10th edition Rules updated

[MoshJason]

8 minutes ago, Brother Christopher said:

Nah, honestly, this is beyond a mess. So GW appears to call 40k a miniatures game. The acquisition of game-ready miniatures is quite a process: it's expensive and time-consuming. Yet the company behind this, a company with supposedly decades of experience in miniature making and game design treats its game as a poorly optimised, buggy digital game, in line with the current low standards in the video game industry. It's an absolute mess and disgrace and the people who suffer the most are casual hobbyists who can't plan out their armies since whatever they do can, and probably will, be invalidated on a whim. Oh, and on top of that, there's the looming threat of models not being supported any more, which is fun for old-timers like me.

 

I used to be set on giving 10th edition a go and actually putting my models to some use. But it seems it won't be much different (or much better) from 9th. I've waited this long, so I can wait another couple of months for things to settle but if the state of the game doesn't improve (in the subjective sense), then I think this is going to be it for me. I've waited 1.5 editions for the industry-leading company to put out a streamlined, playable game. I think that's enough. Good thing there's Grimdark Future from OPR.

 

Also, thanks for pointing out how Sword Brethren were nerfed. Wow, just wow.

I actually see this as them, y'know, treating it as something worth playing? like, they are going, hey people dislike some of the rules. Let's fix it, instead of doing like 7th edition where they just went, it's printed! Nothing we can do !

 

[Marshal Reinhard]

I think everything can be summed up as (in a neat little package that GW corporate can understand): "Spend. More. On. The Game." Play test more, and well ahead of time. Proof read everything before you print. Iron out the kinks. Then do it all again. Not all of the investment goes into the model design, yeah?

[Lexington]

I would honestly pay some money to have an inside look at what went on in the Studio and elsewhere during the development of 10th, and what’s going on there right now during this disaster of a release and the scrambling to fix it. They spent 9th trying to overcomplicate things in a “gamey” manner, and now it feels like they’ve given up on that and are writing the rules purely as a marketing exercise for new/potential players. It’s so bizarre.

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

I actually see this as them, y'know, treating it as something worth playing? like, they are going, hey people dislike some of the rules. Let's fix it, instead of doing like 7th edition where they just went, it's printed! Nothing we can do !

 

 

I think the idea is maybe they could have actually done better before it was released.

 

EDIT: I have to thank them though. There is no way I now buy multiple of the Cerastus kit, as they are too expensive to take in multiples I think at this point, and their points hike has saved me from buying another box of Armigers.

 

I, again, wait in trepidation for the point at which they come up with the 'genius' idea to add points costs to upgrades again and throw things into total chaos, but until then I can rest easy knowing that I can get to my 2000 point army providing GW with less $.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Scribe

[Rusted Boltgun]

3 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

I think everything can be summed up as (in a neat little package that GW corporate can understand): "Spend. More. On. The Game." Play test more, and well ahead of time. Proof read everything before you print. Iron out the kinks. Then do it all again. Not all of the investment goes into the model design, yeah?

 

Absolutely, spend more time, not just money. Stretch that release schedule to free up manufacturing time for Specialist Games and avoid the recent fiascos. A double win?

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, Lexington said:

I would honestly pay some money to have an inside look at what went on in the Studio and elsewhere during the development of 10th, and what’s going on there right now during this disaster of a release and the scrambling to fix it. They spent 9th trying to overcomplicate things in a “gamey” manner, and now it feels like they’ve given up on that and are writing the rules purely as a marketing exercise for new/potential players. It’s so bizarre.

 

I am legitimately curious as well. Not as a "gotcha" kind of thing, but just from a business operations perspective.

[Nephaston]

38 minutes ago, RedFox said:

Wow Knights were hit hard!

 

Also sword brethren lost the master crafted power sword AND received a point hike? Whyyy

Classic GW: We have two possible individual fixes for this unit with only one needed. I know! LET'S DO BOTH! Man we're so good at balance.

 

Makes me wonder how many people work on these patches and if they even talk to each other, as I can imagine one going " hey, these weapons are master crafted now, so they need a points hike", while the other went "hey these are not supposed to be master crafted, let's fix it".

[Scribe]

Just now, phandaal said:

 

I am legitimately curious as well. Not as a "gotcha" kind of thing, but just from a business operations perspective.

 

Maybe in a few years we find out that like AoS release, it was an absolute clown show.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

21 minutes ago, Brother Christopher said:

 

Also, thanks for pointing out how Sword Brethren were nerfed. Wow, just wow.

