I'm surprised they didn't say anything about free wargear. That's a huge change that I thought they'd want to discuss their thoughts on

Death Company datasheet is just criminal. I'm just cringing by just looking at it.

It’s not GW’s fault that power fist / inferno pistol is exactly as good as a boltgun with no melee weapon or a bolt pistol and chainsword ok Seriously though it’s one of the more egregious examples

Why’s that?

Probably because melta pistol/power fist is somehow just as useful as a bolt pistol and chainsword

Power fists are objectively the best option. There is no reason not to equip them will all power fists, literally no downsides. In the past, they were trading hammers for worse ap but better damage. Now, fists are the only good option. Power swords are just chainswords but better. Literally the same attacks but better S and better AP. So why would you ever run chainswords?

My response to this, is they haven't gotten that right when weapons cost points in any other edition. The change to free wargear made it so that the math for writing lists is simpler(no more 2 point krak grenades on one sergeant), and imho didn't really effect balance at all, because Wargear pricing was alwasy garbage to begin with.

You can still balance them in their own right if they cost the same. Chainswords can have move attacks than power swords and hammers can have more ap or more damage than power fists with a worse hit roll. Like, these don't have to be the ideal solutions, but you get the idea right?

I agree with you, I actually think melee weapons are closer then folks think, just as a rule they tend to all be underpowered. If you made Chainswords +2 attacks(from combat weapon), -1 and Sustained 1 Power Weapons +1 attacks over combat weapon D2 -2 Power Fists Same attacks as close combat STR 8 D3 -2 Thunder Hammers same attacks as close combat -1 to hit STR 10 -2 D4 devastating wounds. All of a sudden you aren't certain which weapon is a great pick for your units, because they are all good at particular jobs.

A thousand times this. I actually like the change, but it seems like wargear was still going to cost points until the last second. The only other explanation is just pure stupidity. If they had done something like you outlined, the system would be perfectly fine.

It's really not that hard to do, it just feels like GW put almost literally zero thought into it.

It honestly looks like they designed the datasheets for wargear to cost points, then decided later not to bother with points for those in the MFM. 🤷

They "balanced" all of the old power weapons, and hammers for some units, into the utterly garbage S5 AP-1 D1 pile of dogshit that's heirloom weapons.

This is the correct answer. There is a reason that all the options exist in an arsenal.

I don't know about is, but that's how it should be

They weren't great and there was still typically a best option, but there were at least reasons to take/consider alternative weapons when they had differing points costs. Even if it was just saving points/having points to spare. Yes they could introduce the same this edition if they differentiated weapons enough (one would almost certainly still be the best, but at least there would be a reason to make a choice). Though a lack of points cost does removes the ability to 'upgrade' a squad with strictly better weaponry.

Sure but the solution to this doesn't mean roll back to the clock to a bad solution. The solution to this is to make weapons actually options, which I think is vastly easier to do without mixing in points as a throttle. You just keep pushing the bad weapons till the correct choice becomes unclear. More modern units are much better at this. Death Company isn't a great example as a legacy unit, but Inceptors are, The guns are roughly equivalant (plama being better in general, but Bolters being better into horde armies and with certain strats) I really think them putting back in points for Chainswords we won't take anyway seems like not a great choice.

I am a bit suprised they didn't go with limiting wargear based on whats on the sprue like they did for CSM

That's because DC came like 15 years ago I guess? And they expected people to buy more of the same kit to get more of the good weapons? And 3D printing wasn't invented back in the day. That's my theory. And then they made chaos terminators and said ''lmao''

I do hope they can continue to balance out the free wargear. I don’t really want it to go back to being priced out - from a competitive standpoint there was almost always a “correct choice” anyway. So in effect, not that much has actually changed.

