Index Errata and Tournament Companion

[Plaguecaster]

A well deserved nerf to Eldar will be greatly appreciated, a complete joke their rules are so powerful and op compared to far worse armies like DG.

I hope they actually address how bad it is for armies like DG and actually do something to make them more balanced compared to the stronger armies as just lazy points changes won't do anything 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Plaguecaster

[Karhedron]

10 hours ago, Halandaar said:

If Combat Patrol stays static maybe I'll give that a crack but honestly this tournament-focused update cadence is a massive turn off for me.

 

I realise tournement play is not for everyone but there are benefits to this approach. If you fix and balance the game for the most competitive players then everyone benefits from it. Even the beer and pretzels crowd will have a better time with more levelplaying field.

[Orion]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I realise tournement play is not for everyone but there are benefits to this approach. If you fix and balance the game for the most competitive players then everyone benefits from it. Even the beer and pretzels crowd will have a better time with more levelplaying field.

Do the beer an pretzels crowd have a better time though?

I hear this a lot, advocating for tournament players doing the play-testing but I'm not sure it works in practice. 

One big issue I see with this is some pretty garbage internal balance. Every one faction might have an even winrate, but that's solely measured between competitive lists, which may not be representative of your average joe. Meanwhile unit balance can be way off, and balance slates often don't try to address this, seeing it as irrelevant given the faction might already be "balanced". Free wargear will also exacerbate this.

 

Then there's also the overall gameplay/fun-factor. How much mental load is required to real rules/special rules and how much you have to be in-tune with that to stay competitive.

 

Anyway, I might be wrong on all this. It's more just impressions from coming back into the hobby after a big break and finding the whole feel behind the game quite different.

It feels more hostile. It feels more "You're doing it wrong" And that makes me wonder if a focus on competitive play created this.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JayJapanB
grammar

[Brother Christopher]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I realise tournement play is not for everyone but there are benefits to this approach. If you fix and balance the game for the most competitive players then everyone benefits from it. Even the beer and pretzels crowd will have a better time with more levelplaying field.

 

You are right but I don't think anyone would dispute this.

 

The problem is that, as I gather from the community's input, GW in recent memory did not fix, nor balance the game. And we're left with a constant stream of updates resulting in bloat and causing confusion to people who are out of the loop. It's not a great start for an edition, for sure, especially for the bear and pretzels crew. I was really hoping that we'd have a nice reset, like with the 8th edition indexes that worked surprisingly well.

 

They continue to sell defective rules and I'm beginning to think that they're doing it on purpose, to drive engagement or something. After all, if you have to pay constant attention to what's going on with rules, you are more deeply involved with the game and, perhaps, more eager to buy new models that also happen to have decent rules that month.

[sairence]

I realise this inevitably always turns into a circular argument, but why are the balance updates, designed primarily for competitive play, such a major hindrance for beer and pretzels players? They're intended for that style of gameplay.

 

And if you then say "i can only get pick up games in the competitive format", well I'm truly sorry, but then you're not playing the casual game you are looking for. But that's not GWs fault.

 

Overall, the balance approach has been a success in my opinion. Throughout 9th, they've gotten better and better at timely fixes. Would it be even better if all Codexes were fully balances on release? Sure, but that's unlikely to ever happen, partially because of how GW designs stuff, and partially because the amount of armies represents an absolute nightmare behemoth to get right.

 

Besides, they are slowing the process down for 10th. Balance dataslates are only every 6 months now. And if this is so fast-paced that you can't get a few games in, then  all seriousness, I don't think competitive balance updates should really be a concern for your games. Just stick to your Index/Codex.

[Halandaar]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I realise tournement play is not for everyone but there are benefits to this approach. If you fix and balance the game for the most competitive players then everyone benefits from it. Even the beer and pretzels crowd will have a better time with more levelplaying field.

 

Obviously a balanced game is better for everyone, I am not at all disputing that. My issue is that the "balance" (such as it is) is happening on the fly and the rules of the game are different every time I play it.

 

If they actually put a decent amount of time/money/effort into balancing and testing the product before they released it then we could have a viable game from the outset and get three years playtime with it, rather than the situation we've had for the last few years where the pendulum swings wildly every few weeks because they release broken things, then fix some of those things, then release more broken things, then have to unfix the things from before in the next update and then re-break the meta with the next Codex a month later and so on for three years.