They went up by 3pts per model and the unit upper size was changed so that you only need two boxes to build a legal unit, not three or two and a Castellan box. Saving new players money.

They otherwise haven't changed one iota from the PDF index.

[jaxom]

35 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

What if we went a step further and gave individual weapons their own goodness numbers? We could call it "Equipment Power Level." Then your unit has a Model Power Level, and you add the Equipment Power and Model Power to get your unit's overall Power Level?

 

Such a system would surely reduce the number of datasheets required, and even allow Games Workshop to target specific weapons or models rather than everything all at once.

 

But this is all pie in the sky thinking. No one has ever done anything like that before.

I think The answer, within GW’s current paradigm is to kill the sacred cow of basing certain special and heavy weapons on past editions and making them equivalent to their traditionally more expensive counterparts. Flamer doing  12” Torrent Ignore Cover  1d6+3A 6Str 0AP 1D is what I would think is worth 15-20 points of dedicated anti-infantry. Heavy flamer could add some AP or range while still being 6Str. Then Pyreblasters keep their current profile because they’re a whole-squad weapon.

Edited July 5, 2023 by jaxom

[Doghouse]

33 minutes ago, Brother Christopher said:

Nah, honestly, this is beyond a mess. So GW appears to call 40k a miniatures game. The acquisition of game-ready miniatures is quite a process: it's expensive and time-consuming. Yet the company behind this, a company with supposedly decades of experience in miniature making and game design treats its game as a poorly optimised, buggy digital game, in line with the current low standards in the video game industry. It's an absolute mess and disgrace and the people who suffer the most are casual hobbyists who can't plan out their armies since whatever they do can, and probably will, be invalidated on a whim. Oh, and on top of that, there's the looming threat of models not being supported any more, which is fun for old-timers like me.

 

I used to be set on giving 10th edition a go and actually putting my models to some use. But it seems it won't be much different (or much better) from 9th. I've waited this long, so I can wait another couple of months for things to settle but if the state of the game doesn't improve (in the subjective sense), then I think this is going to be it for me. I've waited 1.5 editions for the industry-leading company to put out a streamlined, playable game. I think that's enough. Good thing there's Grimdark Future from OPR.

 

Also, thanks for pointing out how Sword Brethren were nerfed. Wow, just wow.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.  

 

I'm taking a break from 40k till things settle down and see where I stand. I don't enjoy this beta test model mentality and I feel like I was in the same position I was in 9th constantly waiting for the dust to settle before diving in by which time it was too late and they reset it. 

[Helycon]

40 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

I actually see this as them, y'know, treating it as something worth playing? like, they are going, hey people dislike some of the rules. Let's fix it, instead of doing like 7th edition where they just went, it's printed! Nothing we can do !

 

The issue people have is the way it released in the first place. 7th Edition released in a much more analogue era, where it was a lot more challenging to release these kinds of things digitally and update them. Also, 7th actually felt a lot mor cohesive than 10th currently does, hence the issue people have. 

 

Yes, they patched things, but some of it was just overcompensated making it feel like GW is just throwing darts at a board full of datasheets and seeing what sticks. Generally, it's better to make smaller adjustments to things and see where it goes from there, unless you want to watch a seesaw in action. 

 

I'm lauding GW for the fact they changed issues quickly, but will give them a mark down for how.  

[Zebukkuk]

105 points for a Craftworlds support weapon? Did anyone really think the Shadow Weaver and D-Cannon were overpowered?  

[Nagashsnee]

3 year circle is too small, a new ed should need MONTHS of playtesting, nevermind the actual writing. When they crap it and indexes for every faction out in what seems to be a couple of weeks the results will show.

 

Like video games you can only polish an unfinished product so much.

[thraxdown]

1 hour ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

I think everything can be summed up as (in a neat little package that GW corporate can understand): "Spend. More. On. The Game." Play test more, and well ahead of time. Proof read everything before you print. Iron out the kinks. Then do it all again. Not all of the investment goes into the model design, yeah?

 

I hate being this negative but 10th edition is worse than what I thought possible. I was optimistic when it seemed like they were just going to clean up 9th and overhaul the datasheets, but many of the design choices in the core rules are just mind boggling. And the balance with the indexes just appears it was a first draft by a group of amateurs.  It's embarrassing.

[KenaiPhoneix]

Well, that was fast. I haven’t even finished reading the core rules, and haven’t touch my armies data. 
 

