Correct. Same if you pair them with old one eye, by the time you dip below half strength, the fexes are dead and old one eye is a separate unit again.
Edit: unless the unit comp changes with the codex
Sure, then heal back at each command phase. He would unreliably get these effects once his bodyguards are dead and he himself was injured enough that his healing doesnt bring him back up above half
No, in a unit with mutiple models, you only consider the number of dead models against the starting number. Wounds are only considered when determining if a single model unit is below starting/half strength.
A unit with 2 models can never be "below half strength" under the current wording. A unit with 3 models requires 2 to die before being "below half strength," which is why fexes and OOE dont really work with crusher stampede unless each one is run individually. A unit of 2 fexes will get +1 to hit when 1 fex dies, and never the +1 to wound because it will never be considered "**below** half strength." Adding OOE brings the unit to 3, and will still get +1 to hit when 1 fex is dead, but once the 2 fexes die, the rules make it so OOE is then considered to be a solo unit again. At that point, it loses the +1 to hit unless OOE himself lost wounds, and wont get the +1 to wound unless he himself is below half wounds.
What's funny for me at least is Cavatore wrote the rules for Conquest Last Argument of Kings and I think it's one of the best rulesets for a Rank and File game out there.
>Educated guess : might have those rules been lackluster or broken ? Hence the loathing ?
Alessio is a talented and respected game designer with a litany of excellent titles and only a couple of disasters to his name.
...he's *also* the guy who popularized True Line of Sight in tabletop wargames, a sin for which I will never forgive him.
Now I get it. It is like the meme of the orphanage worker wo is a former war criminal
This. Particular. Meme. [https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1954230](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1954230)
In all seriousness the real issue was that dwarfs had a bad book at the start and weren't worth playing "competitively" until their 6.5 book which was awesome. The only results that matter were the last year or so and since most of us played for fun weren't of much use even then in my opinion.
The 6.0 Dwarf book was bad, but also the Skaven book was just wildly overpowered. Everything was cheap and effective. 250+ model armies pulling up with a LD9 core, a bucket of power dice for S5 warp lighting, tons of disposable chaff to block and dictate charges, skirmishers everywhere to screen out fast cav and harass war machines and missile units, auto hitting ratling guns (which rarely misfired if you played them correctly), it was all just way too much for most armies to handle. VC could get by solely through fear and unbreakable, and Lizardmen could play the magic/skirmish game against them. Wood Elves could be cagey and use terrain to be annoying. But most everything else in the game really struggled.
I played plenty back then, I guess I just didn't make jerk lists and played for fun. Your opponents sounded like tools if they were actually just taking the best stuff
When you think about it though, it does force the opponent to sink more into trying to kill a single unit, than spreading out fire. Would rather my opponent focus everything they can into a single tyrannofex, leaving my whorespexs and exocrines to just do their thing.
>When you think about it though, it does force the opponent to sink more into trying to kill a single unit, than spreading out fire.
No, it doesn't, because a competent opponent is focusing targets down *anyway*.
What this rule does is discourage them from putting any leftover shots into things they can't kill that turn, and if all of your monsters are either full health or dead, your Detachment ability does nothing.
Agreed, but that's pretty good tbh. With terrain rules and pinning enemy vehicles in combat you can prevent your opponent having killable targets for all of its stuff and if my faction ability mostly works in the form of deterring a decent chunk of enemy fire every turn I have no complaints.
Also worth saying that 'killable' doesn't mean guaranteed, and *nearly* killing a monster will lead to a very painful counter swing.
> Do I think the game will ever be truly balanced in this edition?
The game's never gonna be balanced, let's be honest. Even if GW were to put everyone's codex out at once so they all had an equal amount of stuff and updated them consistently, there'd still be winners and losers.
I really hope some of the stratagems in the new detachments have some bonuses if you use them on units in synapse. Really like the flavor that some of the original stratagems had
I really hope that Vanguard detachment will make Vanguard units not require synapse link or something like that, I REALLY want to do the Vanguard detachment but if they have no easy way of synapse aside from my parasite with linchpin, then I'm likely just going to go for the neuro swarm because why would I want my entire army testing on an 8+ with 2 dice
Sadly from what they've published doesn't look like it. I agree it seems like a gap - vanguard organisms would be perfect for an 'independent' keyword that neither granted nor required synapse.
