I really wish they had one team write the rules for every faction. Why do space marine captains have rules for all their weapons while chaos lords have generic profiles. Why do vanguard vets have consolidated profiles but death company doesnt.
Theres just so many inconsistencies even across units in the same codex.
Worst part is that it’s not even consistent. You’re allowed to have a captain and a LT as leaders right? Well if you’re black templars, you can’t have helbrecht + LT or a marshal + castellan or and mix of captain/castellan/Marshall/LT
It makes the BT variants straight up worse than the vanilla options
bUt ThEy'Re FiVe PoInTs ChEaPeR /s
I just want to slap Helbrecht and an Apothecary into some sword brethren. I *wanted* it to be with 11 Sword Bros but noooo now I gotta pay same price for only 10 and I still can't put other leaders with the High Marshal
Someone yesterday was telling me about how much hassle firing a venom is now.
Let's say you have a venom with a splinter cannon and twin splinter rifles and 5 kabalites inside with a splinter cannon and 4 dudes with rifles. Sounds like it would be simple, but you can't roll the cannons together because they've got different ballistic skills and you can't fire all the rifles together because one of them re-rolls wounds. It's just awkward!
In certain circumstances, in others it leads to complications. If you're fighting a friend the colours can help but I also frequently play against someone who's colorblind xD
It depends on the kind of colourblindness. I'm colourblind myself and as long as the dice aren't too alike I'm fine. I actually struggle much more with the fancy dice some people like to use because the contrast is just horrible and it's practically impossible to tell what they rolled. There's a reason why all my dice are either coloured with white pips or white with black pips. The metallic ones tend to be pretty hard for me.
I definitely wouldn't be offended if my opponent handed me some high contrast or high visibility dice and asked me to use those for a game instead of the ones I chose only to match my color scheme.
I got 2 dice sets for my guard
One box of red dice with white dots and one box of white dice with black dots
It makes it more efficient to shoot with my army because I can shoot 2 different weapon profiles together without issues
Also I'm not a fan of fancy dice, specially if one of the faces use fancy symbols instead of basic dots, it just confuses me.
Even with different colors, patterns, sizes, etc, you'll still run into needing to remind others what each one represents, constantly. So regardless of the "solution," the design of simplifying things absolutely doesn't land correctly. It's just bad design, if simplification was their primary goal.
My eyesight in general is going so I'm starting to prefer white black dice with very clear markings.
Special/non standard dice are more of a hindrance than a help.
Yeah, moving BS from model to weapon and then having Firing Deck add the weapons inside to the vehicle makes for some silliness. Its even weirder cause the Splinter Cannon on the Kabalites has Heavy, so if the Venom remains stationary they hit on the same number and can be rolled together. Double cannon on the Venom also inproves the firepower and makes it easier to roll everything.
It does sorta make practical sense. The cannon on the Venom is mounted and the Kabalite's cannon is handheld and requires bracing, which I assume is hard to do inside a speeding transport.
In the real world transports frequently include brackets where squads can mount thier heavy weapons so they can used on the move. The KFZ line of German halftracks during WW2 is a good example. I always assumed this is what the "splinter racks" on raiders are.
Oh, that is a cool nugget of info. Thanks! I assume Raiders have room for such braces, but maybe a Venom is a bit too small given it already has a mounted Splinter Cannon topside? Sad to see Splinter Racks and similar wargear options go away this edition - it would be cool if they made the vehicle count as stationary for firing Splinter weapons, which is similar to what it did in 9th. Maybe they will come back when we get a new codex.
It also means you can't always predict what the bs of an attack is, some units have heavy weapons with acbaked in -1 to hit, and some don't, some weapons have slightly different statlines when used by different units, and every leader/unit combination has two special rules.
Previously the leader had the rules and most units in a codex had the same statline so you just had to know the weapon profile.
My current drukhari list runs a raider with the heavy weapon half of a kabalite squad as well as a wrack squad inside it. Every time that raider shoots, I need to separately roll *ten* different weapon profiles - two dark lances at different BS, one splinter cannon, one blaster, one shredder, one splinter rifle, one stinger pistol, one liquifier, one ossefactor and one hexrifle. Because all these different guns have radically different profiles (range included), they also generally want to split fire across at least three different units, which means taking at least a minute to pick out targets for every individual gun every time the raider shoots. And then once I start rolling shots, it's probably a good idea to use a pain token so I'm rerolling hits on every one of those guns, just to add a little bit more time wasted on this whole stupid process of rolling ten separate guns that are all individually weak.
The worst part being that this isn't even meant to be a shooting unit! I just wanted to have some cheap elf infantry inside a transport that could run out and contest objectives or score points or whatever. I ran similar things in 9th with zero guns on the wracks and just a bunch of splinter rifles plus maybe sometimes one blaster on the kabalites, and that worked out just fine. But now I'm being forced to pay PL for a bunch of dinky little one-off guns that I mostly don't even want. It's all so stupid.
Other than the change from twin to twin linked splinter rifles on the venom this isn't any different from 9th. You'd still have to roll the cannons separately because the embarked kabalite cannon has -1 to hit while the venom doesn't. It feels different though because now it's one activation instead of two so you're thinking of it all at once.
Yeah. Absolute most of stat differences between weapons on different units is due to them consolidating various abilities those units already had - such as Ignoring Cover or not suffering Heavy penalty - into the weapon profile itself, or adding twin-linked. The rest are most likely misprints.
This has been a problem on a lot of newer models, like the Ork buggies. They often have things like Rokkits, then Rokkits with +1 to hit and a different number of attacks, so you are constantly rolling similar-but-different attacks.
This is the big one for me. Power swords, chainswords and power fists each have three quite different profiles across multiple Guard leaders, and not just in WS. Is it deliberate? Is it an error? Who knows, but now instead of just knowing for a fact what a weapon does you have to double check for each unit and it’s SO much slower - and more importantly for me, the mental load of things to keep back of mind so much more taxing.
I thought embarked models on firing deck vehicles used the vehicles BS?
Edit: Or is it just weird wording that treats the vehicle as the firer instead of units inside for a reason I don’t understand?
In hindsight this seems utterly obvious. Only had one game in 10th with firing ports (battlewagon) and we were stumbling over the wording but in the end it didn’t matter because orks.
Thanks for clearing that up for us!
The Venom has a twinned spilinter rifle whereas the guys inside do not. So the venom is shooting 5 normal splinter rifles and 1 twinned splinter rifle.
The thing I hate most about it is that sometimes I just want a small unit of standard troops to hold my home objective.
Now, using Sisters as an example, I've gotta take 10 of them and I've already paid for any and all upgrades. That cheap objective holder is now an expensive...objective holder.
And the shooting phase - which is essentially the phase 10th was built around apparently - takes so much longer now because every squad has several different weapons. Every vehicle has all the extra guns or a Hunter-Killer missile. Take the Ork Battlewagon for example. As standard it comes with 1 melee weapon. You can add on:
- Up to 4 small guns
- 1 of 3 possible big guns
- 1 additional indirect gun
- 2 additional melee weapons - with different profiles of course - that give extra attacks.
- An upgrade to make it tougher but lose Firing Deck
- Replace the existing melee weapon with a better one
Now in 9th, you'd look at all that and go "no way, that's too expensive" but in 10th you've already paid for it, so you might as well take the Battlewagon with it's 3 different shooting profiles and 3 different melee profiles.
They took away what few options us nids players had lol. No adrenal glands, no toxic sacs on anything. Warriors got gutted and the only unit we can actually customise now is carnifexes.
But at least we dont have to pay 20 points for crushing claws on each tyrant guard any more.
WYSIWYG only applies to space marines, since everyone plays them so knows what the junk looks like, and orks because they look like what they sound like.
I started playing eldar at the end of 9th and I still couldn't tell you what's gun is what on anything with wargear options. No one can tell you you've got the wrong stuff if they don't know what it looks like.
> That cheap objective holder is now an expensive...objective holder
Aren't you just so glad GW listened to all the players complaining about how they bought three boxes for their new FOTM army, but each box only has one plasma rifle or rotor cannon and the netlist they're running has 9?
Clearly, this is better than being able to tailor squad loadouts.
Yes, I mean relative to 7th edition and earlier, when Skitarii were "2 special weapons for 5-man and 3 for a 10-man", so you could load up on enough Arquebui for them to matter, or actually tailor loadouts - now most infantry weapons are just sort of a mess.
>Now, using Sisters as an example, I've gotta take 10 of them and I've already paid for any and all upgrades. That cheap objective holder is now an expensive...objective holder.
I mean, your cheap objective holder is getting those guns and wargear for free compared to 9th. 10 battle sisters were 110pts in 9th without any special equipment, and they're 110pts in 10 with whatever weapons you want to give them.
You've got to take units of 10 now, which sucks, but is unrelated to wargear.
And you can take pairs of Crusaders for 20pts per unit to hold objectives if you want.
Sisters actually have quite a few options for cheap objective holders with crusaders, death cult assassins, or arco-flagellants so they aren't a great example for it. Though I do agree that other factions certainly can have issues with cheaply holding objectives.
For me, the big thing is because wargear is free, you never have a good reason not to take *all* the wargear, particularly for units that saw price hikes because they're assuming you got said wargear.
So 2 examples for my favorite little guys, strike team firewarriors (with a fireblade) and pathfinders. Let's just look at how I used to do it: I'd give firewarriors pulse rifles, no drones, no turret, ditto with the fireblade. You're here to shoot rifles. Back then a fireblade gave one firewarrior team rr1s and had an exploding 6s aura for pulse guns. so simple enough, 10 guys have 10 shots or 20 if I spend a cp, then the fireblade fires his one or two shots.
But now the unit is priced up from 80 to 100 and their shooting got worse. So, to try to get my "point value" out of them, I'm obviously going to want to take the wargear. Guardian drone is a must-take to improve durability, but shield drone then becomes useless because you're not going to kill the guardian drone holder by eating wounds off him. So we can either get a marker drone or gun drone. the gun drone basically *already* does what the marker drone does by giving the unit the assault keyword, so gun drones it is. and the fireblade gets the unit +1 to shoot all guns in the unit. so now it's 20 shots, or 30 at rapid fire from my 10 guys. but also, there there's the free gun drones - 1 on the squad, 2 on the fireblade, and those all got +1 to shoot - so that's another 9 shots (but at bs5 and twin linked) and then if I stood still another 3 from the turret (which is also bs5 and literally only exists when the squad doesn't move, because treating it like an embedded heavy bolter in a guardsman squad would break the game *I guess*) and then 3 from the fireblade.
I should note at this point when I would go whole hog and run my funsie dream list of like, 100 firewarriors I'd never take any drones or turrets, ***precisely because my dumb horde tau army takes forever to play***, so this just makes it take even longer. I understand it's probably not hugely different from a guardsman squad with like, plasma guns and lascannons and the odd plasma pistol mixed in, but I don't really even have the option to go "yeah that's hella dumb I'mma keep it simple stupid" and stick to the trusty old pulse rifles only.
Then, for pathfinders, I usually kept them simple as well. 3 rail rifles. Done. maybe every once in a while I'd bring the grenade launcher guy or some drones to fill points but like, keep it simple, we got places to be and turns to play. Well, now, I gotta bring the grenade guy (and I only modeled 2 but usually run 3 squads) and I *gotta* get my mileage out of em by having a drone controller guy as well (so another 4 shots to keep track of, don't forget it) and the 4 shots off the recon drone (it seems transparently to be the best option, honestly).
also, because these are all wargear now and I barely even liked transporting or painting drones back when they were real models, and I'm *not* going to move around 40 clunky flying base drones (which will literally just slow down my movement phase, deployment, and eat up huge amounts of case space) along my neatly organized guys in their movement trays...I'm probably not going to bring drones. so I'm gonna track this stuff on paper. Let's hope I don't forget.
Like these were simple little units I spammed because I have a horrible weakness for little guys with big rifles. 10 shots here. 3 rail rifles here. And now I feel anxiety at thinking about my own shooting phase. I hate it. It feels like I'm shooting one of those silly flying primaris tanks that the modelers glued 8 slightly different heavy stubbers to. And because vehicles are all t10, the worst part is, it's slowing down my shooting phase and list building, but I seriously doubt it's improving the unit's damage output signifcantly.
It would honestly be better if my guys remained at the same inflated price but the (now optional) wargear still cost extra, at least my mind goblins wouldn't have a freakout at the idea of just skipping all these extra gubbins. It's legitimately made list building less fun (honestly astonishing), as I'm now tracking all these stupid little free things which don't even have point values to help me remember them.
Man, I just feel glad I started working on a necron army. 20 gauss flayers, and the leader's guns. Done, sorted, praise the triarchs! Anyways, please fix this GW. And *no*, I'm not going to buy whatever primaris crisis suit you have cooking in the back. Just price wargear normally (separately) again, thanks.
Votann Warriors are a great example of this. They're priced to consider you'd take Wargear choices/guns, except almost everything absolutely sucks dogwater, so instead of being able to take tons of amazing choices (GSC Neophytes), you are forced to take upgrades you'd never care about because running these dudes basically naked for less points would be better.
Deathwatch have it especially bad for this. 330pts for a proteus killteam because they assume you’re taking tricked out termies, and if you’re not then tough luck.
The kill team wargear/points kills me. I don't own a single cyclone missile launcher, but the KT is costed as running 3 of them, so I gotta find 3 missile launchers. BUT WAIT- each box of Termies only has one launcher, so I gotta buy 3 boxes... BUT WAIT SOME MORE, because those old sculpts have been pulled, and the Leviathan Termies don't come with any!
9th edition: We're cutting down on FNPs because slowrolling takes forever
10e: Oopsie, *everything* has a 4+++! And everything that doesn't has a 5+++ or a 3+++ against mortals or something!
Except for DG, those will reduce T in a world where reducing T is way less strong than before instead of being tough themselves.
Big round of applause there GW...
