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

[Karhedron]

The trouble is that MWs themselves are a solution to the fact that GW has real difficulty in making some armies as tough as they want them to be without making them unbeatable by factions that traditionally don't have access to large quantities of high AP weapons. MWs are intended as the great leveller. If all else fails, throw a bunch of Mortals at it.

 

This problem is not new and dates all the way back to 3rd edition. Back when Marines had a fixed 3+ save, some melee armies (particularly Nids) struggled to take them down. The result was the Rending rule which allowed 6s to bypass armour, very much like MWs (although they still allowed invulnerable saves back then).

 

GW keeps getting into an arms race with itself where rule X is too good so rule Y is introduced to trump it. Y is then too good so Z has to be introduced and then the cycle repeats. This is virtually inevitable but it is disappointing to see just how OP the initial crop of Xs are at the very beginning of the edition. 10th should have provided an opportunity for levelling but the wild discrepancies are rather surprising. 

[LSM]

2 hours ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

...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).

 

 

This assumes that the Sternguard rules will be:

• Any number of models can each have their Sternguard bolt rifle replaced with a Sternguard combi-melta, a Sternguard combi-plasma, a Sternguard combi-flamer, or a Sternguard combi-grav.
• For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Sternguard Veteran’s Sternguard bolt rifle can be replaced with a Sternguard heavy bolter or a Sternguard heavy flamer.

Instead of:

• For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Sternguard Veteran’s Sternguard bolt rifle can be replaced with a Sternguard combi-melta.
• For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Sternguard Veteran’s Sternguard bolt rifle can be replaced with a Sternguard combi-plasma.
• For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Sternguard Veteran’s Sternguard bolt rifle can be replaced with a Sternguard combi-flamer.
• For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Sternguard Veteran’s Sternguard bolt rifle can be replaced with a Sternguard combi-grav.
• For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Sternguard Veteran’s Sternguard bolt rifle can be replaced with a Sternguard heavy bolter or a Sternguard heavy flamer.

Edited June 29, 2023 by LSM

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

The trouble is that MWs themselves are a solution to the fact that GW has real difficulty in making some armies as tough as they want them to be without making them unbeatable by factions that traditionally don't have access to large quantities of high AP weapons. MWs are intended as the great leveller. If all else fails, throw a bunch of Mortals at it.

 

This problem is not new and dates all the way back to 3rd edition. Back when Marines had a fixed 3+ save, some melee armies (particularly Nids) struggled to take them down. The result was the Rending rule which allowed 6s to bypass armour, very much like MWs (although they still allowed invulnerable saves back then).

 

GW keeps getting into an arms race with itself where rule X is too good so rule Y is introduced to trump it. Y is then too good so Z has to be introduced and then the cycle repeats. This is virtually inevitable but it is disappointing to see just how OP the initial crop of Xs are at the very beginning of the edition. 10th should have provided an opportunity for levelling but the wild discrepancies are rather surprising. 

 

Rending still allowed invulnerable saves. That's the key thing. Having a mechanic that ignores the saves of rank and file troops for "really killy" weapons is fine, it's having a mechanic that ignores the invulnerable saves of elite troops and characters which creates the issue. No weapon should require the same exact rolls to put a wound on a guardsman as on Guilliman. Also, Nids had lots of monstrous creatures, which all ignored regular armor saves by virtue of being monstrous creatures. Gaunts were a cheap horde unit, it made perfect sense that they'd have trouble killing marines, and that they functioned as tarpits, letting the bigger more specialized bugs do the killing.

 

[Karhedron]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

Also, Nids had lots of monstrous creatures, which all ignored regular armor saves by virtue of being monstrous creatures. Gaunts were a cheap horde unit, it made perfect sense that they'd have trouble killing marines, and that they functioned as tarpits, letting the bigger more specialized bugs do the killing.

 

Back then they only had the Hive Tyrant and the Carnifex. There was the awkward middle ground of units like Stealers and Lictors who should have been far more deadly to Marines than they were prior to the introduction of rending.

[Squark]

Rending also didn't/doesn't bypass cover saves, which would be a problem bringing it back since certain units that would have used cover saves to mitigate it in shooting, but cover is now an armor avae modifier.

[MoshJason]

Age of Sigmar has had Mortal Wounds since it came out, and 40k has had mortal wounds since 8th - I don't think they are going to get rid of them any time soon.