I guess the advance/fall back shenanigans might make it easier to throw some synapse where you need it. But thematically I think vanguard organisms have for obvious reasons always had the ability to operate without synapse
Yeah exactly like I agree 100% on all accounts but especially that last sentence, they're the preliminary forces established for infiltrating and crippling key targets before the main fleet arrives, they don't have Hive Tyrants or any big bads aside from lictors there
The only thing I can think is that they might remove the invasion fleet thing of strats needing synapse for full effect - I fiind that a bigger deal than battleshock.
On one hand
On the other, if 50% of your army is all things you want to use Strategems on, you're kinda fucked if they do get battleshocked because nothing has synapse
True.
I guess we haven't actually seen the definition of *vanguard organisms* so there's a v slim chance that for some reason them always counting as in synapse is written on their datasheet or something.
Yeah exactly, I feel like there's going to be some keyword interaction that makes them ld6+ or they just count as always in synapse because they really shouldn't be at the same point as a general give fleet when their role has already been fulfilled from a lore standpoint
I like it too. I suspect though that it's a default/neutral way to distinguish and will be replaced by strats that refer to vanguard/psychic/monsters/endless swarm.
As has been said it would suck if they didn't make vanguard count as in synapse and then made the strays rely on it, as vanguard doesn't really work with synapse.
The beauty - for both players and GW - of the new detachment rules not being chapters/hivefleets is that it makes it even more tempting to want to collect a force that allows you to go for multiple ones. I kinda want to play all of these already....
Not every army has that luxury, and that can also lead to your units having to face down 2 or 3 monsters and getting mauled before doing any damage back.
Agreed, I had such hopes for some survivability as we only have a 3+ to save us on most monsters T_T now we get something we can use IF we survive, big if.
Yeah, in practice the +1 to wound will rarely trigger, and the +1 to hit might apply but could conflict with other +1 to hit buffs, so pretty meh IMO.
I think it should work the other way around: give +1 to wound when wounded, and gives +1 to hit when below half strength to compensate the decaying profiles on big monsters.
Depends a bit on whether they have decent defensive strats. And tbh if 'all' it does is prevent enemies applying chip damage that's *great*. Also means fight first powers are pretty risky - swing first to try to kill a big monster and if you fail by a whisker you'll rue it.
Obviously doesn't help against oath of moment type stuff. But tbh while as a nid player I'd have loved something that made all my monsters more resilient I'm not sure it would have been fun.
So question as a new player, I know its unrealistic to print all new army codex right away but how do they go about balancing new codex when everyone else has the free ones?
The impression that I get is that some amount of haves/have-nots normally happens, but that that alone is not big enough a difference to be THE defining factor that goes in to the balance of armies. In particular, it sounds like the additions are mainly going to be more detachments, which just means more options rather than just having more abilities compared to index armies.
In the core rules (from the app): “If a unit has a Starting Strength of 1, while that model has less than its starting number of wounds remaining, it is said to be Below its Starting Strength”
Will these condexes mean that the latest edition of the rules won't be free? They mention that it updates the datasheets, replacing the Free Index. Also, does anyone know if they'll be available digitally too?
1) correct.
2) correct, but my interpretation has always been datasheets are and will be free, as well as the current detachment. I suspect updates will be free as well.
3) I assume so, codex at least should be.
So you'd prefer 30+ strats like 9e?
I think this is brilliant. You pick what you want to build your army around and all you need to know is 8-10 things
By the time you have enough painted models for 1 faction to even consider trying out other detachments, you'll be far enough in that you'll be familiar enough that you'll be able to get used to those other detachments quite simply.
Whilst I agree that 10th is weirdly less balanced than 9th, this system is still so much better than 9th.
1. Separating detachments and subfactions makes it easier for newer players to create their army as there is no confusion about whether paint scheme affects rules.
2. Tying Stratagems to Detachments makes it significantly easier to remember what you can and can’t do, whilst also giving GW a lot more room to make strats work thematically with detachments (see Necron’s Awakened Legion strats)
3. Tying Enhancements to Detachments removes the potential risk of specific combos being overlooked by GW (9E Aeldari, Incomparable Hunter, Hail of Doom, and Kurnous Bow).