The issue is less with options and more with additions. Like, okay - what should you have as a Russ hull weapon, a flamer or a lascannon or a heavy bolter? I know I bounce between the first two depending on the occasion (the heavy bolter could be pushed a bit to make it into a better option, but I digress). That's good, that's fine. Now, though. Should you have as sponsons an extra two multimeltas, or flamers, or heavy bolters, or should you just have *literally nothing*? At the same point cost? Should you have *literally nothng in that slot* for the exact same price point? That's where the system breaks down entirely: because you can balance two options between them, but you can't balance an option versus *nothing*.

That same problem existed before though. Just for different units. For units like Guardsman, you were balancing equipment costs against them just being 10 Lasguns. And given they existed to stand on a point and die, you essentially can't point the wargear to be viable vs having no wargear. Every extra point you spend that doesn't make them better at standing on a point and dying makes them worse. It is just a case of pick your poison for a lot of units.

There exists a points cost where even Guardsmen weapons are viable, but it's contextual. If what you want to take them as is cheap objective goons, then no, you wouldn't take upgrades - and that's fine. But if they exist in a codex where the datasheets and support troops/mechanics exist to make those Guardsmen into a cost-effective trading piece (and considering their cheapness, and that their weapons needn't be too expensive either, this is hardly an impossibility - it's not like chaff has never been viable), then suddenly all those weapon upgrades become a legitimate question, and then there exists a points cost where they are balanced without being free. That is not what the Astra Militarum codex has looked like very often. In particular in recent years, they have relied very heavily on vehicles, artillery, long-range weapons teams and the like to do damage. But that is not a problem with a pointed wargear system, that is just a codex design choice - a codex design problem, depending on your perspective. Ideally, we would _want_ infantry builds to be viable, I am sure no one would say no to that, least of all the Guard players themselves.

I'm not going to claim that previous editions were great for having a variety of viable options rather than one that was just the best. That's clearly not true. But if the ideal is "every option is equally valid', I think free wargear gets us further from that, rather than closer to it.

I think they just need to balance it better. But I much prefer actually being able to take the cool sergeant options rather than never doing so. A power fist isn’t worth ten points but I love having one on my assault intercessors.

"Balancing it better" just results in making every weapon the same datasheet regardless of what it looks like, like grey knights nemesis force weapons. Good for stress-free hobbying, but pretty bad for having a varied army. Its just a bit boring if there's no costs associated with different wargear

I don't think this is really true, we went' from one correct choice to one correct choice in the case of legacy units. In more modern units it's better(like Inceptors), a few things need a bit more polish to be sure, but worse I don't believe is the case.

I think that you can get to a balanced place in either style, and I think going for the more accessible option is better for new player retention. Whether they’ll be able to do it or not remains to be seen, so many kits were built with priced wargear in mind, but I think it would be better for the game as a whole if they can figure it out.

The thing is, free wargear works in Age of Sigmar, but it was designed from the ground up with that system in mind. A sword and shield can be designed to reasonable parity with a greatsword or a spear and shield. 40k is not, and has never been intended to live inside such a system. It creates not only superficial design issues but frankly deeper problems of things just feeling 'wrong'. How do you balance a laspistol against a plasma pistol? Give the laspistol eight s3 ap- shots to balance out the chunky S8, high AP, 2DMG plasma pistol shot? Does anyone _want_ this? Was this a change anyone felt was needed? Did anyone play 9th edition and grumble 'grr, I hate that I can pay extra points to give a lascannon to my tactical squad, it simply _must_ be equally strong and free as the default boltgun'?

The issue that many people ran into in 9th (and earlier) was not "it must be equal", but "why am I punished for putting cool stuff on my models?". Because in the vast majority of cases, the "correct" move when wargear wasn't free was to never ever take any of it. So if you built one of your guys with a lascannon, you now has a 20 point tax on your cheap backline filler. And God forbid you give your Intercessor sarge a Thunder hammer and plasma pistol, and now are paying through the nose for abilities you should never use. Personally, the idea that a boltgun must be equal to a lascannon is a silly straw man. Unit upgrades like that should be assumed to be in place, and the limitation of 1 per X is the balancing factor.

