The problem with house ruling things at this point is that if it is an official event any data about win loss rates will be in accurate. If GW looks at the results and sees that eldar came in 3rd in the tournament and votan came in first that dose not accurately represent the armies. GW needs to see there is an issue with armies before they will fix them.
Honestly i wouldnt go to this tournament if i was over there. Sounds like the event organizers just want to stay in 9th land. They should of just stuck with 9th rules and point if they were not going to be prepared for a new edition that was resetting everything that everyone has seen coming a mile away.
Yeah I don't understand that. If you want to play 9th, then play 9th. You still have the rules. No reason to change the new core rules to what you want them to be, and make it so not everyone is playing the same 10th edition.
I've finally started to enjoy playing my knights again. They're tough, have good firepower, and can take some hard hits and keep pushing on. They are not completely invincible and will go down if you make a misplay. The people who ive played against who bitch about knights are the same people who spam combi weapon/devastating wounds squads and do not prepare for anti-armor.
Most armies if played well, can take around one knight a turn. These changes seem to be people huffing copium that their infantry can’t just deliver a barrage of mortals like they used to in 9th
People are mad that something that costs 400 points is good 🙄 I found the only way of playing knights in 9th was lots of Armigers now we have more than one way of playing and people say it's broken 🙄
@@surriad1140 typical "well of course my devastators can see your Knight look how big it is ! But no my bright yellow 9ft tall armoured men firing laser beams at you are totally invisible because of a small wall that's one third the height of you" 🤣🤣🤣
Everybody is just looking back at 9th and saying "oh Knights didn't have any melee defense. I could shoot knights whenever I want and they were little to no threat having a less than forty nine percent win rate at the end of arcs of omen. I should be beating them!" But it's a different edition and people don't get that.
Exactly! And wraith knights are sooo broken... Just out of curiosity: "When was the last time, that a wraith knight would even be a viable option in a game?" I have not seen one im ages. Let people play with their toys for once and have fun. The meta will shift with every codex, so hopefully everyone gets to have a small advantage at some point
People don't seem to get if you pay 400+ points for something it should be good 🙄 Knights had a 49% win rate because everyone played Armigers with 1 max 2 Questoris. 4 Questoris was literally unplayable.
My god! 10th edition isn't officially out yet and people are already finding something to complain about? I should be surprised but at this point I really shouldn't be.
And low, did the enemy see my sweet necrons march before them, and as they died, they rose again time after time. The enemy could not believe this was his demise. For the necrons only needed the follow turn to rise again, and bring tears it did to the meta gamer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say, and beautiful were my necrons that day.
Necrons gonna Necron. I don't play them, but their index looks solidly put together, with nothing too oppressive and tons of fun Leader combinations with units. Along with CSM, I think they are in the sweet spot power/fun -wise.
I feel like FAR more games need to be played to determine the state of the rules. On their face, some do seem broken, however when exposed to the strategies of other armies and as players develop counters we'll get closer to gauging reality. Also it's a new edition, people will need to learn to play warhammer like it's 10th and let go of 9th.
I think it is safe to assume the ones making these proposals have already played more games of 10th edition than most downvoters in the reddit thread will do in a year...
@@archangle2988I highly doubt that this, if even true, is enough. They miggt have played a lot, with each other, but considering the possibilities within a whole new edition, this is not mearly enough to judge the whole thing. The problem with reactionary houserules like these is, that they createmore problems down the line for something else, thatyou can't forsee now. And honestly, how impactful is it, if a knight het's cover? Your efficient weapons will make it to the invuln, mortals ignore it completely and small arms should suck. And how big of a deal is it, when the knight ingnores your cover, because it is towering? It has devastating weaponry in the first place. You pronably still only field 7 models tops and the opponent hast to deal with that. Just get a bit creative and find a solution or work around, instead of trying to convert everything back to 'the olden times' aka 9th
@@archangle2988 I'm talking about a real test size, hundreds or thousands of players around the world with different playstyles giving 10th a go over a few weeks with multiple games to find out where it's broken. Not a group of 10-15 players in one country having played 5-10 games of 10th. Strategies and counters will arise, and the only way to find balance this through the process of mass testing.
@thenathanimal2909 TO's success is measured in attendance rating, not in providing data for GW. If the players refuse to play 9th and refuse to play the dumpsterfire that is 10th they try to offer a stop gap to keep the community together until GW gets their shit together. I still have 3 huge WarmaHordes army's in my cellar I can not even sell because nationwide the core players of the community refused to play 3rd edition and a cascade killed the whole game ... these few houserules will not fix the game, but the hope it it prevents too much damage from the community ...
GW has put out their expected terrain standards for 2 years now, if TOs have not taken the effort to rectify their terrain, thats on them and not an excuse to just throw out towering, its only the issue it is because they have not taken the effort to meet those terrain standards.
I don't like these entities making arbitrary changes to the game for what I guess are official tournaments. I especially don't like the idea of banning factions outright. That's like a place holding a Magic tournament and saying "Oh by the way, Blue is not allowed." It's like thumbing your nose at the game designers. I've heard from my LGS though that the Germans 40K community is NOTORIOUS for this. At some point, were I the official voice of GW, I would start sanctioning..or more accurately UNsanctioning events held by that group. Their tournaments wouldn't count for standings, progression, rankings, whatever, and they would stop getting prize support until they fall in line.
Yes, it sadly is. In my region, it's hard to find a tournament following the official rules only. Most of them played with a strongly modified version for army construction. If you want to play that way, fine, but for me that was no fun at all, since the rusults are just not comparable with the rest of the world
If we don't play the game with how GW has set it up currently then how the hell are they supposed to receive actual useful data on how they should balance it.
I do feel the very fact that the event organizers are willing to risk a shitstorm just so they can change the rules should be clear enough data hahaha.
I for one wish we had another year of 9th. The game was fairly well balanced. The faction I played was exceptionally well internally balanced and I wanted more time trying out different styles.
”Tell me you wanna play 9th without telling me you wanna play 9th”. And while some of these changes might be just what the game needs, some seem very heavy handed this early and might have some very awkward side effects. Like Space Marines winning due to avoiding any nerfs or Tau standing even less of a chance if Lone Operative gets nerfed.
@@cruelmolehen just play 9th. Noone stops you from doing so. Don't pretend to play 10th instead, just be honest. But they wouldn't do that, because people want to play 10th and not 9th
The Tournament Crowd tries to rewrite Warhammer into whatever they think they want it to be every edition/book/whatever. This is nothing new. The Tournament Crowd has always wanted a different game.
It might be because I'm kinda new to 40k, but I'm super not into this. Coming from other games, "house rules" are a real quick path to making the game 5 people in particular want to play at the expense of the reatof the playerbase, and if GW actually lioks at these kinds of chamges for inspiration, thatsounds kinda distressing. It also feels weird for people to be trying to make these kinds of changes not even a month into the existence of 10th.
There’s always going to be some factions that are slightly better than others every new edition and update. Let’s actually play the game before complaining about rules that may not even be that bad.
Aren't they making a splinter rules set of 40k by doing this though? The TO's chose to run the 10th edition rules, so they should run it as printed. They chose to do this, and without some GT's running 10th as written, how is anyone supposed to get good data on the new edition?
I liked that units couldn't stand directly on the objective marker. It meant that a big base modle couldn't sit dead center on an objective and only allow a small sliver to be reachable. Objective Secured doesn't exist anymore, there'd be little or no way for opposing units to get enough OC to contest that objective. Also, it meant that players could always see the objective marker and the opportunities for confusion as to where the marker was exactly were lessened.
@Wes-xk6hl I will say, I haven't played 10th yet, I'm waiting on friend group getting together this weekend. Not sure what new issues will come up regarding that rule.
@@chainer8686 the concern is that you're effectively trading weird/exploitable objective contesting for weird/exploitable charge/melee positioning, especially for large units who may not be able to just go around if their base is too large to be angled or maneuvered in a way it can make it into melee. Can both be exploited? Yes. But what makes more sense: a goddamn titan being able to body block an objective, or the same titan not being able to get into melee because of an invisible wall magically protecting a guardsman from being stepped on?
The rules have not even been out for a week! Some of ours have not even been able to get our first game in. While house rules are common and expected. All this panic of supposed rules holes usually is filled with people trying different units and tactics and in less than a week I can promise people have not done that yet. On top of it all let’s remember that GW has always said this game should be fun for you and your opponent. If you find something that would suck the joy of the game out of your opponent it’s not GW who should say don’t do it. It’s you the gamer.
That not even a month after rules indexes and points are out people are rewriting rules tells you more about those people than about the rules imo. Let the rules breathe and if then the game is unplayable or in a bad state then change them.
My LGS capped mortals from devastating wounds, but let the rest slide, for our first tenth edition tournament. This seems different, like they just want to play ninth.
I agree, this is a bit of an over reaction. I honestly think until we have at least a month of data, just play as is. People will find counters and rules to exploit, most of this is just people throwing a fit because something is stronger than they want
Exactly Chaos knights are probably a bit too strong. BUT that is because they can build mass small knights and they're only op when they do it. Which can be easily fixed by raising the cost of small CHAOS knights. That doesn't mean you have to do the same to imperial because imperial knights HAVE to run some big knights or they lose a ton of stuff. Which makes the points ecosystem completely different The problem is that all these idiots are going to get imperial knights removed from the game because they don't know anything about the situation
@@justinerickson282which knights did you play against? Everyone needs to stop lumping both together Also, in my experience so far, there's a MASSIVE difference depending on if the person knows how to play against them or not. And I suspect that the vast majority of people complaining brought an army without much anti tank essentially bringing an army tailor made to get destroyed and then complaining it was the other person's fault Iv personally already been destroyed playing knights and playing against knights. And I can say with 100% confidence that they are fine but can see why certain people would complain about them HOWEVER it needs to be said that even those people should recognize that knights (especially imperial knights) are not even in the top 5 of what people should be complaining about
@@justinerickson282 yep ok thanks for proving my points. You played a game of 10th, didn't bring enough anti tank, and got destroyed It was clear from day 1 that 10th was going to be super vehicle heavy and everyone was going to have to change their armies to fit that meta. It was also clear that everyone who didn't was going to get destroyed If we want to agree on something I can sympathize that gw did that to force people to buy more models and I don't like it either. But stop complaining about the wrong things and trying to potentially ruin the game for others who play an army you would just rather see go away because that would be easier for you
First, its these people's tournament they can do what they want BUT making these types of changes seems dumb as we don't actually have much player data. If GW is going to make changes they need proper data to do it.