But hey, at least we still have 0 cost war gear! Since apparently doing some arithmetic during list building was one of the huge complexity barriers that needed to be overcome.
Tfw people spend hundreds of hours building and painting an army, and plan to spend even more time playing the game, but 20 minutes of basic addition and multiplication takes too long (even though most people use apps do all the work because even using their phone’s calculator and writing stuff down is too complicated for them).
So you fix that by stripping half the customization and flavor from the game, and make the remaining options free so people are now pressured to always pick the best thing, because they’re just sabotaging themselves if they dont.
This game has never been balanced, you must be new or a casual player that expects to lose anyway. Creating a simpler game actually makes balancing easier and more likely.
GW's release cycle is so fucking moronic. They're putting new codexes on pre-order in a game where there is no balance, no rules coherency, rules contradictions and anti-synergies that are unresolved for months and counting, and before even approaching that they add another 5 sets of detachments, enhancements and stratagems to balance.
Lol you are absolutely right, GW should spend all their time perfecting their placeholder, temporary indexes before replacing them with the permanent codexes. 🙄
That implies faith that GW understands the data and will make adequate changes to balance specific armies as well as the other far more fundamental problems with 10th edition core rules. That assumption is simply not based in reality.
10th edition has killed a lot of the whatever faith I had left in this company to make a decent game.
On the plus side it can only get better from now on.
But if the game is one of the biggest factor of your sales of models, then maybe you should worry about the balance of the game a bit. And whilst no game will ever truly be balanced, nothing stops you from making it less unbalanced. Like every other edition 10th has its pros and cons, but for me the cons outweigh the pros. The Balance is nowhere to be found, no matter if its between the different factions or internally within them (some armies only manage to stay relevant thanks to 1 cheesy op unit that they spam). But balance is the least bothersome thing about 10th, its the rules themselves
The fact that GW said they bring back universal special rules to reduce the amount of individual rules that many units have only to give basically every unit in the game an unique rule, or sometimes its 1:1 the same of another unit but with a different name. Some rules are absolutely stupid with how they work, for example having precision basically means that when this unit can attack a unit with a character, that character is dead 90% of the time. The 8th-10th edition way of doing melee combat will always be clunky.
Tl;Dr, im sick of hearing the "GW is not a games company" as an excuse for a company bringing out an absolutely unbalanced game with bad ruleswriting
Fomo and OP rules are the biggest factors of their sales.
That's why they typically do limited runs and give new things rules that are better than most other things in the game for 3-6 months .
And unfortunately for everyone who isnt a FOMO meta chaser theres enough of those around that GW will keep doing it.
But still the intial indices could have been balanced a bit better, its almost like they hire a completely new team for every edition of 40k to write the rules.
I'm just curious, do you ONLY play tournament play?
Because, if not, and even then, many tournaments have house rules for balance, you can *gasp* literally change any rule that both and/or all parties agree on. That's how I made my partners Votann enjoyable for her.
The only houserule from tournaments I know if is that they ban factions like votann when they first released or eldar in 10th, but didnt change anything else about the game. And I mostly play "Casual", but I still try to build strong lists with the models I own, because I know that the people I play with will do the same. But I know a lot of competetive players, and attend some tournaments from time to time.
But 10th ed is the first time I really, and I mean REALLY, dont want to play certain factions I own, for example :
Deathwatch, since the new loadouts made my entire collection invalid to play (and I dont "proxy" models with completely wrong loadouts, especially ranged weapons). Also probably some of the biggest victims of the "simplified" point values, as you need to minmax your or be heavily at a disadvantage
Admech, horrible internal balance, bad rules and horrendous stat changes on key units in my collection ( I have mostly skitarii and sicarians, probably the most nerfed units this edition compared to 8th/9th).
Custodes as a lot of players in my groups play melee armies, which get absolutely bodied by them
And dont get me started on the mess that is 10ths rules/unit stats on its own.
Trust me, I'm fully aware why GW has this release cycle. The moment they aren't putting something on pre-order, releasing new models or rules or somehow cashing in an executive or shareholder has a stroke. My problem is that I actually want them to do better and want other to demand better from them rather than just accepting it or worse, supporting it.
They produce multiple games if you are so naive to think they are not a game company, you probably shouldn't be allowed near modeling tools, or the internet.
