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

[Colman]

I suspect someone panicked that the free indices would displace sales of codexes and demanded they be made more temporary. The lack of coordination of the app with the way indices are constructed is suspicious too.  Though that could just be GW’s genius at digital stuff. 

[Ahzek451]

2 hours 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 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.

 

As stated, that's not me saying, it's what what said by an ex staffer and what he experienced.  And your quote cuts the part where I discuss that there is still a heavy dose of influence from the top. It's not as strict as one or the other, there is more nuance than that. So I'm not sure if your agreeing or disagreeing since your saying things I  wouldnt disagree with. I do not beleive the "bad" indexes are strictly written by those who dont care. But it has been reported that some of them are more enthusiastic about their assignment than others. Take if for what you will and decide if it's true or not. I dont think is unreasonable to think some staffers were assigned an army they are more passionate about and got a little overzealous. With little to no checks. Which is not the same as lack of passion for the other designers. I think it's a combination of short design window, lack of playtest, a shifting design philosophy where others didnt get the memo and designers dont get enough time to communicate what the others have done with their respective indexes, and management saying "out of time, good enough". 

 

But if you listen to what a lot of these ex staffers are saying, you can piece together that GW does not give enough time, playtesting is relatively short, communication is a problem (between bosses and other designers), and resources are restrained. 

 

At the end of the day, I dont blame the designers. Just GW management. 

 

This edition screams unfinished, rushed, and noone talked to each other/got mixed signals. 

 

Personally, game aside, I think its very disengenuous selling datacards with so many errors and typos. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Ahzek451

[Sea Creature]

Someone said the rules are half baked… it sure does look like a rush job to meet a deadline.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

It's okay guys. James Workshop will do another silly video, and then all will be forgiven and forgotten...

 

Sorry, I needed to derail and take a jab.

 

It's very weird that at the moment Eldar, SM, and Knights are the three best armies, with little to no representation from other factions.

 

I havent seen anyone play meaningful Dark Eldar, since they butchered the army in 8th edition.

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten

[ThePenitentOne]

Dark Eldar in 9th, from my POV probably had my favourite Crusade content- Sisters, GSC and Tau came very, very close... But nobody Crusades like DE, especially if you've got more than one DE player so you can scrap over territory in Commorragh and band together in tenuous alliances of convenience for realspace raids.

 

They might be able to recreate that magic with 10th ed Crusade, but even if they do, the wait kinda wrecks everything anyway.

 

I will say though, that I do look forward to seeing additional detachments. I'm curious to see how much detachment rules can change the character of a list... And particularly underperforming lists. Like we all know there's a Bloddy Rose equivalent detachment coming, and an Argent Shroud equivalent... I want to believe that will be enough, but I'm not sure it will. So much of what makes the game what it is in the current iteration is the interaction between the  datacards of units and their leaders... And detachments don't change that.

 

So I guess we'll see. I love trying it out free though. Gotta give'em credit for that.

Edited June 29, 2023 by ThePenitentOne

[Blurf]

57 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Dark Eldar in 9th, from my POV probably had my favourite Crusade content- Sisters, GSC and Tau came very, very close... But nobody Crusades like DE, especially if you've got more than one DE player so you can scrap over territory in Commorragh and band together in tenuous alliances of convenience for realspace raids.

 

They might be able to recreate that magic with 10th ed Crusade, but even if they do, the wait kinda wrecks everything anyway.

 

I will say though, that I do look forward to seeing additional detachments. I'm curious to see how much detachment rules can change the character of a list... And particularly underperforming lists. Like we all know there's a Bloddy Rose equivalent detachment coming, and an Argent Shroud equivalent... I want to believe that will be enough, but I'm not sure it will. So much of what makes the game what it is in the current iteration is the interaction between the  datacards of units and their leaders... And detachments don't change that.

 

So I guess we'll see. I love trying it out free though. Gotta give'em credit for that.