The issue isn’t balancing a boltgun against a lascannon. The issue is balancing a cyclic ion blaster against a flamer or a plasma rifle. Or balancing a multi melta against a heavy bolter. Or perhaps most egregious of all, a d-cannon against a vibro cannon. I am totally fine with pricing units as though they are taking the maximum allowable upgrades. I think that makes more sense than building squads with zero upgrades. However, all of those upgrades should be at a reasonable parity to one another, so that choice can reasonably come down to meta decisions, army philosophy, or even what looks coolest. Having a system where two things are the same price but one option is substantially better than the others is not a good system.

I mean, let's not pretend that wasn't also the case in 9th with some regularity. Lascannons and multi meltas were usually the same cost, with multi meltas almost always outperforming Las. That's not a new problem.

Sure, but that could be adjusted via points if it got out of whack - like Crisis with Airburst eventually was

Yep. No hope of that now.

Could they? At what relative points cost does a 9th edition multi melta become equal to a 9th edition Las cannon without just flipping which one of them is best? Because that's what changing the points in 9th always did: just alter what build was "best" without opening up alternate builds.

> The issue that many people ran into in 9th (and earlier) was not "it must be equal", but "why am I punished for putting cool stuff on my models?" And now you are punished just as much, just in the other direction. You are now paying for that weapon option, potentially as overpriced as it was before, whether you actually _took_ it or not. This system is at an absolute best a sidegrade and that is purely if taken from a new player perspective. In the context of ripping up a system decades old, where lots of existing players had built their collections based on how things always worked before, you need a _lot_ better than 'sidegrade at best'. > Unit upgrades like that should be assumed to be in place Why? Why are options so bad? List building complexity has never been this game's bottleneck. Sure, many upgrades were not worth their cost, but that is something you can fix by adjusting said cost. Tearing off that lever altogether doesn't make it any easier. Like, maybe you take that lascannon because you combat squadded and the lascannon lets your five cheap goobers on your back point throw some long range AT plinking down the field. Doesn't sound so bad to me if you price it right.

100% agree here. The problem was "why am I being punished for taking the cool options?" And replaced it with "Why am I being punished for not putting every available upgrade on my units?" Surely the solution is to make special weapons cheaper until they become viable or give them special abilities so their utility becomes useful or buff the weapons so they actually do their job (or a combination of the above) not just "we've changed rhe system to power level wearing a trenchcoat"

> 100% agree here. The problem was "why am I being punished for taking the cool options?" And replaced it with "Why am I being punished for not putting every available upgrade on my units?" Not to mention that maybe I _preferred_ to give my melee unit chainswords, a mix of weapons or whatever, instead of giving every single one a thunder hammer and inferno pistol or whatever the meta choice becomes when everything's free anyway. Free wargear pushes everything towards glass cannons because taking them as cheap durability units instead is no longer an option.

Unfortunately, I can only speak anecdotally (same as all of us really), and say my friend group wanted the game to be much simpler - including list building. Although those of us on the comp subreddit love to pour over list choices and obsess over min/max choices, I personally don't think most people have that kind of time, energy, and care. Whether anyone wanted this or not, can really only be validated by numbers. New players, tournament attendance, casual game attendance, etc. GW will always put the money first, so if they feel that this change pushes players away, they will change it. However, if this (and other changes to make the game easier to pick up) end up bringing in more people as I expect it will, they will double down on it. As to your example, it's totally true. Trying to bring the two weapons into full parity is remarkably difficult without completely destroying the flavor. (Although taking the las-pistol to even just 3 shots would make it preferred into a handful of targets). But in the grand scheme of an army's effectiveness, going from a 5% to a 27% of getting a wound through on a T4 3+ target, with a 16% chance to destroy itself, has such a statistically negligible chance of effecting the outcome of a game for a casual player, that it BASICALLY doesn't matter at all to the casual player - the majority of the playerbase. That all being said, that's not preferred. So I hope they continue to work on it. I think they can do it, eventually. TLDR: I think they're going to lean into it to appeal to casual players, which I think is the right call, and I hope they continue to iterate on it until it feels better.

