|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Feb 15, 2023 0:55:10 GMT
Well the rumors saying that 10E is going to more closely mimic AoS ruleset will definitely simplify the rules and cut strat bloat. AoS has 1-2 core strats (command abilities) per phase, and faction strats are HQ abilities (strats must also be issued by characters to a unit in range). If 40k takes anything from AoS, I hope it is command abilities. The 10E hero hammer rumors are hopefully indicative of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Feb 16, 2023 18:04:09 GMT
I think the whole point of the points vs power level thing GW introduced in 8th was to allow balance to differ between competitive and casual play. I didn't and don't think such a thing is really necessary, but I do see where they are coming from. What I am looking for in 10th is a VAST reduction in rules bloat. Particularly stratagems. Honestly, the longer we have had them as a part of the game, the more I hate them. Moving a lot of the unit abilities to strats removes a lot of what made those units cool to begin with since a lot of the time, it isn't worth it to spend your precious CP to use abilities that used to be just a part of that unit's dataslate. If GW could be trusted to keep strats down to no more than 10 available to any given faction, then maybe it would be a fun mechanic, but I don't think we can trust them not to bloat this mechanic and I would rather see it just gone than continue to be a such a massive source of bloat. Preach. I've found that Tyranids are somewhat reasonable to keep track with, but some of the other armies are really complex. Some things are just too powerful to allow the unit to do every turn, but a lot of those specific unit strats could probably be wrapped right into the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Feb 16, 2023 18:31:34 GMT
PL for casual and points for competitive is ok but misses the mark. The general consensus is that points are better balanced than PL as they take into account different units war gear capabilities. This means that PL is best used for very casual games (unbalanced narrative, open play, or a first few learning games). Note the "points are better" consensus also applies to people playing in crusade games.
So points are better? Yes, but how they're being done is a bit problematic. There are multiple matched play modes (boarding actions, tempest, GT missions, etc) Points are now being balanced around the GT packs. This is great for GT, but creates imbalances in other game modes.
Additionally, GW has been trending in the direction of doing power level lite for armies that are hurting with respect to win rate. Both 8e codex guard and many space marine units no longer have to pay points for upgrades, which is basically just power level. Cult is trending in this direction as well with upgrades becoming free or cheaper.
I'm honestly not sure how to balance points for these different game modes without it becoming a huge mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Feb 21, 2023 12:27:46 GMT
I have little interest in new models. To go back to the hobby I'd want good rules/lower points of the existing range. Lowering points does mean (for most) more models have to be purchased. That aside, GW is trying to shrink the sizes of games to speed it along. It's why round timers at tournaments from 8th to 9th were cut by 30 minutes. Now more than 80% finish their games within the round, despite less time, whereas only 22% finished within time in previous editions. 10th will see points bump up about 15%, which also challenges people in list building. Cheap-as-chips and everything-fits is toxic for the game. Even if you are casual, it's the competitive meta that drives how people discuss and play the game. AoS not only has perhaps the best rules GW has ever produced for their army-scale games, but the games move quick. Everything gets to do their thing before they die as it's all close(ish) range. GW needs to stop making everything in 40k lethal from 40" away, they need to limit what happens on turn 1, and raise the overall points cost everywhere. Brass!! Good to hear from you, it's been a minute. |
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Feb 22, 2023 14:46:44 GMT
WFB was my first love, and now I'm hearing The Old World is supposedly making a comeback, square bases and all. So I'm not rebasing my Vampire Counts for AoS. Sylvania is beckoning.
(Trivia - long before Age of Sigmar was even a twinkle in the eye of GW, AoS was short for Army of Sylvania - a popular way of building a native Vampire Counts army with special rules and restrictions).
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Feb 23, 2023 16:15:46 GMT
PL for casual and points for competitive is ok but misses the mark. The general consensus is that points are better balanced than PL as they take into account different units war gear capabilities. This means that PL is best used for very casual games (unbalanced narrative, open play, or a first few learning games). Note the "points are better" consensus also applies to people playing in crusade games. So points are better? Yes, but how they're being done is a bit problematic. There are multiple matched play modes (boarding actions, tempest, GT missions, etc) Points are now being balanced around the GT packs. This is great for GT, but creates imbalances in other game modes. Additionally, GW has been trending in the direction of doing power level lite for armies that are hurting with respect to win rate. Both 8e codex guard and many space marine units no longer have to pay points for upgrades, which is basically just power level. Cult is trending in this direction as well with upgrades becoming free or cheaper. I'm honestly not sure how to balance points for these different game modes without it becoming a huge mess. Honestly, I think PL would be the better option if PL was tied to war gear as well (similar to how it is tied to our AP or other faction's codex upgrades). PL vice pts would let GW balance based on categories of units or weapons instead of specific unit stats/rules. I know many people like the granularity that comes from pts, but that granularity is exactly what makes balancing the game such a monumental task. I'm okay if not all 3PL units are equal, with some being better than others, as long as there are distinct performance gaps between 3/4, 4/5, etc. (not really how it is atm since PL is a slapped-on afterthought). |
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Feb 23, 2023 16:52:46 GMT
The problem with losing that granularity is that you end up with compounding cost differentials.