Towering is just putting knights on equal footing with others. If it reverts, without changing things like oath of moment, then knights will go back to being shot off the table turn 1. People are just upset knights get to enjoy the same luxury now.
I like that everyone is crying foul of the towering rule when the thing they're shooting at can shoot back. Why wouldn't it be able to shoot back? If you can see it to shoot pretty good chance it can see you
With how stringent anti tank weapons are now, you'd be lucky to shoot one or two armigers off the table turn one if you really pump everything you got into them, and those are like 120 to 150 points. T10, 12 wounds... Most lascannons won't even wounds these things consistently. It's horrific that they got these toughness buffs without any significant points increases.
So it's okay for a knight to shoot my russ off the table turn one and I can barely kill an armiger on the hit back? I think the problem is that night weapons are a little too crazy. The army itself is just unfun to play against, it's a giant stat check. Either you kill a couple nights in the first couple turns, or you just lose there's not really too much counterplay to that unless you list tailor
I don’t agree with any of these changes. You can’t just change the games rules because you don’t like them. Not a single one change feels ‘fair’ to both sides. There are factions and armies balanced with these rules taken into account. Even the obj. rule. It’s to stop people from parking their khorne berserkers on an objective mindlessly. Nobody has yet played enough games to determine if it truly needs a change yet, or if that’s how GW wants the edition to work. This sets a bad precedent and personally, I’d pull it out of the tournament.
@@Gnarlf you should kill one knight a turn. And knights are owed a fair shot at winning with 5 models. Their index was balanced woth the towering rule in mind. They’re the boss battle army.
I don't have a problem with codifying the rules of a tournament so players know what to expect. I DO have a problem with making random house rules without ever giving the new 10th Ed rules a chance to gather actual data TO make such changes.
@@47slogra seems like a better sample size than GW used to balance 10e in the first place, considering how jank and broken many data sheets and point costs are
@@DibbzTheLonerOR....weneed to play way more than 20 games to realise, where the balance lies. @op It is a very german problem and I'm not surprised this happened. Whenever I try to find a tournament here, quite a lot of them used strong restrictions on list building on top of the general rules, because they think it's more fun this way. All it does is shifting the problem somewhere else. I don't like this 'head in the sand' mentality at all. Either play the game or something else, but don't pretend to play the game, while using different rules than the rest of us.
Not acceptable changes. Towering is a balanced rule that fixes the unfairmess in 9th that made models like wraithknights unplayable. the removal of true line of aight was necessary to fix this. even the mortal wound cap is unreasonable. this creates a massive imbalance in favor of Space Marines specifically
The fact that knights can be shot all the time is a huge weakness to their army. But somehow no one sees it that way??? 🙄 Being able to shoot back not only is the counter balance but it's realistic they literally are supposed to be "towering" over buildings. Total over reaction IMO
That isn't true. Take a knight sized model with his hands down at its waste. There are scenarios where it isn't stupid and makes sense why you could shoot it and it couldn't shoot you back. Game play wise yeah if you can see something it should be able to see you
@@DemandredTaim knights are 1000 feet tall... down at their waist or not, it doesn't matter. Can't actually believe you said that And let's say it did matter. These things are shooting bullets the size of trucks. Buildings are tin foil compared to them.
@@Wes-xk6hl If you want to go down the think about it road I'd go more down the Corax is invisible to the naked eye but can be picked up by auspex scanners of a mining world 10,000 years ago. But no your 8 feet tall brightly coloured super soldiers firing laser beams are totally invisible to the targeting arrays of a Sacred Mars machine spirited death machines that are 1000 ft high and those back packs aren't giving off heat at all to my thermal imaging scans. 🙄🤣
This is the latest list: - [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.)
That implementation of towering is an interesting compromise. part of me hopes how the rule will end up being but I can't really say as I haven't played versus towering units yet. Hopefully they are careful with nerfing lone operative. It's the only thing that's making Tau viable at the moment
Maybe make Lone Operative work like the Lions version. He has to be within 3" of an infantry unit to get it. That way it's like a quasi bodyguard but if you get close enough it no longer matters. Edit: maybe going so far as to say that unit has to be of sufficient strength (like over half) so a single model can't hide behind a rock and provide the ability.
@@davel.3101 Interesting take! We are currently gathering multiple solutions to Lone Operative and I will add your suggestion to the list. But please be aware, that a lot of the rules will not have an elegant solution and that sometimes collateral damage (as with the nerf to indirect) will occur unfortunately. Would the rules have been better in the first place, the fixes from our side wouldn't even be necessary at all...
You know, if they would just leave lone operatives and indirect fire alone, the lone operatives could counter the indirect fire. That’s what I planned to do with my Nids in the Nid vs Marine matchup.
The only one I don’t like is the MW cap because of how strong Necrons are. It’s almost impossible to chew through them without it. But hopefully GW comes through with some fixes soon, it seems like they’re really listening to the community now and willing to make changes and fix things faster than every 3 months
The mortals camping at 6 per unit kinda sucks for units like hearthkyn that could do way more in 10 man units and overwatch cap at 12 screws conversion beamers on thunderkyn as convertion ability only triggers past 12 and they can overwatch hit on 5+ meaning it could still crit
something tells me most of the people with these overreactions haven't actually read every single datasheet and taken them into account when suggesting changes, lol
The towering is weird to me. You do terrain right towering isnt an issue. You knownhow to face knights and towering isnt an issue versus them. I do think the reaction to towering is overblown but it can be abused if the knight player knows how to play, which is true of any rule.
This statment feels werid to me... a wraith knight is taller then a 5 inch wall you would need at least ITS height or bigger to block its line of fire cause models like Magnus and mortarion who lost tower cant even hide still from towering models despite useing the full legth of a wall cause all the Wraith knight has to do is look at a wing and still fire its already stupid broken gun and possible kill them... towering just made knights and wraith knights ignore literally 50% of the game cause at that point, you might as well just not play on any terrain while towering exists as its base form and its real toxic cause theres no counter play other then hoping and praying your opponent has a bad shooting phase
The changes to indirect fire utterly destroys guard artillery and army building. When you look at the points this edition they clearly were intending for guard to be artillery based over tanks this edition. Tanks are super expensive to use and they did points reductions on artillery to incentivize using it however they made the stats based on their rules not Germany's they need are given a bad starting BS of 5+to account for getting the plus one for heavy and expected to +1BS for take aim as the guard is designed to have to give orders which is its army's ability but is also balanced in that you can only give so many orders and once leaders are lost you have no means of accessing your army ability. These changes changes make from hitting on a usable 3 to a unusable 6. At least in 9th edition tanks were cheap so you could skip using terrible artillery but your lucky to afford 2 tanks in 10th averaging around 200 points so we need these sub 160 point units. Also getting those orders on vehicle artillery is extremely expensive as tank commanders points are ridiculous and the only other option is the Lord solar so realistically that artillery can hit on 3s with a few possibly on 2s most will be on 4s when used. It's just insane to make the entire guard artillery only hit on 6s more broken than what they're trying to fix
Absolutely agree--because people got so scared of Desolation Squads, they decided to hurt the entirety of Guard artillery as well, rather than just targeting Desolation Marines. This is why we need a lot more data: because if you don't collect data in order to accurately determine the issue, you're just going to hurt more than help. Unless the competitive scene absolutely hates Imperial Guard, in which case, I guess that's par for the course, huh?
A couple of issues I've found so far in the rules 1, so many rules references things in play or removing things from play. But not a single rule exists that puts things in play. 2, nothing says you can't move a unit twice in a turn. 3, depending on how you interpret the rule limiting cp gain outside of the command phase one either Imperial Knights have a broken army rule (since you can only gain 1 and they gain 3) or its possible to gain multiple command points a turn as long as they are all in the command phase
This is wrong, the German version clearly says only one in a battleround, not counting the one you get in the command phase, I know it is not the original language, but German is mutch better and more precise then English, take it how you want, but I would say it makes sense, you can finde it in the core rules on the page where they talk about the command phase, in a little side box
I looked it up in English and it says the same once per battleround it is hidden in a side box it states on page 11 „ GAINING COMMAND POINTS Outside of the CP players gain at the start of the Command phase, each player can only gain a total of 1CP per battle round, regardless of the source.“ just found it in the core rules
@@TEXASAXE yes, my point is it's not specific about which cp that is/where that cp comes from. If it's the 'battleforged' cp to use 9th ed terms then that means imperial knights, which gain 3 cp at the start of their command phase when they achieve honored, is a broken rule because they would only actually gain 1 cp. I'm not arguing RAI, I'm pointing out RAW. Either it's broken and IK only gain 1 cp from their honored or you can stack multiple cp gain effects as long as they happen at the beginning of the command phase Remember, we are playing a game where there's a distinction between within and wholly within and other specific rulings. 40k is a complex game where semantics matter. These things need to be specified in no uncertain terms because if they aren't you'll have people arguing their own 'creative intrepretations' that *could* be right and that's not healthy for the game or fun for most people
For Germany a 50+ player event in Warhammer 40K is standard. I found two or three events that spike between 100 and 200 players. GW tried to build a competitive scene with bigger tournaments in 2019 but the pandemic stopped those plans. Big events as NovaOpen are not as common as they are in America, Australia or England.
I like half of these... -Towering and indirect are wonky -Overwatch at 12" murders the Firestrike Turret, for example. Would Overwatch at half weapon range to minimum 12" be too fiddly? - Leave Tsons alone. Magnus did nothing wrong
If it was my LGS is recommend en to just stick to 9th, just randomly changing rules will have more impact then we can think of. Just reading these buffs SM and nerfs guard. What about factions like DG and Admech?
People are really getting out ahead of their skis. There have not been remotely enough games for any of these changes to be implemented. The edition isn’t even out yet for fucks sake. Plus this tournament data is now entirely useless instead of being evidence for similar changes if necessary
The way they want to roll back all these rules to 9th Ed, they should have just played 9th Ed. Now their event isn’t 9th or 10th. It’s just something they totally made up. I really don’t like this. It won’t give any insight at all into how 10th edition rules play out. It’s just so many changes back to 9th. I would 100% drop if an event threw out this many house rules. It’s an overreaction.
