positive Goonhammer article about 10th

[Jack Shrapnel]

It's a good read... even the "rant" part that is hidden til you hit the toggle lol


www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-10-things-i-like-about-10th-edition/

[sean]

That's nice, but I think the article sort of missed the point of what most people are upset about. Which is that this all seemed completely avoidable. I honestly feel that if they had of just given the rules to Nick Nanavati and Richard Siegler (or two other such competitive players, who are involved in the health of the game) that the clearly broken issues could have been easily pointed out and corrected. This is a multi billion dollar company, I think the hue and cry is good and I hope it hurts their share price and they do better in the future.

That said they will fix some of it, probably sooner rather than later. But their track record isn't great on actively keeping the game fair and balanced. Looking at you poor Imperial Fists players with like a 20% win rate for most the past three years.

It will get better, and I'm sure some games can still be fun with the right mindset.

[Jack Shrapnel]

Doesn't really miss the point for me. It kind of IS the point from my perspective.

But I don't care one bit for Art of War "tier lists" and what the GT crowd says is good or not. I don't play "optimized" 40k. Which is probably why I still have fun.

I didn't even realize in those games of 10th I had how "terrible" (according to Art of War fourth from the bottom) my army was and how I couldn't have a chance against the S tier armies I was playing against (according to Art of War). Somehow me having fun couldn't exist in that angry bitter world, and there was just NO WAY I could win lol.

[raceygaming]

His 10 choices here are all really good changes. I think he could have even just said "terrain" as a general rather than hills but it is nice they do something.

I'm surprised USR were not top 10, maybe an honorable mention.

I can say power and RAW vs RAI aside it did feel like they could have gotten a professional editor to make sure words like phase and turn on strats were correct or make sure long fangs have the right keywords etc. I think that is where some of the rushed feel is coming from.

[Hi I'm Derek]

My thoughts on this are... mixed. I think I lean towards Sean's view here. Putting aside his specific praises (mostly good but battleshock and fly could probably use work) I think it's unambiguously good to bring a positive energy to your tables and games. You should be looking to extract enjoyment from the hobby not revel in angst. I know, I do this *often* and it's not healthy.

But on the other hand, I have never found the ol' 'cut the corporate behemoth some slack, they're trying here!' angle compelling. In my experience if you want big organizations to move in a direction of your choosing, you have to make a lot of noise.

Mr. Glover here seems to be of the opinion that the salt-pit is going to inflict irreparable harm on the community, but I don't think that's ever really shown to be the case. If 40k communities are getting all frothy-mouthed and red in the face over 10th's problems, it provides GW motivation and direction. Squeaky wheel gets the grease etc. If GW makes changes and things get better, people return and new people join. Players are happier. The salt-tide recedes. If things get worse, well... we all remember the twilight days of 7th edition. Basically, I think it's not some kind of community responsibility to police the mood. If GW is serious about improving the game, the game will improve, and the mood will lighten accordingly.

Also yes, USRs! Put that on the back of the box. Add a few more in while you're at it- weird new transhuman -1W condition-thing? USR. -1 damage to a minimum of 1? USR.

[Jack Shrapnel]

I've seen that harm happen here, multiple times in fact. As an example there was a time many years ago where we didn't have enough 40k players to even run a tournament. That was 100% on the community, had nothing to do with GW.

When the competitive community in years past was all full of vitriol, GW's response was to completely 100% abandon that player base. They've taken a BIG turn in recent years about this, and tried to embrace that community, which I think has had some benefits for certain.

I'm of the opinion that there's a certain type of person who is generally toxic, and that person gets amplified online. (this is not solely the purview of 40k of course, there's numerous examples). Problem is, as is said in the article, these loud voices of the minority tend to overshadow the feelings of the silent majority, and these things tend to snowball.

[Hi I'm Derek]

I couldn't speak to that specific incident but what I want to convey is I think it is a mistake to be so quick to dismiss valid criticism as electronically-amplified vitriol.

Lots of good things have come from large groups of people being dissatisfied about the same thing at the same time. It's not necessarily a universal ill.

And it's early days! People are only just playing their first 10e games. The salt might peter out on its own if people actually enjoy it. If it was a purely destructive force that GW had no power to regulate Age of Sigmar would never have survived to enjoy its third iteration

[distractedcarnifex]

Looks like the German TOs are planning to enact their own rules patches...we’ll see if GW hit the panic button on the outlier Indexes.

[voodoo]

I feel like all of his points are really valid. When I was building both my Sons and Cron list, I absolutely was agonizing over which character to toss into a unit. The sons list I want to try is going to be the first list in a few editions that doesn't have Ahriman "just because".

I'm hopeful for the direction GW is going, and feel like we need to give them some time to right the ship that went pretty far off the deep end in terms of power skew at the end of 9th. All, in all; pretty good article in my opinion.