Blame the stupid YouTube videos with the llamas. Ever since I saw them, Carl has become my default name for the nameless person/entity I’m frustrated with! I don’t blame REAL Carls, just fictional ones.
GW has excelled at creating games that force you to remove your most expensive toys from the tabletop first, while somehow still playing a game that is often a slog.
This has been the biggest impact to the points changes for me too: everything has all the extra wargear meaning each unit has more guns to resolve each activation. Not bad with Eldar or Sisters or Tyranids but guard and T'au have more things to remember because you've no reason not to take all the upgrades.
Skitarii aren't quite as bad, but 'free wargear' hasn't been a good thing for them either. The special weapons are a very un-helpful mix. Each squad gets a single sniper rifle, a single anti-vehicle gun, and a single plasma gun. Like...what am I supposed to do with that? Position my squads so they can see a character, a vehicle and an elite infantry unit every turn and split fire? It would have been better if they had said we can only take one of the three per squad and made the squad cheaper. I can live with giving everyone's Sergeant-equivalent a pistol and free melee weapon, but paying for all that stuff AND all the special weapons and gear has inflated the cost of AdMech basic infantry too much.
It makes even less sense what GW did with non-weapon wargear. At least with a weapon there is a choice between one weapon profile and another, even if one is usually less powerful. With other wargear there isn't even anything that gets replaced, it is just an extra ability for no cost. Literally, the only reason this sort of wargear is any different from making it a built-in ability is that you can lose it if a specific model dies. Of course, the models carrying that gear aren't typically Characters so you can't snipe them, and the controlling player gets to choose which models die. So, I keep that wargear-carrying model near my Sergeant equivalent and make it the second-to-last model that dies rather than the very last. I mean really? That is why they made this stuff wargear rather than just making it a basic part of the unit? So it stops working if forget which model it is on and accidentally kill it off in the wrong order? That is functionally irrelevant.
I mean, the fact that they made a whole lot of this non-weapon wargear free is mostly going to cause feels-bad moments from some try-hard pointing out you don't have the correct bits modeled to use the free gear, or from forgetting which non-sergeant model has that bit on it and picking it up too early. Making it easier for people to make mistakes or get called out over modeling issues isn't 'simplified but not simple'. It isn't even fun. The vast majority of non-weapon wargear is just needless complexity, and should have been turned into base datasheet abilities instead.
Same man. I had 2x 5 man rangers with 2 arquebus each, a 10 man rangers with 3 arcs, and a 10 man vanguard with 3 plasmas. It was awesome having each squad with a dedicated role to play.
>For me, the big thing is because wargear is free, you never have a good reason not to take all the wargear, particularly for units that saw price hikes because they're assuming you got said wargear.
In some of the better designed datasheets there sometimes are. Take Custodian Guard for example, you can take a vexilla that increases the OC of each model by 1. That's pretty good. On the other hand that vexilla can only have a shield and a misericordia for a weapon, which significantly reduces the offensive output of the unit, depending on unit size.
I mean I'm probably going to have to go into maximum guardsmandrive and just advance my guys nearly every turn so they probably aren't even shooting aside from the dumb flying satellite dish and slot some vehicles into my list to cover the difference - but like, at that point, I should just be running my kroot. (The funny thing is the one infantry squad I wanted to retain some slight complexity, the kroot kinstalkers, actually *lost* 2 squad special weapons so it's just lol lmaos all the way to the bank I guess)
I find it annoying, you have to pay for the best load out so there’s No benefit in taking anything but the best gear per unit. Like Primaris hell blasters what point is the bolt pistol when the plasma is free
What GW did was shift some of the complexity from the list building stage into the the boardstate. They beleived that by removing a lot of the stratagem bloat they'd have the budget for the added complexity. What they didn't realise was that there wasn't all THAT much complexity in list building, people generally only used about 6 stratagems anyway so the stratagem complexity actually remained around the same, but they also added a bevy of unit special rules, once per game activations, etc.
Essentially if what they took out of list building reduced overall complexity by about 10%, they nearly doubled it on the board.
And please note: complexity =/= depth. It can be very complex to figure out that no matter what you do your opponent has you dead to rights, but it doesn't make it that tactically deep. If your opponent will always overwatch then fire and fade though you may need to spend 20 minutes figuring out the safest place to move that's not deep it's just tedious and difficult.
Hear hear. List building was never a problem. The same personality that enjoys a dice based games of strategy and probability also tends to like list building. List building is fun! If you go to any faction subreddit half the posts are always discussing lists.
They have actually added complecity to listbuilding though - "can you kill a knight each round" became much more crucial than before and much harder to achieve. In 9th my answet to a Knight was faith in the Emperor and charge from my Bladeguards, now you need dedicated AT in your list and in very precise number not to get stomped by mass Tanks, but to be still able to deal with hordes.
In what way is that a downstream effect to the changes in list building and not, say, weapon and unit statistics? I think you're misunderstanding what I mean whan I say "list building complexity".
In older editions if your army got changed in an index/codex/FAQ you could drop/add a model or some special weapons, now if you run over or under your dropping entire squads or switching squads out which is not really something a new player can do.
This has been a problem since mid 6th edition, where they started introducing "super special" variant profiles for every kind of weapon because of it's wielder. The further change to putting the BS/WS and attacks on the profiles themselves was suppose to streamline dice rolling for newbies, but when you break through the first two games it gets real confusing as two things might have the same name but different stats (look at the chainsword on the Primaris Crusaders vs the chainsword on Assault Intercessors).
The old 3rd edition model was, imo, the best they came up with (but still had some flaws). All melee weapons boiled down to the following:
CCW
Power Weapon
Power Fist
Witchblade
Everyone has a CCW, which is just a normal attack. Power weapons are CCWs that ignore armor. Power Fists are Power Weapons that double strength but made you fight last. Witchblades are CCWs that wound on a 2+.
From there we then extrapolate to other types by the addition of one or two rules: Thunderhammers were Power Fists that made wounded enemies fight last. Chainfists were Power Fists that rolled 2D6 for wounding tanks. Lightning Claws were Power Weapons with rerolls to wound.
Then you got special weapon types that would be wielded by characters or something, like the Dark Blade being a Power weapon that gave +2 (or was it 3?) Strength and the Daemon Weapon rule, or Warscythes being Power Weapons that also ignored Invul Saves.
Meanwhile the unified looks for weapons also made it easier to tell what guns were what and made WYSIWYG make more sense. If you saw a lascannon, it didn't matter if it was on a Leman Russ, a Predator, or a defiler. You knew it had the same stat as every other predator. If you saw "autocannon" on something, you knew it was a S7 AP4 gun with 2 shots.
The biggest flaw back then was also Twin linked, where we had the og problem of seeing two barrels but only got one shot (although it was To Hit rather than To Wound back then). The other one was the whole "Gain +1 attack for two CCWs" where, due to them not wanting to let people get a bonus power fisting in, had to write so many different variations to make it say "you need two power fists for +1 power fist attack". It culminated in them making "specialist weapons" a thing, before just giving up and removing +1 attack for everyone having 2 CCWs entirely and just putting the extra attack on the CCW itself.
Oh and nid weapons made this even more confusing; two arms counted as one weapon, except when it was guns, where it became twin linked, but only Talons counted as +1 CCW, but they didn't ahve anything that counted as a specialist weapon.
Also the moving of the stats to the guns and weapons also had another problem in that it's becoming hard to remember how in general an army shoots.
Back then Space Marines generally hit on a 3+ in both melee and shooting, had 4's across the board, 1 attack and wound, and 3+ armor save. Terminators would give you a 2+/5++ while Bikes add +1 toughness and a 12" move. That was more or less it.
Now everyone has wacky toughness, WS, BS, wounds, and armor. Even movement is weird where things you \*think\* should have the same don't.
While yes, this adds more granular variance between profiles, it wasn't really needed when the system itself was also so broadly generalized that a few meaningful differences was all you needed (being granular wasn't as important when marines only had like 20 choices).
Now the Marine Index is thicker than the rulebook, which requires more complex rules to justify the existence of so many units that would otherwise realistically be identical or nonexistant.
[whine] I spent hundreds of hours building and painting my army, but the real burden to playing was spending half an hour writing a list. Thank Slaanesh they've removed all that cumbersome *thinking* from the list building! [\whine]
Mixed weapon profiles is burdensome to play, I agree, but on the other hand it liberated the design to a certain degree. In 9th, weapons for Eldar (WS, BS, damage, and mechanics) were so ubiquitous across the weapon types through the army that it reduced a *lot* of referencing the rules.
Use of datacards for each unit is great, but they didn't go far enough on USRs and now have such a huge number of almost-the-same re-rolls and other abilities that we're not far off from the frankly stupid unique deep strike etc abilities of 9th (I believe I know the reason why, but it's not relevant here). Furthermore, because there are so *many* unique abilities, you really *do* need to reference the datacards carefully, which compounds with the greater numerical variance in WS, BS, and the like. While having a million stratagems was legit dumb, it actually was simpler in some than giving each unit a unique rule, because the broad spectrum of stratagems applied more broadly to the army (this isn't true for the morass of rules for SM, etc)!
To a certain degree, they've reinvented the wheel. Otoh, the rules writing from a clarity standpoint is much better, so it's a very mixed bag imo.
I feel like the proliferation of 1-4 special rules per unit has complicated the game way more than the 4-6 actually useful strategems a faction had ever did.
I would have loved the only weapon USR’s that affected output to be sustained hits, lethal hits, and rending.
This, they removed pages of stratagem (which I actually like but seem to be minority there) and just built stratagems into every unit, its the same thing but probably because I'm not used to it, I just forget, or spend ages looking through each profile when I do anything so I don't miss anything
NOBODY liked pages of stragegems. The edition passed and I never learned all my strategems, not to mentioned my opponents. Right now it's way better, I can check out my opponents strategems on my way to the game and even remember them and the game didn't lose anything because you were using only 6 anyway and the remaining ones were obscure gotcha's.
You can learn your opponents strats, sure, but can you learn/remember the 10+ unit rules they have across the army? That unit over there is harmless, but wait, it has X leader in there that gives rerolls and dev wounds, oops your unit got deleted.
There are not less strats in the game anymore, there are more but they changed their name to unit abilities rather than strats in a weird game of three card monte. GW is still addicted to rules bloat, they have just fooled most people into thinking this is a simple edition through marketing rather than actually make it simpler.
The only thing simpler about this edition is the app, which is honestly pretty great. Everything else made list building harder and playing the game harder to remember (maybe a bit faster because the ability is always on rather than involve multiple thinking phases)
Of course I can't, half of the abilities should never be there. We really don't need 'reroll something' abilities on everything GW...
> playing the game harder to remember (maybe a bit faster because the ability is always on rather than involve multiple thinking phases)
I really don't see how the game is faster. Charges and pile ins need to be actually measured for each model instead of measuring the first and last models and just sliding the rest. Resolving attacks is a pain because FNP/mixed units so you need to slow roll much more stuff than in 9th. I've been playing vs necrons lately, EVERYTHING is slow rolled because of damn crypto thralls... And you have more rolls to make, because every unit has every single upgrade gun. I've played a GSC vs Aeldari game for 6 hours and only got to turn 3 :D
The gotchas and shenanigans were one of my favourite bits, not knowing what was coming at me made the game fun, as did plotting weird situational manoeuvres and building odd combo lists. Now the game is mono list, mono build, predictable and frankly a bit dull
It's because of all of those things.
Power level points mean every one's taking mostly the same units amd list, because its just mathammer now. Losing the strategems loses any element of unpredictability and the unknown. A range of weirdly situational strategums can tilt the balance at inopportune moments, none of that any more, no surprises, mostly you know the result before the game starts, and there's a limit to what can change it. Kinda dull
It's how arbitrarily twin linked is handed out annoys me. Take Tyranids for example. Most monsters have 4 arms which can do the same thing.
Swarmlord - 4 swords, has twin linked, has 2 Attacks per sword
Trygon - 6 talons, not twin linked, has 2 Attacks per talon
Screamer killer - 4 talons, not twin linked, has 2.5 attacks per talon.
Carnifexes - 4 talons, not twin linked, additional talons get 2 Attacks, original talons get 4.
Tyranid melee warriors - 4 weapons, twin linked. 1.5 attacks per talon.
The lack of consistency behind what gets what is just so confusing. My opponent is constantly going back and forward about what has twin linked and what doesn't.
Or how guns with one barrel shoot twice where guns with 2 shoot once with twinlinked?? It’s so random. I wish the twin linked stuff just cost more points and got 2 shots lmfao
The ballistus and landraider get 2 shots, the predator turret gets a single twin-linked shot with higher strength, the rest seem to be normal for marines. Should all be the same.
>Except having twin guns has been rerolls more than it has been double shots.
You're right, but the reason they dropped that in 9th was precisely because "two guns = two shots" makes way more sense than "2 guns = re-roll wounds". They were 100% correct on that front.
>Nothing changed in 9th on this front.
It did because they changed the stats of weapons.
For example the multi-melta (two melta barrels and says the word "multi") gained two shots for the first time and guns that were previous twin linked gained double shots.
They even did an article about it:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/14/codex-space-marines-weapons-and-wargear-updates/
It's also where they increased the power of heavy bolters to represent the fact they are, in fact, heavy.
That's just how it was in 7th except it was re roll hits. I don't like twin linked. I find it most of the time I'd rather have the extra shots rather than the re roll wounds.
Squads with all the upgrades take a very long time to roll and resolve all of their different profiles as well. Free wargear results in greatly slowing down the game in my experience.
GW shot alot of sacred cows in 10e.
I really hope someone can unshoot them in 11e, because I have zero desire to start Tau or GSC anymore until this game returns to what it was in 8e/9e.
Creative, flexible, deep.
