|
|
Post by dkng on Jul 19, 2023 15:10:29 GMT
5. Battleshock continues to not matter in my games. I've yet to see a unit fail battleshock Yeah, GW keeps trying to make leadership and then give a wide range of exceptions and ways to mitigate it. They just can't seem to get it right. Then they overvalue it and give it to us a special rule that doesn't really matter. Nice. Chaos Knights aren’t exactly happy either. The thing that makes me really sad is that out if Synapse we - the all consuming ancient horrors from beyond the stars - are most prone to fail a battleshock test, equal to Grots. Just let it sink - a Haruspex is as easy to get battleshocked as a little green pushover. |
|
|
|
Post by gauntlet on Jul 19, 2023 16:16:33 GMT
Yeah, GW keeps trying to make leadership and then give a wide range of exceptions and ways to mitigate it. They just can't seem to get it right. Then they overvalue it and give it to us a special rule that doesn't really matter. Nice. Chaos Knights aren’t exactly happy either. The thing that makes me really sad is that out if Synapse we - the all consuming ancient horrors from beyond the stars - are most prone to fail a battleshock test, equal to Grots. Just let it sink - a Haruspex is as easy to get battleshocked as a little green pushover. Moral of Orks and Tyranids are somewhat similar. Greenskins are crazy careless in large numbers, especially with Mega Nobs leading them. Tyranids have iron discipline (holding the line) because they are guided by a collective hivemind which is focused by less common Synapse creatures. However I feel Green Skins and Tyranids should act differently, when without leadership. Greenskins should become sensible and flee when outnumbered but that Tyranids should behave like uncontrolled bezerkers without Synapse. I like to think of Tyranids, not as trained animals, but as synthetic collections of organs, grown and assembled in vats, to create a coordinated artificial weapon carriage. When out of Synapse their goals are basic, unstrategically rampaging under the influence of the tiny mind of the weapon symbiote they are carrying. I suppose all the 40k armies are modelled on the trope of the robotic basic troop under control of an elite leader. |
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Jul 20, 2023 13:29:16 GMT
They tried to do something where being out of synapse resulted in different behavior in ... I think it was 6th edition? Our shooters would hide and shoot the nearest enemy and our brawlers would charge and try to eat the nearest enemy. It wasn't great.
They need to just give us sensible basic stats, then give us substantial bonuses for being in synapse. But only one bonus per unit no matter how many synapse sources they are near. Give us a reason to be in synapse, not a penalty to not be in it that isn't really reflected in our points cost.
The hivemind doesn't have super short range. Shadow in the warp is supposed to blanket the entire region constantly and synapse is supposed to cover wide areas of the battlefield. Killing the big ones is supposed to be effective because there are relatively few big ones leading droves of little ones. This 6" radius is malarky. But being closer to synapse sources could logically allow those sources more control, thus bonuses. Like Tyrants could give +1 BS or WS depending on loadout, Prime could give rerolls to hit, Warriors could give rerolls to wound, Zoeys could give +1 save (to a maximum of 3+), etc. Nothing other armies don't get from their leader units really so no reason to give us a corresponding cost hike.
If we absolutely have to stick with the silly leadership shenanigans then at least remove the baked in penalty for being Nids by giving us a sensible leadership value on each unit and just Roll 3 keep 2 instead of how it is with super low leadership values across the board (even in cases that make less than no sense) and then roll 3 keep 3. This is such a stupid way of handling it!
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Jul 20, 2023 13:53:08 GMT
I think a nice center for Synapse would be: Army has Synapse on the Battlefield—3d6 drop 1, within 6” of synapse—3d6, and no Synapse on the Battlefield or Synapse died within 6” last turn and no other Synapse within 6”—2d6. Couple that with slightly higher Ld (i.e., Terms at 7+), and the “penalty” of Synapse is gone but there is still benefit to bubbling and counter-play for the opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Jul 21, 2023 2:54:37 GMT
Easy fix. Within Synapse? No tests and you gain a bonus to your OC.
