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

[sairence]

I think trying to justify or negate a balance mechanic (any weapon can wound any target on a 6 to wound) with lore reasons is always going to be futile, no one is ever fully going to agree on 'the' answer. The fluff is there to create the setting and be the canvas, not to explain the reason for specific rules.

 

For me, 6/7th ed was unfun, when my opponent could take out some key units and then the vast majority of my army was pretty much neutered against their heavy target. Clearly GW saw the same thing as a problem, so we got the rules adjusted to mitigate that. But that's pure balance. Not fluff.

[Chapter Master Valrak]

I played against Knights the other day...

[Interrogator Stobz]

I think OC values will mitigate that a lot. If not, lower vehicle OC values.

There is a solution for everything. 

Playing the Objectives and not going for the kill is key here for some lists.

 

Back in the day an immobile tank was nearly useless, bring back better damage effects. Simplified ones, not simple.

Just now, Chapter Master Valrak said:

I played against Knights the other day...

How was it really?

Also, did you tailor at all?

[Chapter Master Valrak]

3 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Back in the day an immobile tank was nearly useless, bring back better damage effects. Simplified ones, not simple.

How was it really?

Also, did you tailor at all?

 

No tailoring, it was a 1K game, I had:

 

x3 Eradicators

x3 Eradicators
x5 Heavy Intercessors
x5 Heavy Intercessors
x1 Astraeus

 

He had:
 

x1 Knight Crusader
x4 Armiger Helverin

The Helverins seem way too under costed, they wiped out all my Gravis without even blinking. Even with Oath of Moment it was hard to dent anything he had. 

[Blurf]

7 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

We have Eldar using an entire faction wide army mechanic where they can ignore entire parts of the game at a whim... I think a lasgun being unable to wound a Land Raider is fine.

 

Besides that, Adeptus Titanicus has entire weapons that can't hurt a Titan until it is badly damaged. 40K never had a problem before with small arms being unable to damage vehicles. Horus Heresy does it fine.

1. Maybe not vehicles, but definitely monstrous creatures.

2. That's because vehicles in 7th were made of Nitroglycerine.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Cheers for sharing @Chapter Master Valrak.

I agree about the points issue, at least GeeDub can modify them relatively easily. 

Do you think AT weapons need to do more damage at all? When they are a limited commodity I feel they should be more effective. 

There is a lot of dice which can go wrong before they cause any damage, once they do they should cause considerable harm IMHO.

 

[Blurf]

10 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Cheers for sharing @Chapter Master Valrak.

I agree about the points issue, at least GeeDub can modify them relatively easily. 

Do you think AT weapons need to do more damage at all? When they are a limited commodity I feel they should be more effective. 

There is a lot of dice which can go wrong before they cause any damage, once they do they should cause considerable harm IMHO.

 

You're just inventing D-Weapons again.

[Squark]

Objective control is not a good solution to the balance issues created by knights. Coming to a game expecting a fair fight and instead bwing forced to hope you die slowly enough that your opponent has a phyrric victory is not good game design.

[Captain Idaho]

My issue with Knights as they stand (as opposed to my issue with them as a concept) is if vehicles are tougher in the edition because anti-tank changes then the Knights are tougher. If that's the case then killing them quickly enough means buffing anti-tank weapons which will conversely make vehicles week again.

 

My issue with the as a concept is they're a bunch of super heavy jerks running around stomping your army because anti-infantry is too inefficient, so they basically skew the game. But they're here now so we gotta deal with it eh.

[Sea Creature]

Lasgun is completely dependent upon weight of fire.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, Blurf said:

You're just inventing D-Weapons again.

Nah, because mine can be saved.

32 minutes ago, Sea Creature said:

Lasgun is completely dependent upon weight of fire.

...And Tanks.

If you only bring lasguns you deserve to lose.

They're not the Emperor's bayonet after all.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, Squark said:

Objective control is not a good solution to the balance issues created by knights. Coming to a game expecting a fair fight and instead bwing forced to hope you die slowly enough that your opponent has a phyrric victory is not good game design.

Then read the rest of what I wrote, it is a real and usable solution. 

There are always mismatches in 10 Editions of this game; when someone brings 100% Armour you need to tailor for 100% Armour.

But that Armour is worse against other builds.

 

My structure change can address that more easily than all the janky situational  keywords because it's a SvT then Sv then DvsW calculation.

You'd find points were done better and I'm pretty sure some tournament players like balance. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

My issue with Knights as they stand (as opposed to my issue with them as a concept) is if vehicles are tougher in the edition because anti-tank changes then the Knights are tougher. If that's the case then killing them quickly enough means buffing anti-tank weapons which will conversely make vehicles week again.

 

My issue with the as a concept is they're a bunch of super heavy jerks running around stomping your army because anti-infantry is too inefficient, so they basically skew the game. But they're here now so we gotta deal with it eh.