Honestly if they don’t like the rules, then play another game. It’s not their job to change something that they didn’t written. It’s a truly a bad decision on the German’s TO. It’s not 10th edition, it whatever edition they’re going to play.
I dont think shortening the range of overwatch was necessary. Also I feel like an additional -1 to any save (including invulns) mightve been a more elegant solution for Twist of Fate. Even with all these changes Eldar are still mega-busted and will easily rule the roost. Doesnt affect fire-prisms, wraithguard or war-walkers and farseers just became even harder to kill with the indirect fire nerf. Ultimately I think they should have either A) stuck with 10th, B) stuck with 9th, C) handed out a questionnaire to players who registered interest to ask what house-rules if any most people wanted to see.
I like lone operative in principle, it is just too new and they haven't spread around any exceptions yet (which they should have done!) The obvious exception that would go a long way to balancing it would be to give ranged precision weapons the ability to target lone operatives at any range.
if twist of fate is gonna get gutted on its effect then its cost needs to be dropped, because at 9 cabal points its a huge portion of the entire armies cabal output
Thousand Sons don't seem like they needed said nerf, since you have to generate the cabal points to use it anyways. You can't guarantee generating enough after turn 1. For the Eldar issue, a simple fix would be "any mechanic which replaces the initial die roll does not count as an unmodified roll" would be fine. It hits units with twin-linked and devastating as well, along with Oath of Moment, Dark Pact, and sustained/lethal hits, but I think that's closer to RAI. For towering, visibility has worked both ways. If you can see me, I can see you, and that's from a Knights player in my area. Overwatch being reduced is an unnecessary nerf to the intent- if I see you coming, why do I need to wait for you to charge before I can shoot at you? Perhaps I do enough damage that you decide not to charge in, or to redirect fire to counter what I did. Indirect seems fine as-is in the core rules, no idea why that's changed here. Not parking on the objective marker makes sense, no idea why they removed that unless they don't have enough physical objective markers to make it work, which would be odd since they sell in Hawaii for about $5 for 5. No reason to cap mortals if the above adjustment to what is and isn't unmodified is applied.
the problem with Eldar is Strands of fate was just better miricle dice since you could use more then 1 dice on a unit... that in tandum with dev wounds from the wraith cannon and tower meaning you ignore every terrain that matters means you could control when and how you do mortals on the wraight knights, not to mention as a whole the army gets acess to 1 reroll to hit and wound which they shoulda just kept it as EITHEr 1 hit or wound not both... strands as a whole feels fine but the ability to use all your dice on 1 model specially near a far seer making it 6s was awful in its deisng and as somebody who plays sisters watching my eldar friend get to always have 6s on there strands of 1 was just not a good game feeling at its core. Thousand sons i disagree with cause i have a Tyranid buddy who lost OOE and 2 carnifexs cause he had his armour saves completly turned off no counter play so he lost 500 points without effort on the Tsuns part. and thats not includeing all the other nonsense Tsun can get with giveing themselves acces to precision shots etc etc..
@@joheras9330 For the TSons, yeah, that hurts, but his opponent had to commit a significant amount of resources to do so. They get significantly worse the more casualties they take, so the ability to have an amazing turn 1 is needed to keep them balanced when you're expecting them to generate only 1-3 cabal points by the end of the game.
I come from the Old Guard of historical gaming, where writing your own rules is standard. I heartily endorse homebrewing. HOWEVER, I think these tournaments should run without amendments. Maybe then 40k players would see how bad GW are at actually writing rules. WotC tried to mess with the D&D community - it didn't go well. Maybe if the 40k community had similar solidarity, GW would actually start producing rules that were well designed and not half-baked.
Funny enough, GW didn't hesitate to quickly errata Death Watch's Hellfire Rounds Devastating Wounds fiasco but are completely ignoring the rules and faction issues being brought up by players in the rest of the community.
It's kinda stupid that they are errataing all these new rules and profiles without letting thing at least just play out. Granted, the mortal wound spam is strong, but how will GW and it's developers know exactly how broken it may be if there is no statistical data from games to draw from. There is a vast difference between theorycrafting all the potentially broken rules and playing the game to see how things pan out.
please give demon princes something not lethal on there swords so we can proc dev wounds on our charges lethal literally ruins any dev wound interaction they have on the charge and it feels real bad not includeing our already bad movement which is being punished by 90% of codexs that get to move around everywhere. i dont mind lethal on plague weapons but demon prince with wings got literally shafted rules wise because of lethal weapon interations.
dont play 10th till and f a q? why rush the edition isnt even out lol, i mean, surely most people wot even have chance to learn and play in 10 days? also simple, dont allow new edition till its been out a month with q and a?
my issue isnt at all w the balance theyre trying to fix, but the massive swaths of mechanics and weapons that were purged. Hmu when they drop 10th edition with no weapon consolidations
Why don't they just make the tournament a 9th edition tournament? Why even bother making it 10th if your going to change the rules? Edit: they should play 10th as it is, we won't know truly how good everything is until people start playing it. Let GW see some tournament results and then decide changes (since thats what they seem to pay attention to)
A lot of these changes are half baked. Twist of fate is fixed by faction locking it. Towering isnt the issue. No one had an issue when they could shoot knights but suddenly they can get shot back and its an issue? Maybe IK shooting is too good (crusader is better than the Despoiler for instance providing an armiger is buffable) Overall the egregious towering units need to be brought in line and people need to update their terrain
Or vehicles, in general, are undercosted. I think the Vindicator is about right, but my Land Raider Crusader tanked five Knight's worth of shooting and took 10 wounds total. I think that should cost more than 255 points when it has that level of durability.
@shadowmancy9183 I am actually fine with that. Overall I want games to be slug fests vs just being units dying left and right. I think things with strong overwatch should be adjusted to balance out the mechanic and other than that, some units should go up in cost (eldar need sweeping increases for instance) People are just not looking at things from averages. They are just knee jerk reacting
@@Gnarlf Oh, he effectively tabled me on turn 2 by killing all my anti-tank, but my Land Raider should not have made it through that much shooting, since half of it was hitting on 3's after popping smoke. Four thermal spears failed to do anything on turn 1.
Any "official" event wherein the results are submitted to GW should follow official rules, because that's the point of them collecting data. To address problems. If people skew event results because every tournament decides its own house rules then we may as well not have official events at all.
@@FestorFreak Not everything revolves around reporting back to GW, sometimes, people want to just have fun in the moment they have time free. Shocking concept I know.
@@nickschaefer9320 You sure are condescending for someone who can't read. I literally said "any OFFICIAL event." First 3 words of my reply. Context matters. You can do whatever the fuck you want in your local scene or at home, but anything that's supposed to be an official tournament that reports results to GW should be using the official rules. That's the point. I love trying goofy stuff or doing house rules that make a game more fun, but that's not what the official competitive scene is for.
They can do that they want... its their tournament The only thing I dont agree with is overwatch, there are units balance and priced over overwatch like the Heavy W. Team from the guard
I hate that everyone just shits on GW. Even tho you couldn't complain if they didn't make the game in the first place. Why can't people be happy they have something to do that brings them joy. Instead, everyone gets fueled up and pissed, making it less enjoyable for everyone. Just relax. It is a GAME, people.
While I do agree that people should settle down. Saying it’s just a game, while true, diminishes people’s effort and can be applied to a lot. Mona Lisa? Why care it’s just crushed rocks of different colors? Why people get so invested is because of the time an resource investment. Is it reasonable to get worked up over “just a game”? No Is it reasonable to get worked up when some one has invested probably in the thousands of dollars and years of their lives painstakingly painting small details? A little more reasonable
@jamiewalker6296 it is just a game regardless of how much money or time invested. Your life will continue to go on, win, or lose. It you're so worried about your time and money being wasted. Maybe this hobby isn't for you. I'm in this hobby to have a good time. If I want to be competitive, then I will adapt to that format, not have the format adapted to me.
@@SkinkPriestTylor your missing the point I made. Yes life will go on. What I was saying isn’t about wasted time, but with time investment a person cares about something more. Saying some is just X or just Y is ignoring why a person cares, regardless of the activity in question. Which is why I used a painting as an example. I’m sure there are many things in life you care about that some one else will just write off as oh that’s just something trivial. Again I didn’t say you were wrong about what you said, I just hate using the arguement it’s just a game. I’ve heard that argument for why video games should matter to people and other things and it’s just a demeaning argument that fails to understand why the person cares. A great example is deathguard Reddit. Sure some people complain about the rules being bad, but alot of people also say how they hate the shift in identity for the legion. Spending thousands of dollars, building and painting and learning the lore and deep dives into characters and why certain fictional dudes hate other fictional dudes. Simply put people are invested in the hobby in more ways than just a game.
@jamiewalker6296 Yes, you are right about people caring about things that others may see as trivial. But I also accept things the way they are, and when they don't go my way, I move forward. Not just complain and try and change it to suit me and the way I think it should be. Rewriting rules that a team has written over the last 3 years. These TOs have only had the rules for a week. Seems a little bit of an overreaction. That is my point.
@@SkinkPriestTylor i agree with you on that. We have no real data about how these changes are in the wild and everything is to some extent a knee jerk reaction. Playing a few games over the last week or so is nothing to thousand of games and tournaments played. While I get the spirit of balance the TOs are trying, I think it makes a little bit of feels bad. Imagine getting new rules for an army only for some people to say those aren’t allowed and nerfing your army but not another. Imagine being that player seeing his knight army get a nerf from towering and watching eldar keep all their toys, imagine winning the tournament but certain rules you don’t agree with have been changed. Did you really win vs that knight player? For better or worse tSons we’re pointed be play this way and only changing rules you(a player) sees fit and not adjusting points is just a mess and a slippery slope. Why stop at that? Why not rewrite DG or ad mech?
I must say, houseruling anything, while the game is technically not even out yet, is just the most arrogant thing I can imagine. Why can't we just play the game, the way it is right now and let the dust settle for a moment, before we start to make measured and reasonable adjustments. I think this is just a reactionary and butthurt overreaction.