Best case scenario that's 18 months out for any faction not in the preview. Add on codex creep and I don't think even complete beer and pretzels casuals will still be playing games (or buying models) of the bottom 4 with any real regularity.

[Captain Idaho]

The way Codex creep happens, I can imagine this edition burning people out quicker than usual. Things won't get weaker in a Codex, so by the end of this year the balance will be shocking.

 

Can you imagine how powerful Eldar will be when they get their glow up Codex!

Edited June 29, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Helycon]

8 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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.

I also believe a deadline was added at some point that simply could not be met and that's why balancing is way off, things got missed (such as the Deathwatch MW debacle), the Legends got introduced and the points for options got canned. 

 

The basis for the edition really is there. I like a lot of the rules, but everything screams 'rushed' which is a shame. Remember the Blizzard (game developer) of old? "When it's done" was the mantra they used and pretty much all games they've released before Diablo 3 were smash hits. That's when the deadlines were set for releases and it didn't improve anything. Whilst it's easy to patch stuff in the digital world, it's also a LOT easier to get a huge amount of negative reviews in the digital world, making things nigh unsalvageable. Warhammer just has the good fortune to also have amazing looking models people enjoy. Still, Games Workshop should be careful how they patch the game lest people burn out.

[Akerkoke]

In my opinion all this rules debate points out 1 thing.
Rules should be digitally released only, the rulebook sould be 60 pages shorter, the codexes should have lore, painting, crusade rules but not datasheets or whatever.

I've still to play a single game of 10th edition (will try first of all with the models provided in the Leviathan box) but from what I've seen, lethality seems pushed too much over the top, expecially for some armies. They said that rerolls were to be reduced, you have Oath of Moment, they said mortal wounds will be reduced, you have the all over the place, expecially for some armies, indirect fire is a big problem when paired with the Heavy keyword or shooting units already in cover, not to mention the dreaded Fate Dice mechanic, that frankly seemes quite broken just when they spoiled it on the website.

These are problems that with an online living rule system could be addressed in a matter of weeks, but they have to sell the datacards and the codexes and the core book...

 

I hope that they will address in any case these issues, because if they want a truly balanced game, that is the only way to go

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

Can you imagine how powerful Eldar will be when they get their glow up Codex!

 

Yes but every list will look the same with Eldrad, maximum Wraithknights, D-Cannon and Fire Prisms and then whatever minimal infantry are necessary to hold Objectives and farm additional CPs and FDs.

 

People saying the rules are half-baked may well be right. I met a friend on Saturday who knows someone in Nottingham and apparently the index lists have not been formally playtested.  At all! GW allocated no paid time to playtesting. The only playtesting that happened was informal and conducted in lunch breaks and after-hours.

 

Normally I would take such stories with a pinch of salt but looking at the power disparity in the Indices, I certainly find them plausible.

[Captain Idaho]

A friend of mine revealed to our group some shocking information about the timescales of playtesting and it would collaborate your story...

 

Basically they don't do it enough at the best of times, let alone now!

[Rhavien]

Goonhammer just released one of their tournament analysis articles. Looking through it I can see Aeldari, Knights and Custodes being very prominent. Only two Astartes lists (Iron Hands, DA ) that placed within the top ranks. 

What do you guys think about those results? 

I'm really curious how the meta will shape in the close future. 

[Doctor Perils]

12 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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.

 

That, or simply someone mistakenly sent out the draft pdf as opposed to the final product pdf...

[Captain Idaho]

Cor, I could imagine that mistake being real.

 

Or accidentally deleting the finished copies and having to fish out the drafts again last minute. 

[ZeroWolf]

Another bit of evidence that there was a major rules shift is the alternate instructions given in the Levithan building guide. 

[Captain Idaho]

I'm not familiar with that!

[ZeroWolf]

9 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I'm not familiar with that!

For instance, it gives rules to the Neruoloids (the little things that comes with the Neurotyrant) whilst the Index rules use them as tokens, like the rest of the Drones/minifigures etc. A lot of weapons are different as well, with the Neurogaunts's claws being anti-pysker +2 oddly enough.

