10th edition Rules updated

[Rusted Boltgun]

34 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

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. 

 

I absolutely agree that there should be a few more years of life and a more polished game from an edition (as per my previous post), however, I do not think the 3 year churn is driven by the shareholders.

 

The largest shareholder (Bailie Gifford) holds 13% so doesn't have a massive voice. It is more likely an upper management decision as they look to please their shareholders with growth and dividends (as well as extend their own tenure and obtain bonuses where available).

 

They have the power to change the company direction if they can demonstrate to the shareholders the validity of doing so and I honestly believe that with the interest in GW games post-pandemic (and recent scalper focus) they have the space to slow the release schedule a bit, produce more stock and still sell it quickly.

 

Even more Warhammer, slightly less often.

[spessmarine]

19 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

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?

Some things just don't translate that well from AoS, same price wargear one of them 

[Cactus]

Shareholders don't micromanage a company"'s products. Shareholders demand that the company brings in money. The company brings in money with a customer-unfriendly 3-year cycle of turd sandwiches because that has been proven to work.

[Arkhanist]

Players: Fate dice, towering shooting, and indirect heavy fire that ignores cover are all too powerful!

GW:  "today’s update rebalances those areas to keep the game experience healthy."

 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

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.

 

Probably as a sneaky way of working around the Rule of 3 and also to reflect the fact that they keep churning out slightly different Lts like they are about to go out of fashion.

[WrathOfTheLion]

It makes it simpler to attach characters to as well. Make the jump pack ones only able to join <x> with jump pack.

[Karhedron]

51 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

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?

 

Makes me glad I decided to magnetise my WK but I agree with you point. These are only Indices, perhaps we will see wargear costs return when the full Codices start to appear? Although the fact that points will now seem to live in the MFM does not give me cause for optimism.

[caladancid]

8 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

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.

 

No no you don't understand, this small indie company is doing the very best they can. They made a whoopsie and couldn't control themselves once that nerf bat started whacking.

 

I think if you look at the current tournament win rates SoB are around mid 30 percent? There isn't really an excuse to nerf one of the few higher performing items in the list, as its not like an Exorcist was going to show up in other armies.

 

I have noticed a recurring strawman at this point, and its that people are now complaining about GW fixing the game. This of course is not what anyone is saying who is remotely interested in good faith discussions. Nobody is complaining that GW is issuing erratas. We are complaining because 1) the army rules are a mess out of the gate and they should not have been and 2) the erratas are not actually fixing core issues. 

 

Of course people would rather have erratas that fixed things than not but you want to know what customers really wanted? A finished, polished product at LAUNCH. How that is even a source of controversy is next level.

[Interrogator Stobz]

11 hours ago, sandrorect said:

 

And how will do you do that? The reason of indirect fire is that weapons with this rule can shoot over terrain so it doesn´t matter what LoS rules have you. 

 

Easy thanks for asking.

The stupid LoS/Terrain rules which make it possible to see an enemy but not have them see you is stupid and the terrain rule which makes ruins over 5" blick LoS to the ceiling is incredibly stupid.

Both make indirect fire more of a priority than it should be.

So my solution is make tLoS more important than their stupis arbitrary rulings. Just like terrain footprints which must be agreed upon before the battle,  heights of edges of terrain can be agreed upon too. They can keep the cannot shoot through ruins to avoid all the holes etc, but lose the cannot shoot over rule.

We have seen they don't work because they're already being walked back (towering etc.).

[Rhavien]

1 hour ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

The stupid LoS/Terrain rules which make it possible to see an enemy but not have them see you is stupid

Please explain? I didn't hear of that till now. What kind of shenanigan is this? 

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Rhavien said:

Please explain? I didn't hear of that till now. What kind of shenanigan is this? 

 

Towering let's you see over terrain. Not be seen.

 

Disregard, I am incorrect, see below from Lord_Ikka.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Scribe

[Lord_Ikka]

11 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Towering let's you see over terrain. Not be seen.

Towering does both- as long as a Towering model can either see or be seen, obscuring Ruins/Woods don't effect it or the units targeted/targeting it. Same wording in both the Ruins (Obscuring) and Woods (Full Visibility) rules;

 

"Aircraft and Towering models are exceptions to this – visibility to and from such models is determined normally, even if this terrain feature is wholly in between them and the observing model."

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Lord_Ikka

[Interrogator Stobz]

Here's the thing that bugs me, if infantry, say a Dev squad, is on the 2nd or 3rd story and there is intervening 5" ruins they can't see past/over it. That is stupid and it encourages players to stay on the tabletop and use indirect weapons.

 

Then there's the partially in partially out inconsistencies for shooting into and out of cover, to a lesser degree they also skew behaviour instead of being intuitive like TLoS.

 

TLoS was an issue several editions ago when terrain was typically sparce; but now with all the great 3rd party wood stuff there are 1, 2 and 3 level terrain all over tables so it works great.

In the games of 10th I've played so far ignoring GeeDubs silly terrain rulesbworks far better. 

 

[Scribe]

20 minutes ago, Lord_Ikka said:

Towering does both- as long as a Towering model can either see or be seen, obscuring Ruins/Woods don't effect it or the units targeted/targeting it. Same wording in both the Ruins (Obscuring) and Woods (Full Visibility) rules;

 

"Aircraft and Towering models are exceptions to this – visibility to and from such models is determined normally, even if this terrain feature is wholly in between them and the observing model."

