warhammer 10th edition June Balance Dataslate and Field Manual

[Orange Knight]

7 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

1) The power level variation between armies is only really a factor in the higher ends of competitive play,

 

I wish this were true.

 

Generally this is how 40k used to be. Most units were middling, but there were a few combinations of warlord traits, psychic powers, etc that produced over powered results.

 

Today an entire army, literally every unit in it, can be poorly balanced against the units in another army.

 

It's why we just had an example where  the entire admech range had a stat adjustment. Some models are going from BS4+ to BS2+ in an attempt to get them to pereform.

 

1 hour ago, brother_b said:

I am super tired of the edition grind quite honestly. I came back for eighth and here we are at 10th and the game is totally different in my opinion. Sure similarity abound, but I thought ninth even though it was clunky was a complete and OK fairly balanced game.

 

8th edition was honestly the best edition in 20 years, in my opinion.

 

And it was the best specifically during the Index period. There was loads of crazy stuff but it didn't matter because it could be found across every faction lol

Edited June 21 by Orange Knight

[Norman Paperman]

5 hours ago, Schurge said:

It’s amusing to see apologia from newer players. It’s like looking back in time at the bright eyed newbie I once was, who hadn't yet been burnt out by GWs standard operating procedure.

Eh, I've been a fan of products from Valve, blizzard, Jagex, Arena Net, and countless other gaming companies over the years. Some are great, some are terrible, and some have good years and bad years. I highly doubt GW is reinventing the wheel on game management or a new brand of incompetence, especially not when Blizzard is around. I may be new to tabletop models, but this ain’t my first rodeo with game developers, not by a long shot. 

Edited June 21 by Norman Paperman

[templargdt]

8 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I don't know about whether it was unfinished (due to whatever reasons) but the fact it took so long to fix Eldar when 10th came out strikes me as there's bigger problems with quality control than just a rushed job. I mean, we all saw the problems instantly and the amount of fixes proposed in a short amount of time indicates a deep issue that GW failed to enact the changes.

 

Especially as they eventually did.

Eldar being broken is a constant of the warhammer universe.  

[INKS]

8 hours ago, Norman Paperman said:

Eh, I've been a fan of products from Valve, blizzard, Jagex, Arena Net, and countless other gaming companies over the years. Some are great, some are terrible, and some have good years and bad years. I highly doubt GW is reinventing the wheel on game management or a new brand of incompetence, especially not when Blizzard is around. I may be new to tabletop models, but this ain’t my first rodeo with game developers, not by a long shot. 

If you've followed Arena Net over the years then you've been through it. lol

[Pacific81]

On 6/20/2024 at 1:11 PM, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

Would you rather go back to the "good ol' days" where codex were dead on arrival for multiple editions and we got little to no updates during said edition? These frequent and in depth updates are objectively a good thing, because it means GW are trying (if not succeeding) to keep the game balanced and healthy.

 

I have a strong suspicion that very little playtesting takes place before anything is released. It gets put out into the wilds, then one or two guys take a bit of time looking through community results and analysis on the multitude of Goonhammer-type sites, write up a balancing FAQ doc and release.

 

This is far cheaper and less resource-intensive than getting a bunch of playtesters involved, having them sign NDAs, worry about leaks etc.

Let the community do the work for you, and as so few people actually play the games (Vs just buying/collecting miniatures) you're not upsetting enough fans for it to be a problem.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Agree.

James Workshop said pretty much that at the 10th intro.

They stated they use half a dozen players to make sure it works, then let thousand of games in the wild create the balance. 

We'll never be able to buy an Edition which functions properly at launch with that strategy  

Edited June 22 by Interrogator Stobz
Fat fingers

[lansalt]

Has any 40k edition ever been different? Even the big 3rd or 8th ed. resets were inmediately followed by supplements and revisions that broke whatever balance they had initially.

 

After so many decades I think people should recognize this is part of GW's business model: Keep the state of the game in flow, make players need to follow a "meta" and new releases.

Edited June 22 by lansalt

[Valkyrion]

Power creep was always a thing, and people have always found the most optimal builds, but it was never really promoted as a playstyle like it is now.

