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

[Redcomet]

All of these issues stem from 40k not knowing what kind of game it wants to be, and it being beholden to corporate GW as mainly a vessel to sell more and more plastic.

 

2nd had a lot of problems of its own back then, but I still think the vehicle rules back then where the most fun. But I know they wouldn’t work today with the army sizes that are the norm. 

[MoshJason]

21 hours ago, Warhead01 said:

If there was a mechanic where it took at least one turn to recharge or was a once per game thing I might agree. I'm not sure that it fits with this edition, feels like something that would have worked as a mechanic during 2nd. Granted not very well because Armour penetration for some weapons , like the lasgun would have been ST + D6 at best so they wouldn't have pipped it up all that much, maybe 2D6 or a D8 best case would have been STx2 +2D6 and that could go after a Rhino but not a lot more. 
In 10th I'd see maybe a once per game strat at most but not expect it.  

 

I don't remember the outcome of the simulations I did last edition, exactly - but without the Born Soldiers trait, it took like, in median, over a 1000 lasgun shots to destroy a single tank, and with the born soldiers trait, it took something like 350. 

 

So, like, I've never understood the hate for Lasguns wounding tanks when it's a clear desperation tactic that only ever works if you concentrate the entire firepower of an imperial guard army, and guard infantry loses models fast.

[Squark]

43 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

 

I don't remember the outcome of the simulations I did last edition, exactly - but without the Born Soldiers trait, it took like, in median, over a 1000 lasgun shots to destroy a single tank, and with the born soldiers trait, it took something like 350. 

 

So, like, I've never understood the hate for Lasguns wounding tanks when it's a clear desperation tactic that only ever works if you concentrate the entire firepower of an imperial guard army, and guard infantry loses models fast.

I did the math last night for intercessors vs. Armigers. Last edition, it took an average of 108 bolt rifle attacks for an unled group of intercessors to kill one Armiger. That doubled with the new profile (Although it drops to 173 if you manage to get heavy on every attack). Edit: 432 attacks for a guardsmen, of you're curious. If we move to a Leman Russ, the guardsmen need 936 shots, while the Intercessors need 351.

 

Small arms fire vs. Vehicles is just an emotional band aid to allow people to feel slightly better by scratching the paint or finish off a tank with 1-2 wounds remaining.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Squark

[Rain]

55 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

 

I don't remember the outcome of the simulations I did last edition, exactly - but without the Born Soldiers trait, it took like, in median, over a 1000 lasgun shots to destroy a single tank, and with the born soldiers trait, it took something like 350. 

 

So, like, I've never understood the hate for Lasguns wounding tanks when it's a clear desperation tactic that only ever works if you concentrate the entire firepower of an imperial guard army, and guard infantry loses models fast.

To be perfectly clear, the fact that lasguns can technically wound a Land Raider is dumb from an immersion standpoint, but it is not the game design problem behind “everything can wound everything.”

 

As has been previously stated, the game design problem is mid str weapons designed to kill heavy infantry (e.g. plasma weapons) that have good AP and deal 2-3 damage per wound. Especially if such a weapon has lethal hits or devastating wounds. Because such weapons can also wound vehicles and monsters despite being relatively low str (relative to a true AT gun) they go from anti heavy infantry to anti-everything. 

[Karhedron]

I think Plasma is going to be less prevelant in 10th. Most flavours have lost a point of AP while vehicles have gone up in toughness. Plasma is still good vs elite infantry and light vehicles but even Overcharged Hellblasters now need 5s to Wound a Rhino. Plasma might be useful for chip damage but I don't think it will cut the mustard anymore as a primary source of anti-tank.

[Scribe]

2 hours ago, MoshJason said:

 

I don't remember the outcome of the simulations I did last edition, exactly - but without the Born Soldiers trait, it took like, in median, over a 1000 lasgun shots to destroy a single tank, and with the born soldiers trait, it took something like 350. 