 

People have shared around images of the Sternguard weapons which is an even deadlier version  of what they're using now.

[LSM]

52 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

...People have shared around images of the Sternguard weapons which is an even deadlier version  of what they're using now.

For reference, in the Leviathan box instructions the Sternguard and Lieutenant's Combi-Weapons have the following individualised rules:

• Sternguard Combi-Melta: [Anti-Vehicle 4+, Devastating Wounds, Melta 2] R24" A2 BS3+ S4 AP-1 D1
• Sternguard Combi-Plasma: [Anti-Monster 4+, Devastating Wounds, Hazardous] R24" A2 BS3+ S4 AP-1 D1
• Lieutenant's Combi-Flamer: [Anti-Infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds, Ignores Cover] R24" A2 BS2+ S4 AP-1 D1

While the Index has:

• Sternguard Combi-Weapon: [Anti-Infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds, Rapid Fire 1] R24" A1 BS4+ S4 AP0 D1
• Lieutenant's Combi-Weapon: [Anti-Infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds, Rapid Fire 1] R24" A1 BS3+ S4 AP0 D1

//

Improved BS, a flat A2 at 24" (rather than [Rapid Fire 1]), a pip of AP, and most notably specific niches (as opposed to the unified roll).

 

On the other hand, the Sternguard Bolt Rifles lack the [Assault] and [Heavy] that the Index has. 

//

 

So the question is: were these old rules that were scrapped, or were the Indexes locked in a long time ago (to provide a foundation to work off of) and these Leviathan rules are a preview of what's to come in the Codex?

Edited June 29, 2023 by LSM

[TrawlingCleaner]

13 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

I havent seen anyone play meaningful Dark Eldar, since they butchered the army in 8th edition.

 

 

Someone came second this weekend with them with their only loss being Vs Eldar. The Dark Eldar player's list was:

Spoiler

CHARACTER

Archon (85 points)
• Warlord

 

Haemonculus (75 points)
 

 

BATTLELINE

Kabalite Warriors (120 points)

 

Wracks (65 points)

 

Wracks (65 points)

 

Wracks (65 points)

 

DEDICATED TRANSPORT

 

Raider (90 points)

 

Venom (80 points)

 

Venom (80 points)

 

OTHER DATASHEETS

Cronos (50 points)
 

Cronos (50 points)

 

Cronos (50 points)

 

Ravager (95 points)

 

Ravager (95 points)
 

Reavers (150 points)

 

Scourges (120 points)

 

Scourges (120 points)

 

Talos (180 points)
• 2x Talos gauntlet
2x Twin Drukhari haywire blaster
2x Twin liquifier gun

 

Talos (180 points)
• 2x Talos gauntlet
2x Twin Drukhari haywire blaster
2x Twin liquifier gun

 

Talos (180 points)
• 2x Talos gauntlet
2x Twin Drukhari haywire blaster
2x Twin liquifier gun

 

It's definitely pivoted the Index into Lances and Haywire rather than a melee threat army, which is shame I think but they still have good play overall I think.

 

 

12 minutes ago, LSM said:

For reference, in the Leviathan box instructions the Sternguard and Lieutenant's Combi-Weapons have the following individualised rules:

• Sternguard Combi-Melta: [Anti-Vehicle 4+, Devastating Wounds, Melta 2] R24" A2 BS3+ S4 AP-1 D1
• Sternguard Combi-Plasma: [Anti-Monster 4+, Devastating Wounds, Hazardous] R24" A2 BS3+ S4 AP-1 D1
• Lieutenant's Combi-Flamer: [Anti-Infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds, Ignores Cover] R24" A2 BS2+ S4 AP-1 D1

While the Index has:

• Sternguard Combi-Weapon: [Anti-Infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds, Rapid Fire 1] R24" A1 BS4+ S4 AP0 D1
• Lieutenant's Combi-Weapon: [Anti-Infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds, Rapid Fire 1] R24" A1 BS3+ S4 AP0 D1

//

Improved BS, a flat A2 at 24" (rather than [Rapid Fire 1]), a pip of AP, and most notably specific niches (as opposed to the unified roll).