 

I had a Knight army, including the 3 FW ones, sold it as I just didnt like being 'that guy'. It sucks because I honestly love Knights, Walkers, Mech's, whatever the type, since I was a kid playing Battletech.

 

I may be building out Tau Battlesuits now just to get that fix...

 

But yeah its not good for the game to have these Super Heavy Apocalypse units in the game. Just like D weapons, and the Mortal Wounds that it came to be, is another bad addition from Apocalypse. 

 

As far as a solution, yes its one of points values, and now OC values, otherwise vehicles get dumpstered.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

My issue with Knights as they stand (as opposed to my issue with them as a concept) is if vehicles are tougher in the edition because anti-tank changes then the Knights are tougher. If that's the case then killing them quickly enough means buffing anti-tank weapons which will conversely make vehicles week again.

 

My issue with the as a concept is they're a bunch of super heavy jerks running around stomping your army because anti-infantry is too inefficient, so they basically skew the game. But they're here now so we gotta deal with it eh.

While I think they shouldn’t have been added as their own army to begin with, now that they have been, the obvious solution was to make just Knights woundable by any weapon Str 4 and up or something on 6’s to represent hits on their leg servos, rather than warping the entire game around them, and punishing reasonable vehicles as well as the mini-Titans.

 

If a specific army or unit is warping the game, that army or unit should be adjusted, not the entire game. Otherwise you will break 10 things for everything that you “fix” with sweeping changes to game mechanics.

[Kallas]

6 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Make Melta and dedicated AT have enough S to only wound on 5s and/or 6s to avoid the spam units issue.

See, I don't think this would solve the 'spam issue': it would require spamming Melta for it to be effective. Without enough volume of Melta-tha-wounds-on-5s fire, you're not able to put out the wounds that then translate to damage.

 

Honestly, Melta needs a buff to wound when in Melta range: +[Melta X] to the Strength of the attack when in Melta range, or +1 to wound when in Melta range would give them that close-range punch that would justify their higher lethality, but also require units to cross the distance (and even deep striking Multi-meltas are outwith 9", so wouldn't benefit until the turn after - assuming your opponent leaves them alive). As is, Melta only hits hard at short range, but still suffers from reduced wounding efficiency (unless we're talking about Eradicators, who ignore all of this and have OOM built in on every single shot ) meaning their higher short-range damage is mitigated.

 

If spamming units with one type of weapon is an issue for balance, then GW needs to stop...y'know making new units that spam one type of weapon like, oh I don't know, literally every Primaris unit that comes out spamming one type of now-the-best-in-class 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Points increase?

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 minute ago, Kallas said:

See, I don't think this would solve the 'spam issue': it would require spamming Melta for it to be effective. Without enough volume of Melta-tha-wounds-on-5s fire, you're not able to put out the wounds that then translate to damage.

 

Honestly, Melta needs a buff to wound when in Melta range: +[Melta X] to the Strength of the attack when in Melta range, or +1 to wound when in Melta range would give them that close-range punch that would justify their higher lethality, but also require units to cross the distance (and even deep striking Multi-meltas are outwith 9", so wouldn't benefit until the turn after - assuming your opponent leaves them alive). As is, Melta only hits hard at short range, but still suffers from reduced wounding efficiency (unless we're talking about Eradicators, who ignore all of this and have OOM built in on every single shot ) meaning their higher short-range damage is mitigated.

 

If spamming units with one type of weapon is an issue for balance, then GW needs to stop...y'know making new units that spam one type of weapon like, oh I don't know, literally every Primaris unit that comes out spamming one type of now-the-best-in-class 

Totally agree Melta half range S increase to something which wounds on 3s? And more D.

They've always had a half range mechanism so it wouldn't break the game.

 

Totes agree on the Eldarmarines.

[Scribe]

Looking at it a bit here, my issue with the "Autopistol should have a shot" is..its both a fluff/lore disaster, and most critically, its a waste of time that you 'have to take the shot' because its a 1 in 6 of forcing the target in making a save. That adds up, and is probably the number one reason I sold my 6th edition Orks. I just hated rolled the dice for little to no impact but you HAVE TO because hey, it may land.

 

The fact a Lascannon is a 2 in 6 chance to wound a Knight...big wow.

 

(Yes, we are ignoring the AP impacts this is about the wasted time fishing for a 6.)

[Evil Eye]

Honestly the Eldarmarine aspect (no pun intended) of Primaris is one of my least favourite parts of them; taking a faction known for tactical flexibility, where any Marine can hypothetically take over from any other Marine in a pinch, and then giving them a bunch of extremely pigeonholed and over-specialized units annoys me no end, both from a fluff/thematic perspective and because of what it did to the game. I've long been an advocate of "few datasheets, many options" (see 3.5E Chaos Chosen, 4E Space Marine Veterans etc) and the Eldarmarine model is the opposite of that.