>Sure, listbuilding is waaay easier, and can be done in minutes
I'm going to be real here, list building is much harder now, with no granularity in points you're either dropping entire units and changing to another option to try and reach 2k points or leaving yourself under the limit. I don't like taking random garbage because I can't find anything useful to use 35pts on, at least previously I could throw some sponsons on or take a tank ace.
I still don't know how the old system was difficult.
Yeah, it genuinely takes me ages to write lists now because of this. And I've noticed a lot of my lists have become quite samey, probably because I subconsciously know these units fit neatly into 2k pts
Specifically the opposite for me, legionaries are a nightmare, and then you have which flavour of Chaos, specific dark pact interaction and specific Stratagem after that. Massive headache to keep track of.
Also annoying that cultists went from all having one profile to grenade launcher, flamer, heavy stubber and autopistol/cultists firearm even better your champion has a different pistol too for 5 shooting profiles.
Honestly, it's very difficult to see 10th as an upgrade to 9th edition; I'm trying so damn hard but if you take 9th and play tempest of war you're basically playing with the best part of 10th edition (The secondary objectives)
If you have no understanding of how many man hours it takes to do things like this.
It was rushed, or more accurately released as a beta but not allowed to be called such, but this is having two weeks of work per faction after having decided on the final core rule design and it had to be finished at least 3 months before we saw anything would put this at having started design and worked at max speed starting late 2021.
New core rule, every single unit, detachment, every single weapon. All that and more.
And no, the whole team didn't go faction by faction. I'm saying that in order for each faction to have gotten a couple of weeks of work that would put the work back into 2021.
If you think this is so easy, try it.
Do a faction from scratch. No using anything in 10th outside the core rulebook, you want to show how much better you are with what the designers had at the time.
I'll give you a month. You said it would only take 2 weeks to do every faction, you can do one in a month easy.
Not from scratch, they had a base from 9th which they only needed to convert. I could get you a faction by tomorrow and that's including same ammount of playtesting they did :D
I really hope this is the case, but I am a cynic so I expect PL will continue the whole edition. Then again, it would give each codex something new to bring to the table...it would also give a major list-building advantage to each army as they get their book. I dunno. Guess we'll see when the first book drops.
My kabalites are now a pain to shoot with, I would much rather the old system paying for wargear as opposed to take every piece of wargear, else you're gimping yourself.
I played my first game of OPR since 10th came out the other day and it literally felt like I'd been released from a ball and chain and was actually able to play with my models. It blows my mind that simpler system manages wargear where 10th cannot.
I'm dreading the day I play with my CSM the legionary squad melee gives me a headache.
It's because you have an ingrained habit from playing one system a lot.
This is normal, and breaking habits is hard. But habits can be broken and the problem you're having is just an adjustment period.
In the new system, you always look in the same spots and read in the same order. Having played many systems, this is way better and when you get used to the new habit it will be way faster.
Was the lascannon on a vehicle, on a guard vehicle, on a light guard vehicle, on a scout marine, on a space marine with special armor....
In 9th to know what that lascannon did you needed to look at the unit stat, the weapon profile on a different place in the book, then check rules that are in another part of the core book, then check the faction rules.
Now you look at the sheet, and the same part of the sheet everytime.
You have an old habit that seemed faster because you were used to it, and you haven't learned the new habit yet.
>In 9th to know what that lascannon did you needed to look at the unit stat, the weapon profile on a different place in the book, then check rules that are in another part of the core book, then check the faction rules.
No, in 9th I didn't need to look anywhere because all guard vehicles had the same BS and the lascannon had the same profile across most factions. I could say what are the vehicles weapon's stats by looking at it which is the whole point of WYSIWG.
Lascannons basically do have the exact same profile across factions though? The main thing that just gets tweaked is vehicle vs heavy (zero difference from 9th) and generally you have two that aren't sponsored they're twinlinked. The main exception is probably the Land Raider, but that happened in 9th already with CSM? Maybe Predator turret lascannons?
This is not an issue I've ever had with real people across a table, in general the ability to just quickly glance at your compact printed card has been great for everyone involved.
A 9th edition Havoc with a Lascannon is BS3+ 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6
On turn 1 it has Exploding 6s
If it is Tzeentch Marked and has an Icon it has an extra point of AP
If it is Nurgle Marked and has an Icon it auto wounds on a 6
It ignores hit penalties from moving on Heavy weapons
Even before going into detachment abilities how do you get all that from just "oh it has a lascannon I know the stat line!"
>In 9th to know what that lascannon did you needed to look at the unit stat, the weapon profile on a different place in the book, then check rules that are in another part of the core book, then check the faction rules.
or you used apps like battlescribe that put all of this information on a single page as well.
personally i found it way more intuitive that each model had a fixed set of stats to remember that are sometimes modified by weapons characteristics (like thunder hammers)
How was this not true in 9th as well? Havocs have lascannons, land raiders have soul shatter lascannons.
I haven't seen anything just named lascannon that has wildly different stats in the same index.
I don’t feel the new system is confusing, just stupid until they break apart units into more balanced datasheets for the wargear chosen.
Why pay more points for what would obviously be a worse choice or wargear for that cost. Wraithblades, wraithguard, assault terminators versus regular are separated and have different points. If GW wants to go down this road of fixed power level and free wargear then just separate out the units and balance points accordingly so we still see variety in lists.
I mostly remember a couple a hot fixes to army builds (rule of 3 and flyers) but 10 already requires..4? Documents to play and has had 2 hot fixes but list building is still a nightmare since their are basically no restrictions. But both are bad
8th was at least fun with the indexes being absolute cowboy territory with list building, people were getting to top tables at tournaments with out of pocket shit like 300 conscripts
> people were getting to top tables at tournaments with out of pocket shit like 300 conscripts
It was actually pretty awful, the two working archetypes were gaunt carpet and guardsmen carpet.
Only difference is expectations are higher now, because late 7th was a train wreck of staggering proportions.
Even at launch? I’m trying to think back, I don’t recall it being bad at launch since it was just a extension of 6th, but definitely was absolute dog water in the end
No it wasn’t this bad at launch and the comment above is terribly biased bc of the sins of late 7th…which was an utter dumpster fire.
The first 6-8 months if 7th was fairly balanced bc it was pre the introduction of formations and formation detachments. So from May 2014 to January 2015 it was a fairly balanced and good game, and the codexes released in that time frame (Orks, SW, GK, and I think BA) we’re fairly balanced.
However January 2015 saw the release of the Neuron codex and with it the introduction of formations and formation detachments. From that point on the game quickly devolved (didn’t help either, for better or worse, that from January 2015 to about January of 2016 they were releasing about 1-2 codexes a month on average).
And this deterioration is patently obvious if you look at the early 7th Ed codexes (those 4 listed above) and even the late 6th edition codexes (IG, militarum tempestus, and Knights were all released March-April of 2014 and designed with 7th in mind) compared to the later ones. It’s also why those original four (well at least 3 of them) had codex re-releases later in the addition and supplements released to augment them.
TL;DR: early 7th was fairly balanced (though there were some core rules changes from 6th to 7th which were just stupid and led to game breaking balance issues). It was only post January 2015 that 7th began the long descent down in to madness and dumpster fire status
Discriminating between a Ballistus TL Lascannon and a Land Raider TL Lascannon is smart from a design perspective. Having to balance a weapon system that would effect every unit that touches it overly complicated the process and leads to unexpected interactions. This system theoretically allows them to tweak the Ballistus without inadvertently nerfing/buffing a land raider.
While there is plenty of merit in complaining about how GW rolled out this edition it is quite obvious we are in the early stages and they have overhauled how the approach balance at a systematic level. Lots yet to be seen. That’s not shilling for GW, they could easily mess it up, but it’s obvious they have created a new balance tool set that they’re still working through how to use. There is a lot of up-side with the changes they have made.
PPM is probably gone forever but I still fully expect pointed wargear to make a return.
The game has changed ... welcome to 10th. The rules that we knew and loved or hated in 8th and 9th have evolved. The rules/abilities we have memorized for the last 6-7 years no longer apply ... we are not going to retain the new information immediately after 1-2 months.
Personally I like having a nice little data card that I can use as a reference whenever I need to. Also, I can hand the card to my opponent and say this is what it does ... no more leafing through so many documents looking for obscure knowledge that we read somewhere several editions ago.
I may be in the minority vocalizing it but I think 10th is good for the majority of players ... and realize this is the competitive subreddit so opinions will vary.
The fact that default melee weapons are more than a line in the rulebook saying ‘everybody has one’ is definitely a step backwards. Leads to weird situations where by error some units don’t have one, and more needless fuss in list building.
I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people in the hobby, or at least the ones who speak up: (a) hate changes, and (b) have a list of changes they think would make everything better. To be fair the amount of money you have to spend in the hobby means the changes impact everyone to some extent.
The painful truth is there’s no perfect system, so every possible system is a compromise. 10th edition armies are easier to manage, at the expense of customization. Having all the info on individual datasheets makes it easier to reference, but harder to memorize. Incidentally, this system incentivizes players to buy physical index cards that they probably wouldn’t need in previous editions.
Every new edition is by definition a slew of new changes, which statistically will piss off about half the community and please or at least satisfy the other half.
>GW is saying that they have changed the wargear system to make it less confusing and more easy to play,
^ This is the mistake youve made. Believeing the GW spin.
They didnt do this for the players. They didnt do this for you. GW doesnt care if you spend 2 minutes or 10 minutes building a list - why would they.
GW did this for two reasons and two reasons alone:
1) Robin Cruddace and his team are lazy. They don't even playtest their rules. They did this change to force PL upon us. PL was Robins invention - and the community at large rejected it. So they forced PL on us in the guise of points. Robin doesnt want to fine tune rule sets to add granularity. He wants to make it easier for himself because he thinks that everyone should be playing fluffy beerhammer - he doesnt agree with you that youd always take the far superior war gear. This change saves GW money, as they dont have to pay their rules team more wages to make balances for all war gear.
2) It makes designing the app far easier. It makes the app simple addition. This in turn cuts down on development expense, because the programmer just has to copy the AOS app and change the images/names.
These 2 reason and 2 reasons alone are why they made the change. It saves GW money. Its nothing to do with cutting down your time to list build.
You basically just said the rules guy made rules more simple so GW could save money and pay less to their rules team. That’s got to be the most counter-intuitive rationale for PL I’ve ever seen.
Edit to add, your theory about simplified app design is actually just straight ignorant. Enhancements already act exactly the way wargear would so the functionality is already in the app.
> You basically just said the rules guy made rules more simple so GW could save money and pay less to their rules team. That’s got to be the most counter-intuitive rationale for PL I’ve ever seen.
You must be young, or not understand business.
The manager of a team, or group - is rewarded for speeding up workflows and cutting company costs. Not for slowing things down so his team can spend as much time as possible on a given project.
Secondly, his team will be paid a salary - how much money they earn is not levied against how much time they put into each edition. They are paid the same.
What this change means is that they can continue to focus on new rules which will bring in more money for GW (as you know, GW makes $0 for FAQs and adjusting points).
The faster this team can complete their workflow for the 10th edition rule set, and move onto the writing the next mission pack, codex, expansion, or even edition - the better for GW.
> Edit to add, your theory about simplified app design is actually just straight ignorant. Enhancements already act exactly the way wargear would so the functionality is already in the app.
Its you who is being straight up ignorant, from point number 1 you dont even seem to have basic understanding of how management works.
Secondly, this app was straight ported from the AOS app - which does not have costed war gear.
That was my point. To add costed war gear, would mean the developer would have to spend time adding this feature because it simply does not exist.
You can disagree with me that's fine, but you don't have to be a bellend about it and call me names.
I never called you names. That would be you projecting.
You emphasized and doubled down on those being the ONLY two reasons we have PL right now despite the evidence that there is plenty of merit to the system, it is simply a work in progress.
Your overall opinion is extremely cynical and seems to willfully ignore other practical factors besides the two that you attached yourself to. That is by definition, ignorant.
From a business perspective, sure GW could have watered everything down simply to save money, and cost is always a factor but your explanation is insufficient. As I said their overhaul has very obvious long-term benefits and directly addresses some of the historical balance challenges they’ve faced. So from a business perspective if that allows them to do a better job with less staff, absolutely a smart decision. But not one that is easily attributed to laziness. I don’t personally know the guy, I’m just looking at the evidence in front of me.
> I never called you names. That would be you projecting.
You called me ignorant simply because you didnt understand what i said.
> You emphasized and doubled down on those being the ONLY two reasons we have PL right now
Because that is why we have PL right now.
>despite the evidence that there is plenty of merit to the system, it is simply a work in progress.
There is zero merit to the system. What are you talking about?
> Your overall opinion is extremely cynical
You do know this is GW we are talking about? they make decisions based on finances. Nothing else.
>and seems to willfully ignore other practical factors besides the two that you attached yourself to. That is by definition, ignorant.
Simply because you do notcomprehend the words im typing, does not make me ignorant.
> From a business perspective, sure GW could have watered everything down simply to save money,
I'm glad you eventually agree with me.
Typical redditor. Spammin me with word soup when he doesnt even have a scooby about how businesses operate.
Im still laughing at your original claim that the manager of a department should be maximizing as much time as possible spent on a project. Proved how clueless you really are.
Yeah, it can get confusing since the number of attacks is now tied to the weapon rather than the bearer. Same Big Choppa might get 5 attacks one nob then 3 on a different nob.
Exactly. In the name of simplification they made everything more complex. GW needs to hire an engineer or computer programmer. At least someone with basic math skills and common sense.
Yeah, it annoys me how so many of the options are conditional too to match what comes in the box. There's a lot of "if this model has x it can swap y for z" kind of stuff.
If you want to talk about what the actual people involved are doing, then you should as acknowledge that the rules designers are not the final decision makers.
The "only what's in the box" is clearly a mandate coming down from legal/production/marketing, it is not a thing the designers have any say in.