By giving nerfs and buffs you invite the community to change their army, sometimes completely. That was never really the original intention of this game - players might have had several armies, but generally after trial and error (which could last years) you settle on your favoured faction or two, for whatever reason that might be, be it fluff or colour or the models or the rules. You might dip your toes into different armies from time to time, but if you were a Tyranid player 20 years ago, you are probably a Tyranid player today and will likely be a Tyranid player 20 years from now. 

But these balance updates are 'encouraging' players to switch to officially sanctioned 'better' armies.  It feels different. It feels worse. 

[Indy Techwisp]

Just in case anyone is still confused about the pivot rule, the actual change is pretty simple:

As the balance dataslate is the most recent "publication", it overwrites the rules from Nexys tournament pack.

 

As such, the rule is simply that Vehicles and Monsters all pivot 2" and nothing else does.

No different rules for different base shapes, just if you have one of those 2 keywords.

[Minsc]

19 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Just in case anyone is still confused about the pivot rule, the actual change is pretty simple:

As the balance dataslate is the most recent "publication", it overwrites the rules from Nexys tournament pack.

 

As such, the rule is simply that Vehicles and Monsters all pivot 2" and nothing else does.

No different rules for different base shapes, just if you have one of those 2 keywords.

Instead of losing "nothing", my Rhino loses 2" of movement if it angles 1 degree to the  left or right instead of going straight forward.

Its not that it's confusing, it's stupid.

[Indy Techwisp]

11 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Instead of losing "nothing", my Rhino loses 2" of movement if it angles 1 degree to the  left or right instead of going straight forward.

Its not that it's confusing, it's stupid.

 

You can still drive sideways, backwards or strafe in a diagonal, you just can't change which way the entire vehicle points.

 

The confusion was in regards to what actually does or does not pivot.

[Indy Techwisp]

We are, as usual, paying for the sins of tourney and comp players who've been lining up vehicles sideways on the deployment zone edge and then pivoting the vehicle for 4" of extra movement turn 1.

 

It is still a shame, but as always for 10th vehicles can just shoot out of any part of the vehicle so actually spinning your tank around isn't as necessary as it was in past editions when you actually needed to point the guns vaguely at what you were shooting.

Edited June 22 by Indy Techwisp

[phandaal]

13 hours ago, templargdt said:

Eldar being broken is a constant of the warhammer universe.  

 

Where is that old comic about the guy slowly accepting how busted his Elder army is? 

[SkimaskMohawk]

4 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

We are, as usual, paying for the sins of tourney and comp players who've been lining up vehicles sideways on the deployment zone edge and then pivoting the vehicle for 4" of extra movement turn 1.

 

It is still a shame, but as always for 10th vehicles can just shoot out of any part of the vehicle so actually spinning your tank around isn't as necessary as it was in past editions when you actually needed to point the guns vaguely at what you were shooting.

 

I'm pretty sure that by the actual rules, everything had to pay movement to pivot for all of 10th, and I want to say it's been the case for 9th and maybe even 8th. 

 

The new pivot rules are doing two things. The first is eliminating the fantasy style wheel measurement by just declaring a set cost. The second is allowing big stuff on circular bases (but not oval) to not have to pay the pivot tax. 

 

It ain't tournament players to blame for this one; they're reducing the overall penalty, not increasing it.

Edited June 22 by SkimaskMohawk

[Xenith]

On 6/21/2024 at 4:09 PM, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Disagree 100% here. Played a few casual Death Guard games with the index just after launch. They were rough to play and not balanced. Lost disgustingly resilient, barely went up in toughness compared to others, shooting didn't really go up in strength, Mortarion was neutered, lost movement on some units, terrible detachment bonus and more. Win rate was in the 30% for a reason.

 

Again, this will vary by local meta. Our DG player was doing quite well with them at the release of 10th, after the first balance pass. He did go 4-1 at an international (team) tourney with them in 9th, though, so he knows what he's doing, and didn't jump ship when the internet said they're weak, like many competitive players did. 