[Typhus]

The Rules Commentary is an excellent document, no arguments there. I loved Tempest of War so I'm happy to see that the standard mission structure is more akin to that, and I'm pleased to see a terrain system that rewards setups other than clogging the board with obscuring ruins. I was giddy when I heard morale was changing to something other than just "when you suffer casualties, you suffer more casualties" and I love the "One In, One Out" concept of detachments, stratagems, and enhancements.

That said, there are problems too - further nerfs to melee after years of shooting dominance, buffed indirect fire, the extremely feast or famine design and pointing of the Indexes, datasheet errors, [Psychic] coming full circle to being more of a detriment than an asset, etc.

Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic. I think and hope that we'll wind up with a good system at some point, but it feels frustrating that everything with GW has to be two steps forward, and one step back.

[thatguythere]

While I haven't survived a Warhammer edition change before, I lived through 2e to 5e D&D,and MTG from Revised to Shards of Alara.

From my limited time playing Warhammer, this is a transition I've seen before - The Rules got better, but everything else needs a beat or two to catch up.

GW has the same challenge MTG has - there's a vocal, engaged community into a game that, in fairness, on paper, is about The Win.

Buuut, they have a muuuuch larger, quieter community that ... isn't about that. From young children who buy 2-3 kits a year because they look cool, to diorama builders to custom chapter creators who *really do* want another slightly different Lt. standing on a slightly different rock, to those who try not to play Epic characters because "He's halfway across the Galaxy right now, not in the Tyrranic War".

TBH, I'm very confident "much better, free rules ... and maybe slighly shaky datasheets" serve GW very well. The hours of labour & energy (and $$$) required to tighten the rules past this point lies on the other side of the 80/20 rule, and that just doesn't make good business sense.

It's been said before by those more knowledgeable than me: GW is a minis company, not a gaming company. The game exists to sell minis. 10e may not be a balanced competitive haven, but I bet it sells minis.

Particularly Battle Sisters.

... anyone have extra?

[sean]

Jun 21, 2023 18:50:23 GMT -5 distractedcarnifex said:

Looks like the German TOs are planning to enact their own rules patches...we’ll see if GW hit the panic button on the outlier Indexes.

Yeah I read that. And I think it looks great, even if they maybe went a little to hard on the Aeldari for my own personal preference 😉. I’m more hopeful that it actually gets GW to consider some of their core rules interactions. As what the Germans have done is mostly core rule focused so affects all factions, but obviously impacts the factions that were exploiting the broken rules the most more.

For those wondering what they changed:


“German TOs house rules to first GT


Unless GW fixes the plentiful issues of 10th edition themselves in a timely manner, starting with the first 10th edition GT in Germany (Münsterland GT) we will use the following houserules in order to make the game enjoyable for all players:
- [Towering] is changed to: A unit with the [Towering] keyword is considered to be wholly within a piece of terrain, even if it is only partially within it (intention is: "toeing in" for the benefit of seeing "through" ruins instead of natively seeing "through" it)
- Wraithknights Heavy Wraithcannons lose the [Devastating Wounds] ability
- Fatedice are limited to one dice per unit per phase
- [Indirect] fire suffers the same penalty as in 9th edition (-1BS and +1 to save) in addition to any other applicable rules like cover, [Stealth], etc. and cannot benefit from the +1 to hit for being [Heavy] when fired without line of sight (model wise)
- Thousand Sons “Twist of Fate” Cabal Ritual is modified to “any armour saving throws of the unit are modified by -2” instead
- The range of the “Fire Overwatch” stratagem is reduced to 12” and only visible units can be shot
- Mortal Wounds from a single unit are capped at 6 MW per unit per phase when targeted at a non-Monster or non-Vehicle unit, any additional wounds e.g. with Assault Canons are then handled as normal (saves can be made etc.)
- Models can move over and stay on objectives without limitations (as per 9th)
- Lone Operative and similar abilities are subject to investigation of how to fix them best (tbd.)

This should be seen as a first try to restore the fun of Warhammer 40k in these grim times. It might be subject to change after the first results and/or actions done by GW themselves.”

[ohgodsnakes]

I liked the article

I also think criticism has its place, but it is better served directed towards GW. If you want GW to change, email them, engage them on social media, and let your voices be heard. This forum is about this community, and what we say on here reflects it. Let's make it reflect positivity, inclusivity, and the hobby heroes we all are!

That's not to say that you can't voice your dissatisfaction with aspects of the game, just know that GW is never going to see our little corner of the internet, so remember who your audience is. There is a decent chance it is a new player who googled "kingston warhammer" and is mega jazzed to play with their new models.

[Hi I'm Derek]

Those all see like fairly well-reasoned changes for an environment where everyone is bringing comp. So, I guess that means you can OW units you can't see atm? Didn't know that lol

[thatguythere]

Jun 22, 2023 8:14:15 GMT -5 Hi I'm Derek said:

Those all see like fairly well-reasoned changes for an environment where everyone is bringing comp. So, I guess that means you can OW units you can't see atm? Didn't know that lol

Indirect Overwatch is a current Big Fuss (among many).