No Synapse? Tests and reduced OC.
Synapse just died? Auto battle shock and need a ld test to not auto fail next turn
|
|
|
|
Post by garg on Jul 22, 2023 19:37:54 GMT
Got my first game of 10th in on Thursday, 1k against my friends Imperial guard. I lost 67-53 which was a nice change because in 9th it was so one sided I had to time down my lists all the time.
The increased toughness of vehicles was definitely noticeable, one I lost my anti tank (carnifex+ooe and zoans) it was hard for me to damage his leman Rus. Otherwise I'll need more games to get the differences between 9th tempest and tenth.
|
|
|
|
Post by gauntlet on Jul 22, 2023 20:26:30 GMT
I think a nice center for Synapse would be: Army has Synapse on the Battlefield—3d6 drop 1, within 6” of synapse—3d6, and no Synapse on the Battlefield or Synapse died within 6” last turn and no other Synapse within 6”—2d6. Couple that with slightly higher Ld (i.e., Terms at 7+), and the “penalty” of Synapse is gone but there is still benefit to bubbling and counter-play for the opponent. I heard someone say similer, their idea was you roll four dice, take one out, reroll one, add one to the lowest, subtract one from the highest, half the number you first thought of, you put one die in, you put one die out, you do the hokey cokey once per turn... That's what Synapse about! |
|
|
|
Post by Iryan on Jul 22, 2023 21:31:35 GMT
I think a nice center for Synapse would be: Army has Synapse on the Battlefield—3d6 drop 1, within 6” of synapse—3d6, and no Synapse on the Battlefield or Synapse died within 6” last turn and no other Synapse within 6”—2d6. Couple that with slightly higher Ld (i.e., Terms at 7+), and the “penalty” of Synapse is gone but there is still benefit to bubbling and counter-play for the opponent. You know. I have been thinking about battleshock in general, and looking at synapse... I think the only thing I would really want would be a default range of 9'' instead of 6'' so it is easier to maneuver your unit without risking it getting turned off by a single synapse model dying. The morale boost it provides is powerful enough. Because any boost bigger than that, or any improvement of leadership for the models we do have, will mean that leadership-related things basically do not affect synapse creatures ever. And yes, I know, in the days before 8th that is how it used to be, but in those days we also got way bigger penalties for being outside of synapse range. Being not immune but still extremely innately resistant to morale. Lets compare some numbers, shall we. Ld+ 2d6 fail % 3d6 fail %
4+ 8,33 0,46
5+ 16,67 1,85
6+ 27,78 4,63
7+ 41,67 9,26
8+ 58,33 16,2
9+ 72,22 25,93
10+ 83,33 37,5Tyranids basically get a 7+ for all synapse creatures (and 'stealers and lictors), and 8+ on everything else. Space marines (and custodes) get 6+ on everything, and a 5+ on chaplains and primarchs (and Trajan) Guard get 7+ on everything, except 6+ on commissars and a few select chars, and 8+ on ratlings. Necrons get 6+ on characters, 7+ on most regular units, and 8+ on canoptek constructs. If you compare these numbers, you will see that so long as you are in synapse, even our 8+ Ld regular units have a lower chance of failure than the best leadership units that normal armies can offer, while synapse units are even more resistant. Getting any more resistant than we already are would mean battleshock tests against tyranids would basically never work. Which, yes, I know many of you want that. But you cannot want that while at the same time complaining that Shadow in the Warp is useless. If you want Leadership-related abilities, like SitW or Chaos Knights stuff or whatever other army's individual units, to actually matter, then making an army that just says "nu-uh I am immune" is bad for the overall game. Because it just says "you are rock and I am scissors". And since changing your scissors to something that is not scissors would often mean changing your entire army faction, that is not really a reasonable expectation for most people. It should also be noted that, while Ld 8+ is of course very poor, other armies get it too, on units that are particularly hard to keep in line. And I have seen complaints that it is laughable that a terrifying monster like a carnifex could "be frightened so easily"... but that is a misconception. In older editions, failing morale checks would make you run away. But in 10th, leadership tests do not do that. If you fail leadership, that does not mean you got scared and are running away. It means your rank and order is breaking down. Which is why the affected unit no longer can hold the objective or be affected by stratagems, but otherwise still fights basically just as well as before. If your carnifex fails a battleshock test, it is not scared and running away. It is going uncontrolled Crush-Kill-Destroy mode and no longer cares about complex tactics and mission objectives. And THAT makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Post by autoxidation on Jul 23, 2023 4:14:35 GMT