TO probably played one game against knights lost and said that's broken. Biggest problem with 40k players IMO is if their army can't do it it's broken. Armies are supposed to have their own strengths and weaknesses. Knights have no INV saves in melee at all and can be shot all the time by everything but are broken because they can shoot back 🙄... Screams Buthurt after loosing to me
Shouldn't you first play the edition the way GW dictates? This way you can really see which content is absolutely not working and needs to be changed. If you mess around with it directly, there is a lack of good data.
That's the issue though. People have been playing independent 10th edition games since the rules were leaked and then officially dropped weeks ago. Coupled with the index releases and point costs, it only took a solid week or two for people to see there was/is going to be a huge problem
@@cornberzerker4877 Wow, one week of data. In terms of statistics, that's practically microscopic--we need a lot more, especially from rubber-meets-the-road for tournaments.
@DarkKnightCuron One week of data, yes. However, how many thousands of people does that data encompass? You have to remember, the tournament regulars are also the ones playing these games to get ready for the tournament season. I'm just getting back into 40k after a 4 year hiatus, but I've been a part of the competitive scene. A lot of those guys, train like it's an Olympic sport and some are even worse. They'll play whatever is the most insanely broken or powerful just to win at all costs, up to and including using the very rules of the game itself, to force a win in their favor
@@cornberzerker4877 I'm highly skeptical it's thousands. I would be impressed if 1000 games of 10th edition have been played to date, and even then, we need tournament scenario games running the rules as written in order to have that level of data required to justify any changes. A single week of games--that people are still learning, mind you--is still statistically insignificant. 30 days of games (starting when the POINTS were made public) would be a more reasonable minimum.
Because you play a game to have fun and not play the game to play the game. The rules are just a fantasy thing...why should editing for more fun be rude? I read a lot of comments and most people tell that they think that these changes are good...but some have trouble with housruling, but not with the rules.
Because they want everyone to have an equal chance of winning, not just people who play 3 specific factions. It's a tournament, not a casual pickup game at a local game store. The point is to win and you're going to bring whatever is going to get you that win, i.e. Eldar, T-Sons, and Knights specifically.
@cornberserker4877 I'm gonna make a basketball tournament, but in my tournament 3 point shots do not exist because some teams have better players than can do them.
@@47slogra But in this case, it's clearly not about how good the players are but about how good their armies are. And right now, there simply is such an enormous disparity between the top armies, the mid armies and the bottom end armies, that the end of 9th seemed balanced in comparison. You don't have to be a better player if your rules are just so broken that your opponent doesn't even stand a chance.
@@denniskeler8068 because it’s a tournament. If you want to use house rules with your friends in your garage… then sure. But tournaments aren’t just for fun, they are for competition. They should definitely be using the rules as written, if for nothing else but to demonstrate to GW what is wrong and what they need to change.
(Before people jump me im not saying eldar doesnt need to be adjusted just...) People crying about the wraith knight while Knight players are trying to keep the Thunder Coil Harpoon under the radar with 12 mortal wounds on a 2+ to a monster and 4+ on a vehicle lol
Their right to discretion isn't germane to the discussion at hand; Which is that their bastardization of 10th rules is a bad idea and they should just have played 9th, and that the rules need a giant smoke test to decide their state.
absolutely. should be more common to house rule things like this, at every tournament, in every house. GW rules are ... maybe better with tis edition, but do not have a history of being sound, or clear.
Hah! It would be good for space marines, or whatever the majority meta is, suck for all other armies, because the house rules players want will inevitably be in their favour, where players playing anything else will be handicapped by the prejudices of their opponents, who above all, want their army to lose.
As a Thousands Sons player, I'm kind of fine with these ideas for a tournament. Doombolt being capped at 6MW isnt a huge problem (that would be a good roll anyway), Twist of Fate only giving -2AS would hurt a bit but not too much (it's still doing what its meant to, just not as well), and Overwatch being 12" doesn't effect warpflamers at all. Ok, the Twist of Fate thing does hurt a bit, because it's normally really good, but it probably is a bit too good at what it does. But then again, so is Oath of Moment. And, we do have other good things to do with cabal points (I think Temporal Surge is actually going to be a sleeper-hit in heavily objective based games. It's a lot of cheap movement for an already fast'ish army). I think they've got a ways to go to unbreaking Eldar though. You could just about say "everything costs 25% more points", and I'm not sure if that would make them balanced.
@@TacticalTortoise As a thousand sons player who's been getting the shaft for nearly 20 years now, I completely disagree, if im paying 9 cabal points that unit im targetting had BETTER not get ANY armor save, further more if we're capping MW's for TS why don't we just cap damage overall for all TS units for ALL phases, each unit can only do a MAX of 6 wounds to a unit in either psychic, shooting and melee, the fact that this community is SO quick to bow to ANY rule change by the judges or GW and just start slobbing their nobs because its coming from a place of "Authority" even when it is clearly not balanced or fair just astounds me every edition.....
It is disingenous to suggest this is just an FAQ in lieu of official clarifications. These are not rulings, interpretations or clarifications. These are targeted nerfs to specific armies and units, affecting meta balance according to some random person's feelings on how powerful those units/armies should be. Essentially the event will not be hosting 10th edition Warhammer 40000 games. It will be hosting games of their own homebrew fan game. It is a knee-jerk reaction not much different to the people that wanted to ban Eldar from a tournament before indexes were out and sets an iffy precedent for a future where different continents/countries/communities are playing essentially completely different games from each other: something that was actually happening in some editions of old Warhammer Fantasy Battles and was wildly problematic in the context of international tournament circuits that were trying to get off the ground at the time. EDITED for people that are cognitively incapable of reconciling points of view differing from their own and desperately want for my dissenting opinion to have some kind of villainous ulterior motive: I am not German, I have never been to Germany, I will not be attending this or any other German tournament in the foreseeable future and I play Chaos Space Marines that would be largely unaffected by these homebrew rules even in a hypothetical situation in which I would be playing under them. I therefore postulate that my opinion, while by definition subjective, is balanced and impartial.
This is definitely how I feel about house rules in general - but it's also clear that the edition is very unbalanced right now and I think it's okay for events to try and rectify it in the immediate future. Once GW starts releasing erratas to the most egregious interactions I think it's a step too far, but they haven't yet.
And these TOs trying to give more players more fun at the tournament. Its a game...and humans play games for fun, not for playing the game in "the right way". And i think nobody who played more then 10 games in this editon says: "Its fine and well balanced!". There are so many mistakes, for example if i play the spanish codex of Death Guard the misamic malignifer got 21D6 shots. If you tell me i can just play the english version that would be houseruling. I just play the official rules from GW.
Literally the edition isnt offically released and theres already this much rewritten and faq qnd fighting of rules this is absolutely unacceptable from GW they need to get this shit together before trying to sell a usless unplayable game 😊
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
The problem with house ruling things at this point is that if it is an official event any data about win loss rates will be in accurate. If GW looks at the results and sees that eldar came in 3rd in the tournament and votan came in first that dose not accurately represent the armies. GW needs to see there is an issue with armies before they will fix them.
eldar will not place with these changes. and thats the point. To over power spacemarines
@@zurran00 - I am surprised they also didn't nerf Oath of Moment. So, you might have some traction with that idea.
Honestly i wouldnt go to this tournament if i was over there. Sounds like the event organizers just want to stay in 9th land. They should of just stuck with 9th rules and point if they were not going to be prepared for a new edition that was resetting everything that everyone has seen coming a mile away.
Yeah I don't understand that. If you want to play 9th, then play 9th. You still have the rules. No reason to change the new core rules to what you want them to be, and make it so not everyone is playing the same 10th edition.
I've finally started to enjoy playing my knights again. They're tough, have good firepower, and can take some hard hits and keep pushing on. They are not completely invincible and will go down if you make a misplay. The people who ive played against who bitch about knights are the same people who spam combi weapon/devastating wounds squads and do not prepare for anti-armor.
Most armies if played well, can take around one knight a turn. These changes seem to be people huffing copium that their infantry can’t just deliver a barrage of mortals like they used to in 9th
People are mad that something that costs 400 points is good 🙄
I found the only way of playing knights in 9th was lots of Armigers now we have more than one way of playing and people say it's broken 🙄
@@willlondon4964 yeah. It’s dumb their argument is ‘just because he has a true line of sight doesn’t mean I should be shot. Yes. Yes it does.
@@surriad1140 typical "well of course my devastators can see your Knight look how big it is ! But no my bright yellow 9ft tall armoured men firing laser beams at you are totally invisible because of a small wall that's one third the height of you" 🤣🤣🤣
Everybody is just looking back at 9th and saying "oh Knights didn't have any melee defense. I could shoot knights whenever I want and they were little to no threat having a less than forty nine percent win rate at the end of arcs of omen. I should be beating them!" But it's a different edition and people don't get that.
Thank you
Exactly!
And wraith knights are sooo broken...
Just out of curiosity:
"When was the last time, that a wraith knight would even be a viable option in a game?"
I have not seen one im ages.
Let people play with their toys for once and have fun.
The meta will shift with every codex, so hopefully everyone gets to have a small advantage at some point
People don't seem to get if you pay 400+ points for something it should be good 🙄
Knights had a 49% win rate because everyone played Armigers with 1 max 2 Questoris. 4 Questoris was literally unplayable.
@@willlondon4964 I definitely think they will bump up the points eventually, but you're right. Running more than 2 Questoris was inefficient
No official points for ranking if house rules are in play. It’s a no brainer.
My god! 10th edition isn't officially out yet and people are already finding something to complain about? I should be surprised but at this point I really shouldn't be.
And low, did the enemy see my sweet necrons march before them, and as they died, they rose again time after time. The enemy could not believe this was his demise. For the necrons only needed the follow turn to rise again, and bring tears it did to the meta gamer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say, and beautiful were my necrons that day.
Necrons gonna Necron. I don't play them, but their index looks solidly put together, with nothing too oppressive and tons of fun Leader combinations with units. Along with CSM, I think they are in the sweet spot power/fun -wise.
I feel like FAR more games need to be played to determine the state of the rules. On their face, some do seem broken, however when exposed to the strategies of other armies and as players develop counters we'll get closer to gauging reality.
Also it's a new edition, people will need to learn to play warhammer like it's 10th and let go of 9th.
I think it is safe to assume the ones making these proposals have already played more games of 10th edition than most downvoters in the reddit thread will do in a year...
@@archangle2988I highly doubt that this, if even true, is enough.
