10th edition Rules updated

[phandaal]

21 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

 

They nerfed Morkanauts because Imperial Knights were too strong.

 

They nerfed Exorcists because other armies have stronger Indirect.

 

It is not a literal sledgehammer, yeah? There was no, "whoops, meant to hit Imperial Knights but also got these other ones by accident, golly gee I hope the mean community doesn't get too outraged over this completely unavoidable event!"

 

Someone had to deliberately go and make those changes. We are allowed to comment on that.

[Blurf]

30 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

Holistically, this is technically correct. Hitting all indirect at once does limit the potential of knock-on effects of future balance changes as they relate to indirect fire.

However, you're pretending that the outrage it creates is unwarranted. When your faction is already bad and a blanket rules change makes them worse with absolutely nothing to compensate, outrage is both justified and appropriate. The decision was likely made with the overall health of the edition in mind BUT the overall health of the game is completely irrelevant to people playing armies like Sisters, Deathguard, and Votann, because those armies can't reasonably be said to be participating in the edition. Which is the fault of the designers responsible for those indexes.

Outrage is not inherently unjustifiable or an overreaction and claiming that it is is usually propaganda from individuals who have a strong enjoyment of the flavor of corporate boots.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Blurf

[TrawlingCleaner]

So squashing the worst offenders first then sorting other stuff later?

[Lexington]

2 hours 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.

There’s nothing well-considered about it all. If there were changes to the mechanics of Indirect or Towering, sure, then you might be creating new outliers. This isn’t that, though - they know the problem pieces, and why they’re a problem. Giving a blanket points increase to a bunch of random models with these rules just because they have them doesn’t show consideration - it just shows that the Studio isn’t allotted proper resources they need to fix this turkey of an edition, even after the disaster of a roll-out.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lexington

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, Lexington said:

There’s nothing well-considered about it all. If there were changes to the mechanics of Indirect or Titanic, sure, then you might be creating new outliers. This isn’t that, though - they know the problem pieces, and why they’re a problem. Giving a blanket points increase to a bunch of random models with these rules just because they have them doesn’t show consideration - it just shows that the Studio isn’t allotted proper resources they need to fix this turkey of an edition, even after the disaster of a roll-out.

 

A 30 point update on an Exorcist, 60 point update on a Stormsurge, 60 point update on a Warden?

 

Anyone know another "indirect" tank? Was it 30 per tank, 60 for a Super Heavy?

 

EDIT: 25 on a Whirlwind, oh well.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Scribe

[spessmarine]

47 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

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

Gotta say, this is a common line trodded out all the time and gets frankly annoying. That and the other goto people having of calling others "entitled".

Sometimes valid, plenty of times just being dismissive. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 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.

Heck, even the Deathstrike went up by 35 pts...

 

This lazy approach to balancing the game ("dont take the time to sort out the actual troublemakers, just nerf everything!") makes me worried for the future of 10th...

They’re not a game company, they’re a model company.

asking them to invest a lot of time and money into the game is too much to ask these days.

it doesn’t make a difference to them how much you play the game. They only care how many models you buy.

[Kastor Krieg]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They’re not a game company, they’re a model company.

They should stop selling 11 games (counted on the main site), releasing new ones (Epic inbound) and change their name to, I dunno, Miniatures Workshop.

Oh, they don't? Then they're a games company. Stop buying their idiotic spin.

[Imren]

To all of you 40k-rules-updated-by-GW-like-teen-girls-changing-nail-polish-ragers out there:

 

Come...come....over to the 30k side...

[Cactus]

Citadel Miniatures under Brian Ansell retained the Games Workshop brand. You might call it a merger but history has shown us who was in control. The painful truth is that's the spin that we the customers have been buying for over 30 years.

 

Modern GW's annual reports outright say that their corporate strategy is to make "the best fantasy miniatures in the world forever." It's even a slogan on their investor relations website. https://investor.games-workshop.com/ They (the board) really do not care what we think of the games as long as we buy the miniatures. As long they have that attitude the company will under-resource all aspects of game development and rules support.

 

 

[Helycon]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They’re not a game company, they’re a model company.

asking them to invest a lot of time and money into the game is too much to ask these days.

it doesn’t make a difference to them how much you play the game. They only care how many models you buy.

7 minutes ago, Imren said:

To all of you 40k-rules-updated-by-GW-like-teen-girls-changing-nail-polish-ragers out there:

 

Come...come....over to the 30k side...

Yeah, pretty sure most xenos armies didn't exist back then  Not that I play them, but other people seem to. So I heard. 

 

45 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They’re not a game company, they’re a model company.

asking them to invest a lot of time and money into the game is too much to ask these days.

it doesn’t make a difference to them how much you play the game. They only care how many models you buy.

Whilst technically correct, why do they keep bothering then? Yes, I know the answer is 'to sell more minis'. It's just dismissive and annoying to answer this way. If it wasn't an actual game, their revenue wouldn't be half as high as it is now.