 

So, like, I've never understood the hate for Lasguns wounding tanks when it's a clear desperation tactic that only ever works if you concentrate the entire firepower of an imperial guard army, and guard infantry loses models fast.

 

1 hour ago, Squark said:

I did the math last night for intercessors vs. Armigers. Last edition, it took an average of 108 bolt rifle attacks for an unled group of intercessors to kill one Armiger. That doubled with the new profile (Although it drops to 173 if you manage to get heavy on every attack). Edit: 432 attacks for a guardsmen, of you're curious. If we move to a Leman Russ, the guardsmen need 936 shots, while the Intercessors need 351.

 

Small arms fire vs. Vehicles is just an emotional band aid to allow people to feel slightly better by scratching the paint or finish off a tank with 1-2 wounds remaining.

 

And this is exactly why I hate it. Its a waste of time to even roll out most of the time, but to play 'optimally' you have to do it, because you may fish up that 6, 16% of the time before rerolls.

 

Needless, a just a pacifier the majority of the time.

[spessmarine]

Three Big boys making an army makes it very swingy, hard to land in a nice middle when you have so few minis where losing one is a big problem. I think AoS has had some balancing quirks with its equivalent, Sons of Behemat, but don't know if things are good there either.

 

I feel Armigers fill a big role not just for adding options to an otherwise two kit faction, but filling in as a sort of cannon fodder equivalent. Things you can take more of and lose more of, relatively speaking.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Late to the party with alot of pages to go through, but I'm assuming Death Guard are number one with their toned down lethality, less movement, less durability and increased point costs and those cheeky Eldar are in dead last with their terrible dice mechanics and cheap point costs?

 

What? Eldar are in first and Death Guard are dead last you say? NOBODY could have saw that coming. Nobody...

Edited July 1, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy

[Arkhanist]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Late to the party with alot of pages to go through, but I'm assuming Death Guard are number one with their toned down lethality, less movement, less durability and increased point costs and those cheeky Eldar are in dead last with their terrible dice mechanics and cheap point costs?

 

What? Eldar are in first and Death Guard are dead last you say? NOBODY could have saw that coming. Nobody...

 

A chart you'll be amazed by then. (source)

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Arkhanist

[Marshal Mittens]

In the 1st to 7th edition game, AV 14 could only be killed by a lascannon on a 5 or 6, and melta on a 6, unless you were inside melta gun range. 

[Marshal Mittens]

Really surprised Admech are so high. Not surprised by Death Guard. Honestly Deathguard need something to make them tougher. So many other armies getting FNP and -1DMG, when deathguard lost it. Honestly, as all are possessed, they should be 3+/5++/5+++ and would feel tough as nails. 

[MARK0SIAN]

The difference in the two Knight forces is interesting. The disparity would seem to indicate their isn’t an issue with the core rules or the stats of the knights or the efficacy of anti-tank. The problem must lie in the rules that are specific to Imperial Knights so that’s where GW should be directing their fix.

[Scribe]

6 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

The difference in the two Knight forces is interesting. The disparity would seem to indicate their isn’t an issue with the core rules or the stats of the knights or the efficacy of anti-tank. The problem must lie in the rules that are specific to Imperial Knights so that’s where GW should be directing their fix.

 

Bondsman is big, but the individual Knights rules are also better Imperial side.

 

I'll pause now for the gasps of shock to subside that Imperials get the better rules.

 

Warden + Unyielding, I bet its gross.

[MARK0SIAN]

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Bondsman is big, but the individual Knights rules are also better Imperial side.

 

I'll pause now for the gasps of shock to subside that Imperials get the better rules.

 

Warden + Unyielding, I bet its gross.

Consider me gasping :)

 

I’ll admit I haven’t looked at the chaos Knight rules in details as it’s not an army I own but I can imagine they’re not as good as the Imperial ones.

 

Still, I think it still proves it’s not a stat problem or an issue with rules like towering. More that the Imperials got faction buffs that are out of hand.