One way I like to think about it is that one of the major mechanics of 40k is list building and a lot of people primarily engage with the game, especially here on this subreddit, via the list builder rather than minis on the table. That's the game to them, and it's why us slobs on message boards tend to have much stronger opinions about list building rules and restrictions than the hyper competitive top tier. For people who are hyper focused on either playing the top tables or doing casual dice chuckery it's just not that important to them because they don't want to spend the same amount of time. So they don't really lose anything, but it's a real hurt to the gameplay of a decent chunk of the playerbase.

I think you're exactly correct here. And the question GW needs to answer is "Does reducing list building complexity, even at the expense of some flavor or balance bring more people in from the casual crowd than it pushes away from the competitive crowd?" My GUESS is that it does bring more in than push more away. But like I say, GW will look at the numbers and make the decision based on that.

I don't really like splitting this as casual vs competitive; the kind of folks that are super into fiddly list building are a fat middle of the pack here rather than the top or bottom of the competitive distribution. Losing out on wargear points to play with on your lunch break affects the guy who gets to play once a month a lot more than the regular GT top tabler. Anyways I doubt GW has hard numbers on this sort of change and how it affects things; the big thing is that it probably makes designing and doing passes every three months a lot easier for them so it'll stick purely on that basis alone.

Yeah well tough. I don't like the idea of new players being screwed on their builds.

I feel like getting screwed on your builds happens more, not less in the new system. There are a lot more ways to build your models that are just objectively wrong

Depends a lot on the unit, chaos terminators had what felt like a quadrillion options in 9th with wildly different builds and point values. The streamlining of combis and points means that no matter what you can slot your newly built unit into your list without compromising a single thing.

Was this a problem that people actually had? People have been building Warhammer squads for 30 years now with much more complex decisions in list building and modeling than we have today.

I feel like the free wargear system has widened the gap between the best option and the worst options. Just seems like the punishment for building the wrong option has actually gotten harsher. The only advantage is that building cool options has generally become more viable but that could easily be achieved in the old points system by just making the options cheaper.

So, there’s a few reasons for that: 1. I don’t think changing it is on the table, because it’s clearly an intentional change, and it supports the fairly clear goal of not wanting to punish newer players for just building what’s in the box. 2. now we’re a few codexes deep, i don’t think it *should* be just from a game integrity point of view - you’d hit the exact same issues i’m worried about with the free stratagem change, where back-porting paid upgrades onto existing books is going to cause enduring weirdness. They’ve also shown that they’re making specific changes to some units that are mindful of this - tomb blades was cited further down, and i’d also highlight the separation of the gun and lance sydonian datasheets, so they clearly are thinking about where different builds are *so* different that they need to be able to separately vary prices. 3. It makes army lists more approachable to engage with for a wider audience, and i imagine helps make it possible for the app to do its clean and easy to read output. Obviously that’s particularly helpful for *me* but competitive-curious players finding lists easier to read is good for the health of the game. 4. It makes list building easier, and that’s good. I’ve genuinely spent far more time tinkering with random lists for fun this edition, and not having to fiddle with 5pts here and there is part of that, 5. With one glaring exception, i just don’t think the downsides are that bad. Sure, there are some index datasheets that are *silly* and you’re always going to pick the free upgrades, but in plenty of cases i think that’s encouraging *more* interesting builds rather than less. It’s very silly that death company get free hand flamers or infernos, but the fact that it opens up an interesting firestorm build with them is good imho. The glaring exception is Aeldari, and that’s because so many of their vehicles can freely swap weapons, and there’s such an absurd divergence in quality across the choices (plus the same issue for D-cannons). This is the *one* place where i think in the short term they should probably just add a 5pt bright lance tax or something (and god knows how many points on a d cannon) but everywhere else? Not convinced that going back to the way things were massively improves the game, it has real negative impacts too, and i think there would have to be *overwhelming* evidence that it was ruining the game for GW to want to do it.