 

My bad

[Ming the Merciless]

Turns out I don't need the Armiger Helverin and Wardog Stalker I bought, built/converted, and started painting last weekend to get my Knight armies up to 2000pts 

[Lord_Ikka]

Really, what Towering needs to do is to still allow Towering units to see and be seen, but then the actual Towering units get a negative to Hit when shooting through the terrain. Knight players understand that having their big stompy boys means some downsides in certain areas, but the problems that we had with 9th ed terrain were very frustrating with not being able to do anything to infantry units that were holed up in certain terrain pieces. 

[Emperor Ming]

Blanket points increases to every unit with the problematic keyword, is a new level of stupidity

[Kastor Krieg]

24 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Blanket points increases to every unit with the problematic keyword, is a new level of stupidity

It's the old stupidity in new clothes. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

19 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

Just personally I would rather reduce the incentive to spam rather than introduce artificial caps. Ultimately good internal and external balance will lead to more varied and interesting lists. If you have a dozen too-good units capped at 1 each, you will get a lot of armies featuring 1 of every capped unit and then anything else is just makeweight.

I've always like the idea of a progressive increase in points just as I wished you could've cast the same spell multiple times (not just Smite in 9th)

 

Like for example. Anything outside of basic troops you have a marginal points increase past the first or second unit. Like a non dedicated transport or troop unit at max size costs 305 points, if you want to take a a second identical unit, each 5-10 unit incurs a 20 point increase, then Like 50. Etc.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten
Clarification, fixed some fat finger typing

[Nova-V]

35 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Blanket points increases to every unit with the problematic keyword, is a new level of stupidity

Thing it wasn't even blanket, it was both targeted and also indiscriminate.  Take DG and Sisters both struggling factions, the Plague Burst Crawler no points increase but the Exorcist did get a 30 point increase.  Why the difference?  The Exorcist, even as indirect, isn't particularly strong and as the Sisters only indirect option it can only be taken a max of three times anyway.

 

Then look at Guard who got changes of 10-25 points despite between all the different data sheets Guard players being able to field a literal car park of indirect.  Surely they should have gone up more to stop spamming across multiple data sheets?  (I say this as a Guard player).

 

It's truly baffling.  I get they are trying to be proactive and respond to the issues early but maybe they do need to slow down a bit and come out with a definitive fix rather than every week there seemingly being another change which has been half cooked.

[Redcomet]

40k… The Fallout 76 of the wargaming world.

 

It just works

 

It is not a bug it is a feature 

 

 

[Ming the Merciless]

28 minutes ago, Nova-V said:

 

Then look at Guard who got changes of 10-25 points despite between all the different data sheets Guard players being able to field a literal car park of indirect.  Surely they should have gone up more to stop spamming across multiple data sheets?  (I say this as a Guard player).

 

Most baffling the the field ordnance battery point increase despite 2 of the 3 weapon options not having indirect fire 

 

 

[sonsoftaurus]

Just don’t play with terrain, then no issues with indirect or towering! Easy-peasy! 

[Mogger351]

6 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Here's the thing that bugs me, if infantry, say a Dev squad, is on the 2nd or 3rd story and there is intervening 5" ruins they can't see past/over it. That is stupid and it encourages players to stay on the tabletop and use indirect weapons.

 

Then there's the partially in partially out inconsistencies for shooting into and out of cover, to a lesser degree they also skew behaviour instead of being intuitive like TLoS.

 

TLoS was an issue several editions ago when terrain was typically sparce; but now with all the great 3rd party wood stuff there are 1, 2 and 3 level terrain all over tables so it works great.

In the games of 10th I've played so far ignoring GeeDubs silly terrain rulesbworks far better. 

 

The obscuring keyword is meant to work around TLoS so that you can't shoot at a model stood on a crate because the tip of it's gun is visible over the top of the ruin in between. They were very clear in 9th that it was in-setting to represent smoke/fire/debris/dust/strobing/flares/gas whatever that would you know... obscure things. 

 

I'm honestly very thankful they make an effort to have some terrain help the majority of armies with some abstraction rather than return to sets of big solid perfect L walls that people have to stand 0.75" away from to not be targetable or eligible to be charged.

[sandrorect]

8 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Easy thanks for asking.

The stupid LoS/Terrain rules which make it possible to see an enemy but not have them see you is stupid and the terrain rule which makes ruins over 5" blick LoS to the ceiling is incredibly stupid.

Both make indirect fire more of a priority than it should be.

So my solution is make tLoS more important than their stupis arbitrary rulings. Just like terrain footprints which must be agreed upon before the battle,  heights of edges of terrain can be agreed upon too. They can keep the cannot shoot through ruins to avoid all the holes etc, but lose the cannot shoot over rule.

We have seen they don't work because they're already being walked back (towering etc.).

 

So your solution is that less terrain don´t block LoS? Sorry if i don´t understand you (english is no my frist language) but that is the thing that i think you propose.

 

If that is your proposition, the battlefield become a shooting gallery. Yes the indirect fire is not a problem because all shooting is a problem

 

The game still have so much firepower that you can ´t have terrain that don´t block line of sight. There is a reason the only battlefield in the grimdark future is urban combat.