I want to remain positive about this, and this is more of a test of “how can we communicate update/patches to the community” rather than just jack up points and/or add models to units. 
 

there is a next update not too long down the year. Time will tell

[KnightofSigismund]

1 hour ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

They went up by 3pts per model and the unit upper size was changed so that you only need two boxes to build a legal unit, not three or two and a Castellan box. Saving new players money.

They otherwise haven't changed one iota from the PDF index.

For what they can accomplish I feel like they are still very nicely costed points wise for all that hurt they can put out. 

[Bradeh]

The fact that they are doing radical changes every edition and starting to design new editions 2 years into the previous just sets up for a mess each time. It reminds of when Assassins Creed and Call of Duty type games started being bad producing new games every year. It's all about short term gain at the loss of quality and stability. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Bradeh

[Lexington]

34 minutes ago, Helycon said:

The issue people have is the way it released in the first place. 7th Edition released in a much more analogue era, where it was a lot more challenging to release these kinds of things digitally and update them.

This is a nitpick, but an important one IMO - there was nothing challenging about doing digital rules updates during the 7th Ed era. Indeed, GW actually did (infrequent) digital updates and errata during 5th Ed, and some of 6th, IIRC. Stopping was a deliberate choice, and it’s one that they were forced to finally relent on after facing some significant financial headwinds due, at least in part, to the way 7th Ed 40K went completely off the rails. I think reversing the issues that’ve plagued 10th during its short lifespan will require a similar financial motive to reverse.

[Lemondish]

3 hours ago, Minsc said:

GW tweaking the game with a sledgehammer again by upping the prices on ALL forms of indirect and not just the units that are an actual problem.

 

That's the downside of a complex game with so many moving parts. The risk of only targeting the outliers is that you create new outliers as the next best option becomes the one spammed.

 

From a design perspective, this is an exceptionally well considered position for them to take.

 

But outrage is what this community thrives on, and all it will thrive lol

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lemondish

[spessmarine]

While it is nice to see issues addressed, miniature wargaming doesn't fit nice with rapid changes. Army construction is a project across months, so it is nice for things to not drastically change midway.

That and we've got divergence in what people want, some people keep on top of things so rapid changes are no issue. Some people are more casual and would like to not have everything change between gaming days

[chapter master 454]

Imperial Knights taking a massive points hike...yikes...I mean, basically seems to amount to an armiger and maybe an enhancment less but that's no small amount...goodness...

 

though for all you indirect nerfed guys:

T'au: "Stand PERFECTLY still Shas'La...they can't see us if we don't move"

(T'au have indirect fire options basically across the board and the only nerfs we got were to the Ta'unar and the Stormsurge...bullet firmly dodged somehow).

 

The part that will be REALLY bad is when they actually fix the rules themselves they won't revert even a quarter of these points...

Not going to go full doom-say, still lots of growing pains to get through but...not going to lie this isn't exactly a good sign considering the past...

[Sea Creature]

There was a good number of changes for eighth edition like limiting deep strike reserves to arriving turns 2 and 3, reinforcements couldn’t move again, Magnus used to have 3++ and could reroll 1s, Bobby G points kept going up, etc.

[Helycon]

12 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

That's the downside of a complex game with so many moving parts. The risk of only targeting the outliers is that you create new outliers as the next best option becomes the one spammed.

 

From a design perspective, this is an exceptionally well considered position for them to take.

 

But outrage is what this community thrives on, and all it will thrive lol

I still feel they could be a lot more targeted if the points would apply to weapons and not just full units. Now they're using a machete, they could then use a scalpel.

2 minutes ago, Sea Creature said:

There was a good number of changes for eighth edition like limiting deep strike reserves to arriving turns 2 and 3, reinforcements couldn’t move again, Magnus used to have 3++ and could reroll 1s, Bobby G points kept going up, etc.

Re-rollable 3++ was silly. I love the Lion and it feels like the Emperor's Shield should grant a 3++, but it's the reason why mortal wounds need to exist as well. 

[Blurf]

1 hour ago, Doghouse said:

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.  

 

I'm taking a break from 40k till things settle down and see where I stand. I don't enjoy this beta test model mentality and I feel like I was in the same position I was in 9th constantly waiting for the dust to settle before diving in by which time it was too late and they reset it. 

If my army was better, I'd at least be doing for funsies weekend games, but SoB suck right now. Even casual games just aren't fun. Marvel Crisis Protocol exists and is great so...I'd rather do that.