Got my first game of 10th in on Thursday, 1k against my friends Imperial guard. I lost 67-53 which was a nice change because in 9th it was so one sided I had to time down my lists all the time. The increased toughness of vehicles was definitely noticeable, one I lost my anti tank (carnifex+ooe and zoans) it was hard for me to damage his leman Rus. Otherwise I'll need more games to get the differences between 9th tempest and tenth. Be sure you're taking advantage of the new keywords like Lethal Hits against vehicles from the faction bonus. It really adds up. |
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Jul 23, 2023 5:46:42 GMT
Getting any more resistant than we already are would mean battleshock tests against tyranids would basically never work. Which, yes, I know many of you want that. But you cannot want that while at the same time complaining that Shadow in the Warp is useless. If you want Leadership-related abilities, like SitW or Chaos Knights stuff or whatever other army's individual units, to actually matter, then making an army that just says "nu-uh I am immune" is bad for the overall game. Because it just says "you are rock and I am scissors". And since changing your scissors to something that is not scissors would often mean changing your entire army faction, that is not really a reasonable expectation for most people. I think Rock-Paper-Scissors is an important aspect to the game and I’m not advocating immunity to anything (that just makes for poor balance in a R-P-S like system). 9E had this pretty bad (i.e., immunity to scoring denial), I like a more dynamic experience. High resistance with a gap that an opponent can exploit to mitigate the disadvantage is the ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by Iryan on Jul 23, 2023 7:20:53 GMT
Getting any more resistant than we already are would mean battleshock tests against tyranids would basically never work. Which, yes, I know many of you want that. But you cannot want that while at the same time complaining that Shadow in the Warp is useless. If you want Leadership-related abilities, like SitW or Chaos Knights stuff or whatever other army's individual units, to actually matter, then making an army that just says "nu-uh I am immune" is bad for the overall game. Because it just says "you are rock and I am scissors". And since changing your scissors to something that is not scissors would often mean changing your entire army faction, that is not really a reasonable expectation for most people. I think Rock-Paper-Scissors is an important aspect to the game and I’m not advocating immunity to anything (that just makes for poor balance in a R-P-S like system). 9E had this pretty bad (i.e., immunity to scoring denial), I like a more dynamic experience. High resistance with a gap that an opponent can exploit to mitigate the disadvantage is the ideal. I have basically skipped the entirety of 9th, so I do not have a frame of reference for that, but I think our morale resistance with the synapse system is good enough, though a bigger range of the aura would be nice, as I said.
It is also not really just rock-paper-scissors, and more more also like... one player plays an army (or a specific army list) that leans into one mechanic or gimmick, one playstyle. And then the opponent comes in and says "yeah no, you are not allowed to use that against my army, so you are stuck with something way blander". Which is not fun. Although possibly the worst case of screwing over players who want to lean into leadership shenanigans is currently Dark Angels. But in return that army loses the regular SM doctrines, so it is kind of a lose-lose situation. 
But yeah it would be similar to... imagine you play an army that has 3 mawlocs and some raveners, and then your opponent just has 6 MSU that all say "cannot deepstrike within 12'' of this". You would certainly think "ok, why am I even playing then?".
|
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Jul 24, 2023 15:03:21 GMT
So my run with the 18 leapers didn't go as planned, half because I chose the wrong hyper adaptation (to deal with his lord of skulls) half me being dumb and bringing a hierophant instead of an exo and two tfex.