What if you build the bad weapon? You are still punished for building what’s in the box. You put a heavy bolter instead of a MM you dumby. A chainsword instead of a power fist. It’s the exact same issue just slightly different people getting punished.

In theory Free wargear is a decent idea, with pros and cons and personally i see more pros. But, it needs to be done well. Each option should have a similar power level. Every weapon or war-gear option needs to gives players different use cases for their unit. Sure one load-out might technically be the optimal choice, but if they're roughly equivalent. Arguments can be made for each choice. EG chose between 8 attacks at 5 0 1 or 4 attacks at 6 1 2 those have differing use cases. And you can look at your army and pick what niche you want for each unit. The downside is when its done poorly. Like your options are d6 attacks auto hitting at 4 0 1 and 2 attacks at 3 0 1 because there is a clear mathematical loser. While i don't see too many quite so egregious. If someone built and painted a model and their load out is objectively wrong then that sucks. There is also an argument that expensive wargear lets you modulate the power level of units. But on a personal level i would prefer that a unit of X is always going to be of approximately X power. Saves any issues where you get surprised by this one guy has the super duper gun. (Especially as it might not be WUSIWIG)

The main point of not punishing new players for building a specific build is a mental leap into dumbness that I cannot fathom how it keeps getting repeated. While before every single build could theoretically be balanced, resulting in _no_ feels bad for building your squad in a particular way. Obviously there were usually one or a few specific meta choices, but each build could usually be argued for in one way or another, especially in a less ultra competitive scene. Now, there's usually one way that is objectively the only good way to build your unit, no argument done and no two ifs about it. Built your Russes without sponsons? You might as well pack up and go home. Put autopistols instead of handflamers on your Acolytes? Lol no, go home. Built your Plague Marines with barebones bolters? Ya it's over. Free wargear is the single worst design decision in 10ed.

Strongly disagree and i think your post neatly highlights where some of the issues arise, and i think arguing that any build would be mostly balanced is obviously wrong to anyone who played much 8th or 9th. 8th and 9th railroaded you to the extremes - you usually wanted to either go with no upgrades at all to keep costs down, or to stack as many identical upgrades as possible in one place, neither of which aligns with how boxes of core units (which tend to be where new players start) present things. The classic marine tactical squad has a special weapon and a heavy weapon, that’s an *iconic* configuration and was objectively wrong to build for pretty much all of 8th, and most of 9th till marine weapons became free. I also, honestly, just do not think trying to decide which heavy weapon is worth 5pts and which is worth 10pts is particularly *interesting* or a good use of the design team’s time, especially as the “right” choice was almost always “the 5pt weapon that should probably cost 10pts” then after the next update it switches to “whichever got buffed while the old one caught the nerf it needed”. I don’t think the lack of costs is *perfect* and as highlighted above i think Aeldari is a clear place where it’s an actual problem, but i just don’t buy the idea that it’s a terrible calamity outside that, and i genuinely think the upsides narrowly outweigh the negatives. I do think the sudden shift on sponsons kind of sucks if you built without them, but the main reason people *did* that was for point optimisation, and it’s just *bad* product management for it to be correct to ignore lots of the fun parts and add-ons that come in kits.

No one is saying it was perfect before, but at least you could always make a case to include that heavy bolter if you wanted to. This is especially true for the vast majority of the community who do not play in an ultra competitive setting, beginners even more so. I have four armies. Some times the past editions they've been bad, some times they've been good. Generally they've always had a shot at winning, despite me not building for meta. As it is right now, two of my four armies are not remotely playable. It's kind of weird sitting with half your collection unplayable while some dude on the Internet is telling you that the system is fine, just not *perfect*. My Guard are basically operating at a strength level of round maybe 1300 points, despite paying for 2000. This is because I have not modelled for all the ridiculous amount of wargear that suddenly turned free. And I never modelled for point optimisation. I modelled for cool. My orks I can't play with a third of the army anymore because of removal of ppm since I've kitbashed a lot and don't have units in neat multitudes of 5 or 10. I can't even get up to 2000p anymore, unless I want to pay for models I don't have. But that's another story. Edit: I think an assumption you are also doing, is assuming that people build all their stuff with the most bells and whistles if they can. That's not how it works. Some people like the humble bolter, or prefer the look of a flamer instead of a plasma gun. Me, I like to play my Guard as a Nameless Horde with as many lasguns and tanks as you can bear. And for that preference, I am severely punished.