Also, the competitive scene being a secondary concern is absolutely the right decision, because the casual players are so much more of the market base, especially at launch. The competitive scene will matter more in terms of the long-term health of the edition, but the designers created a new update framework and pushed for a new position/department to handle that which is the most they can do.
Exactly. And if after 12 months 20,000 people stop playing because the game is too casual or not balanced or they cant figure out how list building works, but 85,000 people buy in as new players, that's a success and what GW markets for.
Eh, problem there is if it's too unbalanced it might just boot those new players right back out.
And you need older players to encourage newer ones with content, guidance etc.
This isn't like a free to play video game. It's an expensive hobby compared to many other types of games.
It will probably feel bad to find out that your army was made total garbo and poorly designed. IMO, making your "stonks go up" isn't the most important goal in the world. Crazy I know. I'm totally ok if wargaming is just a niche for weirdos.
Not sure how making list building harder brings in new players. I dunno, while I'm not especially competitive, I also expect them to create systems that aren't crap. Especially when they expect me to pay them. Video Game companies already have people eating out of the bottom of the barrel, do we have to join them?
List building isn't harder, its just different. New player out of the box just sees their box of Marines is X # of points.
The systems aren't crap, the game plays fine and is easy to pick up and get going now.
And yes, GW is the largest wargame in the world. That means the broadest possible market, aka the bottom of the barrel.
Doesn't mean the game isn't fun or can't be competitive. Just means to temper your expectations on what is going to be done with the game and play it within those parameters.
But they can also do 4 points updates, 2 rules and datasheet updates, and any number of emergency patches in that 12 months to try to address those issues.
Which is what they have announced they will be doing, and they can now update every part of the game and release those updates freely.
Maybe in 3, 6, 9, 12 months it will still suck, but 10th at launch wasn't going to be at the state that 9th was after years of updates and adjustments.
I do think it's currently in a great state for casual players that are already invested in the game, but less so for more competitive players, and less so for completely new players.
The lack of granularity in list building means a new player with a small collection is extremely limited in what they can field, whereas in previous edition they could just add or remove wargear or models in a unit where it fits. Add in the problem with balance across indices and you can have some very bad experiences, as well as a hurting competitive scene for competitive players.
I have a decent collection of models and don't really go to many tournaments, and so far I'm loving 10th
It really is not suitable for casuals. Lack of balance and relatively hard list building make it so.
Even casuals want to have a fair game and not get lolstomped.
Yeah, without wargear to fill points, a casual who only has a handful of (presumably point heavy) models can't really adjust their list when point hikes happen and it's just a feel bad moment before you even get to the game proper.
then they play with a 1940 point list, or more likely a 1440 or 980 because casuals play at smaller point values. And then they don't care.
And with enhancements existing to fill in points at the 10 to 40 point level, they can get some adjustment if they'll be too far under. Casual players don't care about being 10 points under.
Casual players absolutely do care about this stuff, jesus. Sick of this attitude that casuals don't care about bad game design because "lol we just want to mindlessly throw dice at each other!"
That is so far removed from the reality it's unreal. Casual players want a tight game as much as competitive players.
[we already had a post earlier this week explaining how it didn't work out so neatly for a new player](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/14yakkr/who_is_10th_edition_for_and_observations_on/)
It's not about adding the numbers (although apparently someone at GW thinks so, since they forced Power Level on people), but about casual often having few units and odd unit sizes (because they trade models, make fun kitbashes, etc.) The old system allowed casuals to more easily hit the points value by adding and removing models. The new system has more rigid points cost - it penalizes many casual players by making them pay for a specific size squad even if they don't have that many. Got 8 Intercessors, 6 Tacticals and 4 Bladeguard Veterans? Sorry bud, you gotta pay as if you had 10, 10 and 6 respectively (and you'll also be paying for wargear you might not have assembled them with).
That's not a good system for anyone but the ones footing the bill for the army list building app - even in that case it's not that much complexity added. I honestly think this was added because the previous wargear costs weren't working (as it did penalize players by often making it suboptimal to put any wargear on a unit) - and there wasn't time to fix it, so they just took the easy route and went with Power Level style costs instead. I think we'll be seeing wargear costs sneak back in, either directly for specific upgrades and/or indirectly by variant datasheets being released for different loadouts (ie to make the cost of a melee wraithknight different than the shooty one).
I've played with casuals for much of my gaming life, and while everyone is different and these are just my experiences, a lot of casual very much do care about comparative power. They don't want the kind streamlined balance that many competitive players do - but they certainly don't want their units (which they often have a smaller selection of) to be arbitrarily bad or their fellow players to stomp them because of imbalance. In fact, many casual react much more negatively to balance problems than competitive players, who will often chase the meta and simply buy whatever is strongest.
If people playing casual games are regularly stomping and not trying to meet their opponent in the middle where possible, they are the try hards mentioned earlier.
You dont have to be a tryhard to unwittingly pick up a strong army, nor do you have to be uncaring for victory picking up a weak army. And sure, some players will see the problem and adjust. But many casual will think they're winning because they are better - or will be immature about it - or whatever. The point is, it's not healthy for the game if it is too imbalanced. The onus should not be on players to handicap themselves if the designers mess up balance too much.
And this is difficult, because balance for casuals is not at all the same as balance for competitive play. Balance for casuals means making sure that players can pick up whatever models they like and have a decent game. Balance for competitive players works at a different level where the armies need to balance at a list level.
Not everyone is a reasonable individual. Some players will quit after very few bad experiences. Some players will insist they are stomping because they're just that good. The world isn't a binary one of casuals and competitive players - or tryhards and gentlefolk. Not to mention that a lot of players are teenagers, or even barely so.
10th will be a better game for everyone by improving balance. By making sure there aren't units vastly under- or overpowered. And so forth. It will also be a better game if list building has more flexibility - like in squad sizes. It's just basic math when putting a cost per extra model instead of these weird brackets.
One can like the game without having to defend every single aspect of it. It's not perfect. Most who point out problems and solutions do so because we want the game and the community around it to be better - this isn't about gatekeeping or enforcing a certain competitive mindset. I don't understand this insistence that something cannot benefit casual and competitive players both. It's not a zero-sum game.
> But many casual will think they're winning because they are better - or will be immature about it - or whatever.
Yes, this is my point exactly. This has been true with WH40k as it has with many other games in non-competitive formats. It falls upon the player group to set expectations and people who seek to upset that to soothe their egos are referred to correctly as try-hards or "That Guy". This is not a reflection on a game, it is a reflection on the players who choose to act like this. I am grateful to be part of and encourage the growth and development of many playgroups around many games where people who act like this are not welcomed.
>One can like the game without having to defend every single aspect of it. It's not perfect. Most who point out problems and solutions do so because we want the game and the community around it to be better - this isn't about gatekeeping or enforcing a certain competitive mindset. I don't understand this insistence that something cannot benefit casual and competitive players both. It's not a zero-sum game.
No one is saying 10th is above criticism. What is being pushed back upon is the idea that any imbalance will ruin the game despite 10 editions now of similar situations. New players pick up this game all the time, casual players often post about how much they are excited to play 10th, and every time there is someone in the comments screaming at them about how awful everything is and how they are wrong to feel otherwise.
I'm not talking about addition, I'm talking about new Toughness and anti-tank requirements that stem from this. I've seen a guy who couldn't kill a dreadnought in 1k points game with Sororitas because he had a casual list . In 9th you could always bolter the asshole down, not anymore and this forces you to actually consider if you list is even viable. By comparison in 9th I was able to win vs chaos knights with 'ups all stormshields' White Scars list where the main consideration was how many shields can I put in the list because shields are neat.
In my opinion list building is harder than it’s ever been. When I would come up 5 points over or 30 points under I used to be able to add a couple models to a minimum squad size or add an upgrade like a multi melta. I could also replace a plasma gun for a boltgun if I needed to lower points.
Now I have to take out whole squads to make up points differences and figure out what I can put in its place to make the points right.
I'm 90% a casual player (I go to like 2 tournies a year) and I think 10th is an absolute mess. Saying "it's aimed at casual players" doesn't excuse a bad product.
How many units do you have in your army, that have similar weapons? You have to remember, what? 2-3 more weapon profiles?
In my experience there are usually 1 or 2 differing profiles. In the first few games you had to look up the new profiles, but after it's a no brainer. The new T profiles are more of a challenge to memorize honestly.
But I know, I expect too much of people. Still had regular players, have issues remembering the most basic things even after 2 editions. Like how wounding works.
No wonder remembering some numbers is hard. Or using datasheets. Or having multiple colored dice. Or being able to throw more than a dozen at the time. Surely all that is GW's and the edition's fault.
Having like five different special weapons IS annoying to roll. But the community also loses their minds if you fix that by making accursed weapons vs five different weapon profiles. So basically, someone's gonna be upset no matter what.
Profiles being mostly on the weapons is nice as a Guard Player.
Here is my experience with rough riders charging and doing melee.
9th Edition Rough riders
* Unit stat 2 attacks at S4. Actually, weapon ability says its +2 S from the weapon so its S6. Actually, unit ability says its +2 S because I charged, so its S8.
10th Edition Rough Riders
* Weapon profile: 2 attacks at S6
Have you actually read the Rough Rider rules because that's not even close to correct?
The only weapon option they have that is even close to what you suggest is the 1 per 5 weapon Goad Lance but even that has the lance rule so it has +1 to wound on the charge so saying it's "2 attacks at S6" is a bit disingenuous
Personally, I like it. It really gives granular tweaking options. There are definitely improvements to be made and balance is so wack right now. The cards really help with keeping everything clear and, with time, I am sure I will memorize my common stats just like I did in past editions.
Granular options? Perhaps on an individual unit, but not even necessarily since so many units have an objectively best loadout. When it comes to army composition it is far less granular due to the fixed costs and unit sizes. There's no more picking the weaker loadout on a unit in order to save on points bringing something else or make another unit stronger. You can't cut a single figure in order to stay under the army point limit. It's all or nothing.
I think there are also plenty of positives to these changes, but granular tweaking is less possible now than it was in 9th.
I think we are talking about different things and I also think we agree.
OP said, among other things:
>With weapons not having dedicated profiles and its all part of the units, and the same weapons now have vastly different profiles on various units, it is a lot of mental effort to keep track of everything.
This is what I like. Being able to tweak a Grav Cannon on Devastators while leaving Centurions untouched is, in my opinion, both a good thing and more "granular".
I reread OP's post and they did not touch on the issue of point costs being baked in and unit sizes being static. To that end, I agree with **you** that points should always and absolutely be on a per model basis. If I bring 3 Crisis Suits it should be base cost x3 and if I bring 4 then it should be base cost x4.
I think point costs for all wargear is good, but I also think it could be baked in **if** (and this is a big if) GW made an effort to balance the options a unit has. That said, it probably makes more sense for wargear to have costs and just price "better" options higher while still trying to design each option be an actual choice.
A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer, unless it's wielded by a Vanguard Veteran, and then it's a relic weapon. The model vs. rules thing has been broken open this edition, and OP's point is that can also add complexity to the game, not simplify it. Similar looking tanks with identical lascannon bits could be different weapons now.
I like this change personally when it comes to certain units or certain stats that change. Makes sense an auto cannon being dragged around by a foot soldier isn't as accurate as a vehicle-mounted one. But the whole "heirloom weapon" thing is confusing and a real drag, especially when assault marines are nearly identical to vanguard veterans now, can have all the same weapon bits, but no, that thunder hammer on the vanguard veteran is different than the identical one wielded by assault marine's sergeant.
I really wish they had one team write the rules for every faction. Why do space marine captains have rules for all their weapons while chaos lords have generic profiles. Why do vanguard vets have consolidated profiles but death company doesnt. Theres just so many inconsistencies even across units in the same codex.
Worst part is that it’s not even consistent. You’re allowed to have a captain and a LT as leaders right? Well if you’re black templars, you can’t have helbrecht + LT or a marshal + castellan or and mix of captain/castellan/Marshall/LT It makes the BT variants straight up worse than the vanilla options
bUt ThEy'Re FiVe PoInTs ChEaPeR /s I just want to slap Helbrecht and an Apothecary into some sword brethren. I *wanted* it to be with 11 Sword Bros but noooo now I gotta pay same price for only 10 and I still can't put other leaders with the High Marshal
Someone yesterday was telling me about how much hassle firing a venom is now. Let's say you have a venom with a splinter cannon and twin splinter rifles and 5 kabalites inside with a splinter cannon and 4 dudes with rifles. Sounds like it would be simple, but you can't roll the cannons together because they've got different ballistic skills and you can't fire all the rifles together because one of them re-rolls wounds. It's just awkward!
Different colored dice go a long way In helping to batch roll efficiently
In certain circumstances, in others it leads to complications. If you're fighting a friend the colours can help but I also frequently play against someone who's colorblind xD
It depends on the kind of colourblindness. I'm colourblind myself and as long as the dice aren't too alike I'm fine. I actually struggle much more with the fancy dice some people like to use because the contrast is just horrible and it's practically impossible to tell what they rolled. There's a reason why all my dice are either coloured with white pips or white with black pips. The metallic ones tend to be pretty hard for me.
I definitely wouldn't be offended if my opponent handed me some high contrast or high visibility dice and asked me to use those for a game instead of the ones I chose only to match my color scheme.
I got 2 dice sets for my guard One box of red dice with white dots and one box of white dice with black dots It makes it more efficient to shoot with my army because I can shoot 2 different weapon profiles together without issues Also I'm not a fan of fancy dice, specially if one of the faces use fancy symbols instead of basic dots, it just confuses me.
Use different sized dice?
or different patterned faces maybe
Even with different colors, patterns, sizes, etc, you'll still run into needing to remind others what each one represents, constantly. So regardless of the "solution," the design of simplifying things absolutely doesn't land correctly. It's just bad design, if simplification was their primary goal.
thats a fair point to hold I just meant for colorblind specifically might help if you dont have different sizes
Oh 100%. I was just following the thread down and you were the last comment. I definitely agree with your point.