 

That might be acceptable if you're playing hundreds of games per edition and you can treat these things like seasons with modifiers to the game, but for me it just makes the whole game feel very unapproachable, which is unfortunate given the length GW has gone to in stripping other things out to achieve the opposite.

 

[Ephialtes]

17 minutes ago, sairence said:

I realise this inevitably always turns into a circular argument, but why are the balance updates, designed primarily for competitive play, such a major hindrance for beer and pretzels players? They're intended for that style of gameplay.

 

It's a fallacy to think that one style of play will not impact the experience of another. GW themselves acknowledge this in the video; they're trying to make the flow of one to the other easier and simpler to pick up. That has to have impacts both ways.

 

E.g. It'l be interesting to see how the "no model can be on the objective marker" core rule will play out in the community now that tournaments have abandoned it.

 

Quote

And if you then say "i can only get pick up games in the competitive format", well I'm truly sorry, but then you're not playing the casual game you are looking for. But that's not GWs fault.

 

It's 100% GWs fault. They design the game, the system and the context of the game. If most of their chatter post release date is about competitive play, then that becomes the primary context. If their quarterly points updates, campaigns and bi-annual balance changes are about supporting the competitive scene, than that is the scene. And that scene is hugely impactful on the casual players unless they choose to no longer engage with with the context, which would be weird, right?

 

Quote

Throughout 9th, they've gotten better and better at timely fixes. Would it be even better if all Codexes were fully balances on release? Sure, but that's unlikely to ever happen, partially because of how GW designs stuff, and partially because the amount of armies represents an absolute nightmare behemoth to get right.

 

Both of these things are also GWs fault, contributing to the context.

 

Quote

Besides, they are slowing the process down for 10th. Balance dataslates are only every 6 months now. And if this is so fast-paced that you can't get a few games in, then  all seriousness, I don't think competitive balance updates should really be a concern for your games. Just stick to your Index/Codex.

 

 

- 6 days in and we've had a core rule abandoned

- an inbound set of changes (points? more rules?) expected 1 month after release

- quarterly points updates, the first being "mid September" (so possibly 2x points updates in the first 3 months?)

- wider balance changes every 6 months

 

 

That may be slower but it is not slow.

 

[KnightofSigismund]

What was the core rule that was abandoned?

[Arkhanist]

54 minutes ago, KnightofSigismund said:

What was the core rule that was abandoned?

 

I'm guessing that's a reference to objective markers.

 

Quote

 In Leviathan Tournament Missions, models can end any type of move on top of an objective marker.

 

Designer’s Note: In the Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules, objective markers are physical artefacts that models cannot end a move on, representing vital data caches, xenos relics, Chaos portals or anything else that suits your narrative. While this adds to the cinematic nature of the battlefield and offers exciting hobby opportunities, it can sometimes result in model-positioning circumstances that not everyone will enjoy equally. As such, these guidelines recommend treating objective markers as flat, circular markers 40mm in diameter that offer no impediment to the movement or placement of models.

 

Basically, they realised people putting objectives near or in terrain can accidentally, or intentionally, block models with larger bases (such as dreadnoughts or knights) from charging enermy models by the objective, because you can't finish your move on top of of one. So they scrapped it for tournament play. Which wasn't exactly hard to anticipate being a problem; I recall a discussion on B&C about that exact issue shortly after the rule was revealed, especially given the encouragement towards more terrain on the board.

 

While the core rules overall seem mostly fine, overall between points, massively out of whack faction and unit balance (& legends) it feels like the whole thing was desperately rushed out to meet the arbitrary 3 year deadline.

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Arkhanist

[Petitioner's City]

On balancing and fixing, how often do tournament players play non-optimal or below-average units? If GW gets no "data" from these, how are they going to improve them? Relying on top level tournaments means relying on a much smaller group of units, detachments, etc.

 

There was a really interesting question on an AMA with James Hewitt a few years ago about maths.

 

 

 

 

I do wonder how balancing even occurs in the face of so many units and - if using tournaments really as your data source - much too skewed data?

 

 

 

 
 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[Ephialtes]

1 hour ago, Arkhanist said:

 

I'm guessing that's a reference to objective markers.