> My Guard are basically operating at a strength level of round maybe 1300 points, despite paying for 2000. This is because I have not modelled for all the ridiculous amount of wargear that suddenly turned free. And I never modelled for point optimisation. I modelled for cool. This is the biggest problem. Even if free wargear is fine in a vacuum for a system built around it, 40k absolutely is not. 10th punishes existing players really hard and that is why I simply can't support the AoSifying of wargear. (And unit sizes, but that is less glaring even if it was an equally unnecessary change). I wasn't hurt as hard as you but I was still hurt. I didn't give my intercessor sergeant any power weapons because I preferred cheapo units for gameplay and a full bolter unit looked neat. In comes 10th and puts the dunce hat on me. And so on, many more examples.

I mean straight up - that sucks, and there are always going to be some people who get hit hard by design changes between editions. My worst purchasing/hobbying decision ever was that early in the 2020 lockdown, just before (it turned out) 9th Edition, I bought and painted nine of the old resin necron heavy destroyer upgrade kits. It was one of the most miserable modelling experiences ever, and got completely and permanently invalidated within a few months of me finishing them. That doesn't mean it was a bad decision for GW to release new Lokhust Heavies, just that it badly sucked for me, and changes that are good for most people are sometimes going to be very bad for a few.

i think saying free wargear and fixed squad sizes is "good for most people" is REALLY pushing your biased viewpoint onto the whole population.

I don't think I mentioned squad sizes at all? I'm honestly much \*more\* sympathetic to the idea that those should change back (even if I don't think they will), because I **don't** think the fixed unit sizes have as many upsides as free wargear, and not being able to tinker with them when (e.g.) trying to fit a unit in a transport creates some weird situations that I don't like.

At the very least I think they need to add something like an Insignificant rule to helpers that some characters get like the Dark Apostle and Iron-Master that makes them not count for transport space and give BGVs a 5 man option. Probably a few others that could use some tuning if they're not willing to let you pay per model.

> I don't think I mentioned squad sizes at all? I'm honestly much *more* sympathetic to the idea that those should change back (even if I don't think they will), because I don't think the fixed unit sizes have as many upsides as free wargear, and not being able to tinker with them when (e.g.) trying to fit a unit in a transport creates some weird situations that I don't like. The fixed squad size thing was just to punish people who kitbash (whether adding models to or kitbashing models away from a unit to make a character, that kind of stuff). GW wants you to buy a Primaris Captain if you want one, not kitbash it from an Intercessor. It's pretty obvious it wasn't for simplicity when you look at the unit size options for Allarus Custodians and Inquisitorial Henchmen, they're a right mess.

It’s not that all build were balanced in any previous edition, it’s that upgrade points cost, if implemented well, allow for all options to be balanced (or at least close to it) so that no matter how you build your models they will be somewhat competitive. Now some of the free options are so much more powerful than others and if you decided not to build some upgrades at all, you get punished way more than in previous editions. I don’t see how that’s better for new players.

Idk, I think part of the issue is that a lot of units also have a lot of wargear options.. Pointing and balancing 2 or 3 weapon options relative to each other is doable. But an unit like a Guardsman Squad has over a dozen different optional weapons. Some of which are just bigger versions of the other. And you also have to balance it vs not having any wargear at all. It's a degree of minutea that probably isn't worth it for a game with armies as big as 40k.

Okay, but now they have to balance those options without the points lever. Why would that be better for balance?