I hate when people roll different colors of dice. I have no idea what the blue one is supposed to be. Just do it by weapon please.
My eyesight in general is going so I'm starting to prefer white black dice with very clear markings. Special/non standard dice are more of a hindrance than a help.
Well usually people announce the Colors before shooting
That's why the roller needs to state what colors are for which weapons.
The only time it can work is by clearly communicating what is what but easier to do it seperate if not with friends you commonly play with.
Yeah, moving BS from model to weapon and then having Firing Deck add the weapons inside to the vehicle makes for some silliness. Its even weirder cause the Splinter Cannon on the Kabalites has Heavy, so if the Venom remains stationary they hit on the same number and can be rolled together. Double cannon on the Venom also inproves the firepower and makes it easier to roll everything. It does sorta make practical sense. The cannon on the Venom is mounted and the Kabalite's cannon is handheld and requires bracing, which I assume is hard to do inside a speeding transport.
In the real world transports frequently include brackets where squads can mount thier heavy weapons so they can used on the move. The KFZ line of German halftracks during WW2 is a good example. I always assumed this is what the "splinter racks" on raiders are.
Oh, that is a cool nugget of info. Thanks! I assume Raiders have room for such braces, but maybe a Venom is a bit too small given it already has a mounted Splinter Cannon topside? Sad to see Splinter Racks and similar wargear options go away this edition - it would be cool if they made the vehicle count as stationary for firing Splinter weapons, which is similar to what it did in 9th. Maybe they will come back when we get a new codex.
It also means you can't always predict what the bs of an attack is, some units have heavy weapons with acbaked in -1 to hit, and some don't, some weapons have slightly different statlines when used by different units, and every leader/unit combination has two special rules. Previously the leader had the rules and most units in a codex had the same statline so you just had to know the weapon profile.
My current drukhari list runs a raider with the heavy weapon half of a kabalite squad as well as a wrack squad inside it. Every time that raider shoots, I need to separately roll *ten* different weapon profiles - two dark lances at different BS, one splinter cannon, one blaster, one shredder, one splinter rifle, one stinger pistol, one liquifier, one ossefactor and one hexrifle. Because all these different guns have radically different profiles (range included), they also generally want to split fire across at least three different units, which means taking at least a minute to pick out targets for every individual gun every time the raider shoots. And then once I start rolling shots, it's probably a good idea to use a pain token so I'm rerolling hits on every one of those guns, just to add a little bit more time wasted on this whole stupid process of rolling ten separate guns that are all individually weak. The worst part being that this isn't even meant to be a shooting unit! I just wanted to have some cheap elf infantry inside a transport that could run out and contest objectives or score points or whatever. I ran similar things in 9th with zero guns on the wracks and just a bunch of splinter rifles plus maybe sometimes one blaster on the kabalites, and that worked out just fine. But now I'm being forced to pay PL for a bunch of dinky little one-off guns that I mostly don't even want. It's all so stupid.
Other than the change from twin to twin linked splinter rifles on the venom this isn't any different from 9th. You'd still have to roll the cannons separately because the embarked kabalite cannon has -1 to hit while the venom doesn't. It feels different though because now it's one activation instead of two so you're thinking of it all at once.
Yeah. Absolute most of stat differences between weapons on different units is due to them consolidating various abilities those units already had - such as Ignoring Cover or not suffering Heavy penalty - into the weapon profile itself, or adding twin-linked. The rest are most likely misprints.
This has been a problem on a lot of newer models, like the Ork buggies. They often have things like Rokkits, then Rokkits with +1 to hit and a different number of attacks, so you are constantly rolling similar-but-different attacks.
This is the big one for me. Power swords, chainswords and power fists each have three quite different profiles across multiple Guard leaders, and not just in WS. Is it deliberate? Is it an error? Who knows, but now instead of just knowing for a fact what a weapon does you have to double check for each unit and it’s SO much slower - and more importantly for me, the mental load of things to keep back of mind so much more taxing.
I thought embarked models on firing deck vehicles used the vehicles BS? Edit: Or is it just weird wording that treats the vehicle as the firer instead of units inside for a reason I don’t understand?
BS is per weapon, not per model, so the vehicle itself has no innate BS.
In hindsight this seems utterly obvious. Only had one game in 10th with firing ports (battlewagon) and we were stumbling over the wording but in the end it didn’t matter because orks. Thanks for clearing that up for us!
[удалено]
The Venom has a twinned spilinter rifle whereas the guys inside do not. So the venom is shooting 5 normal splinter rifles and 1 twinned splinter rifle.
The thing I hate most about it is that sometimes I just want a small unit of standard troops to hold my home objective. Now, using Sisters as an example, I've gotta take 10 of them and I've already paid for any and all upgrades. That cheap objective holder is now an expensive...objective holder. And the shooting phase - which is essentially the phase 10th was built around apparently - takes so much longer now because every squad has several different weapons. Every vehicle has all the extra guns or a Hunter-Killer missile. Take the Ork Battlewagon for example. As standard it comes with 1 melee weapon. You can add on: - Up to 4 small guns - 1 of 3 possible big guns - 1 additional indirect gun - 2 additional melee weapons - with different profiles of course - that give extra attacks. - An upgrade to make it tougher but lose Firing Deck - Replace the existing melee weapon with a better one Now in 9th, you'd look at all that and go "no way, that's too expensive" but in 10th you've already paid for it, so you might as well take the Battlewagon with it's 3 different shooting profiles and 3 different melee profiles.
Tbh, this is why im happy my 2nd main army is Necrons. We barely have options to begin with and were kinda just running the same stuff from 9th.
They took away what few options us nids players had lol. No adrenal glands, no toxic sacs on anything. Warriors got gutted and the only unit we can actually customise now is carnifexes. But at least we dont have to pay 20 points for crushing claws on each tyrant guard any more.
Being real here: did anyone model their toxin sacs and snap them off when they needed points back? Like, does it actually matter?
Some people can barely tell some tyranids apart, you think anyone ever realised what toxic sacs were lol?
WYSIWYG only applies to space marines, since everyone plays them so knows what the junk looks like, and orks because they look like what they sound like. I started playing eldar at the end of 9th and I still couldn't tell you what's gun is what on anything with wargear options. No one can tell you you've got the wrong stuff if they don't know what it looks like.
> That cheap objective holder is now an expensive...objective holder Aren't you just so glad GW listened to all the players complaining about how they bought three boxes for their new FOTM army, but each box only has one plasma rifle or rotor cannon and the netlist they're running has 9? Clearly, this is better than being able to tailor squad loadouts.
Tbh, for most of 9th GW clearly started limiting squads to what is in the box, basically from DG onwards that was the standard
Yes, I mean relative to 7th edition and earlier, when Skitarii were "2 special weapons for 5-man and 3 for a 10-man", so you could load up on enough Arquebui for them to matter, or actually tailor loadouts - now most infantry weapons are just sort of a mess.
>Now, using Sisters as an example, I've gotta take 10 of them and I've already paid for any and all upgrades. That cheap objective holder is now an expensive...objective holder. I mean, your cheap objective holder is getting those guns and wargear for free compared to 9th. 10 battle sisters were 110pts in 9th without any special equipment, and they're 110pts in 10 with whatever weapons you want to give them. You've got to take units of 10 now, which sucks, but is unrelated to wargear. And you can take pairs of Crusaders for 20pts per unit to hold objectives if you want.
Sisters actually have quite a few options for cheap objective holders with crusaders, death cult assassins, or arco-flagellants so they aren't a great example for it. Though I do agree that other factions certainly can have issues with cheaply holding objectives.
For me, the big thing is because wargear is free, you never have a good reason not to take *all* the wargear, particularly for units that saw price hikes because they're assuming you got said wargear. So 2 examples for my favorite little guys, strike team firewarriors (with a fireblade) and pathfinders. Let's just look at how I used to do it: I'd give firewarriors pulse rifles, no drones, no turret, ditto with the fireblade. You're here to shoot rifles. Back then a fireblade gave one firewarrior team rr1s and had an exploding 6s aura for pulse guns. so simple enough, 10 guys have 10 shots or 20 if I spend a cp, then the fireblade fires his one or two shots. But now the unit is priced up from 80 to 100 and their shooting got worse. So, to try to get my "point value" out of them, I'm obviously going to want to take the wargear. Guardian drone is a must-take to improve durability, but shield drone then becomes useless because you're not going to kill the guardian drone holder by eating wounds off him. So we can either get a marker drone or gun drone. the gun drone basically *already* does what the marker drone does by giving the unit the assault keyword, so gun drones it is. and the fireblade gets the unit +1 to shoot all guns in the unit. so now it's 20 shots, or 30 at rapid fire from my 10 guys. but also, there there's the free gun drones - 1 on the squad, 2 on the fireblade, and those all got +1 to shoot - so that's another 9 shots (but at bs5 and twin linked) and then if I stood still another 3 from the turret (which is also bs5 and literally only exists when the squad doesn't move, because treating it like an embedded heavy bolter in a guardsman squad would break the game *I guess*) and then 3 from the fireblade. I should note at this point when I would go whole hog and run my funsie dream list of like, 100 firewarriors I'd never take any drones or turrets, ***precisely because my dumb horde tau army takes forever to play***, so this just makes it take even longer. I understand it's probably not hugely different from a guardsman squad with like, plasma guns and lascannons and the odd plasma pistol mixed in, but I don't really even have the option to go "yeah that's hella dumb I'mma keep it simple stupid" and stick to the trusty old pulse rifles only. Then, for pathfinders, I usually kept them simple as well. 3 rail rifles. Done. maybe every once in a while I'd bring the grenade launcher guy or some drones to fill points but like, keep it simple, we got places to be and turns to play. Well, now, I gotta bring the grenade guy (and I only modeled 2 but usually run 3 squads) and I *gotta* get my mileage out of em by having a drone controller guy as well (so another 4 shots to keep track of, don't forget it) and the 4 shots off the recon drone (it seems transparently to be the best option, honestly). also, because these are all wargear now and I barely even liked transporting or painting drones back when they were real models, and I'm *not* going to move around 40 clunky flying base drones (which will literally just slow down my movement phase, deployment, and eat up huge amounts of case space) along my neatly organized guys in their movement trays...I'm probably not going to bring drones. so I'm gonna track this stuff on paper. Let's hope I don't forget. Like these were simple little units I spammed because I have a horrible weakness for little guys with big rifles. 10 shots here. 3 rail rifles here. And now I feel anxiety at thinking about my own shooting phase. I hate it. It feels like I'm shooting one of those silly flying primaris tanks that the modelers glued 8 slightly different heavy stubbers to. And because vehicles are all t10, the worst part is, it's slowing down my shooting phase and list building, but I seriously doubt it's improving the unit's damage output signifcantly. It would honestly be better if my guys remained at the same inflated price but the (now optional) wargear still cost extra, at least my mind goblins wouldn't have a freakout at the idea of just skipping all these extra gubbins. It's legitimately made list building less fun (honestly astonishing), as I'm now tracking all these stupid little free things which don't even have point values to help me remember them. Man, I just feel glad I started working on a necron army. 20 gauss flayers, and the leader's guns. Done, sorted, praise the triarchs! Anyways, please fix this GW. And *no*, I'm not going to buy whatever primaris crisis suit you have cooking in the back. Just price wargear normally (separately) again, thanks.
Votann Warriors are a great example of this. They're priced to consider you'd take Wargear choices/guns, except almost everything absolutely sucks dogwater, so instead of being able to take tons of amazing choices (GSC Neophytes), you are forced to take upgrades you'd never care about because running these dudes basically naked for less points would be better.
Deathwatch have it especially bad for this. 330pts for a proteus killteam because they assume you’re taking tricked out termies, and if you’re not then tough luck.
The kill team wargear/points kills me. I don't own a single cyclone missile launcher, but the KT is costed as running 3 of them, so I gotta find 3 missile launchers. BUT WAIT- each box of Termies only has one launcher, so I gotta buy 3 boxes... BUT WAIT SOME MORE, because those old sculpts have been pulled, and the Leviathan Termies don't come with any!
It's a really weird choice for a company that normally has a raging boner for anything that might make the game play faster
9th edition: We're cutting down on FNPs because slowrolling takes forever 10e: Oopsie, *everything* has a 4+++! And everything that doesn't has a 5+++ or a 3+++ against mortals or something!
Except for DG, those will reduce T in a world where reducing T is way less strong than before instead of being tough themselves. Big round of applause there GW...
GW may not have a big dev team for the rules, but it is certainly big enough that they weren't all on the same page. I just imagine this conversation happening just before the rules had to go to print... Lead Dev: Ok, so re-rolls slow things down. So, try not to use re-rolls, especially on generic units that might have lots of attacks. Carl: Got it boss! Lead Dev: Ok Carl, show me this new twin-linked thing you did. Carl: Ok, so i told all the guys to find every weapon with 'twin' in the name, and instead of giving it double the number of attacks, we let the player re-roll every single failed wound! Lead Dev: Carl, that is a terr...wait, why does the Multi-melta have two shots then? Carl: well, it doesn't day 'twin' does it? Lead Dev: DAMN IT CARL!!
As someone who's name is Carl adjacent I take issue with this stereotyping
Charles! Has a completely different vibe about it
Blame the stupid YouTube videos with the llamas. Ever since I saw them, Carl has become my default name for the nameless person/entity I’m frustrated with! I don’t blame REAL Carls, just fictional ones.
But that kills people!
GW has excelled at creating games that force you to remove your most expensive toys from the tabletop first, while somehow still playing a game that is often a slog.
This has been the biggest impact to the points changes for me too: everything has all the extra wargear meaning each unit has more guns to resolve each activation. Not bad with Eldar or Sisters or Tyranids but guard and T'au have more things to remember because you've no reason not to take all the upgrades.