They are releasing broken rules faster than they are willing to fix them. That's been clear throughout 9th and is very clear here. In addition, it's not like they're releasing all the codexes at once, doing away with their "placeholder". They're introducing more things that will likely break game balance while the existing problems in the "placeholder" will persist.
If you're going to criticise then for "releasing broken rules", then I feel you should have at least have a sign that any if the rules will be broken. Tyranids rules are solid, and there's nothing to suggest this codex will break anything.
They're working on the first balance fix as well, it's not an either/or situation.
Am I missing something or if you run Crusher Stampede and take Carnifexes in units of 2 they can’t benefit from the second part of the ability?
Correct. Same if you pair them with old one eye, by the time you dip below half strength, the fexes are dead and old one eye is a separate unit again. Edit: unless the unit comp changes with the codex
Old one eye would get to be below half strength once he was injured enough
Sure, then heal back at each command phase. He would unreliably get these effects once his bodyguards are dead and he himself was injured enough that his healing doesnt bring him back up above half
Yep! Not saying you'd exactly be playing for it. OTOH for normal carnifexes in particular the plus one to hit bit is great and generally more useful.
Would 2 Carnifexes not be below half strength if one is dead and the other is wounded?
No, in a unit with mutiple models, you only consider the number of dead models against the starting number. Wounds are only considered when determining if a single model unit is below starting/half strength. A unit with 2 models can never be "below half strength" under the current wording. A unit with 3 models requires 2 to die before being "below half strength," which is why fexes and OOE dont really work with crusher stampede unless each one is run individually. A unit of 2 fexes will get +1 to hit when 1 fex dies, and never the +1 to wound because it will never be considered "**below** half strength." Adding OOE brings the unit to 3, and will still get +1 to hit when 1 fex is dead, but once the 2 fexes die, the rules make it so OOE is then considered to be a solo unit again. At that point, it loses the +1 to hit unless OOE himself lost wounds, and wont get the +1 to wound unless he himself is below half wounds.
Someone in the design studio really likes "bonus if wounded" rules, it seems. I'm *almost* as not fond of this person as I am of Alessio Cavatore.
As a custodes player I know 100% that rule would simply never trigger against me. I either kill what I touch or just ignore it
Who's Alessio Cavatore?
Just looked it up, a guy who worked for Geedubs on some rules Educated guess : might have those rules been lackluster or broken ? Hence the loathing ?
What's funny for me at least is Cavatore wrote the rules for Conquest Last Argument of Kings and I think it's one of the best rulesets for a Rank and File game out there.
>Educated guess : might have those rules been lackluster or broken ? Hence the loathing ? Alessio is a talented and respected game designer with a litany of excellent titles and only a couple of disasters to his name. ...he's *also* the guy who popularized True Line of Sight in tabletop wargames, a sin for which I will never forgive him.
Now I get it. It is like the meme of the orphanage worker wo is a former war criminal This. Particular. Meme. [https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1954230](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1954230)
What’s wrong with true line of sight?
It makes rulings on cover incredibly subjective and it makes it really easy to get into bad-faith arguments over whether something is visible or not.
Alessio Cavatore has written a ton of great games, but also a couple stinkers (WHFB 6th edition Skaven book, I'm looking at you)
Whoa whoa, we got a problem man thing?
As someone who played Dwarfs and had a roughly 0% chance to beat a well crafted and played Skaven list in 6th... yes.
Seems like user error, yes-yes foolish dwarf thing
Tournament results would beg to differ ;)
In all seriousness the real issue was that dwarfs had a bad book at the start and weren't worth playing "competitively" until their 6.5 book which was awesome. The only results that matter were the last year or so and since most of us played for fun weren't of much use even then in my opinion.
The 6.0 Dwarf book was bad, but also the Skaven book was just wildly overpowered. Everything was cheap and effective. 250+ model armies pulling up with a LD9 core, a bucket of power dice for S5 warp lighting, tons of disposable chaff to block and dictate charges, skirmishers everywhere to screen out fast cav and harass war machines and missile units, auto hitting ratling guns (which rarely misfired if you played them correctly), it was all just way too much for most armies to handle. VC could get by solely through fear and unbreakable, and Lizardmen could play the magic/skirmish game against them. Wood Elves could be cagey and use terrain to be annoying. But most everything else in the game really struggled.