There's an argument that MW are needed - as a way to speed up the game, and as a way to make some weapons as deadly as possible without having them be *too* deadly. IE - if something has Anti-Psyker 2+ and Devastating Wounds, it's  supposed to be really bad news for Psykers, without having it have to have A) tons of bespoke rules, or B) Characteristics that make it more deadly vs the non-intended target.

 

A condemnor boltgun has Str 4 Ap 0 D1 (Anti-Psyker, Devastating Wounds) so that it can effectively hurt it's intended target. If you just made it "Autowound on a 2+" then suddenly any psyker in the game has a reasonable chance to shrug it off, and you'd either need even more rules or to increase the AP, but if you increase the AP suddenly it's better at killing its non-intended targets.

[Scribe]

I'm really not sure MW, and Devastating Wounds even worse, isnt a solution for a problem that doesnt really need to exist, especially in a system where the rules were being tweaked, and had a granular AP and Damage system in place.

 

Just feels like a mistake, another artifact of Apocalypse that should never have made it into the core game.

[Focslain]

12 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

Age of Sigmar has had Mortal Wounds since it came out, and 40k has had mortal wounds since 8th - I don't think they are going to get rid of them any time soon.

There's an argument that MW are needed - as a way to speed up the game, and as a way to make some weapons as deadly as possible without having them be *too* deadly. IE - if something has Anti-Psyker 2+ and Devastating Wounds, it's  supposed to be really bad news for Psykers, without having it have to have A) tons of bespoke rules, or B) Characteristics that make it more deadly vs the non-intended target.

 

A condemnor boltgun has Str 4 Ap 0 D1 (Anti-Psyker, Devastating Wounds) so that it can effectively hurt it's intended target. If you just made it "Autowound on a 2+" then suddenly any psyker in the game has a reasonable chance to shrug it off, and you'd either need even more rules or to increase the AP, but if you increase the AP suddenly it's better at killing its non-intended targets.

This is what I think the thinking behind the Sheildbreaker missiles and Thundercoil Harpoon are, their made to take on specific targets (other knights and large targets). While it can be super harmful to other targets that is only by chance.

 

The more I see this the more I'm for just making FD a modified roll, would help in curtailing the deadliness. Plus they can always use that 6 on the damage roll for the d-cannons (or other weapons) making their natural devastating that much more without it being a guaranteed kill shot.

[Scribe]

21 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

There's an argument that MW are needed - as a way to speed up the game, and as a way to make some weapons as deadly as possible without having them be *too* deadly.

 

There's a couple of better ways to do this. I would refer GW to 5th edition, and lowering the 'matched play' points level, but well then how could they push more plastic?

 

I think 10th is a serviceable platform, I really do. I think the index lists are a fine starting point.

 

I believe someone in the wider community would need to release it in a polished state however, because GW is going to GW, and 9th happened for a reason. 10th will go the same way.

[spessmarine]

10 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

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.

 

Given that proofreading didn't seem to get much time, stands to reason playtesting suffered a similar fate.

 

[Blurf]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Rending still allowed invulnerable saves. That's the key thing. Having a mechanic that ignores the saves of rank and file troops for "really killy" weapons is fine, it's having a mechanic that ignores the invulnerable saves of elite troops and characters which creates the issue. No weapon should require the same exact rolls to put a wound on a guardsman as on Guilliman. Also, Nids had lots of monstrous creatures, which all ignored regular armor saves by virtue of being monstrous creatures. Gaunts were a cheap horde unit, it made perfect sense that they'd have trouble killing marines, and that they functioned as tarpits, letting the bigger more specialized bugs do the killing.

 

then they give a unit 2++ rerollable and we're back in 7th edition again.

[Blurf]

3 hours ago, Focslain said:

This is what I think the thinking behind the Sheildbreaker missiles and Thundercoil Harpoon are, their made to take on specific targets (other knights and large targets). While it can be super harmful to other targets that is only by chance.

 

The more I see this the more I'm for just making FD a modified roll, would help in curtailing the deadliness. Plus they can always use that 6 on the damage roll for the d-cannons (or other weapons) making their natural devastating that much more without it being a guaranteed kill shot.