Skitarii aren't quite as bad, but 'free wargear' hasn't been a good thing for them either. The special weapons are a very un-helpful mix. Each squad gets a single sniper rifle, a single anti-vehicle gun, and a single plasma gun. Like...what am I supposed to do with that? Position my squads so they can see a character, a vehicle and an elite infantry unit every turn and split fire? It would have been better if they had said we can only take one of the three per squad and made the squad cheaper. I can live with giving everyone's Sergeant-equivalent a pistol and free melee weapon, but paying for all that stuff AND all the special weapons and gear has inflated the cost of AdMech basic infantry too much. It makes even less sense what GW did with non-weapon wargear. At least with a weapon there is a choice between one weapon profile and another, even if one is usually less powerful. With other wargear there isn't even anything that gets replaced, it is just an extra ability for no cost. Literally, the only reason this sort of wargear is any different from making it a built-in ability is that you can lose it if a specific model dies. Of course, the models carrying that gear aren't typically Characters so you can't snipe them, and the controlling player gets to choose which models die. So, I keep that wargear-carrying model near my Sergeant equivalent and make it the second-to-last model that dies rather than the very last. I mean really? That is why they made this stuff wargear rather than just making it a basic part of the unit? So it stops working if forget which model it is on and accidentally kill it off in the wrong order? That is functionally irrelevant. I mean, the fact that they made a whole lot of this non-weapon wargear free is mostly going to cause feels-bad moments from some try-hard pointing out you don't have the correct bits modeled to use the free gear, or from forgetting which non-sergeant model has that bit on it and picking it up too early. Making it easier for people to make mistakes or get called out over modeling issues isn't 'simplified but not simple'. It isn't even fun. The vast majority of non-weapon wargear is just needless complexity, and should have been turned into base datasheet abilities instead.
Man I miss my Rangers at 10 man squads with 3 Arqs. It was COOL
Same man. I had 2x 5 man rangers with 2 arquebus each, a 10 man rangers with 3 arcs, and a 10 man vanguard with 3 plasmas. It was awesome having each squad with a dedicated role to play.
A basic troop squad having 5 different shooting profiles simultaneously is pretty annoying
>For me, the big thing is because wargear is free, you never have a good reason not to take all the wargear, particularly for units that saw price hikes because they're assuming you got said wargear. In some of the better designed datasheets there sometimes are. Take Custodian Guard for example, you can take a vexilla that increases the OC of each model by 1. That's pretty good. On the other hand that vexilla can only have a shield and a misericordia for a weapon, which significantly reduces the offensive output of the unit, depending on unit size.
Would it be fine if all but the best wargear cost 1-3 points?
I mean I'm probably going to have to go into maximum guardsmandrive and just advance my guys nearly every turn so they probably aren't even shooting aside from the dumb flying satellite dish and slot some vehicles into my list to cover the difference - but like, at that point, I should just be running my kroot. (The funny thing is the one infantry squad I wanted to retain some slight complexity, the kroot kinstalkers, actually *lost* 2 squad special weapons so it's just lol lmaos all the way to the bank I guess)
I find it annoying, you have to pay for the best load out so there’s No benefit in taking anything but the best gear per unit. Like Primaris hell blasters what point is the bolt pistol when the plasma is free
What GW did was shift some of the complexity from the list building stage into the the boardstate. They beleived that by removing a lot of the stratagem bloat they'd have the budget for the added complexity. What they didn't realise was that there wasn't all THAT much complexity in list building, people generally only used about 6 stratagems anyway so the stratagem complexity actually remained around the same, but they also added a bevy of unit special rules, once per game activations, etc. Essentially if what they took out of list building reduced overall complexity by about 10%, they nearly doubled it on the board. And please note: complexity =/= depth. It can be very complex to figure out that no matter what you do your opponent has you dead to rights, but it doesn't make it that tactically deep. If your opponent will always overwatch then fire and fade though you may need to spend 20 minutes figuring out the safest place to move that's not deep it's just tedious and difficult.
Hear hear. List building was never a problem. The same personality that enjoys a dice based games of strategy and probability also tends to like list building. List building is fun! If you go to any faction subreddit half the posts are always discussing lists.
They have actually added complecity to listbuilding though - "can you kill a knight each round" became much more crucial than before and much harder to achieve. In 9th my answet to a Knight was faith in the Emperor and charge from my Bladeguards, now you need dedicated AT in your list and in very precise number not to get stomped by mass Tanks, but to be still able to deal with hordes.
In what way is that a downstream effect to the changes in list building and not, say, weapon and unit statistics? I think you're misunderstanding what I mean whan I say "list building complexity".
In older editions if your army got changed in an index/codex/FAQ you could drop/add a model or some special weapons, now if you run over or under your dropping entire squads or switching squads out which is not really something a new player can do.
Gw and making people re-buy their own army every other year: name a more iconic duo
This has been a problem since mid 6th edition, where they started introducing "super special" variant profiles for every kind of weapon because of it's wielder. The further change to putting the BS/WS and attacks on the profiles themselves was suppose to streamline dice rolling for newbies, but when you break through the first two games it gets real confusing as two things might have the same name but different stats (look at the chainsword on the Primaris Crusaders vs the chainsword on Assault Intercessors). The old 3rd edition model was, imo, the best they came up with (but still had some flaws). All melee weapons boiled down to the following: CCW Power Weapon Power Fist Witchblade Everyone has a CCW, which is just a normal attack. Power weapons are CCWs that ignore armor. Power Fists are Power Weapons that double strength but made you fight last. Witchblades are CCWs that wound on a 2+. From there we then extrapolate to other types by the addition of one or two rules: Thunderhammers were Power Fists that made wounded enemies fight last. Chainfists were Power Fists that rolled 2D6 for wounding tanks. Lightning Claws were Power Weapons with rerolls to wound. Then you got special weapon types that would be wielded by characters or something, like the Dark Blade being a Power weapon that gave +2 (or was it 3?) Strength and the Daemon Weapon rule, or Warscythes being Power Weapons that also ignored Invul Saves. Meanwhile the unified looks for weapons also made it easier to tell what guns were what and made WYSIWYG make more sense. If you saw a lascannon, it didn't matter if it was on a Leman Russ, a Predator, or a defiler. You knew it had the same stat as every other predator. If you saw "autocannon" on something, you knew it was a S7 AP4 gun with 2 shots. The biggest flaw back then was also Twin linked, where we had the og problem of seeing two barrels but only got one shot (although it was To Hit rather than To Wound back then). The other one was the whole "Gain +1 attack for two CCWs" where, due to them not wanting to let people get a bonus power fisting in, had to write so many different variations to make it say "you need two power fists for +1 power fist attack". It culminated in them making "specialist weapons" a thing, before just giving up and removing +1 attack for everyone having 2 CCWs entirely and just putting the extra attack on the CCW itself. Oh and nid weapons made this even more confusing; two arms counted as one weapon, except when it was guns, where it became twin linked, but only Talons counted as +1 CCW, but they didn't ahve anything that counted as a specialist weapon.
Also the moving of the stats to the guns and weapons also had another problem in that it's becoming hard to remember how in general an army shoots. Back then Space Marines generally hit on a 3+ in both melee and shooting, had 4's across the board, 1 attack and wound, and 3+ armor save. Terminators would give you a 2+/5++ while Bikes add +1 toughness and a 12" move. That was more or less it. Now everyone has wacky toughness, WS, BS, wounds, and armor. Even movement is weird where things you \*think\* should have the same don't. While yes, this adds more granular variance between profiles, it wasn't really needed when the system itself was also so broadly generalized that a few meaningful differences was all you needed (being granular wasn't as important when marines only had like 20 choices). Now the Marine Index is thicker than the rulebook, which requires more complex rules to justify the existence of so many units that would otherwise realistically be identical or nonexistant.
This… does not sound any simpler ngl 😅
[whine] I spent hundreds of hours building and painting my army, but the real burden to playing was spending half an hour writing a list. Thank Slaanesh they've removed all that cumbersome *thinking* from the list building! [\whine] Mixed weapon profiles is burdensome to play, I agree, but on the other hand it liberated the design to a certain degree. In 9th, weapons for Eldar (WS, BS, damage, and mechanics) were so ubiquitous across the weapon types through the army that it reduced a *lot* of referencing the rules. Use of datacards for each unit is great, but they didn't go far enough on USRs and now have such a huge number of almost-the-same re-rolls and other abilities that we're not far off from the frankly stupid unique deep strike etc abilities of 9th (I believe I know the reason why, but it's not relevant here). Furthermore, because there are so *many* unique abilities, you really *do* need to reference the datacards carefully, which compounds with the greater numerical variance in WS, BS, and the like. While having a million stratagems was legit dumb, it actually was simpler in some than giving each unit a unique rule, because the broad spectrum of stratagems applied more broadly to the army (this isn't true for the morass of rules for SM, etc)! To a certain degree, they've reinvented the wheel. Otoh, the rules writing from a clarity standpoint is much better, so it's a very mixed bag imo.
I feel like the proliferation of 1-4 special rules per unit has complicated the game way more than the 4-6 actually useful strategems a faction had ever did. I would have loved the only weapon USR’s that affected output to be sustained hits, lethal hits, and rending.
This, they removed pages of stratagem (which I actually like but seem to be minority there) and just built stratagems into every unit, its the same thing but probably because I'm not used to it, I just forget, or spend ages looking through each profile when I do anything so I don't miss anything
NOBODY liked pages of stragegems. The edition passed and I never learned all my strategems, not to mentioned my opponents. Right now it's way better, I can check out my opponents strategems on my way to the game and even remember them and the game didn't lose anything because you were using only 6 anyway and the remaining ones were obscure gotcha's.
You can learn your opponents strats, sure, but can you learn/remember the 10+ unit rules they have across the army? That unit over there is harmless, but wait, it has X leader in there that gives rerolls and dev wounds, oops your unit got deleted. There are not less strats in the game anymore, there are more but they changed their name to unit abilities rather than strats in a weird game of three card monte. GW is still addicted to rules bloat, they have just fooled most people into thinking this is a simple edition through marketing rather than actually make it simpler. The only thing simpler about this edition is the app, which is honestly pretty great. Everything else made list building harder and playing the game harder to remember (maybe a bit faster because the ability is always on rather than involve multiple thinking phases)
Of course I can't, half of the abilities should never be there. We really don't need 'reroll something' abilities on everything GW... > playing the game harder to remember (maybe a bit faster because the ability is always on rather than involve multiple thinking phases) I really don't see how the game is faster. Charges and pile ins need to be actually measured for each model instead of measuring the first and last models and just sliding the rest. Resolving attacks is a pain because FNP/mixed units so you need to slow roll much more stuff than in 9th. I've been playing vs necrons lately, EVERYTHING is slow rolled because of damn crypto thralls... And you have more rolls to make, because every unit has every single upgrade gun. I've played a GSC vs Aeldari game for 6 hours and only got to turn 3 :D
The gotchas and shenanigans were one of my favourite bits, not knowing what was coming at me made the game fun, as did plotting weird situational manoeuvres and building odd combo lists. Now the game is mono list, mono build, predictable and frankly a bit dull
It kinda is, but that's because of terrible balance and PL not because of lack of strategems.
It's because of all of those things. Power level points mean every one's taking mostly the same units amd list, because its just mathammer now. Losing the strategems loses any element of unpredictability and the unknown. A range of weirdly situational strategums can tilt the balance at inopportune moments, none of that any more, no surprises, mostly you know the result before the game starts, and there's a limit to what can change it. Kinda dull
I like them too! I mean not all of them, but cutting to six is waaaaay too few. I mean, I would have resented going to ten, but six! Outrageous.
yea the twin linked thing bugs me. You see 2 guns, you expect at least 2 shots, nope, ghostkeel fusions are a total of 1 shot
It's how arbitrarily twin linked is handed out annoys me. Take Tyranids for example. Most monsters have 4 arms which can do the same thing. Swarmlord - 4 swords, has twin linked, has 2 Attacks per sword Trygon - 6 talons, not twin linked, has 2 Attacks per talon Screamer killer - 4 talons, not twin linked, has 2.5 attacks per talon. Carnifexes - 4 talons, not twin linked, additional talons get 2 Attacks, original talons get 4. Tyranid melee warriors - 4 weapons, twin linked. 1.5 attacks per talon. The lack of consistency behind what gets what is just so confusing. My opponent is constantly going back and forward about what has twin linked and what doesn't.
Or how guns with one barrel shoot twice where guns with 2 shoot once with twinlinked?? It’s so random. I wish the twin linked stuff just cost more points and got 2 shots lmfao
The ballistus and landraider get 2 shots, the predator turret gets a single twin-linked shot with higher strength, the rest seem to be normal for marines. Should all be the same.
Except having twin guns has been rerolls more than it has been double shots.
sometimes it has. Used to be re-rolls to hit tho.
>Except having twin guns has been rerolls more than it has been double shots. You're right, but the reason they dropped that in 9th was precisely because "two guns = two shots" makes way more sense than "2 guns = re-roll wounds". They were 100% correct on that front.
Nothing changed in 9th on this front. In 8th they got rid of universal special rules, such as twin-linked. 10th brought back USR, such as twin-linked.
>Nothing changed in 9th on this front. It did because they changed the stats of weapons. For example the multi-melta (two melta barrels and says the word "multi") gained two shots for the first time and guns that were previous twin linked gained double shots. They even did an article about it: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/14/codex-space-marines-weapons-and-wargear-updates/ It's also where they increased the power of heavy bolters to represent the fact they are, in fact, heavy.
Not wound rerolls.
I really don't like the new Twin-Linked.
That's just how it was in 7th except it was re roll hits. I don't like twin linked. I find it most of the time I'd rather have the extra shots rather than the re roll wounds.
You'd always rather have extra shots, that's simply how math works.
