warhammer 10th edition June Balance Dataslate and Field Manual

[N1SB]

46 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

All of this is to say that simplicity in game design is a choice. You'll gain players who want simple games and lose players who want complex games.

 

That's a good point because the godfather of Warhammer, Rick Priestley, mentioned how (the most vocal) players tend to want more complexity.

 

I reckon it's kinda like how in Dota and LoL tend to cater to "the whales" that spend more time & money on the game than those of us who watched Arcane and just want to play Jinx or Cupcake.  It's food for thought.  But I really do see the point of how that new rules update document is 33 pages, oh my cog, ON TOP of the Balance Dataslates.

 

We're kinda headed towards 1,000 point games in our meta.  At that point, even with new rules, it takes less time & mental workload, because you kinda bet on a few units.  The weird thing is, well, you still got all these revised rules, but with fewer units, you only need to remember what you use.  500 pts is too small and ppl just use those Combat Patrols with MORE rules, 1,000 pts is pretty good.

[Prot]

Most of the movement rule changes I don't understand the motivation for. I'm not liking this pivot stuff. I think some newer designers of the game came up with this. In the 'olden' days there was a lot of jank surrounding 'free' pivots. 

 

IE: You'd play against an assault army like... Wolves let's say, and there would be a Rhino wall deployed completely sideways on the deployment line. First move, the rhino's all pivoted forward (for free) gaining half the length of their vehicle in free movement for their impending movement turn.

 

At least that's how I'm reading it. So if you have a round base, you get this for free. Some of these vehicles are quite large now so it benefits (for example) a Repulsor over a Landraider significantly. 

 

Again, if I'm reading this right, you're going to see a call back to sideways vehicle deployments.

 

Love the changes to Dark Angels... it's a start (possibly one of the worst marine codex releases I can remember.)

 

I already thought Dev wounds did not spill over, so I guess I've been doing that wrong! lol

 

Untargetable units now only get that rule at 18". I think that's big... hasn't been mentioned. 

 

Almost forgot: Congrats to Wolves players! That's a rather handsome change!

Edited June 20 by Prot

[Orange Knight]

These are way too many changes, presented really badly in a PDF.

 

Multiple factions sharing a page. Very badly presented and not user friendly - the format is awful.

I'd rather have a new codex, especially for the AdMech. My book is basically defunct and now I need to carry around an awkward PDF.

 

Edit: Answered my own question about transports.

Edited June 20 by Orange Knight

[DemonGSides]

You should be using an app anyways for army management. The books were never good for that. Always cumbersome.  Even just writing out what you need on paper has always been better than ponderously searching the tomes for Eldritch knowledge lol

 

Command Center thing on the GW app is legitimately great. Gives you all your info as well as when to use strats and stuff like that.

 

The books have been obsolete since 8th ed. There's just better options digitally.

[Orange Knight]

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

The books have been obsolete since 8th ed. There's just better options digitally.

 

They are selling books at a premium. Either they support them properly and take care with the published rules, or they abandon them entirely.

 

The tournament focus that is leading to these sweeping updates is more suited to a video game, not a manual table top wargame.

Edited June 20 by Orange Knight

[DemonGSides]

11 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

They are selling books at a premium. Either they support them properly and take care with the published rules, or they abandon them entirely.

 

The tournament focus that is leading to these sweeping updates is more suited to a video game, not a manual table top wargame.

 

Well, to your first, no, they don't. They haven't. They SHOULD, but people keep buying them and convincing GW it's the correct route to take.

 

I agree on the second principle. But it has nothing to do with the first.

[Jscarlos18]

Really happy with the changes made to my faction.

 

• Surprised to see the Raveners, Trygon and Mawloc get Vanguard Invaders, but thinking about it, it makes sense for the lore.
• Glad the Neurotyrant can lead Zoanthropes.
• Seems that Shadow in the Warp and Synapse got a buff. Specially SitW, since the original rule was pretty underwhelming.
• Hive Tyrant looks cool, really digging the addition to Onslaught
• Glad they finally gave Neurolictor, Broodlord and Parasite of Mortrex the Synapse keyword.
• Interesting that Broodlord and Parasite of Mortrex can use SitW.
• Looks like Crusher Stampede got a buff too.
• Exocrine and Tyrannofex got a stronger main weapon.