1. This still doesn't solve the problem of Fate Dice being WAY too strong.

2. Do you do the same to Miracle Dice? Because if so, Morvenn Vahl and Celestine need their data sheets rewritten.

[Focslain]

28 minutes ago, Blurf said:

1. This still doesn't solve the problem of Fate Dice being WAY too strong.

2. Do you do the same to Miracle Dice? Because if so, Morvenn Vahl and Celestine need their data sheets rewritten.

Considering the lack of access to Dev Wounding sisters have (it's only on the epic characters) I don't think it would change how Miracle Dice work. Both Morvann and Celestine as pretty cheap currently, so no real change there.

[Lexington]

2 hours ago, Blurf said:

then they give a unit 2++ rerollable and we're back in 7th edition again.

Funny enough, I’m pretty sure this is the exact edition-destroying that problem Mortal Wounds were introduced to solve, this introducing the new edition-destroying problem of…Mortal Wounds

[Rain]

Is…not adding a 2+ rerollable invulnerable save to the game just off the table?

[TheMawr]

1 hour ago, Focslain said:

Considering the lack of access to Dev Wounding sisters have (it's only on the epic characters) I don't think it would change how Miracle Dice work. Both Morvann and Celestine as pretty cheap currently, so no real change there.

 

Morvenna vahl has it on melee
Canoness has it on Condemntor boltgun
Celestine has it on melee
Battlesister squad sister superior can have it on Condemnor boltgun or Combi weapon

Aestred thurga can give it on all melee weapons for one of these units (and her self I think) : Battle sisters, Celestians, Dominions, Retributor
Dominion squad sister superior can have it on Condemnor boltgun or Combi weapon
Retributor squad sister superior can have it on Condemnor boltgun or Combi weapon

 

edit:

Not meant smug, just pointing out something overlooked (or I misunderstand how it works.. also possible) , but I saw earlier in the threat the mention of only 3 models.. Its a bit annoying that the datasheets are so "complete" but then some things are on a seperate armory card.

Edited June 29, 2023 by TheMawr

[Scribe]

30 minutes ago, Lexington said:

Funny enough, I’m pretty sure this is the exact edition-destroying that problem Mortal Wounds were introduced to solve, this introducing the new edition-destroying problem of…Mortal Wounds

 

Which is extra frustrating, that these issues still exist in some ways.

 

There are fundamental problems with how GW approaches the game, if we look at the game as a competitive exercise, and the thing is none of it is an issue of 'cannot be solved'.

 

GW clearly didnt apply enough time, effort, and thought, to 10th. They didnt manage it from either a timeline/release window perspective, and they 100% didnt manage it from an internal balance/development perspective.

 

There are just too many issues, or inconsistencies.

 

Now maybe its just copium on my part, as I really wanted to get back into 40K, I wanted the game to be great again and worth the time and $ invested, but when I look at most of 10th, its good, maybe even great, but there are just a few things here or there that need to be obliterated, or in some cases just tweaked even, and we could be in a great edition.

 

I just dont think GW has the will or ability to get there.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I feel, may be wrong ofc, but a large part of the problem for Sisters and other AT weapons is the nerf to Melta etc..

Surely it should have remained at a Str relative to the T of the Heavy Vehicles it is famous for wrecking. 

Tank killer guns don't need shenanigans like Anti and DevWnds and Mortals,  they merely need high Str, AP and Damage.

The KISS principle wouldn't have gone astray.

Anti anything is a fools mechanic except for things like Psychic and other space magic attacks.

[Scribe]

27 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

I feel, may be wrong ofc, but a large part of the problem for Sisters and other AT weapons is the nerf to Melta etc..

Surely it should have remained at a Str relative to the T of the Heavy Vehicles it is famous for wrecking. 

Tank killer guns don't need shenanigans like Anti and DevWnds and Mortals,  they merely need high Str, AP and Damage.

The KISS principle wouldn't have gone astray.

Anti anything is a fools mechanic except for things like Psychic and other space magic attacks.

 

I'm not sure on this, because it leads to an issue where the guns are great against Armour, and anything with higher than Human Toughness and Wounds.

 

They clearly wanted to hit these types of 'catch all' answers like Melta/Plasma. Then they go and throw in "A 6 to wound always wounds." and ruin the concept...

[TheMawr]

5 hours ago, Rhavien said:

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. 