Although they did do a lot of work, next game I'll plan better.
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Jul 27, 2023 18:35:26 GMT
So my run with the 18 leapers didn't go as planned, half because I chose the wrong hyper adaptation (to deal with his lord of skulls) half me being dumb and bringing a hierophant instead of an exo and two tfex. Although they did do a lot of work, next game I'll plan better. Could you have just used the Hierophant to shoot all of the opponent's infantry off the board? Would dropping an avg 10-12 TEQ per turn--7 TEQ (+1 if w/in 12") in your shooting phase, ~3 TEQ (+1 w/in 12") w/ Overwatch--have been enough to win or would the Lord of Skulls have killed the Hierophant too quickly? |
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Jul 27, 2023 20:04:47 GMT
Went 0-4 in a local 1k league trying out a shooty warrior list. One loss was due to time limit (less on my side than my opponent). The others were due to my army composition vs my opponents.
Test game: turn 5 loss against sisters. Game was within 10 points (don't remember the exact score).
World eaters: lost on turn 3 19-26. If we had been able to go one more turn I was guaranteed 7 points for primary and at least 8 for secondary. My opponent had 7 marines on the table vs about 75% of my army being untouched
Dark eldar: conceded at the top of 5 as I was going to be tabled and was down. Dark lances are rough and I didn't have the toughness to withstand them
Cultist heavy marines: lost due to a crazy turn 3 of shooting. Looked like I was going to wipe my opponent and then turn 3 happened. Also overwatch was super deadly this game (lost a psychophage and von Ryan's leapers in overwatch)
Chaos knights: a very low scoring game but conceded turn 4 or so due to being almost wiped. Bad shooting output from zoans hurt (partial bad placement and partial dice). Hilariously, shadow in the warp was PHENOMENAL this game and stopped my opponent from getting 15 points as he failed on each knight holding an objective.
Conclusions:
shooting is rough this edition. I don't fully grasp why shooting is so lethal as AP dropped but I'm thinking that due to inflation on toughness and weapons strength, more weapons are wounding on 2s/3s. This coupled with Ap-2 was a sweet spot to kill warriors. Also, tough 5 is low this edition, so warriors were in a rough spot
Shooting warriors are good if they can act in each phase. However, due to losing advance + charge psychic powers and not having assault on their weapons, they're simply not fast enough to reach the opponent and will die before making combat.
Staying power on objectives is the name of the game. You either have to be very tough or have enough bodies to throw at an objective to keep it. Nids not having sticky objectives really hurts in 1k
Speed or infiltrate is important especially lower points games to get to objectives early or to be able to flip objectives later.
Edit:
Shooting warriors seem to be good against MEQ but struggle against GEQ or tanks. They struggle less against GEQ than tanks. I think warriors either need an increase in toughness, saves, wounds, and/or BS to be a good threat in today's meta.
|
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Jul 27, 2023 20:43:29 GMT
So my run with the 18 leapers didn't go as planned, half because I chose the wrong hyper adaptation (to deal with his lord of skulls) half me being dumb and bringing a hierophant instead of an exo and two tfex. Although they did do a lot of work, next game I'll plan better. Could you have just used the Hierophant to shoot all of the opponent's infantry off the board? Would dropping an avg 10-12 TEQ per turn--7 TEQ (+1 if w/in 12") in your shooting phase, ~3 TEQ (+1 w/in 12") w/ Overwatch--have been enough to win or would the Lord of Skulls have killed the Hierophant too quickly? The first round of shooting it took reduced it to 11 wounds from 30, so Im pretty sure if I made an aggressive move with him he woulda been dead fast. I was winning on points but once she dropped he melted my army (of which, to be fair, was pretty... interesting) and it swung back at end of game. It also didnt help that I didnt get first turn. |
|