[Rain]

So, Eldar, Knights, Custodes, and Thousand Sons being the top 4 should not shock anyone with a double digit or greater number of brain cells, but man, Genestealer Cults are coming out of nowhere with that 55%+ win rate. Just when you least expect them, thriving amid a state of disorder and havoc. Very on brand.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Rain

[The Unseen]

At least my local group assumed GSC would be really good, near infinite re-spawning units is... kind of ridiculous.

The only suprising thing on that chart is Admech, I guess the, what was it, breacher spam that looked like the datasheet was strong enough to carry on its own? I'm not sure.

[Arkhanist]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

So, Eldar, Knights, Custodes, and Thousand Sons being the top 4 should not shock anyone with a double digit or greater number of brain cells, but man, Genestealer Cults are coming out of nowhere with that 55%+ win rate. Just when you least expect them, thriving amid a state of disorder and havoc. Very on brand.

 

Some impact this early will be how much your faction has changed since 9th; e.g. BA (3rd bottom, yay!) are significantly weaker in CC than before and less mobile, but if they take the Gladius and more guns are basically space marines. So one reason they're 12 points lower than SM is likely that people are still playing their Sanguinary Guard x3 etc lists, rushing into melee, and finding out they're just not as killy any more. So if GSC play similarly to they did before (and have always been a high skill army, too), that's a benefit.

 

I suspect GSC are also somewhat of an anti-meta army; with very flexible deep strike, respawning cheap infantry for miles, good damage combos and no big targets, they're not as vulnerable to big guns and mortal wound spam from e.g. eldar, knights and 1k sons. Their main weakness is probably to massed blast weapons, which isn't something most are going to be taking right now.

 

Orks somewhat similar to GSC if played as green horde, and beastsnaggas have some very good anti-knight options.

 

Mechanicus? No idea, I'd've expected them to be significantly lower based on the complaining!

[Scribe]

I've been fighting with myself all day.

 

"I want to play Knights."

"You know you dont want to do that again, it went bad before, and now they are a meta pick!"

"Yeah but like, I like Knights."

"Dont be a fool, you know you are going to spend $1000, a bunch of time, and GW will nerf them into the ground, you KNOW IT."

"Knights are so cool though!."

"Look at what they do to the game, you care about the game dont you, why support this toxic inclusion?!"

"Oh..Plastic Castigator..."

"...you know what...fine."

[Interrogator Stobz]

Just add you new shiny plastic Castigator to a Cusdodes army.

Then you can be almost an Eldar 'Guy'.

[Emperor Ming]

Interesting, so Admech index isn't as bad as its being made out to be?

[Helycon]

15 hours ago, Arkhanist said:

 

A chart you'll be amazed by then. (source)

 

 

Whilst it being a fun chart, it might not exactly be super relevant in other ways. If the 4000 games at the top is per faction, then yes. If it is a total of 4000 games, then it's a bit more difficult to parse.

[Marshal Reinhard]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

Interesting, so Admech index isn't as bad as its being made out to be?

Didn't we hear bemoanment of pretty much every single index as they were revealed? (With a few notable exceptions perhaps, and on the flipside a few were evidently justified like Death guard et al)

[Arkhanist]

41 minutes ago, Helycon said:

Whilst it being a fun chart, it might not exactly be super relevant in other ways. If the 4000 games at the top is per faction, then yes. If it is a total of 4000 games, then it's a bit more difficult to parse.

The game has been out for a week. Nothing is going to be close to ironclad yet, but it's an interesting sample.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

16 hours ago, Marshal Mittens said:

In the 1st to 7th edition game, AV 14 could only be killed by a lascannon on a 5 or 6, and melta on a 6, unless you were inside melta gun range. 

Gauss weapons were a thing in 6th... so was immotek and his lightning shenanigans. They also introduced Grav weaponry in 6th, and Haywire has been a thing since Dark Eldar at least 5th. 

 

5th edition was the last time vehichles were good.

[Squark]

Gauss has been a thing since 3rd