 

Quite the varied amount of data there..I made a listing of data in there thats a bit wider ( top 10s of each tournament, highest placing for each other army, NP is Not played.. as well as the amount of player playing the 4 purposed strong ones as well as their lowest rankings, however, Id have to say purposed.. as I included spacemarines there and they arent doing that great I think, despite having a strong power on paper.).. its quite a list so it has a spoiler tag

Spoiler

Boise
1. Imperial Knights
2. Necrons
3. Imperial Knights
4. Tau
5. Aeldari   ( 3x Wraithknights )
6. Custodes
7. Orks
8. Thousand Sons
9. Custodes
10. Admech

Highest place per "other" army ( of 51 )

Spacemarines   13 ( Ultramarines )
Chaos Knights   15
Daemons    40
Genestealer cults   50
Drukhari  - NP
Leagues of Votann  34
Astra Militarum    18
Sisters of Battle  - NP
Tyranids                 25
Chaos Space marines   38
Grey Knights         27
Deathguard           33
World Eaters  - NP
Imperial Agents - NP

# Aeldari players                  2 ( 1 in top 10, 1 in top half, lowest ranking : 32)
# Spacemarine players    12 ( 0 in top 10, 6 in top half,  lowest ranking : 51 (dark angels ))
# Knight players                  8  (2 in top 10, 7 in top half,  lowest ranking : 29 (chaos knights))
# Custodes players             3  ( 2 in top 10, 2 in top half, lowest ranking : 28 )

 

Brittany Open

1. Aeldari  ( 2x Wraithknight )
2. Imperial Knights
3. Genestealer cults
4. Aeldari   ( 1x Wraithknight )
5. Custodes
6. Astra Militarum
7. Aeldari
8. Spacemarines ( Deathwatch )
9. Genestealer cults
10. Chaos Knights

Highest place per "other" army  ( of 48 )

Admech   48
Drukhari   24
Leagues of Votann  43
Thousand sons  23
Tau    32
Necrons   34
Daemons   15
Orks         20
Sisters of Battle   22
Tyranids             13
Chaos Space marines  29
Grey Knights    33
Deathguard  -NP
World Eaters  - NP
Imperial Agents -NP

# Aeldari players                 9  (3 in top 10, 6 in top half, lowest ranking : 39 )
# Spacemarine players      6 ( 1 in top 10, 3 in top half,  lowest ranking : 47  (Blood angels ))
# Knight players                   4 ( 2 in top 10, 3 in top half, lowest ranking : 45 (imperial ))
# Custodes players              4 ( 1 in top 10, 1 in top half, lowest ranking : 31 )

 

Hellstroms All-Star heat 3

1. Imperial Knights
2. Drukhari
3. Chaos Knights
4. Thousand sons
5. Spacemarines
6. Aeldari (1x Wraithknight )
7. Daemons
8. Custodes
9. Spacemarines ( Dark angels )
10. Leagues of Votann

Highest place per "other" army  ( out of 40 )

Orks  - NP
Astra Militarum   23
Admech   25
Tau  - NP
Necrons    12
Genestealer cults - NP
Sisters of Battle   - NP
Tyranids     13
Chaos Space marines    17
Grey Knights    21
Deathguard    - NP
World Eaters  - NP
Imperial agents - NP

# Aeldari players                  4  ( 1 in top 10, 3 in top half, lowest ranking : 27 )
# Spacemarine players      6 ( 1 in top 10, 2 in top half,  lowest ranking : 38 (Blood angels ))
# Knight players                   3 ( 2 in top 10, 3 in top half, lowest ranking : 20 (Imperial ))
# Custodes players              3 ( 1 in top 10, 2 in top half, lowest ranking : 39 )

 

SIMP

1. Aeldari
2. Aeldari
3. Spacemarines ( Dark angels )
4. Imperial Knights
5. Thousand Sons
6. Aeldari
7. Aeldari
8. Spacemarines
9. Daemons
10. Daemons

Highest place per "other" army  ( out of 28 )
Orks  18
Admech  16
Necrons 22
Astra Militarum 26
Chaos Knights - NP
Genestealer cults - NP
Drukhari - NP
Leagues of Votann - NP
Tau - NP

Sisters of Battle -NP
Tyranids  - NP
Chaos Space marines  14
Grey Knights  -NP
Deathguard  27
World Eaters - NP
Imperial agents - 28

# Aeldari players                   4 (  4 in top 10, 4 in top half, lowest ranking : 7 )
# Spacemarine players       4 (  2 in top 10,  2 in top half,  lowest ranking : 21 (Blood angels))
# Knight players                    4 ( 1  in top 10, 4  in top half, lowest ranking : 13  (Imperial ))
# Custodes players              1 (  0 in top 10, 0 in top half, lowest ranking : 20 )

 

I must say.. the upper 3 tournaments show a much more varied result than SIMP does wich does show comparable results to stuff like AoW, but also comes from a similar limited pool of diversity in the armies played.  It makes me feel the rock-paper-scissor theory might be more true than I initially thought.. and GSC just might be a scissor. ( wich in itself is a terrible way to design balance in your game btw.) Knights of all flavor (incl wraith) still dominate but there is more variety in the top 10s there.