They miggt have played a lot, with each other, but considering the possibilities within a whole new edition, this is not mearly enough to judge the whole thing.
The problem with reactionary houserules like these is, that they createmore problems down the line for something else, thatyou can't forsee now.
And honestly, how impactful is it, if a knight het's cover? Your efficient weapons will make it to the invuln, mortals ignore it completely and small arms should suck.
And how big of a deal is it, when the knight ingnores your cover, because it is towering? It has devastating weaponry in the first place.
You pronably still only field 7 models tops and the opponent hast to deal with that.
Just get a bit creative and find a solution or work around, instead of trying to convert everything back to 'the olden times' aka 9th
@@archangle2988 I'm talking about a real test size, hundreds or thousands of players around the world with different playstyles giving 10th a go over a few weeks with multiple games to find out where it's broken. Not a group of 10-15 players in one country having played 5-10 games of 10th. Strategies and counters will arise, and the only way to find balance this through the process of mass testing.
@thenathanimal2909 TO's success is measured in attendance rating, not in providing data for GW. If the players refuse to play 9th and refuse to play the dumpsterfire that is 10th they try to offer a stop gap to keep the community together until GW gets their shit together. I still have 3 huge WarmaHordes army's in my cellar I can not even sell because nationwide the core players of the community refused to play 3rd edition and a cascade killed the whole game ... these few houserules will not fix the game, but the hope it it prevents too much damage from the community ...
GW has put out their expected terrain standards for 2 years now, if TOs have not taken the effort to rectify their terrain, thats on them and not an excuse to just throw out towering, its only the issue it is because they have not taken the effort to meet those terrain standards.
Where did they put it out?
I don't like these entities making arbitrary changes to the game for what I guess are official tournaments. I especially don't like the idea of banning factions outright. That's like a place holding a Magic tournament and saying "Oh by the way, Blue is not allowed." It's like thumbing your nose at the game designers.
I've heard from my LGS though that the Germans 40K community is NOTORIOUS for this. At some point, were I the official voice of GW, I would start sanctioning..or more accurately UNsanctioning events held by that group. Their tournaments wouldn't count for standings, progression, rankings, whatever, and they would stop getting prize support until they fall in line.
Yes, it sadly is.
In my region, it's hard to find a tournament following the official rules only.
Most of them played with a strongly modified version for army construction.
If you want to play that way, fine, but for me that was no fun at all, since the rusults are just not comparable with the rest of the world
If we don't play the game with how GW has set it up currently then how the hell are they supposed to receive actual useful data on how they should balance it.
I do feel the very fact that the event organizers are willing to risk a shitstorm just so they can change the rules should be clear enough data hahaha.
obviously , armchair math> actual game results
The amount of rules they reverted to 9th makes it sound like they're upset they're not playing 9th anymore.
I for one wish we had another year of 9th. The game was fairly well balanced. The faction I played was exceptionally well internally balanced and I wanted more time trying out different styles.
I mean maybe because 9th was a vastly superior rule set 🤷
”Tell me you wanna play 9th without telling me you wanna play 9th”.
And while some of these changes might be just what the game needs, some seem very heavy handed this early and might have some very awkward side effects. Like Space Marines winning due to avoiding any nerfs or Tau standing even less of a chance if Lone Operative gets nerfed.
@@cruelmolehen just play 9th. Noone stops you from doing so. Don't pretend to play 10th instead, just be honest.
But they wouldn't do that, because people want to play 10th and not 9th
The Tournament Crowd tries to rewrite Warhammer into whatever they think they want it to be every edition/book/whatever. This is nothing new. The Tournament Crowd has always wanted a different game.
It might be because I'm kinda new to 40k, but I'm super not into this. Coming from other games, "house rules" are a real quick path to making the game 5 people in particular want to play at the expense of the reatof the playerbase, and if GW actually lioks at these kinds of chamges for inspiration, thatsounds kinda distressing.
It also feels weird for people to be trying to make these kinds of changes not even a month into the existence of 10th.
I like your mindset
There’s always going to be some factions that are slightly better than others every new edition and update. Let’s actually play the game before complaining about rules that may not even be that bad.
Aren't they making a splinter rules set of 40k by doing this though?
The TO's chose to run the 10th edition rules, so they should run it as printed. They chose to do this, and without some GT's running 10th as written, how is anyone supposed to get good data on the new edition?
The Answer ist gorilla punch
the point isnt to become a better player. its so that only space marines can win
I liked that units couldn't stand directly on the objective marker. It meant that a big base modle couldn't sit dead center on an objective and only allow a small sliver to be reachable. Objective Secured doesn't exist anymore, there'd be little or no way for opposing units to get enough OC to contest that objective.
Also, it meant that players could always see the objective marker and the opportunities for confusion as to where the marker was exactly were lessened.
This is exactly why they did it but the issue is that it causes all kinds of other stupid stuff. The cost benefit doesn't work out
@Wes-xk6hl I will say, I haven't played 10th yet, I'm waiting on friend group getting together this weekend. Not sure what new issues will come up regarding that rule.
@@chainer8686 the concern is that you're effectively trading weird/exploitable objective contesting for weird/exploitable charge/melee positioning, especially for large units who may not be able to just go around if their base is too large to be angled or maneuvered in a way it can make it into melee.
Can both be exploited?
Yes.
But what makes more sense:
a goddamn titan being able to body block an objective, or the same titan not being able to get into melee because of an invisible wall magically protecting a guardsman from being stepped on?
The rules have not even been out for a week!
Some of ours have not even been able to get our first game in.
While house rules are common and expected. All this panic of supposed rules holes usually is filled with people trying different units and tactics and in less than a week I can promise people have not done that yet.
On top of it all let’s remember that GW has always said this game should be fun for you and your opponent. If you find something that would suck the joy of the game out of your opponent it’s not GW who should say don’t do it. It’s you the gamer.
Feels like that old Final Fantasy Tactics game on one of the handhelds where the judges would layer new rules on each fight.
That not even a month after rules indexes and points are out people are rewriting rules tells you more about those people than about the rules imo. Let the rules breathe and if then the game is unplayable or in a bad state then change them.
This leaves so many other broken things in that it only shifts the problem points.
My LGS capped mortals from devastating wounds, but let the rest slide, for our first tenth edition tournament. This seems different, like they just want to play ninth.
Dev wounds is incredibly powerful
I agree, this is a bit of an over reaction. I honestly think until we have at least a month of data, just play as is. People will find counters and rules to exploit, most of this is just people throwing a fit because something is stronger than they want
I am afraid you did not play 10th you played a homebrew
I agree with you. This is definitely just them going back to 9th. So dumb.
Small comment on the [Towering] part:
It has been changed so that towering now gives you the ability of "toeing in" instead
People vining about towering have not played a game against knights. Knights are in a good place now.dont f em up
Exactly
Chaos knights are probably a bit too strong. BUT that is because they can build mass small knights and they're only op when they do it. Which can be easily fixed by raising the cost of small CHAOS knights. That doesn't mean you have to do the same to imperial because imperial knights HAVE to run some big knights or they lose a ton of stuff. Which makes the points ecosystem completely different
The problem is that all these idiots are going to get imperial knights removed from the game because they don't know anything about the situation
Knights are oppressive. That’s not a good spot. It’s insane
@@justinerickson282which knights did you play against? Everyone needs to stop lumping both together
Also, in my experience so far, there's a MASSIVE difference depending on if the person knows how to play against them or not. And I suspect that the vast majority of people complaining brought an army without much anti tank essentially bringing an army tailor made to get destroyed and then complaining it was the other person's fault
Iv personally already been destroyed playing knights and playing against knights. And I can say with 100% confidence that they are fine but can see why certain people would complain about them
HOWEVER it needs to be said that even those people should recognize that knights (especially imperial knights) are not even in the top 5 of what people should be complaining about
@@Wes-xk6hl sure t12 isnt oppressive at all lol
@@justinerickson282 yep ok thanks for proving my points. You played a game of 10th, didn't bring enough anti tank, and got destroyed
It was clear from day 1 that 10th was going to be super vehicle heavy and everyone was going to have to change their armies to fit that meta. It was also clear that everyone who didn't was going to get destroyed
If we want to agree on something I can sympathize that gw did that to force people to buy more models and I don't like it either. But stop complaining about the wrong things and trying to potentially ruin the game for others who play an army you would just rather see go away because that would be easier for you
Sounds like they made a 9.5 tournament
First, its these people's tournament they can do what they want BUT making these types of changes seems dumb as we don't actually have much player data. If GW is going to make changes they need proper data to do it.
Towering is just putting knights on equal footing with others. If it reverts, without changing things like oath of moment, then knights will go back to being shot off the table turn 1. People are just upset knights get to enjoy the same luxury now.
I like that everyone is crying foul of the towering rule when the thing they're shooting at can shoot back. Why wouldn't it be able to shoot back? If you can see it to shoot pretty good chance it can see you
@@jules9094 exactly. And I can help with your confusion. It's because the people complaining are idiots
With how stringent anti tank weapons are now, you'd be lucky to shoot one or two armigers off the table turn one if you really pump everything you got into them, and those are like 120 to 150 points. T10, 12 wounds... Most lascannons won't even wounds these things consistently. It's horrific that they got these toughness buffs without any significant points increases.
Last tournament I played had my Warden get picked before I got a turn, followed by my Paladin warlord next turn. I don't listen to the haters in 10th.
So it's okay for a knight to shoot my russ off the table turn one and I can barely kill an armiger on the hit back? I think the problem is that night weapons are a little too crazy. The army itself is just unfun to play against, it's a giant stat check. Either you kill a couple nights in the first couple turns, or you just lose there's not really too much counterplay to that unless you list tailor
I thought people hated 9E?
This T.O. seems to LOVE 9E.
I don’t agree with any of these changes. You can’t just change the games rules because you don’t like them. Not a single one change feels ‘fair’ to both sides. There are factions and armies balanced with these rules taken into account. Even the obj. rule. It’s to stop people from parking their khorne berserkers on an objective mindlessly. Nobody has yet played enough games to determine if it truly needs a change yet, or if that’s how GW wants the edition to work. This sets a bad precedent and personally, I’d pull it out of the tournament.
Yeah... towering is soo bad...but yeah, let the knight block the whole objective again. Why would you want that?