 

And yeah, I don't see why melta weapons can't go back to the classic "half range = death to vehicles" style. It makes them moderately threatening to light vehicles (and heavy infantry) at longer range, but a high-risk-high-reward option that can pop just about any tank at close range.

 

I'd also make an argument for flamers being able to cause trouble for vehicles by setting them on fire; in real life, fire is extremely dangerous to armoured vehicles, to the point a well-placed molotov cocktail is quite capable of taking out a tank. If that thing gets on the engine deck and the burning fuel is sucked into intakes or drips into cooling fans, bad things happen. I feel like use of flamer weapons against vehicles should be equal parts desperate gambit and an even higher-risk version of melta; it's not really a reliable source of anti-tank and you're still probably better off with a meltagun or a krak missile, but there is a chance that you can set a vehicle alight and cause it serious harm. Which would not only be a fluffy way of increasing the ability for some factions to deal with armour without making smallarms fire capable of finishing a Land Raider (Sisters especially would love this; those pesky knife-ears aren't going to be zipping around so smugly when their Falcon is on fire from an Immolator's inferno cannons!) but could also mean Flamers would finally stop being the red-headed stepchild of the special weapons. You'd have to handle it such that it was the risk of being set alight that made them dangerous to vehicles rather than just the strength of the attack itself but I think that's manageable?

[Plaguecaster]

I never really agreed with adding super heavies to the game for normal games as always thought that belonged more for apocalypse only.  Wasnt so bad as long as there was still a decent chance for armies that didnt use them to deal with them but the way things are now taking one let alone multiple like knights can do seriously gives a massive advantage that other armies just cant handle. They nerfed certain armies' ability to deal with said units removing access to Anti tank weapons or changing things like melta so no longer reliable that certain armies just struggle. I agree not every army should have dozens of reliable anti tank options but all armies should still have at least some as not every armies are loyalist marines who have far more better options. I will straight up refuse to play knights at anything under 1500 and even then be really not keen on 2000pts games with my DG being almost completely one sided and not fun to play at all. Lets not forget alot of armies only reliable anti tank is stuff like lascannons or krak missiles which most times are one shot with d6 damage so against high wound stuff like knights may be able to wound it but deal a measly handful of wounds if rolling unlucky only to get wiped out in one shot by their return fire since usually have far more better weapons and your precious few anti tank options have basically no protection so crumble like a piece of paper anytime serious antitank weapons are targeted at them.

Absolutely hate the melta changes, stuff like multi meltas got worse range and worse Str so can barely deal with vehicles anymore since all usually T10 or more, all because primaris spammed the heck out of those damn melta marines every other army has to suffer making them worse in order to help vehicles not be wiped off board so easy.

 

[chapter master 454]

Just want to put this out there:

 

How many of you complained about toughness being capped at 8? Just asking...

now you are complaining that your melta isn't strength 12 and lascannon strength 14 on basic troopers and not main guns? And weren't a good chunk complaining about rampant stat inflation?

Just saying.

 

Just saying some of you need to consider that Monkey Paws have ears.

And tread-heads like me, thank you for your lack of vigilance!

[Captain Idaho]

It's a little unfair to compare and conflate people being in favour of increasing the stat caps and the issue of the game being skewed by massive vehicles and insufficient anti-tank for some armies. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[OttoVonAwesome]

Little late to the party but imagine playing against the guy with 20 desolaters, every firing phase taking 20 minutes per squad to calculate all the goddamn d3 shots. Def wins worst sportsman award. Gotta wonder if he won by timing his opponents out.

[Cleon]

6 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

I'd also make an argument for flamers being able to cause trouble for vehicles by setting them on fire; in real life, fire is extremely dangerous to armoured vehicles, to the point a well-placed molotov cocktail is quite capable of taking out a tank. If that thing gets on the engine deck and the burning fuel is sucked into intakes or drips into cooling fans, bad things happen. 

 

Reading this my first thought was the new mechanics in 10th ed are the perfect opportunity to give flamers 'Anti Vehicle 5+' to make that happen

[Arkhanist]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

 

Reading this my first thought was the new mechanics in 10th ed are the perfect opportunity to give flamers 'Anti Vehicle 5+' to make that happen

 

That would actually make a lot of sense; flamethrowers were indeed a very effective weapon against fortifications and tanks in WWII because fire really does love finding all those little gaps. Catching on fire is one of a tank crew's worst nightmares. (the early nickname for the Sherman tank was "tommy cooker" due to its tendency to catch fire easily when hit by anti-tank rounds). Less effective since NBC hardening became a thing though, but they're making a bit of a comeback in umm, an ongoing european conflict.

 

Range is obviously the big drawback though, hence shaped charges (HEAT) delivered by missile or shell being the usual method these days.