 

The critical wound, and anti mechanics are just barnacles on the sunken ship that is the entire concept of MW's, which should be scrapped wholesale, or made extremely rare or expensive. 

 

Some of them are just odd too, High Marshall just does mortal wounds at the start of the fight phase just cause. Smells of witchcraft I say

[Sea Creature]

I’d like to see one fate dice per battle round for aeldari.

 

all the top tourney winning lists have:

 

farseer

death jester w. enhancement

2 Wraithknights

3 fire prisms

max d cannons

[Squark]

43 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

 

Some of them are just odd too, High Marshall just does mortal wounds at the start of the fight phase just cause. Smells of witchcraft I say

These are the sorts of rules that in previous editions would have been something like the Hammer of Wrath special rule or a special ability that let you make a few extra atracks at a high initiative. Sort of fights first lite. But GW ditched initiative and seems strangely averse to using wound rolls and saves for hazards outside of the much more restricted attack windows. Maybe to speed up these sort of out of sequence stuff like exploding tanks hurting nearby models, lightning fast initial strikes in a fight, or dirty tricks? I don't think the loss of granularity is worh it, personally.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Squark

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 6/26/2023 at 4:19 AM, Valkyrion said:

I think Eldar have consistently been the 'best' army ever since 2nd. Others may have had their time in the spotlight, but for as long as I can remember Eldar have always been capable when played by a good player. It was always a hard army to learn, and making mistakes was very unforgiving, but as a general rule they've always been top tier. 

Pretty sure any army does well when played by a good player…

[TheMawr]

5 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

I beleive it was all but said on Peachy's podcast that armies are divied out like homework assignments, some recipiants being mega fans of the army they received, some...not so much. Take a stab at which got which.

 

 

I honestly dont think you can say that its just a matter of the designers being a mega fan or not.. but rather a matter of bad communication for the top.

I can only imagine the assignment was something like "Ok, we dont want the faction abilities to be straight out buffs, because these will come in the stats.. but rather we want them to be interesting mechanics giving each army an individual vibe that can synergise with the datasheets.. remember guys.. interesting mechanics !"

 

Some took it literal and only make the mechanic with no natural buffs (Nurgles gift).. others where thinking ok.. how do I buff this army with a "mechanic" ( OoM, SoF )

 

That doesnt mean that nurgles gift is a matter of someone winging it or hating the faction. If I had a similar assignment, I would definitely have done something similar ( but then make sure everything else truelly interacts with it, not just some units.)

While I do realise for most of the B&C such a design method is too gamey, as a gamedesigner its really fun to create something like that... and yes, it is a labor of love.. not hate.

 

You might not want to believe it is the case... but when I look at the principle behind nurgles gift, I do see a design made by someone who really cared about it, but had 0 communication with those making the others.

 

Wich is ever evident GWs biggest issue.. lack of internal communication.

 

 

Regarding the Eldar matter.. the crusade at the entire army is getting tiresome, some are being reasonable, some are not, and its not unwarranted thats for sure.. but its comparable to the complaints of people who say "spacemarines again" or those wishing primaris to be retconned.. they are just tiresome narratives. But lets not forget Eldar is also an umbrella army that got pushed together (wich I actually like) because its not imperium (wich I actually would like if it was a single faction)... yes Harlequins can have a wraithknight in their army... but sisters of battle can take an imperial knight and deathguard can take a chaos knight. They might not be as powerful as wraithknight with strands of fate.. but they will wreck, that doesnt automatically mean SoB or DG fans have no right to complain

 

Focus on the specific problems first.. then look further if the problem remains, never fix a crack with a hammer.

( wich to me sounds like Towering, Point costs and Not allowing Fate dice for wound rolls is a good first test... but Im not good at the mathhammer side of things.)

 

Also another thing Id like them/you/us to try is go the positive route.. not just the negative one;

I hear stuff like "Sisters are bad they should nerf fate dice." .. if sisters are bad.. wouldnt the better thing be to talk how they can be made better ? Im honestly interested in people's view on that.

 

 

FWIW.. as far as Im concerned, they could just take strands of fate away from wraith constructs, tanks and support weapons.. and up their points too. Hell.. for me they could remove knights and flyers from the game altogether, they always do more bad than good... but the world doesnt revolve around me.

 

Hope its all not too aggressive as thats not my intention.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by TheMawr
added my view on fixing

[Blurf]

38 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Pretty sure any army does well when played by a good player…

It depends on your definition of 'does well'. If a player that's currently winning events with Eldar starts getting 16th place with Sisters, that's still 'doing well' and is dramatically above that army's expected performance.