@@Gnarlf you should kill one knight a turn. And knights are owed a fair shot at winning with 5 models. Their index was balanced woth the towering rule in mind. They’re the boss battle army.
Lone operative is far from busted.
Phobos still gets wiped just like in 9th. Especially against strong melee.
I don't have a problem with codifying the rules of a tournament so players know what to expect.
I DO have a problem with making random house rules without ever giving the new 10th Ed rules a chance to gather actual data TO make such changes.
These organizer have probably played/oversaw more than 20 games already so they can form their opinion.
@AlainPilon yes balance the game based in 20 games a huge sample size that really shows everything.
@@47slogra seems like a better sample size than GW used to balance 10e in the first place, considering how jank and broken many data sheets and point costs are
@@DibbzTheLonerOR....weneed to play way more than 20 games to realise, where the balance lies.
@op
It is a very german problem and I'm not surprised this happened.
Whenever I try to find a tournament here, quite a lot of them used strong restrictions on list building on top of the general rules, because they think it's more fun this way. All it does is shifting the problem somewhere else.
I don't like this 'head in the sand' mentality at all.
Either play the game or something else, but don't pretend to play the game, while using different rules than the rest of us.
My Sword and Shield Wraithknight did nothing wrong.
Not acceptable changes. Towering is a balanced rule that fixes the unfairmess in 9th that made models like wraithknights unplayable. the removal of true line of aight was necessary to fix this. even the mortal wound cap is unreasonable. this creates a massive imbalance in favor of Space Marines specifically
The fact that knights can be shot all the time is a huge weakness to their army. But somehow no one sees it that way??? 🙄
Being able to shoot back not only is the counter balance but it's realistic they literally are supposed to be "towering" over buildings.
Total over reaction IMO
IF you shoot a knight you can see it, its stupid to have any rule were it "cant" see you back.
That isn't true. Take a knight sized model with his hands down at its waste. There are scenarios where it isn't stupid and makes sense why you could shoot it and it couldn't shoot you back. Game play wise yeah if you can see something it should be able to see you
@@DemandredTaim knights are 1000 feet tall... down at their waist or not, it doesn't matter. Can't actually believe you said that
And let's say it did matter. These things are shooting bullets the size of trucks. Buildings are tin foil compared to them.
@@Wes-xk6hl If you want to go down the think about it road I'd go more down the Corax is invisible to the naked eye but can be picked up by auspex scanners of a mining world 10,000 years ago. But no your 8 feet tall brightly coloured super soldiers firing laser beams are totally invisible to the targeting arrays of a Sacred Mars machine spirited death machines that are 1000 ft high and those back packs aren't giving off heat at all to my thermal imaging scans. 🙄🤣
Now I agree, but Realistically if you're in a Gundam and I shoot your boot from under a building, ya may not see me from the cockpit xD
The house rules are essentially "Space Marines win." They took the hammer to Knights and artillery and didn't touch Oath of Moment. It's a joke.
EXACTLY
This is the latest list:
- [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.)
That implementation of towering is an interesting compromise. part of me hopes how the rule will end up being but I can't really say as I haven't played versus towering units yet.
Hopefully they are careful with nerfing lone operative. It's the only thing that's making Tau viable at the moment
Maybe make Lone Operative work like the Lions version. He has to be within 3" of an infantry unit to get it.
That way it's like a quasi bodyguard but if you get close enough it no longer matters.
Edit: maybe going so far as to say that unit has to be of sufficient strength (like over half) so a single model can't hide behind a rock and provide the ability.
@@davel.3101 Interesting take! We are currently gathering multiple solutions to Lone Operative and I will add your suggestion to the list.
But please be aware, that a lot of the rules will not have an elegant solution and that sometimes collateral damage (as with the nerf to indirect) will occur unfortunately. Would the rules have been better in the first place, the fixes from our side wouldn't even be necessary at all...
Are you a child? The rules are fine, no one has even seen how they play out over multiple games.
@@DevorumSo if nobody has seen how they play out how do you know that they're fine? 🤔
You know, if they would just leave lone operatives and indirect fire alone, the lone operatives could counter the indirect fire. That’s what I planned to do with my Nids in the Nid vs Marine matchup.
The only one I don’t like is the MW cap because of how strong Necrons are. It’s almost impossible to chew through them without it. But hopefully GW comes through with some fixes soon, it seems like they’re really listening to the community now and willing to make changes and fix things faster than every 3 months
Dont support tournaments that does this.
The mortals camping at 6 per unit kinda sucks for units like hearthkyn that could do way more in 10 man units and overwatch cap at 12 screws conversion beamers on thunderkyn as convertion ability only triggers past 12 and they can overwatch hit on 5+ meaning it could still crit
something tells me most of the people with these overreactions haven't actually read every single datasheet and taken them into account when suggesting changes, lol
this is because it lets space marines live longer with double oaths
The towering is weird to me. You do terrain right towering isnt an issue. You knownhow to face knights and towering isnt an issue versus them. I do think the reaction to towering is overblown but it can be abused if the knight player knows how to play, which is true of any rule.
This statment feels werid to me... a wraith knight is taller then a 5 inch wall you would need at least ITS height or bigger to block its line of fire cause models like Magnus and mortarion who lost tower cant even hide still from towering models despite useing the full legth of a wall cause all the Wraith knight has to do is look at a wing and still fire its already stupid broken gun and possible kill them... towering just made knights and wraith knights ignore literally 50% of the game cause at that point, you might as well just not play on any terrain while towering exists as its base form and its real toxic cause theres no counter play other then hoping and praying your opponent has a bad shooting phase
@@joheras9330 and you get to shoot back since Towering cant hide their model
@@viktorgabriel2554 with what models when they can just poke there heads and see you?
the problem is the TOs are lazy. and want to cave to SM players. so that no other army can top 10
they addressed two factions and ignored all the rest yhea this is worse then GW balancing
The changes to indirect fire utterly destroys guard artillery and army building. When you look at the points this edition they clearly were intending for guard to be artillery based over tanks this edition. Tanks are super expensive to use and they did points reductions on artillery to incentivize using it however they made the stats based on their rules not Germany's they need are given a bad starting BS of 5+to account for getting the plus one for heavy and expected to +1BS for take aim as the guard is designed to have to give orders which is its army's ability but is also balanced in that you can only give so many orders and once leaders are lost you have no means of accessing your army ability. These changes changes make from hitting on a usable 3 to a unusable 6. At least in 9th edition tanks were cheap so you could skip using terrible artillery but your lucky to afford 2 tanks in 10th averaging around 200 points so we need these sub 160 point units. Also getting those orders on vehicle artillery is extremely expensive as tank commanders points are ridiculous and the only other option is the Lord solar so realistically that artillery can hit on 3s with a few possibly on 2s most will be on 4s when used. It's just insane to make the entire guard artillery only hit on 6s more broken than what they're trying to fix
Absolutely agree--because people got so scared of Desolation Squads, they decided to hurt the entirety of Guard artillery as well, rather than just targeting Desolation Marines. This is why we need a lot more data: because if you don't collect data in order to accurately determine the issue, you're just going to hurt more than help. Unless the competitive scene absolutely hates Imperial Guard, in which case, I guess that's par for the course, huh?
A couple of issues I've found so far in the rules
1, so many rules references things in play or removing things from play. But not a single rule exists that puts things in play.
2, nothing says you can't move a unit twice in a turn.
3, depending on how you interpret the rule limiting cp gain outside of the command phase one either Imperial Knights have a broken army rule (since you can only gain 1 and they gain 3) or its possible to gain multiple command points a turn as long as they are all in the command phase
Yeah the "Command Phase CP" thing is a mess and needs to be fixed for sure
This is wrong, the German version clearly says only one in a battleround, not counting the one you get in the command phase, I know it is not the original language, but German is mutch better and more precise then English, take it how you want, but I would say it makes sense, you can finde it in the core rules on the page where they talk about the command phase, in a little side box
@@TEXASAXE if anything that just proves the point on how the rules are broken if two different languages don't line up.
I looked it up in English and it says the same once per battleround it is hidden in a side box it states on page 11 „ GAINING COMMAND POINTS
Outside of the CP players gain at the start of the Command phase, each player can only gain a total of 1CP per battle round, regardless of the source.“ just found it in the core rules
@@TEXASAXE yes, my point is it's not specific about which cp that is/where that cp comes from. If it's the 'battleforged' cp to use 9th ed terms then that means imperial knights, which gain 3 cp at the start of their command phase when they achieve honored, is a broken rule because they would only actually gain 1 cp.
I'm not arguing RAI, I'm pointing out RAW. Either it's broken and IK only gain 1 cp from their honored or you can stack multiple cp gain effects as long as they happen at the beginning of the command phase
Remember, we are playing a game where there's a distinction between within and wholly within and other specific rulings. 40k is a complex game where semantics matter. These things need to be specified in no uncertain terms because if they aren't you'll have people arguing their own 'creative intrepretations' that *could* be right and that's not healthy for the game or fun for most people
In my opinion I wouldn’t house rule anything before the fist tournament. Play games then make changes.
For Germany a 50+ player event in Warhammer 40K is standard. I found two or three events that spike between 100 and 200 players. GW tried to build a competitive scene with bigger tournaments in 2019 but the pandemic stopped those plans. Big events as NovaOpen are not as common as they are in America, Australia or England.
Hey...I'm a people! 🤬
I would say Skill issue
I think we need the early data points unfiltered. As balanced or well thought these were.
I like half of these...
-Towering and indirect are wonky
-Overwatch at 12" murders the Firestrike Turret, for example. Would Overwatch at half weapon range to minimum 12" be too fiddly?
- Leave Tsons alone. Magnus did nothing wrong
If it was my LGS is recommend en to just stick to 9th, just randomly changing rules will have more impact then we can think of. Just reading these buffs SM and nerfs guard.
What about factions like DG and Admech?
The changes TOs make wont be random.
People are really getting out ahead of their skis. There have not been remotely enough games for any of these changes to be implemented. The edition isn’t even out yet for fucks sake.
Plus this tournament data is now entirely useless instead of being evidence for similar changes if necessary
The way they want to roll back all these rules to 9th Ed, they should have just played 9th Ed. Now their event isn’t 9th or 10th. It’s just something they totally made up.