Will have to wait and see how all these changes help my Tyranids.

[phandaal]

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

They are selling books at a premium. Either they support them properly and take care with the published rules, or they abandon them entirely.

 

The tournament focus that is leading to these sweeping updates is more suited to a video game, not a manual table top wargame.

 

Yeah, guess that is something people tend to not think about as much in the days of competitive online gaming. In DOTA, LoL, whatever, you can swap a character out if you really want to. Just takes a couple of clicks and a little bit of a learning curve. That is what people think of when they think about balance patches.

 

In a tabletop wargame, especially one that uses as many models as 10th Ed 40k, you are looking at a significant time investment. If you are a slow builder/painter, you may not even get your army in order before the next change rolls around. And forget about building a whole new army from scratch... you might as well not even make plans based on the current rules.

 

Guess this might not be as much of a problem for people who like to get a game with the grey tide every few months, or people whose collections are large enough that they can switch the blocks around until they fit again (although even that is more difficult now thanks to fixed unit sizes and points costs).

[drakheart]

The app doesn't seem to have been updated with the points costs, but looking at the list  my 2000pt Tau army list just became 1900pts with the points changes to broadsides, commanders and Crisis suits! Just need to figure out what to spend the extra 100pts on.

[ThePenitentOne]

I have always thought that costing movement to turn was limiting, inconvenient and unnecessary, as well is in many cases (though not all), unrealistic.

 

All strats that allow mutiple uses of a strat in a single day being nerfed to merely reduce costs (unless the strat is named in the rule that provides multiple uses) really removes value from those rules.

 

The points increases for Sisters really choke me, but given the advantages that some of the detachments give us, it may not be as bad as it looks once the models are actually on the table.

 

I haven't actually played a 10th ed game yet, so I'm not going to have to struggle with change as much as other people. It also means that I'm not really the person to speculate on whether these changes are good or bad- I like being able to have more than one unit use a strat in a turn when the story suits it, but I can speak to how oppressive that was before this change. If I knew more about that, it might influence how I feel about the change. I would say though, that when you nerf an ability that hard, you need to change the resource cost (assuming there is one) to reflect the decreased utility.

[Cleon]

56 minutes ago, Prot said:

I already thought Dev wounds did not spill over, so I guess I've been doing that wrong! lol

 

If I'm reading it right then:

-Devastating wound were originally 'caused mortal wounds' and therefore spilled over

-This was a problem so they became their own 'thing' devastating wounds, which did not spill over, but this half baked change didn't consider all the rules interactions of mortal wounds and wasn't worked through properly, leading to now

-Devastating wounds are now back to being proper mortal wounds, in all ways apart from a restriction on them spilling over.

 

If that's not right then I'm just lost.

[TrawlingCleaner]

5 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

I have always thought that costing movement to turn was limiting, inconvenient and unnecessary, as well is in many cases (though not all), unrealistic.

 

 I like being able to have more than one unit use a strat in a turn when the story suits it, but I can speak to how oppressive that was before this change. If I knew more about that, it might influence how I feel about the change. I would say though, that when you nerf an ability that hard, you need to change the resource cost (assuming there is one) to reflect the decreased utility.

 

The pivot rules are basically how vehicles function now, the difference being that vehicles essentially get more free movement after the first pivot, I think? Before you'd measure each individual angle change or should do anyways, a lot of people tend to just bend the tape measure round corners 

 

The change to strats I think comes out as a positive change. For Captains, Lords etc they lose being able to do the same strat more than once a phase and gain the flexibility of using their CP cost reduction on more than just Battle Tactic stratagems

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, N1SB said:

We're kinda headed towards 1,000 point games in our meta.  At that point, even with new rules, it takes less time & mental workload, because you kinda bet on a few units.  The weird thing is, well, you still got all these revised rules, but with fewer units, you only need to remember what you use.  500 pts is too small and ppl just use those Combat Patrols with MORE rules, 1,000 pts is pretty good.