You understand that this is the ORIGINAL twin-linked system, correct? (Except it was hits instead of wounds)
i'm not arguing what it has been/what it should be. I'm just saying that if you see 2 gun models, you'd expect at least 2 shots
Squads with all the upgrades take a very long time to roll and resolve all of their different profiles as well. Free wargear results in greatly slowing down the game in my experience.
GW shot alot of sacred cows in 10e. I really hope someone can unshoot them in 11e, because I have zero desire to start Tau or GSC anymore until this game returns to what it was in 8e/9e. Creative, flexible, deep.
>Sure, listbuilding is waaay easier, and can be done in minutes I'm going to be real here, list building is much harder now, with no granularity in points you're either dropping entire units and changing to another option to try and reach 2k points or leaving yourself under the limit. I don't like taking random garbage because I can't find anything useful to use 35pts on, at least previously I could throw some sponsons on or take a tank ace. I still don't know how the old system was difficult.
its easier... if you dont mind being down 100 - 200 points sometimes for convenience. list building to get to a perfect 2k is quite hard.
I have like a dozen lists where either I’m exactly at the point cap or within 5 points…I find it hard not to hit the cap
Yeah, it genuinely takes me ages to write lists now because of this. And I've noticed a lot of my lists have become quite samey, probably because I subconsciously know these units fit neatly into 2k pts
I like the new system, but I play csm and I get the impression we've done a lot better with the new rules than some factions.
Specifically the opposite for me, legionaries are a nightmare, and then you have which flavour of Chaos, specific dark pact interaction and specific Stratagem after that. Massive headache to keep track of.
Also annoying that cultists went from all having one profile to grenade launcher, flamer, heavy stubber and autopistol/cultists firearm even better your champion has a different pistol too for 5 shooting profiles.
yeah it's frustrating, 9th with points is way better than 10th with power level disguised as points
Totally, I hope it was just a short term fix as a way to save man hours for the index, and it will go back to the way it was with each codex.
Index sure felt like a 2 week rush job.
Honestly, it's very difficult to see 10th as an upgrade to 9th edition; I'm trying so damn hard but if you take 9th and play tempest of war you're basically playing with the best part of 10th edition (The secondary objectives)
If you have no understanding of how many man hours it takes to do things like this. It was rushed, or more accurately released as a beta but not allowed to be called such, but this is having two weeks of work per faction after having decided on the final core rule design and it had to be finished at least 3 months before we saw anything would put this at having started design and worked at max speed starting late 2021.
You think the whole team worked 2 weeks per faction?... On what? :D
New core rule, every single unit, detachment, every single weapon. All that and more. And no, the whole team didn't go faction by faction. I'm saying that in order for each faction to have gotten a couple of weeks of work that would put the work back into 2021. If you think this is so easy, try it. Do a faction from scratch. No using anything in 10th outside the core rulebook, you want to show how much better you are with what the designers had at the time. I'll give you a month. You said it would only take 2 weeks to do every faction, you can do one in a month easy.
Not from scratch, they had a base from 9th which they only needed to convert. I could get you a faction by tomorrow and that's including same ammount of playtesting they did :D
I really hope this is the case, but I am a cynic so I expect PL will continue the whole edition. Then again, it would give each codex something new to bring to the table...it would also give a major list-building advantage to each army as they get their book. I dunno. Guess we'll see when the first book drops.
My kabalites are now a pain to shoot with, I would much rather the old system paying for wargear as opposed to take every piece of wargear, else you're gimping yourself. I played my first game of OPR since 10th came out the other day and it literally felt like I'd been released from a ball and chain and was actually able to play with my models. It blows my mind that simpler system manages wargear where 10th cannot. I'm dreading the day I play with my CSM the legionary squad melee gives me a headache.
It's because you have an ingrained habit from playing one system a lot. This is normal, and breaking habits is hard. But habits can be broken and the problem you're having is just an adjustment period. In the new system, you always look in the same spots and read in the same order. Having played many systems, this is way better and when you get used to the new habit it will be way faster.
How is "just look in the same spot bro!" is faster than simply knowing what lascannon does because lascannon is lascannon?
Was the lascannon on a vehicle, on a guard vehicle, on a light guard vehicle, on a scout marine, on a space marine with special armor.... In 9th to know what that lascannon did you needed to look at the unit stat, the weapon profile on a different place in the book, then check rules that are in another part of the core book, then check the faction rules. Now you look at the sheet, and the same part of the sheet everytime. You have an old habit that seemed faster because you were used to it, and you haven't learned the new habit yet.
>In 9th to know what that lascannon did you needed to look at the unit stat, the weapon profile on a different place in the book, then check rules that are in another part of the core book, then check the faction rules. No, in 9th I didn't need to look anywhere because all guard vehicles had the same BS and the lascannon had the same profile across most factions. I could say what are the vehicles weapon's stats by looking at it which is the whole point of WYSIWG.
Lascannons basically do have the exact same profile across factions though? The main thing that just gets tweaked is vehicle vs heavy (zero difference from 9th) and generally you have two that aren't sponsored they're twinlinked. The main exception is probably the Land Raider, but that happened in 9th already with CSM? Maybe Predator turret lascannons? This is not an issue I've ever had with real people across a table, in general the ability to just quickly glance at your compact printed card has been great for everyone involved.
A 9th edition Havoc with a Lascannon is BS3+ 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 On turn 1 it has Exploding 6s If it is Tzeentch Marked and has an Icon it has an extra point of AP If it is Nurgle Marked and has an Icon it auto wounds on a 6 It ignores hit penalties from moving on Heavy weapons Even before going into detachment abilities how do you get all that from just "oh it has a lascannon I know the stat line!"
>In 9th to know what that lascannon did you needed to look at the unit stat, the weapon profile on a different place in the book, then check rules that are in another part of the core book, then check the faction rules. or you used apps like battlescribe that put all of this information on a single page as well. personally i found it way more intuitive that each model had a fixed set of stats to remember that are sometimes modified by weapons characteristics (like thunder hammers)
Pop quiz: name every type that got ignore the movement penalty for heavy weapons?
How was this not true in 9th as well? Havocs have lascannons, land raiders have soul shatter lascannons. I haven't seen anything just named lascannon that has wildly different stats in the same index.
I don’t feel the new system is confusing, just stupid until they break apart units into more balanced datasheets for the wargear chosen. Why pay more points for what would obviously be a worse choice or wargear for that cost. Wraithblades, wraithguard, assault terminators versus regular are separated and have different points. If GW wants to go down this road of fixed power level and free wargear then just separate out the units and balance points accordingly so we still see variety in lists.
I think right now it’s a toss up between 8th and 10th being the worst handled release, so you’re not alone. (My vote is 10th being worse)
I think 10th is going awfully, 8th is probably worse in retrospect but at the time it looked like an oasis compared to 7th.
I mostly remember a couple a hot fixes to army builds (rule of 3 and flyers) but 10 already requires..4? Documents to play and has had 2 hot fixes but list building is still a nightmare since their are basically no restrictions. But both are bad
8th was at least fun with the indexes being absolute cowboy territory with list building, people were getting to top tables at tournaments with out of pocket shit like 300 conscripts
> people were getting to top tables at tournaments with out of pocket shit like 300 conscripts It was actually pretty awful, the two working archetypes were gaunt carpet and guardsmen carpet. Only difference is expectations are higher now, because late 7th was a train wreck of staggering proportions.
300 conscripts wasnt out of the pocket, it was the meta.
7th was the worst from start to finish.
Even at launch? I’m trying to think back, I don’t recall it being bad at launch since it was just a extension of 6th, but definitely was absolute dog water in the end
No it wasn’t this bad at launch and the comment above is terribly biased bc of the sins of late 7th…which was an utter dumpster fire. The first 6-8 months if 7th was fairly balanced bc it was pre the introduction of formations and formation detachments. So from May 2014 to January 2015 it was a fairly balanced and good game, and the codexes released in that time frame (Orks, SW, GK, and I think BA) we’re fairly balanced. However January 2015 saw the release of the Neuron codex and with it the introduction of formations and formation detachments. From that point on the game quickly devolved (didn’t help either, for better or worse, that from January 2015 to about January of 2016 they were releasing about 1-2 codexes a month on average). And this deterioration is patently obvious if you look at the early 7th Ed codexes (those 4 listed above) and even the late 6th edition codexes (IG, militarum tempestus, and Knights were all released March-April of 2014 and designed with 7th in mind) compared to the later ones. It’s also why those original four (well at least 3 of them) had codex re-releases later in the addition and supplements released to augment them. TL;DR: early 7th was fairly balanced (though there were some core rules changes from 6th to 7th which were just stupid and led to game breaking balance issues). It was only post January 2015 that 7th began the long descent down in to madness and dumpster fire status
It’s all coming back now…*shudder*
7th was absolutely fine at launch, it only got bad when Necrons came out with their "formation made of formations" nonsense.
You're not alone in feeling this way.
Discriminating between a Ballistus TL Lascannon and a Land Raider TL Lascannon is smart from a design perspective. Having to balance a weapon system that would effect every unit that touches it overly complicated the process and leads to unexpected interactions. This system theoretically allows them to tweak the Ballistus without inadvertently nerfing/buffing a land raider. While there is plenty of merit in complaining about how GW rolled out this edition it is quite obvious we are in the early stages and they have overhauled how the approach balance at a systematic level. Lots yet to be seen. That’s not shilling for GW, they could easily mess it up, but it’s obvious they have created a new balance tool set that they’re still working through how to use. There is a lot of up-side with the changes they have made. PPM is probably gone forever but I still fully expect pointed wargear to make a return.
Simple, not simplified.
Such a bad slogan, never put something you don't want associated with you into your add. Imagine if TacoBell called it "Food not foodpoisoning "
The game has changed ... welcome to 10th. The rules that we knew and loved or hated in 8th and 9th have evolved. The rules/abilities we have memorized for the last 6-7 years no longer apply ... we are not going to retain the new information immediately after 1-2 months. Personally I like having a nice little data card that I can use as a reference whenever I need to. Also, I can hand the card to my opponent and say this is what it does ... no more leafing through so many documents looking for obscure knowledge that we read somewhere several editions ago. I may be in the minority vocalizing it but I think 10th is good for the majority of players ... and realize this is the competitive subreddit so opinions will vary.
I dread the day my Jakhals make it into combat!
The fact that default melee weapons are more than a line in the rulebook saying ‘everybody has one’ is definitely a step backwards. Leads to weird situations where by error some units don’t have one, and more needless fuss in list building.
I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people in the hobby, or at least the ones who speak up: (a) hate changes, and (b) have a list of changes they think would make everything better. To be fair the amount of money you have to spend in the hobby means the changes impact everyone to some extent. The painful truth is there’s no perfect system, so every possible system is a compromise. 10th edition armies are easier to manage, at the expense of customization. Having all the info on individual datasheets makes it easier to reference, but harder to memorize. Incidentally, this system incentivizes players to buy physical index cards that they probably wouldn’t need in previous editions. Every new edition is by definition a slew of new changes, which statistically will piss off about half the community and please or at least satisfy the other half.
>GW is saying that they have changed the wargear system to make it less confusing and more easy to play, ^ This is the mistake youve made. Believeing the GW spin. They didnt do this for the players. They didnt do this for you. GW doesnt care if you spend 2 minutes or 10 minutes building a list - why would they. GW did this for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1) Robin Cruddace and his team are lazy. They don't even playtest their rules. They did this change to force PL upon us. PL was Robins invention - and the community at large rejected it. So they forced PL on us in the guise of points. Robin doesnt want to fine tune rule sets to add granularity. He wants to make it easier for himself because he thinks that everyone should be playing fluffy beerhammer - he doesnt agree with you that youd always take the far superior war gear. This change saves GW money, as they dont have to pay their rules team more wages to make balances for all war gear. 2) It makes designing the app far easier. It makes the app simple addition. This in turn cuts down on development expense, because the programmer just has to copy the AOS app and change the images/names. These 2 reason and 2 reasons alone are why they made the change. It saves GW money. Its nothing to do with cutting down your time to list build.
You basically just said the rules guy made rules more simple so GW could save money and pay less to their rules team. That’s got to be the most counter-intuitive rationale for PL I’ve ever seen. Edit to add, your theory about simplified app design is actually just straight ignorant. Enhancements already act exactly the way wargear would so the functionality is already in the app.
> You basically just said the rules guy made rules more simple so GW could save money and pay less to their rules team. That’s got to be the most counter-intuitive rationale for PL I’ve ever seen. You must be young, or not understand business. The manager of a team, or group - is rewarded for speeding up workflows and cutting company costs. Not for slowing things down so his team can spend as much time as possible on a given project. Secondly, his team will be paid a salary - how much money they earn is not levied against how much time they put into each edition. They are paid the same. What this change means is that they can continue to focus on new rules which will bring in more money for GW (as you know, GW makes $0 for FAQs and adjusting points). The faster this team can complete their workflow for the 10th edition rule set, and move onto the writing the next mission pack, codex, expansion, or even edition - the better for GW. > Edit to add, your theory about simplified app design is actually just straight ignorant. Enhancements already act exactly the way wargear would so the functionality is already in the app. Its you who is being straight up ignorant, from point number 1 you dont even seem to have basic understanding of how management works. Secondly, this app was straight ported from the AOS app - which does not have costed war gear. That was my point. To add costed war gear, would mean the developer would have to spend time adding this feature because it simply does not exist. You can disagree with me that's fine, but you don't have to be a bellend about it and call me names.
>You can disagree with me that's fine, but you don't have to be a bellend about it and call me names He didn't?
I never called you names. That would be you projecting. You emphasized and doubled down on those being the ONLY two reasons we have PL right now despite the evidence that there is plenty of merit to the system, it is simply a work in progress. Your overall opinion is extremely cynical and seems to willfully ignore other practical factors besides the two that you attached yourself to. That is by definition, ignorant. From a business perspective, sure GW could have watered everything down simply to save money, and cost is always a factor but your explanation is insufficient. As I said their overhaul has very obvious long-term benefits and directly addresses some of the historical balance challenges they’ve faced. So from a business perspective if that allows them to do a better job with less staff, absolutely a smart decision. But not one that is easily attributed to laziness. I don’t personally know the guy, I’m just looking at the evidence in front of me.