 

 

Basically, they realised people putting objectives near or in terrain can accidentally, or intentionally, block models with larger bases (such as dreadnoughts or knights) from charging enermy models by the objective, because you can't finish your move on top of of one. So they scrapped it for tournament play. Which wasn't exactly hard to anticipate being a problem; I recall a discussion on B&C about that exact issue shortly after the rule was revealed, especially given the encouragement towards more terrain on the board.

 

While the core rules overall seem mostly fine, overall between points, massively out of whack faction and unit balance (& legends) it feels like the whole thing was desperately rushed out to meet the arbitrary 3 year deadline.

 

 

Correct - so we are now in a position where a rule that generated a community-wide "eh?" has been rolled back but only under the guise of 'tournament rules', leaving the problem in place for casual play.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the casual play communities respond to that in their clubs and FLGS'. Sure, Bob and Dave who are only playing in their garage may never stumble across it, but in any meaningful discourse that rule change is going to come up. It's a great and very specific example of how tournament/matched play rules impact casual play (terrain/terrain layout being another one).

Edited July 1, 2023 by Ephialtes

[Kastor Krieg]

That heavy bolter / Orks example is such BS though. Your battlefield's weapon value is defined by the most popular engagement range - and this in turn by the most common weapon range . And that's 24" for 40k. So Hvy bolters should pay premium for range and strength and volume of fire, as well as the +1 on stationary Heavy.

 

I'm not sure what's so hard about this. There is a common denominator, even if you deploy on short edges of a 90" table, you still want to get into most common weapons' range as soon as possible.

[sairence]

1 hour ago, Ephialtes said:

 

Correct - so we are now in a position where a rule that generated a community-wide "eh?" has been rolled back but only under the guise of 'tournament rules', leaving the problem in place for casual play.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the casual play communities respond to that in their clubs and FLGS'. Sure, Bob and Dave who are only playing in their garage may never stumble across it, but in any meaningful discourse that rule change is going to come up. It's a great and very specific example of how tournament/matched play rules impact casual play (terrain/terrain layout being another one).

 

It's not so much of a mistake though, and it hasn't been rolled back. In the Metawatch article they talk about that rule having been introduced because they want people to use cool, flavourful three-dimensional objective markers. Shrines, consoles, etc. And for those the rule makes perfect sense.

 

For competitive play on the other hand that reason is entirely irrelevant, so for comp play only it's not meant to be used.

[phandaal]

5 hours ago, JayJapanB said:

Do the beer an pretzels crowd have a better time though?

 

Yes. Have you ever had a "casual" game where one side gets obliterated because their rules are crap while their opponents' are OP? I have seen it, and I have accidentally been on the crushing side before. The disparity between some armies has been so bad in the recent past that people would actively have to try to make a bad list with an OP codex just to make things kind of fair.

 

The only people I can imagine having fun in those scenarios are the "roll dice and push plastic fun" type. And if someone is happy no matter what, they should continue being happy if other people can also enjoy themselves. Although I am a little jealous of that eternal sunshine. 

[Ephialtes]

47 minutes ago, sairence said:

It's not so much of a mistake though, and it hasn't been rolled back.

 

It's a core rule of the game that has been specifically rolled back for tournament play. I'm not sure how you can contest that. Your other arguments are a little back-to-front.

 

Quote

In the Metawatch article they talk about that rule having been introduced because they want people to use cool, flavourful three-dimensional objective markers. Shrines, consoles, etc. And for those the rule makes perfect sense.

 

They have justified the change to the rule in this game mode by explaining a scenario where objective markers blocking end of movement is reasonable in the other game mode.

 

But the rules of the game state simply that objective markers can be anything suitable, while recommending a 40mm diameter marker. And, indeed, in the Leviathan box they are exactly that - a flat, 40mm round marker. There is no insistence nor dictat that they be 3D, that they be flavoursome or that they be 'cinematic' (the language they used in the video).

 

Quote

For competitive play on the other hand that reason is entirely irrelevant, so for comp play only it's not meant to be used.

 

It's only irrelevant because they've specifically stated that tournament play doesn't use 3D objective markers and they changed the rule. Before they published the tournament rules - dealing with challenges the rules as written created - we all knew this was a problem.