[DemonGSides]

They got emergency buffed with the first balance pass and were one of the first factions to get a major overhaul to their core rules.  Your One Local Pilot doing well is exactly the problem we're talking about but you're acting like it's evidence of a balanced faction when, uh, that's like the exact opposite.  I did try to play DG for the first 3 months of 10th ed (Doofy and I got into PLENTY of arguments over efficacy throughout the boards, so it's not like I gave it one shot and quit), and shelved them entirely for literally any other faction that I had at the time.

They absolutely were weak on release, especially compared to the broken state of Eldar and others.  A pro pilot doing well against a bunch of normies (After the balance pass, so I'm not sure what statement you're trying to make unless you misspoke) isn't the "They are fine!" evidence you're thinking it is wrt to normal play.  Post balance pass where they got buffs to their contagion and had points rebalanced, they were pretty okay.  They've been Pretty Okay since, but the changes to mission pack is gonna hurt if their battleline doesn't come down a smidge in price to account for how slow they are compared to literally every other battleline unit in the game.
 

[brother_b]

I’m really wondering that as GW continues and the hobby continues going down a constant reworks/re-release edition update, how much can we as a community take? It’s expensive! I still don’t own the rulebook for 10th as it just felt like too much money

I'm feeling that lore and models are more important to me than rules. I can play one page or 9th or whatever edition and still have fun without worrying about the rat race.

 

And maybe I’m old school but nothing about 10th was an upgrade in my opinion. I quite liked the granularity of points, the more detailed and flavorful army lists and rules, and how characters were handled.

 

Yes I’m playing 10th and having fun but the data slate whiplash and lackluster codex releases for my armies have left me feeling “meh”.

Hopefully my foray into GSC keeps the interest and fun going for 10th.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

54 minutes ago, brother_b said:

And maybe I’m old school but nothing about 10th was an upgrade in my opinion. I quite liked the granularity of points, the more detailed and flavorful army lists and rules, and how characters were handled.

 

All of this. I view 10th Edition as "Baby's First Wargame." They might as well have marketed it as a higher-point Combat Patrol and kept 9th around a few more years.

 

But of course then they couldn't have resold everyone a new codex.

 

(I can't wait for the inevitable surge in emergency room visits once Space Marine 2 launches and forces players to grapple with THREE different Bolt Rifle variants once again. My God, the humanity...)

[Pacific81]

On 6/22/2024 at 10:32 AM, lansalt said:

Has any 40k edition ever been different? Even the big 3rd or 8th ed. resets were inmediately followed by supplements and revisions that broke whatever balance they had initially.

 

After so many decades I think people should recognize this is part of GW's business model: Keep the state of the game in flow, make players need to follow a "meta" and new releases.

 

We know from recent interviews with Priestley, Chambers etc that those guys spent a lot of times playtesting the new games and releases before they came out. They would put together mock-up miniatures to represent new releases that did not yet have something official.

 

You had the feeling from them that there was a a real sense of pride in their craft, of them as game designers, and what they were releasing, and trying to make it as fun, playable and balanced as they could (even though they acknowledge broken combinations of things slipped through the net).

I'm not sure at what point in the editions this stopped, or the developers* just were no longer given the time & resources to do likewise, as everything is funnelled into a maximum-speed miniature and game release strategy, at the behest of the sales/production teams.

 

*Whoever these people might be? The way they are treated like witnesses to a mob hit in an FBI witness relocation program.

Edited June 23 by Pacific81

[Dark Shepherd]

Irony is GW hiring 2 more playtesters would cost them £40k

 

I love the Champions of Russ change, makes playing Wolves FUN and more unique. Stormlance really feels like an accident for Wolves.

 

Hot take but the.divergent chapters SHOULDNT be able to use the core codex detachments

[lansalt]

I don't have any doubt about the original designers being very earnest and loving their craft, but RT, 2e, and 3e all had a stream of non-stop rules changes, sometimes replacing whole subsystems (how many times did they modify the vehicle rules?). 

I imagine GW today being pretty much like any other modern entertainment company, with complex power dynamics between producers, product managers, and the actual designers/artists. Lots of egos and people with an eye in bonuses/promotions/protecting their turf. The typical issues of a company going from a few guys (which GW was even in the late 90s/early 2000s) to a big corporate structure.