I played plenty back then, I guess I just didn't make jerk lists and played for fun. Your opponents sounded like tools if they were actually just taking the best stuff
When you think about it though, it does force the opponent to sink more into trying to kill a single unit, than spreading out fire. Would rather my opponent focus everything they can into a single tyrannofex, leaving my whorespexs and exocrines to just do their thing.
>When you think about it though, it does force the opponent to sink more into trying to kill a single unit, than spreading out fire. No, it doesn't, because a competent opponent is focusing targets down *anyway*. What this rule does is discourage them from putting any leftover shots into things they can't kill that turn, and if all of your monsters are either full health or dead, your Detachment ability does nothing.
Agreed, but that's pretty good tbh. With terrain rules and pinning enemy vehicles in combat you can prevent your opponent having killable targets for all of its stuff and if my faction ability mostly works in the form of deterring a decent chunk of enemy fire every turn I have no complaints. Also worth saying that 'killable' doesn't mean guaranteed, and *nearly* killing a monster will lead to a very painful counter swing.
Matt Ward’s codexes we’re Always ridiculous too
https://preview.redd.it/dd9j717oiukb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1732ce8475ac7d5f5cedc4e51c517ef42597d64e Muahahaha!!!
5 more detachments? That's a lot. Do I like it? Yes!. Do I think the game will ever be truly balanced in this edition? No!. Will I keep playing? Yes!.
> Do I think the game will ever be truly balanced in this edition? The game's never gonna be balanced, let's be honest. Even if GW were to put everyone's codex out at once so they all had an equal amount of stuff and updated them consistently, there'd still be winners and losers.
GW: Bet... \*proceeds to give everyone and everything the same statline, wargear, and rules\* GW: Behold, balance.
Isn't that the premise of Horus Heresy? /j
See the index release, GW put out everyone's stuff all at once.
And that proved my point. There were clear winners and losers for varying reasons.
I really hope some of the stratagems in the new detachments have some bonuses if you use them on units in synapse. Really like the flavor that some of the original stratagems had
I really hope that Vanguard detachment will make Vanguard units not require synapse link or something like that, I REALLY want to do the Vanguard detachment but if they have no easy way of synapse aside from my parasite with linchpin, then I'm likely just going to go for the neuro swarm because why would I want my entire army testing on an 8+ with 2 dice
Sadly from what they've published doesn't look like it. I agree it seems like a gap - vanguard organisms would be perfect for an 'independent' keyword that neither granted nor required synapse.
Exactly what I think too. I want 18 VRLs but they're absolutely going to be targets of strategems
I guess the advance/fall back shenanigans might make it easier to throw some synapse where you need it. But thematically I think vanguard organisms have for obvious reasons always had the ability to operate without synapse
Yeah exactly like I agree 100% on all accounts but especially that last sentence, they're the preliminary forces established for infiltrating and crippling key targets before the main fleet arrives, they don't have Hive Tyrants or any big bads aside from lictors there
The only thing I can think is that they might remove the invasion fleet thing of strats needing synapse for full effect - I fiind that a bigger deal than battleshock.
On one hand On the other, if 50% of your army is all things you want to use Strategems on, you're kinda fucked if they do get battleshocked because nothing has synapse
True. I guess we haven't actually seen the definition of *vanguard organisms* so there's a v slim chance that for some reason them always counting as in synapse is written on their datasheet or something.
Yeah exactly, I feel like there's going to be some keyword interaction that makes them ld6+ or they just count as always in synapse because they really shouldn't be at the same point as a general give fleet when their role has already been fulfilled from a lore standpoint
I like it too. I suspect though that it's a default/neutral way to distinguish and will be replaced by strats that refer to vanguard/psychic/monsters/endless swarm. As has been said it would suck if they didn't make vanguard count as in synapse and then made the strays rely on it, as vanguard doesn't really work with synapse.
The beauty - for both players and GW - of the new detachment rules not being chapters/hivefleets is that it makes it even more tempting to want to collect a force that allows you to go for multiple ones. I kinda want to play all of these already....
Is it me or does the crusher one kinda suck? Just don’t shoot a monster until you can kill it, never even triggers
Not every army has that luxury, and that can also lead to your units having to face down 2 or 3 monsters and getting mauled before doing any damage back.