 

Where we are now is we have a rule for casual play that is justified by the possible presence of 3D objective markers, which in the absence of them makes no sense. And we have a rule for tournament play which solves a problem they themselves created.

 

And those things feed into each other, creating an impact at both ends of the game (which is what I'm arguing - there isn't some unbreachable boundary between these things).

 

Funny thing is, it's all solvable by a single edit to a single line of text. "Models can move over objective markers as if they were not there, but they cannot end a move on top of an objective marker if it is represented by a model, such as an ammo crate, shrine or portal."

 

There you go! Every game mode does the same thing, all options available to everyone, no possible bleed between game types, fill your boots!

[Redcomet]

I know it is apples and oranges. But I have played a lot os Shatterpoint these past weeks, and as a game it is just leagues ahead of everything GW has created these past 10-15 years.

 

GW still makes some hood and fun games, but their inability to make 40k a good and consistent gaming experience is honestly shocking 

[Misterduch]

On 6/30/2023 at 3:08 PM, Petitioner's City said:

 

Would you rather errors and mistakes weren't addressed? 

 

hot take; GW could have just bothered to balance the game a bit better.

 

Some of the rules interactions as shipped were downright insulting

[Petitioner's City]

28 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

I know it is apples and oranges. But I have played a lot os Shatterpoint these past weeks, and as a game it is just leagues ahead of everything GW has created these past 10-15 years.

 

GW still makes some hood and fun games, but their inability to make 40k a good and consistent gaming experience is honestly shocking 

 

Counterpoint - while I agree about its quality, how much content does Shatterpoint have?

 

If GW were to start from scratch and "end times" 40k, yes they could do a shatterpoint. But since they can't - as people hate their models losing rules - I'm not sure what they can do? 

 

I guess Warcry and the latest kill team were versions of this - radically smaller, very different mechanics (heck AoS too) - but I'm not sure the 40k fanbase would adjust either to a radical culling of units (see the small furore over legends, or the bitter moaning about daemons and militia being absent from heresy for some time), or a new game framework (eg something of the simplicty and scale of one page rules or f28). 

 

But I would love GW to do something utterly radical, for sure :) 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[OttoVonAwesome]

My beef is the board set ups. Static board layouts and all ruins. It creates a completely different meta to the main game where other things than ruins are used. They call this a shooting edition but given the cluttered tournement set ups that every influencer and gaming group wants to play on is it really? Melee troops are basically hidden right up until they in range to charge no transport necessary. Is indirect and Towering really so powerful or is it beacuase there's zero sight lines on the board.

 

So wich meta gets balanced? Well it's the one that's skewed towards foot slogging powerful melee and indirect fire and not the so called normal one with sightlines and general cover where transports and Intercessors are more valuable than Assualt Intercessors and Custodes reign supreme. So in the end anyone playing with varied terrain types gets slowly buggered over time by the success of units in a completely different meta one wich is essentially city fight cuase that's the one generating all the play data.

[Orion]

11 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Yes. Have you ever had a "casual" game where one side gets obliterated because their rules are crap while their opponents' are OP? I have seen it, and I have accidentally been on the crushing side before. The disparity between some armies has been so bad in the recent past that people would actively have to try to make a bad list with an OP codex just to make things kind of fair.

 

The only people I can imagine having fun in those scenarios are the "roll dice and push plastic fun" type. And if someone is happy no matter what, they should continue being happy if other people can also enjoy themselves. Although I am a little jealous of that eternal sunshine. 

 

All I'm saying is that it's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. There is an opportunity cost to only testing with competitive players.

They are going to see niche interactions that will effect their games but they might not consider the match ups and load-outs a casual game will have. 

If a unit is "bad" and the answer is "well, don't use it" that's not balanced for casual play.

[Dracos]

13 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

On balancing and fixing, how often do tournament players play non-optimal or below-average units? If GW gets no "data" from these, how are they going to improve them? Relying on top level tournaments means relying on a much smaller group of units, detachments, etc.

 

There was a really interesting question on an AMA with James Hewitt a few years ago about maths.

 

 

 

 

I do wonder how balancing even occurs in the face of so many units and - if using tournaments really as your data source - much too skewed data?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 
 

 

if units aren’t being played that shows up in the tournament data. GW can and should address that issue when it pops up. Especially in a six month cycle.  That aside it can never hurt a beer and pretzel player to have the game balanced and they unlike the tournament player can choose to adjust any rule they wish with a friend d in a garage game. 
 