 

Among 4 tournaments only 1 player played sisters of battle, and no one played Worldeaters, making these hard to judge... Deathguard got more play and with it more losses ( I think it was 3 players all of wich placing in the bottom half.)

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Which is extra frustrating, that these issues still exist in some ways.

 

There are fundamental problems with how GW approaches the game, if we look at the game as a competitive exercise, and the thing is none of it is an issue of 'cannot be solved'.

 

GW clearly didnt apply enough time, effort, and thought, to 10th. They didnt manage it from either a timeline/release window perspective, and they 100% didnt manage it from an internal balance/development perspective.

 

There are just too many issues, or inconsistencies.

 

Now maybe its just copium on my part, as I really wanted to get back into 40K, I wanted the game to be great again and worth the time and $ invested, but when I look at most of 10th, its good, maybe even great, but there are just a few things here or there that need to be obliterated, or in some cases just tweaked even, and we could be in a great edition.

 

I just dont think GW has the will or ability to get there.

 
The core rules are great, and the internal balance of many indices seems good. GW’s decision to give each unit a special rule has been a major glowup to previously pointless units brought solely for flavor like the CSM and WE Helbrute, the Vortex Beast, etc.

 

The problem is that the balance between indices is so broken that the game is borderline unplayable for some matchups.

[Scribe]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

 
The core rules are great, and the internal balance of many indices seems good. GW’s decision to give each unit a special rule has been a major glowup to previously pointless units brought solely for flavor like the CSM and WE Helbrute, the Vortex Beast, etc.

 

The problem is that the balance between indices is so broken that the game is borderline unplayable for some matchups.

 

For the most part I agree. I do think that always wounds on a 6 and MW/Dev Wounds are flawed, but otherwise yeah. I'm certainly more interested in the game than I have been in many years.

[Interrogator Stobz]

6 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

I'm not sure on this, because it leads to an issue where the guns are great against Armour, and anything with higher than Human Toughness and Wounds.

 

They clearly wanted to hit these types of 'catch all' answers like Melta/Plasma. Then they go and throw in "A 6 to wound always wounds." and ruin the concept...

I have no issue with something that can wreck a tank also wrecking a massive bug.

But a skilful difference in saves, invulnerable saves and wounds can go a long way to providing the difference between them.

No need for all these special rules.

[Akerkoke]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

For the most part I agree. I do think that always wounds on a 6 and MW/Dev Wounds are flawed, but otherwise yeah. I'm certainly more interested in the game than I have been in many years.

 

I returned to the game after a long stop, hyped for 10th edition, luckily I'll be only playing crusade with my friends and combat patrols so I should be relatively fine.
However as a player that played tournaments back in the day, the thought process of balance/imbalace/extreme imbalance is always there and these concerns are being given form in this edition unfortunately

[MoshJason]

4 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

I have no issue with something that can wreck a tank also wrecking a massive bug.

But a skilful difference in saves, invulnerable saves and wounds can go a long way to providing the difference between them.

No need for all these special rules.

This is how we ended up with Plasma being the only weapon type anyone (who had access to it) would bring.

 

It had Long (enough) range High (enough) STR high (enough) AP and dealt a reliable 2 damage, while firing 2 shots, with access to enough rerolls to prevent rolling ones. It was equally good at killing big stuff, small stuff, medium stuff and any other stuff you could think of. Sure, Melta might have been arguably better in a few fringe cases, but Plasma worked wonders against Marines and other infantry, so there was no opportunity cost.

 

But if GW very specifically goes "THIS WOUNDS VEHICLES ON A 2+" instead of "THIS IS STR 1000", it silos the weapons a little more. It's a solution that we used to have in 7th with Armorbane and Fleshbane. Honestly, I'm not sure why everyone is complaining now, since MW are not a new concept having existed since 2017 in 40k - and having played (and played against) Grey Knights and Thousand Sons its not like MW are particularly more prevalent - it's just changed which datasheets have access to them.