I really don’t like this. It won’t give any insight at all into how 10th edition rules play out. It’s just so many changes back to 9th. I would 100% drop if an event threw out this many house rules.
It’s an overreaction.
Honestly if they don’t like the rules, then play another game. It’s not their job to change something that they didn’t written. It’s a truly a bad decision on the German’s TO. It’s not 10th edition, it whatever edition they’re going to play.
I dont think shortening the range of overwatch was necessary. Also I feel like an additional -1 to any save (including invulns) mightve been a more elegant solution for Twist of Fate.
Even with all these changes Eldar are still mega-busted and will easily rule the roost. Doesnt affect fire-prisms, wraithguard or war-walkers and farseers just became even harder to kill with the indirect fire nerf.
Ultimately I think they should have either A) stuck with 10th, B) stuck with 9th, C) handed out a questionnaire to players who registered interest to ask what house-rules if any most people wanted to see.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. Eldar must be nerfed because heaven forbid that anything they have actually be GOOD!!!!1111
I like lone operative in principle, it is just too new and they haven't spread around any exceptions yet (which they should have done!) The obvious exception that would go a long way to balancing it would be to give ranged precision weapons the ability to target lone operatives at any range.
if twist of fate is gonna get gutted on its effect then its cost needs to be dropped, because at 9 cabal points its a huge portion of the entire armies cabal output
Thousand Sons don't seem like they needed said nerf, since you have to generate the cabal points to use it anyways. You can't guarantee generating enough after turn 1.
For the Eldar issue, a simple fix would be "any mechanic which replaces the initial die roll does not count as an unmodified roll" would be fine. It hits units with twin-linked and devastating as well, along with Oath of Moment, Dark Pact, and sustained/lethal hits, but I think that's closer to RAI.
For towering, visibility has worked both ways. If you can see me, I can see you, and that's from a Knights player in my area.
Overwatch being reduced is an unnecessary nerf to the intent- if I see you coming, why do I need to wait for you to charge before I can shoot at you? Perhaps I do enough damage that you decide not to charge in, or to redirect fire to counter what I did.
Indirect seems fine as-is in the core rules, no idea why that's changed here.
Not parking on the objective marker makes sense, no idea why they removed that unless they don't have enough physical objective markers to make it work, which would be odd since they sell in Hawaii for about $5 for 5.
No reason to cap mortals if the above adjustment to what is and isn't unmodified is applied.
I disagree on Overwatch. I don't understand after giving units the ability to fall back why GW thinks Melee is so strong
the problem with Eldar is Strands of fate was just better miricle dice since you could use more then 1 dice on a unit... that in tandum with dev wounds from the wraith cannon and tower meaning you ignore every terrain that matters means you could control when and how you do mortals on the wraight knights, not to mention as a whole the army gets acess to 1 reroll to hit and wound which they shoulda just kept it as EITHEr 1 hit or wound not both... strands as a whole feels fine but the ability to use all your dice on 1 model specially near a far seer making it 6s was awful in its deisng and as somebody who plays sisters watching my eldar friend get to always have 6s on there strands of 1 was just not a good game feeling at its core. Thousand sons i disagree with cause i have a Tyranid buddy who lost OOE and 2 carnifexs cause he had his armour saves completly turned off no counter play so he lost 500 points without effort on the Tsuns part. and thats not includeing all the other nonsense Tsun can get with giveing themselves acces to precision shots etc etc..
@@joheras9330 For the TSons, yeah, that hurts, but his opponent had to commit a significant amount of resources to do so. They get significantly worse the more casualties they take, so the ability to have an amazing turn 1 is needed to keep them balanced when you're expecting them to generate only 1-3 cabal points by the end of the game.
I come from the Old Guard of historical gaming, where writing your own rules is standard. I heartily endorse homebrewing. HOWEVER, I think these tournaments should run without amendments. Maybe then 40k players would see how bad GW are at actually writing rules. WotC tried to mess with the D&D community - it didn't go well. Maybe if the 40k community had similar solidarity, GW would actually start producing rules that were well designed and not half-baked.
Funny enough, GW didn't hesitate to quickly errata Death Watch's Hellfire Rounds Devastating Wounds fiasco but are completely ignoring the rules and faction issues being brought up by players in the rest of the community.
It's kinda stupid that they are errataing all these new rules and profiles without letting thing at least just play out. Granted, the mortal wound spam is strong, but how will GW and it's developers know exactly how broken it may be if there is no statistical data from games to draw from. There is a vast difference between theorycrafting all the potentially broken rules and playing the game to see how things pan out.
Can we rewrite death guard rules please
please give demon princes something not lethal on there swords so we can proc dev wounds on our charges lethal literally ruins any dev wound interaction they have on the charge and it feels real bad not includeing our already bad movement which is being punished by 90% of codexs that get to move around everywhere. i dont mind lethal on plague weapons but demon prince with wings got literally shafted rules wise because of lethal weapon interations.
@joheras9330 the whole army contradicts itself. Its a joke
@@MrCaryk i agree while i would love to run 10 brock marines it dies to fast to allnof this blast nonesne floating around its painful
So this German event is a 9th edition event with a twist lol
Sounds great!
dont play 10th till and f a q? why rush the edition isnt even out lol, i mean, surely most people wot even have chance to learn and play in 10 days? also simple, dont allow new edition till its been out a month with q and a?
Its been a while, but once again we are asking wtf is up with germany
my issue isnt at all w the balance theyre trying to fix, but the massive swaths of mechanics and weapons that were purged. Hmu when they drop 10th edition with no weapon consolidations
Jesus, why bother playing 40k if you don't like and don't want to use 40k rules
Why don't they just make the tournament a 9th edition tournament?
Why even bother making it 10th if your going to change the rules?
Edit: they should play 10th as it is, we won't know truly how good everything is until people start playing it. Let GW see some tournament results and then decide changes (since thats what they seem to pay attention to)
A lot of these changes are half baked.
Twist of fate is fixed by faction locking it.
Towering isnt the issue. No one had an issue when they could shoot knights but suddenly they can get shot back and its an issue?
Maybe IK shooting is too good (crusader is better than the Despoiler for instance providing an armiger is buffable)
Overall the egregious towering units need to be brought in line and people need to update their terrain
Or vehicles, in general, are undercosted. I think the Vindicator is about right, but my Land Raider Crusader tanked five Knight's worth of shooting and took 10 wounds total. I think that should cost more than 255 points when it has that level of durability.
@shadowmancy9183 I am actually fine with that. Overall I want games to be slug fests vs just being units dying left and right.
I think things with strong overwatch should be adjusted to balance out the mechanic and other than that, some units should go up in cost (eldar need sweeping increases for instance)
People are just not looking at things from averages. They are just knee jerk reacting
@@shadowmancy9183so the knights shooting wasn't that bad after all? ... intresting 🤔
@@Gnarlf Oh, he effectively tabled me on turn 2 by killing all my anti-tank, but my Land Raider should not have made it through that much shooting, since half of it was hitting on 3's after popping smoke. Four thermal spears failed to do anything on turn 1.
Tortoise are you updating the tts 40k stuff to 10th?
Any and all Event Organizer reserves the right to house rules, it's your option as a player if you support them by signing up for the event.
Any "official" event wherein the results are submitted to GW should follow official rules, because that's the point of them collecting data. To address problems. If people skew event results because every tournament decides its own house rules then we may as well not have official events at all.
@@FestorFreak Not everything revolves around reporting back to GW, sometimes, people want to just have fun in the moment they have time free. Shocking concept I know.
@@nickschaefer9320 You sure are condescending for someone who can't read. I literally said "any OFFICIAL event."
First 3 words of my reply. Context matters.
You can do whatever the fuck you want in your local scene or at home, but anything that's supposed to be an official tournament that reports results to GW should be using the official rules. That's the point. I love trying goofy stuff or doing house rules that make a game more fun, but that's not what the official competitive scene is for.
@@nickschaefer9320 then don't go to a competitive event
They can do that they want... its their tournament
The only thing I dont agree with is overwatch, there are units balance and priced over overwatch like the Heavy W. Team from the guard
They posted this after the cutoff date for refunds. So anyone who wants to back out because of this can't get a refund.
I hate that everyone just shits on GW. Even tho you couldn't complain if they didn't make the game in the first place. Why can't people be happy they have something to do that brings them joy. Instead, everyone gets fueled up and pissed, making it less enjoyable for everyone. Just relax. It is a GAME, people.
While I do agree that people should settle down. Saying it’s just a game, while true, diminishes people’s effort and can be applied to a lot. Mona Lisa? Why care it’s just crushed rocks of different colors?
Why people get so invested is because of the time an resource investment. Is it reasonable to get worked up over “just a game”? No
Is it reasonable to get worked up when some one has invested probably in the thousands of dollars and years of their lives painstakingly painting small details? A little more reasonable
@jamiewalker6296 it is just a game regardless of how much money or time invested. Your life will continue to go on, win, or lose.
It you're so worried about your time and money being wasted. Maybe this hobby isn't for you. I'm in this hobby to have a good time. If I want to be competitive, then I will adapt to that format, not have the format adapted to me.
@@SkinkPriestTylor your missing the point I made. Yes life will go on. What I was saying isn’t about wasted time, but with time investment a person cares about something more. Saying some is just X or just Y is ignoring why a person cares, regardless of the activity in question. Which is why I used a painting as an example. I’m sure there are many things in life you care about that some one else will just write off as oh that’s just something trivial. Again I didn’t say you were wrong about what you said, I just hate using the arguement it’s just a game. I’ve heard that argument for why video games should matter to people and other things and it’s just a demeaning argument that fails to understand why the person cares.
A great example is deathguard Reddit. Sure some people complain about the rules being bad, but alot of people also say how they hate the shift in identity for the legion. Spending thousands of dollars, building and painting and learning the lore and deep dives into characters and why certain fictional dudes hate other fictional dudes. Simply put people are invested in the hobby in more ways than just a game.
@jamiewalker6296 Yes, you are right about people caring about things that others may see as trivial. But I also accept things the way they are, and when they don't go my way, I move forward. Not just complain and try and change it to suit me and the way I think it should be.
Rewriting rules that a team has written over the last 3 years. These TOs have only had the rules for a week. Seems a little bit of an overreaction. That is my point.
@@SkinkPriestTylor i agree with you on that. We have no real data about how these changes are in the wild and everything is to some extent a knee jerk reaction. Playing a few games over the last week or so is nothing to thousand of games and tournaments played.