It's also significantly worse than they could have done had they not had a bad army choice.

[phandaal]

17 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

I honestly dont think you can say that its just a matter of the designers being a mega fan or not.. but rather a matter of bad communication for the top.

 

I think it is a matter of some people just not getting the memo, or not caring to get the memo.

 

For example, the Eldar Index was obviously written by the same team that did 9th Ed Eldar. A strong contender for the most broken Codex in the entire expansion.

 

So what we have here are two failures. Failure one - doing the same thing with the Index. Failure two - whatever manager decided not to double check this team's work after seeing what they did for 9th edition.

[Blurf]

50 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

 

Regarding the Eldar matter.. the crusade at the entire army is getting tiresome, some are being reasonable, some are not, and its not unwarranted thats for sure.. but its comparable to the complaints of people who say "spacemarines again" or those wishing primaris to be retconned.. they are just tiresome narratives. But lets not forget Eldar is also an umbrella army that got pushed together (wich I actually like) because its not imperium (wich I actually would like if it was a single faction)... yes Harlequins can have a wraithknight in their army... but sisters of battle can take an imperial knight and deathguard can take a chaos knight. They might not be as powerful as wraithknight with strands of fate.. but they will wreck, that doesnt automatically mean SoB or DG fans have no right to complain

 

Focus on the specific problems first.. then look further if the problem remains, never fix a crack with a hammer.

 

Also another thing Id like them/you/us to try is go the positive route.. not just the negative one;

I hear stuff like "Sisters are bad they should nerf fate dice." .. if sisters are bad.. wouldnt the better thing be to talk how they can be made better ? Im honestly interested in people's view on that.

 

 

 

 

'Sisters are bad' and 'They should nerf fate dice' are separate conversations. Comparisons to miracle dice are more of an attempt to illustrate 1. Just how stupid it is that both exist in the same game and 2. How to implement that exact system without destroying gameplay.

 

As much as I've been advocating fixing Eldar here, I've also been advocating in other places that fixing the bottom 4 is more important to day to day games than fixing the OP stuff is. And I do believe that, I believe fixing Sisters, Deathguard, Admech, and Votann is ultimately a bigger deal than nerfing Eldar and Knights.

 

The only problem is, without new codexes or 'Armor of Contempt' style rules changes, I'm not sure it can be done. With the Index cards released as their own discrete product, I don't believe GW is really willing to change army or unit rules too much (outside of egregiously OP things).

 

I can only speak for Sisters, but I don't think any amount of point changes are going to fix us, currently. Yes, we have some egregiously overcosted units (Paragons being slightly better than terminators for double the cost, Retributors and Dominions being more expensive than Devastator Marines, Repentia, Arco Flags, Sacresants, most of the generic Characters, Possibly Zephyrim all being 10-20% too expensive). But even putting those units to a more fair price point doesn't fix the ARMY.

 

Celestian Sacresants lost their 2+ save for absolutely no reason, aren't good in melee, need a specific character to unlock their datasheet ability, and aren't eligible to have multiple characters equipped. You can drop them down to the 90ish points their statline is worth, but that doesn't make them GOOD. They still don't accomplish anything. You can just take more of them. Multiple units have the same thing going on.

 

To actually fix the army, you'd need rules changes. There's a bunch of different ways to do it, but some easy ones would be 1. Let BSS squads go to 20. 2. Let Retributor Squads go to 10. 3. Give us the Stratagems and Enhancements from the Combat Patrol. 4. Let more units double up (or single up) on characters. 5. Fix garbage unit abilities like 'reroll advances' or '-1 to wound but only if you spend 60pts to attach a Canoness you don't need because you probably already hit on 2s'. 6. Give Sacresants their 2+ saves back.

[Captain Idaho]

I got a theory that the design team create a 10th edition, then with like 6 weeks to go before printer deadlines some manager scrapped everything or a bunch of crucial stuff and the game was rushed out. That would explain the huge discrepancies between factions, the errors strewn within the Indexes with seemingly no proof readers and why some factions have rules that actively undermine the faction or do little (such as Death Guard lowering your toughness but having lethal hits, or Adeptus Mechanicus giving players a choice between being Battleshocked first turn or maybe suffer Mortal Wounds yet you can't score objectives first turn anyway).

 

My other theory is that a bunch of the factions had rules established early in the development of 10th and weren't revisited. Which isn't necessarily contrary to the above theory either.

[KnightofSigismund]

3 hours ago, spessmarine said:

 

Some of them are just odd too, High Marshall just does mortal wounds at the start of the fight phase just cause. Smells of witchcraft I say

Hey! Hey now! You let us have this!