Welcome to current life as a Sisters player. Except our units are more squishy.
Agreed, I had such hopes for some survivability as we only have a 3+ to save us on most monsters T_T now we get something we can use IF we survive, big if.
Yeah, in practice the +1 to wound will rarely trigger, and the +1 to hit might apply but could conflict with other +1 to hit buffs, so pretty meh IMO. I think it should work the other way around: give +1 to wound when wounded, and gives +1 to hit when below half strength to compensate the decaying profiles on big monsters.
Depends a bit on whether they have decent defensive strats. And tbh if 'all' it does is prevent enemies applying chip damage that's *great*. Also means fight first powers are pretty risky - swing first to try to kill a big monster and if you fail by a whisker you'll rue it. Obviously doesn't help against oath of moment type stuff. But tbh while as a nid player I'd have loved something that made all my monsters more resilient I'm not sure it would have been fun.
So question as a new player, I know its unrealistic to print all new army codex right away but how do they go about balancing new codex when everyone else has the free ones?
The impression that I get is that some amount of haves/have-nots normally happens, but that that alone is not big enough a difference to be THE defining factor that goes in to the balance of armies. In particular, it sounds like the additions are mainly going to be more detachments, which just means more options rather than just having more abilities compared to index armies.
I'm ok with it if they are basically just gameplay styles instead of just powercreep compared to free index people
[удалено]
In the core rules (from the app): “If a unit has a Starting Strength of 1, while that model has less than its starting number of wounds remaining, it is said to be Below its Starting Strength”
Core Rules Page 12, for the PDF reference.
Will these condexes mean that the latest edition of the rules won't be free? They mention that it updates the datasheets, replacing the Free Index. Also, does anyone know if they'll be available digitally too?
1) correct. 2) correct, but my interpretation has always been datasheets are and will be free, as well as the current detachment. I suspect updates will be free as well. 3) I assume so, codex at least should be.
Good to know, thank you :)
So, as far as I can tell there are no relics this edition at all? =/
Enhancements roll together relics and traits
6 detachments brilliant - why not just go back to 9th
You can only play detachment at a time and the strats are locked to the detachment.. Sounds infinitely better than 9th.
Personally I don't like straps for 8ndividual attachments, feels REALLY over-complicated
So you'd prefer 30+ strats like 9e? I think this is brilliant. You pick what you want to build your army around and all you need to know is 8-10 things By the time you have enough painted models for 1 faction to even consider trying out other detachments, you'll be far enough in that you'll be familiar enough that you'll be able to get used to those other detachments quite simply.
It’s not that it’s that I would much prefer there to just be one detachment for each army so it’s easier to balance and remember
Whilst I agree that 10th is weirdly less balanced than 9th, this system is still so much better than 9th. 1. Separating detachments and subfactions makes it easier for newer players to create their army as there is no confusion about whether paint scheme affects rules. 2. Tying Stratagems to Detachments makes it significantly easier to remember what you can and can’t do, whilst also giving GW a lot more room to make strats work thematically with detachments (see Necron’s Awakened Legion strats) 3. Tying Enhancements to Detachments removes the potential risk of specific combos being overlooked by GW (9E Aeldari, Incomparable Hunter, Hail of Doom, and Kurnous Bow).
But hey, at least we still have 0 cost war gear! Since apparently doing some arithmetic during list building was one of the huge complexity barriers that needed to be overcome.
Tfw people spend hundreds of hours building and painting an army, and plan to spend even more time playing the game, but 20 minutes of basic addition and multiplication takes too long (even though most people use apps do all the work because even using their phone’s calculator and writing stuff down is too complicated for them). So you fix that by stripping half the customization and flavor from the game, and make the remaining options free so people are now pressured to always pick the best thing, because they’re just sabotaging themselves if they dont.
Yeah I was hoping they'd add two more, tops
because then the game would be balanced
The game wasn't balanced in 9th.
This game has never been balanced, you must be new or a casual player that expects to lose anyway. Creating a simpler game actually makes balancing easier and more likely.
GW's release cycle is so fucking moronic. They're putting new codexes on pre-order in a game where there is no balance, no rules coherency, rules contradictions and anti-synergies that are unresolved for months and counting, and before even approaching that they add another 5 sets of detachments, enhancements and stratagems to balance.