If 4 units in the codex cost 4 PL when they should cost 4.4 and 3 cost 3 PL when they should cost 2.7 you will have 4 must have units and 3 never take units. If one codex ends up with a solid set of must haves, that codex will skyrocket in the balance.
Yeah you still get this sort of thing with points values, but you can fine tune it more accurately to restrict the degree to which this impacts the balance, with PL you get MUCH bigger swings, you wouldn't be able to rebalance one of those 4 PL units without dropping it straight to the never take category.
I honestly feel like GW should START by doubling all points values across the board, then fine tuning it from there to INCREASE the granularity rather than dumb that aspect down to the point where balance becomes truly impossible to maintain.
The way things are now, I actually feel like GW has been doing an admirable job of balancing based on points, there is definitely room for improvement, but win ratios rarely get truly out of control. They would far more often based on PL.
I don't want 40k to become too simplistic, I have always loved list building as an intellectual exercise even if I never get around to fielding said lists. I want the RULES bloat to diminish, but we don't need PL levels of simplicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Feb 23, 2023 17:20:28 GMT
I don't really find pts any more complex that PL except for war gear (GW has been making more and more war gear free). Pts has gotten too easy to fit evenly into the max, ie lists being 2000/2000 pts. PL is more difficult to go 50/50 PL, and has actually been a more enjoyable and complex list building experience when trying to maximize desired units with being the least under 50 PL. Give small PL bumps for special/heavy weapons (ie DBS, VC) and the difference between pts and PL is practically gone. Doubling the pts values won't change much imo, since GW already does such a poor job valuing specific stats/rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by LordPathos on Mar 8, 2023 22:01:15 GMT
Valrak had a new video talking about the 10th edition boxset. No list this time, so I will have to just type everything he says in the video:
- 2 (or even possibly 3) new gaunts.
- A big crawly brain bug, sounded similar to the CSM Venomcrawler appearance-wise
- New Screamer Killer
- New Lictors, Biovores kits
- Winged Warrior or Warriors. He thinks it could be the HQ unit in the box set.
- Plastic spore mines and a 'chonky version' that's probably the Mucolid.
- The Norn Emissary is apparently a beefed up Zoanthrope
- Genestealers have not been rumored for the 10th launch stuff, its possible there is a Space Hulk or SM Termie vs Genestealer Kill Team box
Again, these are still just rumors. Valrak has his sources and when they tell him "this is coming" that is when he believes it 100%. These rumors are not at that point yet.
Some of these are new, some of these are from rumors that were apparently debunked, so who knows what's coming?!
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Mar 9, 2023 1:24:03 GMT
- Winged Warrior or Warriors. He thinks it could be the HQ unit in the box set. My guess would be the return of Shrikes. - The Norn Emissary is apparently a beefed up Zoanthrope Maybe the return of Doom to the codex! |
|
|
|
Post by LordPathos on Mar 9, 2023 3:56:29 GMT
Anything is possible at this point. There is no real for sure theory yet. There were rumors of a Zoan HQ, is that the Brain Bug or the Norn Emissary? There was a rumor about an Apex Swarlord, is that just a dedicated new kit or is that suppose to be the Emissary? There was a rumor about a new Carnifex, is that the Screamer Killer? WHO KNOWS?!
|
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Mar 9, 2023 13:49:22 GMT
There are so many false rumors out there, it is hard for me to get excited until things start getting more concrete.
Honestly though, if we got a LoW plastic model and got rid of our old finecast kits I would be content. New gaunts would be good, but not really necessary. It seems GW has a hard time keeping all 4 possible varieties (3 terms 1 horm) relevant at any point as it is. More gaunts means more trash tier in the codex ultimately, I'd rather they just make the ones we have better balanced against each other and the rest of the codex. I'd really like a good reason to ever run spinefists for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Mar 9, 2023 21:23:55 GMT
Agreed. I can't even get excited as there's so many false rumors. What can I expect? Nids will get something. No idea what though.
On a personal level, my wife and I are expecting a little little one this summer so I'm not sure I'll have much gaming time after 10e drops. As such, new models don't have much of a pull on me as they would have at the start of 9e.
Personally, I'd love a new nid vs someone kill team. Some friends and I have been getting into kill team and nids are one of the few factions still on a compendium team.
|
|
|
|
Post by LordPathos on Mar 10, 2023 18:55:58 GMT
On a personal level, my wife and I are expecting a little little one this summer Congratz on your own little consumer of biomass. |
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Mar 10, 2023 23:21:34 GMT
On a personal level, my wife and I are expecting a little little one this summer Congratz on your own little consumer of biomass. Thanks! We're really excited for the ripper swarm to arrive!  |
|