^This is the way, I think, for non-tournament settings. Easier to adjust to rules changes, can play more games in whatever limited time you have available, and can try out different combinations of units you have in those different games. Works really well if you are used to building lists in 500 point chunks because you swap out one chunk for another, or add another chunk for a 1500 pt game.

[TrawlingCleaner]

8 minutes ago, Cleon said:

If I'm reading it right then:

-Devastating wound were originally 'caused mortal wounds' and therefore spilled over

-This was a problem so they became their own 'thing' devastating wounds, which did not spill over, but this half baked change didn't consider all the rules interactions of mortal wounds and wasn't worked through properly, leading to now

-Devastating wounds are now back to being proper mortal wounds, in all ways apart from a restriction on them spilling over.

 

If that's not right then I'm just lost.

 

This is correct, before this change they didn't spill over after they stopped being conventional MW. They're back to being MW however they don't spill over (this is the same for Hazardous now too). This is basically so that the FNP against MW abilities some units have, like Custodes and Chaplains, actually function as they should and work Vs DevWounds

[Xenith]

At this point, the core rules have had so many modifications, it might as well be a new edition. Should have just streamlined 9th instead of starting again. 

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Admech going from B.S4+ to B.S3+ with +1 To hit if stationary.

Army wide.

 

and FINALLY the dunerider has a firing deck

Edited June 20 by Mechanicus Tech-Support

[Cenobite Terminator]

I’m glad for the dataslates as this edition had major revamps as requested by the community. It came out rushed so these really help balance the game.

Edited June 20 by Cenobite Terminator

[Norman Paperman]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Going to be blunt, but hopefully not rude: This is the kind of opinion someone would have if they have never actually played 40k.

 

Get some games under your belt, ideally before and after a rules change causes your army list to become obsolete or unfinished, and you will see that the nonstop rules changes directly contribute to the problems you mentioned in the first part of that sentence.

 

40k is not DOTA. You cannot swap armies before the game the way you can swap characters after a balance patch. 40k is a physical game played with objects that take a significant amount of time to collect, assemble, and paint.

 

Neither rudeness nor heresy detected 

 

I think a key part of my point is that the significant amount of time taken to collect, assemble, and paint armies is a big part of the attraction to the hobby for me in the first place. Some players are going to be upset that their lists are nerfed/obsolete, while others are going to be relatively happy to get back to the painting desk because that's where we spend the bulk of our time. The advice that I've always seen given to new players like me is to just pick the army that you think looks the coolest, because balance happens so often that trying to pick a meta list when you're starting is a waste of effort. My expectations have been set that lists will change with balance update, it hasn't actually deterred me as a new player.

 

I know that 40k is not Dota, but I will again defend the comparison by saying that swapping characters isn't quite so easy. Yes, it's true that you can just pick a different one because they're pixels on a screen and there's no financial cost, but to play them at a high level (and I'll toot my own horn that I play at a very high level) requires a substantial amount of practice. There was a massive balance patch about a month ago and because I don't have much time to play any more I've been having my butt handed to me most of the time I do play. I'll catch up the longer this patch carries on. Nobody likes having their lists or their characters nerfed, you've poured time and passion into that project and are probably seeing wins as a result of that passion, but players will vary in their willingness to go back to basics and start learning a new dude or painting up a few new units. One of the reasons I like Dota so much is because I'm highly willing to do this, while I suspect 40k is going to have more players who want stability. 

 

I think my opinion has more to do with the style of game that I like, rather than experience with the specifics of one game or the other. I had a great time reading the balance dataslate while drinking my coffee this morning and now am having fun discussing it on the forums. This sort of interaction appeals to me as a player and is part of why I picked up the 40k hobby. The game is actively managed and changed, I like that in other games, I like that here! I've picked Thousand Sons as my first real project and they've had a great winrate the last little while, but they might be at 45% by the time I've got an army on the table. I haven't got any expectations that the army composition that I think I'm working towards right now will be what actually ends up on the table, I'm just having a good time painting a Mutalith Vortex Beast. 