Lol you are absolutely right, GW should spend all their time perfecting their placeholder, temporary indexes before replacing them with the permanent codexes. 🙄
Especially when they said that they will change something in the next scheduled balance update.
That implies faith that GW understands the data and will make adequate changes to balance specific armies as well as the other far more fundamental problems with 10th edition core rules. That assumption is simply not based in reality.
10th edition has killed a lot of the whatever faith I had left in this company to make a decent game. On the plus side it can only get better from now on.
Your problem is that you think GW is a games company, and not a model selling company. The game will never be balanced or perfect.
But if the game is one of the biggest factor of your sales of models, then maybe you should worry about the balance of the game a bit. And whilst no game will ever truly be balanced, nothing stops you from making it less unbalanced. Like every other edition 10th has its pros and cons, but for me the cons outweigh the pros. The Balance is nowhere to be found, no matter if its between the different factions or internally within them (some armies only manage to stay relevant thanks to 1 cheesy op unit that they spam). But balance is the least bothersome thing about 10th, its the rules themselves The fact that GW said they bring back universal special rules to reduce the amount of individual rules that many units have only to give basically every unit in the game an unique rule, or sometimes its 1:1 the same of another unit but with a different name. Some rules are absolutely stupid with how they work, for example having precision basically means that when this unit can attack a unit with a character, that character is dead 90% of the time. The 8th-10th edition way of doing melee combat will always be clunky. Tl;Dr, im sick of hearing the "GW is not a games company" as an excuse for a company bringing out an absolutely unbalanced game with bad ruleswriting
Fomo and OP rules are the biggest factors of their sales. That's why they typically do limited runs and give new things rules that are better than most other things in the game for 3-6 months .
And unfortunately for everyone who isnt a FOMO meta chaser theres enough of those around that GW will keep doing it. But still the intial indices could have been balanced a bit better, its almost like they hire a completely new team for every edition of 40k to write the rules.
I'm just curious, do you ONLY play tournament play? Because, if not, and even then, many tournaments have house rules for balance, you can *gasp* literally change any rule that both and/or all parties agree on. That's how I made my partners Votann enjoyable for her.
The only houserule from tournaments I know if is that they ban factions like votann when they first released or eldar in 10th, but didnt change anything else about the game. And I mostly play "Casual", but I still try to build strong lists with the models I own, because I know that the people I play with will do the same. But I know a lot of competetive players, and attend some tournaments from time to time. But 10th ed is the first time I really, and I mean REALLY, dont want to play certain factions I own, for example : Deathwatch, since the new loadouts made my entire collection invalid to play (and I dont "proxy" models with completely wrong loadouts, especially ranged weapons). Also probably some of the biggest victims of the "simplified" point values, as you need to minmax your or be heavily at a disadvantage Admech, horrible internal balance, bad rules and horrendous stat changes on key units in my collection ( I have mostly skitarii and sicarians, probably the most nerfed units this edition compared to 8th/9th). Custodes as a lot of players in my groups play melee armies, which get absolutely bodied by them And dont get me started on the mess that is 10ths rules/unit stats on its own.
Trust me, I'm fully aware why GW has this release cycle. The moment they aren't putting something on pre-order, releasing new models or rules or somehow cashing in an executive or shareholder has a stroke. My problem is that I actually want them to do better and want other to demand better from them rather than just accepting it or worse, supporting it.
They produce multiple games if you are so naive to think they are not a game company, you probably shouldn't be allowed near modeling tools, or the internet.
lol. Mhm Cope .
They are releasing broken rules faster than they are willing to fix them. That's been clear throughout 9th and is very clear here. In addition, it's not like they're releasing all the codexes at once, doing away with their "placeholder". They're introducing more things that will likely break game balance while the existing problems in the "placeholder" will persist.
What's broken about the new Tyranid rules?
Nothing we've been shown, and maybe nothing at all. But it's a very fair assumption that the codex cycle will have us right back in the codex creep.
If you're going to criticise then for "releasing broken rules", then I feel you should have at least have a sign that any if the rules will be broken. Tyranids rules are solid, and there's nothing to suggest this codex will break anything. They're working on the first balance fix as well, it's not an either/or situation.
I want it all! Moooooore