[Kastor Krieg]

16 minutes ago, Imren said:

To all of you 40k-rules-updated-by-GW-like-teen-girls-changing-nail-polish-ragers out there:

Come...come....over to the 30k side...

I'd rather drink brake fluid than play anything that resembles 7th.

[Lexington]

10 minutes ago, Cactus said:

They (the board) really do not care what we think of the games as long as we buy the miniatures. As long they have that attitude the company will under-resource all aspects of game development and rules support.

They may not care, but a sizable proportion of GW’s customers are gamers, and buy the models to use in these games. If the rules get so bad it drives people away from playing and buying, the company will have to figure out something to fix it. It’s happened before - the disastrous era of 7th Edition and the AoS launch showed that they can only push the gamer portion of their audience so far - and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it again before too long.

[Kallas]

10th Edition is a hot mess, and GW keeps doubling down on said mess. These points changes are a terrible, barely thought out joke that is just trying to prop up their own stupid decision to scrap granular points - in no world is a Vibro Cannon worth 105pts, for example.

 

[Plaguecaster]

So their only change to Death Guard was to change it so plague marines can be taken in 7 man squads now 

Ah yes thank you GW, you have fixed our entire army now 

 

 

At least they didn't nerf the PBC with a price hike even more,  most of realized it'd be too cruel even for them 

Also see the soul grinder is untouched which is nice 

 

[Orange Knight]

One of the most off-putting things about 9th edition was the constant drops of Erratas and FAQs that often impact armies before some players even get a chance to put them down on the table. Votann were the most egregious example - their codex was nerfed BEFORE it was released.

 

I think they have to slow these changes down, ideally they get things a bit more right to begin with.

[Emperor Ming]

Well, this ed has started well

[sandrorect]

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

One of the most off-putting things about 9th edition was the constant drops of Erratas and FAQs that often impact armies before some players even get a chance to put them down on the table. Votann were the most egregious example - their codex was nerfed BEFORE it was released.

 

I think they have to slow these changes down, ideally they get things a bit more right to begin with.

 

With the less bloat rules of 10Th edition maybe they need less balace dataseet and FAQs... but whiouth no army organization and no effective point cost system that will be imposible becasue is extremely simply to broke.

[Oxydo]

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

One of the most off-putting things about 9th edition was the constant drops of Erratas and FAQs that often impact armies before some players even get a chance to put them down on the table. Votann were the most egregious example - their codex was nerfed BEFORE it was released.

 

I think they have to slow these changes down, ideally they get things a bit more right to begin with.

 

I'd say that the most off-putting thing about 9th was that they *had* to put out Erratas and FAQs before codex release due to lack of proof reading and straight up inability to get even a modicum of balance the first time. The Votann codex should *never* have gone to print in the state that it did and it's good that they nerfed it before it hit the tables, because yikes.

Would you honestly prefer not having an Errata fixing the most egregious errors/misprints released within 2 weeks of codex release so you can enjoy playing with literally non-functional rules because GW didn't proofread well enough? Like say for example, Apothecaries resurrecting ATVs? Or BA players not being able to run meltaguns in their Assault Squads because GW forgot to add them to their wargear options? 

[Kastor Krieg]

30 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

One of the most off-putting things about 9th edition was the constant drops of Erratas and FAQs that often impact armies before some players even get a chance to put them down on the table. Votann were the most egregious example - their codex was nerfed BEFORE it was released.

 

I think they have to slow these changes down, ideally they get things a bit more right to begin with.

This sounds like the epitome of "40k fans never satisfied".

[Kallas]

20 minutes ago, sandrorect said:

With the less bloat rules of 10Th edition

There is no less bloat, they just moved stuff around.

 

Previously we had a heap of Stratagems per army, but now we have a handful in a Detachment plus the bunch of Core ones - and when Codexes start dropping we'll have more Stratagems again. (To be clear: I do like the Detachments, I just disagree that it's 'less bloat').

 

Instead of a heap of Stratagems per army, every single unit (bar maybe like one or two in the game, not that I can think of them off the top of my head) has a special rule - some are more important than others. Hell, my first 1000pt game I had vs Tyranids we forgot to use the Termagent special rule (d6" of movement when enemies move nearby) and the Grey Hunter rule (advance/fall back and shoot), because there's still just a massive amount of special rules, exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, exceptions to the regional manager...

 

Core universal special rules are good - but they haven't actually done this. We have quite a lot of special rules (eg, Intercessors 'sticky objectives') that are actually present on quite a lot of things but instead of having it like the weapon Keywords (a good thing), they're all written out. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it means you've got to be on the look out for minor changes to things, for example: Eldar Falcons have the Fire Support rule, giving rerolls to wound to units that jump out against one target they shoot until the end of the turn; and the Marine Razorback has the same Fire Support rule...except is only gives the buff until the end of the phase. These are named identically, and function almost exactly the same except for one word - this means that it is very easy for a player to misread and play it wrong. Not the end of the world, I'm sure, but it adds things in to the game where rules get confused and things are messy.