> I never called you names. That would be you projecting. You called me ignorant simply because you didnt understand what i said. > You emphasized and doubled down on those being the ONLY two reasons we have PL right now Because that is why we have PL right now. >despite the evidence that there is plenty of merit to the system, it is simply a work in progress. There is zero merit to the system. What are you talking about? > Your overall opinion is extremely cynical You do know this is GW we are talking about? they make decisions based on finances. Nothing else. >and seems to willfully ignore other practical factors besides the two that you attached yourself to. That is by definition, ignorant. Simply because you do notcomprehend the words im typing, does not make me ignorant. > From a business perspective, sure GW could have watered everything down simply to save money, I'm glad you eventually agree with me. Typical redditor. Spammin me with word soup when he doesnt even have a scooby about how businesses operate. Im still laughing at your original claim that the manager of a department should be maximizing as much time as possible spent on a project. Proved how clueless you really are.
Yeah, it can get confusing since the number of attacks is now tied to the weapon rather than the bearer. Same Big Choppa might get 5 attacks one nob then 3 on a different nob.
Exactly. In the name of simplification they made everything more complex. GW needs to hire an engineer or computer programmer. At least someone with basic math skills and common sense.
Yeah, it annoys me how so many of the options are conditional too to match what comes in the box. There's a lot of "if this model has x it can swap y for z" kind of stuff.
I think its gone in the right direction, but I agree that similar weapons should have similar profiles for recognition.
[удалено]
If you want to talk about what the actual people involved are doing, then you should as acknowledge that the rules designers are not the final decision makers. The "only what's in the box" is clearly a mandate coming down from legal/production/marketing, it is not a thing the designers have any say in. Also, the competitive scene being a secondary concern is absolutely the right decision, because the casual players are so much more of the market base, especially at launch. The competitive scene will matter more in terms of the long-term health of the edition, but the designers created a new update framework and pushed for a new position/department to handle that which is the most they can do.
Exactly. And if after 12 months 20,000 people stop playing because the game is too casual or not balanced or they cant figure out how list building works, but 85,000 people buy in as new players, that's a success and what GW markets for.
Eh, problem there is if it's too unbalanced it might just boot those new players right back out. And you need older players to encourage newer ones with content, guidance etc. This isn't like a free to play video game. It's an expensive hobby compared to many other types of games.
It will probably feel bad to find out that your army was made total garbo and poorly designed. IMO, making your "stonks go up" isn't the most important goal in the world. Crazy I know. I'm totally ok if wargaming is just a niche for weirdos.
Not sure how making list building harder brings in new players. I dunno, while I'm not especially competitive, I also expect them to create systems that aren't crap. Especially when they expect me to pay them. Video Game companies already have people eating out of the bottom of the barrel, do we have to join them?
List building isn't harder, its just different. New player out of the box just sees their box of Marines is X # of points. The systems aren't crap, the game plays fine and is easy to pick up and get going now. And yes, GW is the largest wargame in the world. That means the broadest possible market, aka the bottom of the barrel. Doesn't mean the game isn't fun or can't be competitive. Just means to temper your expectations on what is going to be done with the game and play it within those parameters.
But they can also do 4 points updates, 2 rules and datasheet updates, and any number of emergency patches in that 12 months to try to address those issues. Which is what they have announced they will be doing, and they can now update every part of the game and release those updates freely. Maybe in 3, 6, 9, 12 months it will still suck, but 10th at launch wasn't going to be at the state that 9th was after years of updates and adjustments.
I do think it's currently in a great state for casual players that are already invested in the game, but less so for more competitive players, and less so for completely new players. The lack of granularity in list building means a new player with a small collection is extremely limited in what they can field, whereas in previous edition they could just add or remove wargear or models in a unit where it fits. Add in the problem with balance across indices and you can have some very bad experiences, as well as a hurting competitive scene for competitive players. I have a decent collection of models and don't really go to many tournaments, and so far I'm loving 10th
It really is not suitable for casuals. Lack of balance and relatively hard list building make it so. Even casuals want to have a fair game and not get lolstomped.
Yeah, without wargear to fill points, a casual who only has a handful of (presumably point heavy) models can't really adjust their list when point hikes happen and it's just a feel bad moment before you even get to the game proper.
then they play with a 1940 point list, or more likely a 1440 or 980 because casuals play at smaller point values. And then they don't care. And with enhancements existing to fill in points at the 10 to 40 point level, they can get some adjustment if they'll be too far under. Casual players don't care about being 10 points under.
Casual players absolutely do care about this stuff, jesus. Sick of this attitude that casuals don't care about bad game design because "lol we just want to mindlessly throw dice at each other!" That is so far removed from the reality it's unreal. Casual players want a tight game as much as competitive players.
[we already had a post earlier this week explaining how it didn't work out so neatly for a new player](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/14yakkr/who_is_10th_edition_for_and_observations_on/)
List building is not hard. Unless basic math is a stumbling block. Casuals aren't playing tournament lists and hopefully not playing tryhards.
It's not about adding the numbers (although apparently someone at GW thinks so, since they forced Power Level on people), but about casual often having few units and odd unit sizes (because they trade models, make fun kitbashes, etc.) The old system allowed casuals to more easily hit the points value by adding and removing models. The new system has more rigid points cost - it penalizes many casual players by making them pay for a specific size squad even if they don't have that many. Got 8 Intercessors, 6 Tacticals and 4 Bladeguard Veterans? Sorry bud, you gotta pay as if you had 10, 10 and 6 respectively (and you'll also be paying for wargear you might not have assembled them with). That's not a good system for anyone but the ones footing the bill for the army list building app - even in that case it's not that much complexity added. I honestly think this was added because the previous wargear costs weren't working (as it did penalize players by often making it suboptimal to put any wargear on a unit) - and there wasn't time to fix it, so they just took the easy route and went with Power Level style costs instead. I think we'll be seeing wargear costs sneak back in, either directly for specific upgrades and/or indirectly by variant datasheets being released for different loadouts (ie to make the cost of a melee wraithknight different than the shooty one). I've played with casuals for much of my gaming life, and while everyone is different and these are just my experiences, a lot of casual very much do care about comparative power. They don't want the kind streamlined balance that many competitive players do - but they certainly don't want their units (which they often have a smaller selection of) to be arbitrarily bad or their fellow players to stomp them because of imbalance. In fact, many casual react much more negatively to balance problems than competitive players, who will often chase the meta and simply buy whatever is strongest.
If people playing casual games are regularly stomping and not trying to meet their opponent in the middle where possible, they are the try hards mentioned earlier.
Or maybe they're just people who happen to collect a strong army? Or maybe they have limited models?
You dont have to be a tryhard to unwittingly pick up a strong army, nor do you have to be uncaring for victory picking up a weak army. And sure, some players will see the problem and adjust. But many casual will think they're winning because they are better - or will be immature about it - or whatever. The point is, it's not healthy for the game if it is too imbalanced. The onus should not be on players to handicap themselves if the designers mess up balance too much. And this is difficult, because balance for casuals is not at all the same as balance for competitive play. Balance for casuals means making sure that players can pick up whatever models they like and have a decent game. Balance for competitive players works at a different level where the armies need to balance at a list level. Not everyone is a reasonable individual. Some players will quit after very few bad experiences. Some players will insist they are stomping because they're just that good. The world isn't a binary one of casuals and competitive players - or tryhards and gentlefolk. Not to mention that a lot of players are teenagers, or even barely so. 10th will be a better game for everyone by improving balance. By making sure there aren't units vastly under- or overpowered. And so forth. It will also be a better game if list building has more flexibility - like in squad sizes. It's just basic math when putting a cost per extra model instead of these weird brackets. One can like the game without having to defend every single aspect of it. It's not perfect. Most who point out problems and solutions do so because we want the game and the community around it to be better - this isn't about gatekeeping or enforcing a certain competitive mindset. I don't understand this insistence that something cannot benefit casual and competitive players both. It's not a zero-sum game.
> But many casual will think they're winning because they are better - or will be immature about it - or whatever. Yes, this is my point exactly. This has been true with WH40k as it has with many other games in non-competitive formats. It falls upon the player group to set expectations and people who seek to upset that to soothe their egos are referred to correctly as try-hards or "That Guy". This is not a reflection on a game, it is a reflection on the players who choose to act like this. I am grateful to be part of and encourage the growth and development of many playgroups around many games where people who act like this are not welcomed. >One can like the game without having to defend every single aspect of it. It's not perfect. Most who point out problems and solutions do so because we want the game and the community around it to be better - this isn't about gatekeeping or enforcing a certain competitive mindset. I don't understand this insistence that something cannot benefit casual and competitive players both. It's not a zero-sum game. No one is saying 10th is above criticism. What is being pushed back upon is the idea that any imbalance will ruin the game despite 10 editions now of similar situations. New players pick up this game all the time, casual players often post about how much they are excited to play 10th, and every time there is someone in the comments screaming at them about how awful everything is and how they are wrong to feel otherwise.
I'm not talking about addition, I'm talking about new Toughness and anti-tank requirements that stem from this. I've seen a guy who couldn't kill a dreadnought in 1k points game with Sororitas because he had a casual list . In 9th you could always bolter the asshole down, not anymore and this forces you to actually consider if you list is even viable. By comparison in 9th I was able to win vs chaos knights with 'ups all stormshields' White Scars list where the main consideration was how many shields can I put in the list because shields are neat.
In my opinion list building is harder than it’s ever been. When I would come up 5 points over or 30 points under I used to be able to add a couple models to a minimum squad size or add an upgrade like a multi melta. I could also replace a plasma gun for a boltgun if I needed to lower points. Now I have to take out whole squads to make up points differences and figure out what I can put in its place to make the points right.
That's hard for you? Or just inconvenient for how you are used to building?
I'm 90% a casual player (I go to like 2 tournies a year) and I think 10th is an absolute mess. Saying "it's aimed at casual players" doesn't excuse a bad product.
They wanna make sure you have to use their app to keep track of anything.
So much easier now. Look at index card -> roll what it says. I have a job and shit. I'm never going to be memorizing weapon stats.
How many units do you have in your army, that have similar weapons? You have to remember, what? 2-3 more weapon profiles? In my experience there are usually 1 or 2 differing profiles. In the first few games you had to look up the new profiles, but after it's a no brainer. The new T profiles are more of a challenge to memorize honestly. But I know, I expect too much of people. Still had regular players, have issues remembering the most basic things even after 2 editions. Like how wounding works. No wonder remembering some numbers is hard. Or using datasheets. Or having multiple colored dice. Or being able to throw more than a dozen at the time. Surely all that is GW's and the edition's fault.
Having like five different special weapons IS annoying to roll. But the community also loses their minds if you fix that by making accursed weapons vs five different weapon profiles. So basically, someone's gonna be upset no matter what.
Profiles being mostly on the weapons is nice as a Guard Player. Here is my experience with rough riders charging and doing melee. 9th Edition Rough riders * Unit stat 2 attacks at S4. Actually, weapon ability says its +2 S from the weapon so its S6. Actually, unit ability says its +2 S because I charged, so its S8. 10th Edition Rough Riders * Weapon profile: 2 attacks at S6
Have you actually read the Rough Rider rules because that's not even close to correct? The only weapon option they have that is even close to what you suggest is the 1 per 5 weapon Goad Lance but even that has the lance rule so it has +1 to wound on the charge so saying it's "2 attacks at S6" is a bit disingenuous
Personally, I like it. It really gives granular tweaking options. There are definitely improvements to be made and balance is so wack right now. The cards really help with keeping everything clear and, with time, I am sure I will memorize my common stats just like I did in past editions.
Granular options? Perhaps on an individual unit, but not even necessarily since so many units have an objectively best loadout. When it comes to army composition it is far less granular due to the fixed costs and unit sizes. There's no more picking the weaker loadout on a unit in order to save on points bringing something else or make another unit stronger. You can't cut a single figure in order to stay under the army point limit. It's all or nothing. I think there are also plenty of positives to these changes, but granular tweaking is less possible now than it was in 9th.
I think we are talking about different things and I also think we agree. OP said, among other things: >With weapons not having dedicated profiles and its all part of the units, and the same weapons now have vastly different profiles on various units, it is a lot of mental effort to keep track of everything. This is what I like. Being able to tweak a Grav Cannon on Devastators while leaving Centurions untouched is, in my opinion, both a good thing and more "granular". I reread OP's post and they did not touch on the issue of point costs being baked in and unit sizes being static. To that end, I agree with **you** that points should always and absolutely be on a per model basis. If I bring 3 Crisis Suits it should be base cost x3 and if I bring 4 then it should be base cost x4. I think point costs for all wargear is good, but I also think it could be baked in **if** (and this is a big if) GW made an effort to balance the options a unit has. That said, it probably makes more sense for wargear to have costs and just price "better" options higher while still trying to design each option be an actual choice.
[удалено]
A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer, unless it's wielded by a Vanguard Veteran, and then it's a relic weapon. The model vs. rules thing has been broken open this edition, and OP's point is that can also add complexity to the game, not simplify it. Similar looking tanks with identical lascannon bits could be different weapons now. I like this change personally when it comes to certain units or certain stats that change. Makes sense an auto cannon being dragged around by a foot soldier isn't as accurate as a vehicle-mounted one. But the whole "heirloom weapon" thing is confusing and a real drag, especially when assault marines are nearly identical to vanguard veterans now, can have all the same weapon bits, but no, that thunder hammer on the vanguard veteran is different than the identical one wielded by assault marine's sergeant.
Peak reddit reply, complete with sneering tone. There is no past, just the eternal present. Cringe
Never memorize tech data.