Edited June 20 by Norman Paperman

[jaxom]

4 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

There was a massive balance patch about a month ago and because I don't have much time to play any more I've been having my butt handed to me most of the time I do play. I'll catch up the longer this patch carries on. Nobody likes having their lists or their characters nerfed, you've poured time and passion into that project and are probably seeing wins as a result of that passion, but players will vary in their willingness to go back to basics and start learning a new dude or painting up a few new units. One of the reasons I like Dota so much is because I'm highly willing to do this, while I suspect 40k is going to have more players who want stability.

In general, I agree. However I think the major difference is that the software tracks and applies the changes for the player, who then sees the results and adjusts. With tabletop, the player also has to track and apply the changes; and for some players that's not an easy task.

[Naryn]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

If you are a slow builder/painter, you may not even get your army in order before the next change rolls around. And forget about building a whole new army from scratch... you might as well not even make plans based on the current rules.

 

This is my problem with 9th and 10th edition 40k exactly. I get motivated to paint by playing and I get motivated to play by painting. Its a positive feedback loop of playing with painted models on the table, painting more models because you want to see them on the table, repeat. But I'm a pretty slow painter, and building and converting my models is what I prefer anyway.

 

But when the rules--not the meta, but the actual rules of the game--change so frequently, every game is a learning game. I never get to feel like I've mastered my army the way I did in previous editions. So the games are less fun, so I play less, so I'm less motivated to paint, so I don't have any new models to show off on the table, so I play less...

 

I love 40k, but at this point the only thing keeping me in the hobby at all is my 3d printer letting me print conversion bits for essentially dirt cheap. I havent bought a new GW kit in months, and I haven't played a game for half a year. I find the game too exhausting to keep up with, and every major rules update like this is just another barrier to entry for me to get back into it.

[DemonGSides]

I've calmed down from my initial outburst and think the rules team needs to have a stern talking to about wild changes. Let players get comfy with something for a year and then unnecessarily yanking it away is just annoying.

[phandaal]

34 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

I suspect 40k is going to have more players who want stability.

 

Yep, you got it. Reason being, the lead time to be able to put things onto the table is very long. When you start dealing with dozens of miniatures, or sometimes more than a hundred miniatures, there has to be a level of trust in the ruleset. Stability goes a long way to building that trust.

 

The flip side is that if the rules come out bad, people do want them adjusted so they work better. I think a lot of us just hoped that 10th edition's promised streamlining from 9th edition would mean a more stable game right from the start.

[Rhavien]

So you are telling me AdMech is not a weak hord army anymore? Need to take a look and maybe get the red boys out for the first time in 10th. You know, my other red boys . 

[Karhedron]

23 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

I've calmed down from my initial outburst and think the rules team needs to have a stern talking to about wild changes. Let players get comfy with something for a year and then unnecessarily yanking it away is just annoying.

 

It really does feel like 10th edition was rushed out without adequate playtesting. This showed on the army balance with the Indexes with Eldar and Knights totally dominating the early meta. The fact that there are now 33 pages of errata, FAQs and changes is disappointing. I don't mind points being changed, I am actually a big fan of regular MFM updates. Changes to factions rules are sometimes necessary as we don't want players stuck with broken codices for a while edition (they definitely aimed low with Dark Angels in particular).

 

But regular changes to the core rules have a bad feel. Some places have jokingly referred to this as 10.5 Ed and they are not entirely wrong. It is starting to feel like 10th edition is a giant beta test for 11th edition. 9th Ed came out in 2020 which means the bulk of the development for 10th probably happened 2021-22 when the country was being massively disrupted by lockdowns. If I were feeling generous, I would say that this is why 10th feels somewhat half-baked. It really does not feel like it has had the level of playtesting it needed.

[Zoatibix]

I empathize with @Captain Idaho  Opening the Dataslate to see core rules changes like that really made my heart sink. My middle-aged brain isn't a flexible as it was back in the day.

 

Plus, I do feel that some of this stuff we've seen fixed in Xth should have been caught by the team talking things over with each other at some point.