 

On the other hand, the Sternguard Bolt Rifles lack the [Assault] and [Heavy] that the Index has. 

//

 

So the question is: were these old rules that were scrapped, or were the Indexes locked in a long time ago (to provide a foundation to work off of) and these Leviathan rules are a preview of what's to come in the Codex?

 

I posted this when these were originally posted to the Leviathan thread and at risk of sounding like the Board's Doomsayer:

I hope these rules never see the light of day.

 

10 Combis using the Melta profile do an average of about 36MW to Vehicles and about 15 to anything else with OoM at 12" (all of which is super easy with Droppods). Chaos Terminators can have 10 Combis all with Sustained Hits [1] on a 5+ and also rerolling all hits and wounds (needs Abaddon mind you)

 

There's a reason why they changed the Deathwatch Hellfire rounds strat, Anti in it's current form is not what they thought it would be. DevWounds is such a hard mechanic to balance, 1/6 times it spikes hard and drastically changes how the profile plays. Anti is a similar process as Fate dice for increasing your chances of spiking your rolls or Dice "Fixing".

Again, it's going to be a problem in the future when codexes start coming out and they drop rules like these sternguard ones etc. Mortal Wounds spam is unhealthy for the game, it works in Sigmar because armies, core rules etc are built around it and balanced around it. 40k is not, even with these new indexes and the amount of DevWounds sprinkled around.

 

Which armies lose out most on a change to DevWounds? Sisters, DG, Votaan etc all definitely aren't built around it, how could it make them worse off? How would you look at balancing them afterwards?

 

Anti still works as a mechanic if you remove it's ability to trigger DevWounds. Anti-Infantry 4+ still wounds any infantry on a 4+, it just shouldn't trigger MW

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Jeepers, that's interesting. 

With the physical datasheets landing on the 1st gotta wonder if they will be different to the downloads now.

Probably not but one can only hope.

 

@TrawlingCleanerCombis atm suck so badly, I would love to see them better.

They merely need the same profile as their special equivalent. 

 

They need to ditch thw anti and dev wound link as you say though. 

[Akerkoke]

A good part of the problem is the sick interaction between Anti and Dev Wounds, how didn't they notice that?

[MoshJason]

33 minutes ago, Akerkoke said:

A good part of the problem is the sick interaction between Anti and Dev Wounds, how didn't they notice that?

Anti and Dev is obvi intentional

[Arkhanist]

21 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

Anti and Dev is obvi intentional

 

It is, and it's broken as  They should reverse course on that. One option would be making "anti-" weapons cause automatically successful wounds instead, ala lethal hits, so they just have an automatic wounding 'floor' for their preferred target, rather than the current critical wounds where it makes dev wounds so much nastier. If they want to really want to be 'less lethal', then mortal wound spam has to be significantly reduced; especially since it's a very have/have not level of access across different armies.

 

Personally, I'd just eliminate Devastating Wounds entirely, mortal wounds are such an un-fun mechanic, but I realise that's probably too extreme for some!

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Arkhanist

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

Personally, I'd just eliminate Devastating Wounds entirely, mortal wounds are such an un-fun mechanic, but I realise that's probably too extreme for some!

 

Amen frater. Or have mortals ignore normal saves only. It's enough that they spill over, and having AP infinite would already be a strong mechanic by itself. This would decrease lethality for the worst offenders, and remove a lot of the "watching your opponent roll dice and tell you which of your guys are dead now" which can make the game so frustrating.

[Akerkoke]

32 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

Anti and Dev is obvi intentional

Ok, then it is a very bad decision design-wise
It's like doing a Magic: the Gathering combo deck out of 2 low mana cards, it will not work well and those cards will get banned.
In warhammer they can't ban but they should resolve the problem nontheless