While I get the spirit of balance the TOs are trying, I think it makes a little bit of feels bad. Imagine getting new rules for an army only for some people to say those aren’t allowed and nerfing your army but not another. Imagine being that player seeing his knight army get a nerf from towering and watching eldar keep all their toys, imagine winning the tournament but certain rules you don’t agree with have been changed. Did you really win vs that knight player? For better or worse tSons we’re pointed be play this way and only changing rules you(a player) sees fit and not adjusting points is just a mess and a slippery slope. Why stop at that? Why not rewrite DG or ad mech?
if you're gonna be changing everything just stick with playing 9th edition and stop crying
I must say, houseruling anything, while the game is technically not even out yet, is just the most arrogant thing I can imagine.
Why can't we just play the game, the way it is right now and let the dust settle for a moment, before we start to make measured and reasonable adjustments.
I think this is just a reactionary and butthurt overreaction.
TO probably played one game against knights lost and said that's broken.
Biggest problem with 40k players IMO is if their army can't do it it's broken.
Armies are supposed to have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Knights have no INV saves in melee at all and can be shot all the time by everything but are broken because they can shoot back 🙄... Screams Buthurt after loosing to me
Shouldn't you first play the edition the way GW dictates? This way you can really see which content is absolutely not working and needs to be changed. If you mess around with it directly, there is a lack of good data.
That's the issue though. People have been playing independent 10th edition games since the rules were leaked and then officially dropped weeks ago. Coupled with the index releases and point costs, it only took a solid week or two for people to see there was/is going to be a huge problem
@@cornberzerker4877 Correct. However, I would still say that tournament results are a bit more meaningful and relevant to GWs.
@@cornberzerker4877 Wow, one week of data. In terms of statistics, that's practically microscopic--we need a lot more, especially from rubber-meets-the-road for tournaments.
@DarkKnightCuron One week of data, yes. However, how many thousands of people does that data encompass? You have to remember, the tournament regulars are also the ones playing these games to get ready for the tournament season. I'm just getting back into 40k after a 4 year hiatus, but I've been a part of the competitive scene. A lot of those guys, train like it's an Olympic sport and some are even worse. They'll play whatever is the most insanely broken or powerful just to win at all costs, up to and including using the very rules of the game itself, to force a win in their favor
@@cornberzerker4877 I'm highly skeptical it's thousands. I would be impressed if 1000 games of 10th edition have been played to date, and even then, we need tournament scenario games running the rules as written in order to have that level of data required to justify any changes. A single week of games--that people are still learning, mind you--is still statistically insignificant. 30 days of games (starting when the POINTS were made public) would be a more reasonable minimum.
People are being babies play the game how it was released and at least wait till we get our meta Monday data
10th edition is bad.
i will never play 10th edition.
@finnewar then don't?
Stay behind with everyone else that hates change, but don't make your own game and call it 10th
LOL.
This is just stupid, why even bother making a tournament for a game if you just gonna not play with the rules of a game?
Because you play a game to have fun and not play the game to play the game. The rules are just a fantasy thing...why should editing for more fun be rude? I read a lot of comments and most people tell that they think that these changes are good...but some have trouble with housruling, but not with the rules.
Because they want everyone to have an equal chance of winning, not just people who play 3 specific factions. It's a tournament, not a casual pickup game at a local game store. The point is to win and you're going to bring whatever is going to get you that win, i.e. Eldar, T-Sons, and Knights specifically.
@cornberserker4877 I'm gonna make a basketball tournament, but in my tournament 3 point shots do not exist because some teams have better players than can do them.
@@47slogra But in this case, it's clearly not about how good the players are but about how good their armies are. And right now, there simply is such an enormous disparity between the top armies, the mid armies and the bottom end armies, that the end of 9th seemed balanced in comparison. You don't have to be a better player if your rules are just so broken that your opponent doesn't even stand a chance.
@@denniskeler8068 because it’s a tournament. If you want to use house rules with your friends in your garage… then sure. But tournaments aren’t just for fun, they are for competition. They should definitely be using the rules as written, if for nothing else but to demonstrate to GW what is wrong and what they need to change.
(Before people jump me im not saying eldar doesnt need to be adjusted just...)
People crying about the wraith knight while Knight players are trying to keep the Thunder Coil Harpoon under the radar with 12 mortal wounds on a 2+ to a monster and 4+ on a vehicle lol
Alot of what u just said was wrong...
@@Wes-xk6hl care to elaborate?
But now we won't be able to see GW be embarrassed by their "attempt" at balancing though.
We should go back to 9th rules as 10th is not really an improvement… poor story GW
Honestly some of this makes sense
Considering the problems with 10th and that GW will take some time before annoucing faqs and errata, they should just use 9th ed instead.
Waaaaaay overeacting here. If they want to keep everything from 9th then play 9th.
Non-interaction is not good. It needed the change to make it so you can't just hide from them.
typical whining from meta chasing tryhards that dont want to change. they should just keep playing 9th edition and stfu
Guess you havnt got that sleep schedule worked out
It is their event. They can do what they like.
Their right to discretion isn't germane to the discussion at hand; Which is that their bastardization of 10th rules is a bad idea and they should just have played 9th, and that the rules need a giant smoke test to decide their state.
I think this good be really good actually if there was some community oversight that allows for players to have some input on which rules are used.
absolutely. should be more common to house rule things like this, at every tournament, in every house. GW rules are ... maybe better with tis edition, but do not have a history of being sound, or clear.
Hah! It would be good for space marines, or whatever the majority meta is, suck for all other armies, because the house rules players want will inevitably be in their favour, where players playing anything else will be handicapped by the prejudices of their opponents, who above all, want their army to lose.
So don't play 40k if you just gonna homebrew
They can do what they like, its their event. But take off the 40K name, it is now Deuscher Sci-fi game.
As a Thousands Sons player, I'm kind of fine with these ideas for a tournament. Doombolt being capped at 6MW isnt a huge problem (that would be a good roll anyway), Twist of Fate only giving -2AS would hurt a bit but not too much (it's still doing what its meant to, just not as well), and Overwatch being 12" doesn't effect warpflamers at all.
Ok, the Twist of Fate thing does hurt a bit, because it's normally really good, but it probably is a bit too good at what it does. But then again, so is Oath of Moment. And, we do have other good things to do with cabal points (I think Temporal Surge is actually going to be a sleeper-hit in heavily objective based games. It's a lot of cheap movement for an already fast'ish army).
I think they've got a ways to go to unbreaking Eldar though. You could just about say "everything costs 25% more points", and I'm not sure if that would make them balanced.
Yeah I'm not 100% convinced TS needs an overhaul quite yet, but the FAQs they've proposed don't dramatically change the power of the faction
@@TacticalTortoise As a thousand sons player who's been getting the shaft for nearly 20 years now, I completely disagree, if im paying 9 cabal points that unit im targetting had BETTER not get ANY armor save, further more if we're capping MW's for TS why don't we just cap damage overall for all TS units for ALL phases, each unit can only do a MAX of 6 wounds to a unit in either psychic, shooting and melee, the fact that this community is SO quick to bow to ANY rule change by the judges or GW and just start slobbing their nobs because its coming from a place of "Authority" even when it is clearly not balanced or fair just astounds me every edition.....
Oh Germany will you ever stop being narcissists
It is disingenous to suggest this is just an FAQ in lieu of official clarifications. These are not rulings, interpretations or clarifications. These are targeted nerfs to specific armies and units, affecting meta balance according to some random person's feelings on how powerful those units/armies should be. Essentially the event will not be hosting 10th edition Warhammer 40000 games. It will be hosting games of their own homebrew fan game. It is a knee-jerk reaction not much different to the people that wanted to ban Eldar from a tournament before indexes were out and sets an iffy precedent for a future where different continents/countries/communities are playing essentially completely different games from each other: something that was actually happening in some editions of old Warhammer Fantasy Battles and was wildly problematic in the context of international tournament circuits that were trying to get off the ground at the time.
EDITED for people that are cognitively incapable of reconciling points of view differing from their own and desperately want for my dissenting opinion to have some kind of villainous ulterior motive: I am not German, I have never been to Germany, I will not be attending this or any other German tournament in the foreseeable future and I play Chaos Space Marines that would be largely unaffected by these homebrew rules even in a hypothetical situation in which I would be playing under them. I therefore postulate that my opinion, while by definition subjective, is balanced and impartial.
This is definitely how I feel about house rules in general - but it's also clear that the edition is very unbalanced right now and I think it's okay for events to try and rectify it in the immediate future.
Once GW starts releasing erratas to the most egregious interactions I think it's a step too far, but they haven't yet.
Spoken like a true Eldar/T-Sons player lmao
I agree with most of that other then the eldar thing. They are blatantly busted.
Cry harder chump.
And these TOs trying to give more players more fun at the tournament. Its a game...and humans play games for fun, not for playing the game in "the right way". And i think nobody who played more then 10 games in this editon says: "Its fine and well balanced!". There are so many mistakes, for example if i play the spanish codex of Death Guard the misamic malignifer got 21D6 shots. If you tell me i can just play the english version that would be houseruling. I just play the official rules from GW.
Say what now
what now
You're not my mom
@TacticalTortoise God I hope not
I think this is a overreaction and honestly very much so reeks of "we know better than the creators, we know whats best for the game"
Because GW has proved they only create "perfectly balanced" rules or of the gate /s
@@404NoNameAvailable pursuing perfect balance is impossible. "Balance" that people strive for ends up being a bland experience and boring.
I agree--this does feel like an overreaction.
@@TheFanaticsPlayit's pretty easy to do better than them
@@dekumutant then create your own warhammer, with hookers and blackjack and perfect balance
TO's pretending to be game designers, rewriting the game and presenting house rules for official events. What else is new...
Literally the edition isnt offically released and theres already this much rewritten and faq qnd fighting of rules this is absolutely unacceptable from GW they need to get this shit together before trying to sell a usless unplayable game 😊
So you are complaining they are trying to fix and faq the game BEFORE it has released?
When Germans try to rewrite the rules for the world 😮 always a bad situation
Germans re-wrote the rules for one tournament of 30ish people. The rest of the world can write their own rules, lol.
Can we just let GW write the rules and play the fucking game.