[01RTB01]

On 6/21/2024 at 2:24 PM, Orange Knight said:

 

I wish this were true.

 

Generally this is how 40k used to be. Most units were middling, but there were a few combinations of warlord traits, psychic powers, etc that produced over powered results.

 

Today an entire army, literally every unit in it, can be poorly balanced against the units in another army.

 

It's why we just had an example where  the entire admech range had a stat adjustment. Some models are going from BS4+ to BS2+ in an attempt to get them to pereform.

 

 

8th edition was honestly the best edition in 20 years, in my opinion.

 

And it was the best specifically during the Index period. There was loads of crazy stuff but it didn't matter because it could be found across every faction lol

2nd, 4th/5th and 8th have been best. For the 'modern' era I concur that 8th was solid. It was fun, played well and the balance seemed decent. 9th that went out the window and moved from power creep to insane power leap.

 

Interestingly 9th is when the tournament lot got their claws into game development too. The excess wordiness trying to achieve clarity and avoid loopholes... It wasn't fun. Crusade was the only part of 9th with any redeeming qualities. 

 

I'm still itching to play 2nd again...

 

As a 40 year old with time consuming job and family, I find it too difficult to keep up with the changes. I managed a game of ASoIAF last night for an intro game and prior to that I'd played one game with the new ork codex back in April. I'll keep building and painting orks as it takes my fancy, but playing isn't as fun as it was and that isn't rose tinted specs either. 9th and 10th have a very different, ephemeral feel to them. GW may be financially successful but the games aren't improving. I'm hoping AoS 4 is in a good place but having played ASoIAF last night, it's another alt activation system and a very close game. Gw need to abandon the system of whole army goes and opposition waits. It's old and doesn't make for good games imo. 

[Orange Knight]

Yeah, I couldn't agree more about the way rules are written now.

 

They aren't remotely fun to read, and they don't particularly sound thematic.

 

It has gone from tabletop game rules to something attempting to be a concise legal document, and still failing at that.

[phandaal]

32 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Yeah, I couldn't agree more about the way rules are written now.

 

They aren't remotely fun to read, and they don't particularly sound thematic.

 

It has gone from tabletop game rules to something attempting to be a concise legal document, and still failing at that.

 

I believe that there is no amount of legalese in a ruleset that will stop certain kinds of people from trying to find advantageous, stupid loopholes. Hell, if it WERE possible, we would have people writing actual laws that way and wouldn't need bodies of case law to agree on how those laws should be interpreted.

 

In my opinion, it is much more effective to adopt the "quit your bull:cuss:" mindset when playing games with people. In the rare case that you run into someone telling you that it is fine for them to deploy their grav-tanks balanced at the pinnacle of your wobbly spire terrain because the tanks can technically fly, then you tell them to quit their bull:cuss: or find someone else to play the game with. When that mindset becomes widespread, the rules goblins will either knock it off or they will find a different game to play.

 

Save the legalese for real courts where at least people are getting paid to argue about it.

[Redcomet]

4 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 

We know from recent interviews with Priestley, Chambers etc that those guys spent a lot of times playtesting the new games and releases before they came out. They would put together mock-up miniatures to represent new releases that did not yet have something official.

 

You had the feeling from them that there was a a real sense of pride in their craft, of them as game designers, and what they were releasing, and trying to make it as fun, playable and balanced as they could (even though they acknowledge broken combinations of things slipped through the net).

I'm not sure at what point in the editions this stopped, or the developers* just were no longer given the time & resources to do likewise, as everything is funnelled into a maximum-speed miniature and game release strategy, at the behest of the sales/production teams.

 

*Whoever these people might be? The way they are treated like witnesses to a mob hit in an FBI witness relocation program.

At what point? Around the same time managers hired from the outside of wargaming, told Priestley to axe all the bad selling minis from the range. Not knowing that those were the generals and heroes, which the game can’t be played without.

Managers not knowing anything about the product the company they work for, are selling.

The 3 year cycle is 100% a manager created problem, to get bigger bonuses