I’s in the store pick up game with a stranger one is just going to have to accept match play has been and always will be the most accepted style of game to play in that environment. It’s the fastest most fair way to get a game in with each player feeling that had a “fair” chance to win as the other player. 
 

Never hurts to ask as you set up. I’ve had any number of games a player asked if they could try or adjust something. Most time it’s not unreasonable or gamey so why not. 

[Scribe]

13 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

On balancing and fixing, how often do tournament players play non-optimal or below-average units? If GW gets no "data" from these, how are they going to improve them? Relying on top level tournaments means relying on a much smaller group of units, detachments, etc.

 

There was a really interesting question on an AMA with James Hewitt a few years ago about maths.

 

 

 

 

I do wonder how balancing even occurs in the face of so many units and - if using tournaments really as your data source - much too skewed data?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 
 

 

 

The sad thing here, is that the take away is that math can only be a starting point, they dont really lean into it, and its about testing.

 

When we also clearly see that they do not proof read, or test either to a sufficient degree.

 

So they are basing the game on a gut feel, and calling it good to ship.

[01RTB01]

I've played since 2nd and I was deeply concerned when the competitive leaders waded in last edition/ just before.

 

The problem with 40k in 9th was the internal balance was awful. Generally speaking the newest codex would romp a few tournaments, nerfs and point changes were then intro'd. This pattern ran through 9th Ed. I consider myself a reasonably competent player but unless my lists were skewed I'd just get stomped all the time. I was forced into making list choices rather than being able to take what I want and win by virtue of playing well. Looking for win rates as justification for balance is also weak and plays to the view that a codex should be designed to win. It shouldn't, it needs to be designed to represent that army on the tabletop and give a thematic experience. If people want competitive then chess has been available for a long old time...

 

Winning is only part of playing and personally the game needs to be fun for both players otherwise it becomes quite poor quite quickly. 9th rewarded codex choice more than anything else. The rinse and repeat of 9th was frankly awful.

 

40k was never conceived as a competitive game yet they've tried to force evolution that it has become a competitive game to appeal to tournament crowds and such.

 

The sheer number of units means that developing balance is harder but the codexes of 9th seemed purely designed to sell models and little else.

 

The win for tenth is free online rules. The problem is there are balance issues out the gate and this is before codexes even drop. 

 

Honestly, I'll give tenth a go but I really want to get 2nd/4th or 5th going again locally. It was simple, fun and relatively balanced. You could take a take all comers list and give people a game. Honestly, 40k last, for me, felt like that in 8th.

 

Much like Anakin, the competitive scene was supposed to "bring balance to the force, not turn it to ashes,". Personally it's failed horribly in its prime reason for existence.

 

GW sales and revenues are excellent but the standard of game is going backwards as quick as the models are improving. I'll reserve judgement for tenth but my expectations are even lower than they are for the preview shows...

 

Thankfully we're in a Golden Age of Geekery so there's plenty of alternatives. However, it's sad as 40k was my first game back in 1993. I'd rather stay in to bat, 30 and out would be sad.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I'd really like to know why an Acastus Porphyrion at 645 points has better guns at killing Landraider equivalents than a Warhound at 1100 points.

Whilst I can appreciate the Hound will survive longer, you can field Two Porphyrion in a 2000 point game.

 

Math says:

-One Twin Magma Lascannon will do 16.5D to a LR, that's an entirely dead LR, a Porph has two.

And other anti infantry weapons after killing Two whole LRs in a turn.

-One Turbo Laser Destroyer will do 10D to a LR. Hounds can have two. Warhound Titans need two Turbo Laser Destroyers to kill one LR.

Then nothing else for the turn.

FWIW: a Hound Plasma Blastgun on Supercharge will only do 7D to a LR.

 

Whilst 'gut feeling' is a great way to cost things, many times maths is better. At least as a starting point.

 

TL/DR: buy a Porphyrion. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

TL/DR: buy a Porphyrion. 

 

$825 Canadian, then the massive shipping/import fees, and oh whats this... "Temporarily Out of Stock" I wonder why...