 

Hell, if we want to talk about bloat, why the hell did they split out more Marine Datasheets (eg, Assault Squad and Assault Squad with Jump Packs); or why did they make five different Lieutenant Datasheets, of which three of them are in slightly different forms of Phobos armour with wildly different rules.

 

Anyway, point is that they haven't really reduced the amount of rules, they've just redistributed them.

 

20 minutes ago, sandrorect said:

whiouth no army organization and no effective point cost system that will be imposible becasue is extremely simply to broke.

Definitely agree here. The current 'points' system is a bad joke, and while I do appreciate the apparent intent with the force organisation being basically scrapped, to allow people to run their models more freely, it has definitely created a weird environment where they are almost forced into bloating their own rules (ie, by giving out bespoke special rules to everything) to try and make all units appealing (eg, Storm Guardians: they've got a 'sticky objectives' rule to try and make them appealing, but they still can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and you still want Guardian Defenders anyway for Fate Dice, even with the nerf).

[Ahzek451]

This certainly has 7th reaction vibes, in the sense that public outrage will push more decisive action, but....it will go right back to where it was in time. Desipite GW attempting to show us they have changed, the reality is their game design practices have changed very little. They don't get the time and the resources, and upper management purposefully makes the call every edition to continue the same pattern: 

New edition-> 3ish years of drip feeding army books and constant balance change-> all books are out, piles of FAQ's and finally at a point where everyone is reletively balanced-> no time to enjoy this period -> BAM new edtion -> repeat process. 

Would be nice if we could get a more polished game a few more years of life out of an edition.....but...it is publicly traded and shareholders demand new editions because it draws in money. 

[de Selby]

Well I shall be running 7 man plague marine squads on principle now.

 

In general I think they are probably right to try and fix the mess with points changes instead of rules changes.

 

A hypothetical question: if they'd released the new 10th edition rules and just copy pasted all the 9th edition points for units, models and wargear, would the game be in a better or worse state than it was on release?

[sandrorect]

40 minutes ago, Kallas said:

There is no less bloat, they just moved stuff around.

 

Previously we had a heap of Stratagems per army, but now we have a handful in a Detachment plus the bunch of Core ones - and when Codexes start dropping we'll have more Stratagems again. (To be clear: I do like the Detachments, I just disagree that it's 'less bloat').

 

Instead of a heap of Stratagems per army, every single unit (bar maybe like one or two in the game, not that I can think of them off the top of my head) has a special rule - some are more important than others. Hell, my first 1000pt game I had vs Tyranids we forgot to use the Termagent special rule (d6" of movement when enemies move nearby) and the Grey Hunter rule (advance/fall back and shoot), because there's still just a massive amount of special rules, exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, exceptions to the regional manager...

 

Core universal special rules are good - but they haven't actually done this. We have quite a lot of special rules (eg, Intercessors 'sticky objectives') that are actually present on quite a lot of things but instead of having it like the weapon Keywords (a good thing), they're all written out. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it means you've got to be on the look out for minor changes to things, for example: Eldar Falcons have the Fire Support rule, giving rerolls to wound to units that jump out against one target they shoot until the end of the turn; and the Marine Razorback has the same Fire Support rule...except is only gives the buff until the end of the phase. These are named identically, and function almost exactly the same except for one word - this means that it is very easy for a player to misread and play it wrong. Not the end of the world, I'm sure, but it adds things in to the game where rules get confused and things are messy.

 

Hell, if we want to talk about bloat, why the hell did they split out more Marine Datasheets (eg, Assault Squad and Assault Squad with Jump Packs); or why did they make five different Lieutenant Datasheets, of which three of them are in slightly different forms of Phobos armour with wildly different rules.

 

Anyway, point is that they haven't really reduced the amount of rules, they've just redistributed them.

 

Definitely agree here. The current 'points' system is a bad joke, and while I do appreciate the apparent intent with the force organisation being basically scrapped, to allow people to run their models more freely, it has definitely created a weird environment where they are almost forced into bloating their own rules (ie, by giving out bespoke special rules to everything) to try and make all units appealing (eg, Storm Guardians: they've got a 'sticky objectives' rule to try and make them appealing, but they still can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and you still want Guardian Defenders anyway for Fate Dice, even with the nerf).

 

Is less bloat because there is less stack rules on a unit at any given time (less faction rules, less subfacction rules, less stratagems to apply, less characters aura, ...) no because the game have less rules because with so many models a NONE organization and point system you need to put special rules into the units to make them diferent versus other units in the same facction.

[Orange Knight]

I will say that GW really need to bring some granularity back for wargear within units.

 

I am not unhappy with the Wraithknight getting a point bump, but what if you own one equipped with a sword and shield? It has no benefit from the towering keyword and it did not abuse mortal wound spam at range. Why did it also receive a point hike?