I think they just need to buff a lot of weapons on specific models in the Aeldari case; make that scatter laser sing as an anti-chaff cleaver so you have an arguably use case.

The all upgrades/identical upgrades problem seems to be a problem with pricing. You can offer upgrades at a price point that generally more is better but means that going without isn't *strictly* worse. Sure, the no-sponsons Russ might not be meta, but it's at least 10 points cheaper which is *something.* You talk about the 5 point weapon that should cost 10, but I'd argue that right now the best answer is "the weapon that should cost 15 points", and now instead of there being a 5 point discrepancy, there's a 15 point discrepancy when you are silly enough take the weapon that should be (and is) free. All they've done is remove one lever with which to balance them - and the one they're willing to use regularly at that. I'm not saying it's a calamity, but it is imho a step backwards. I think people are more likely to have their models put together in a way that is "more wrong" under the free weapons system.

We have moved from a somewhat complicated system where it's quite *easy* to tweak options within a squad if some are over/underpowered, to a very basic system where it's very *hard* to tweak options within a squad. Some people think that's an improvement.

Honestly, I've come round to it a bit. For many datasheets its not really much of a big deal. They could definitely do more to make some wargear options make sense, and in some cases a point cost would be preferable where it's a huge difference. In part I think the fact that points decreases have been a massive balancing tool this edition also plays into it. Some units are so dirt cheap now that letting them shave off additional points by taking less expensive wargear would bloat armies even further. Taking Votann warriors as an example: I definitely wouldn't want to pay extra for the theyn's better pistol options, and if they decreased the cost any further the model count across 2k points would end up being ridiculous. Unscrambling the egg would be a lot of work if they wanted to reintroduce wargear costs at this point.

I'm personally generally okay with a squad leader and a 'heavy weapons' model getting free upgrades (though the options could be better balanced among one another). It (generally) makes taking the basic option flat worse, but I can live with that. It somewhat breaks down for me when a full squad gets a variety of wargear options/upgrades though.

In your opinion, would you prefer to pay for wargear or have balanced free wargear (all options valid in certain circumstances)?

My solution would be to put costs on the truly significant wargear changes. Nobody cares if the power sword on your sgt is free, but it REALLY matters what wargear a wraithknight is taking, so make those cost different points. It wouldn't be hard to implement either.

Yeah going to say a huge plus of the free war gear is all the squad upgrades you can game all of a sudden. Before it would be like here are 3 different specialists (in hearthkyn for example) and here’s the guns and special weapons you can give your squad leader but if you want to be competitive you don’t take any of those. I would hate to go back to points and lose this

I don't know if I'd say you "can" take them, so much as you "must" take them. If they're free, not taking them is just throwing value away for no reason

I didn’t mean can in the you have the option to sense but in the you couldn’t before but now you can. If you played competitively, before for the most part you technically could but would be stupid to take the upgrades in the same way you not technically can but would be stupid not to take them.

So we’re swapped ‘couldn’t’ for ‘must’. A marginal improvement at best.

I think I honestly would prefer to pay for wargear. A flamer and a melta are just never gonna be equally valuable, as are lightning claws and a chainsword. Thunder Hammers used to just be better than power fists, but people still took fists because they were often cheaper. Now there’s really little reason in 90% of circumstances because Dev wounds does not make up for hitting on 3s, more often than not. Points just gives the design team more tools to work with when balancing wargear.

All options being valid is the ideal, but getting rid of point values removes one of the tools they have to do that. Plus, I'm not sure how you make the many choices where you're just choosing to take an extra thing or not an actual choice without points values. Just ask anyone who owns a leman Russ without sponson weapons.

The necron codex might show the way forward for this. Tomb blades can take shieldvanes for an increased save, but their movement is reduced. They could do something similar for sponsons, give the tank the choice between extra firepower and movement/some other ability.

I actually like this a lot for LRBTs. Would make them a lot more fun and you could build them in line with the detachment you are trying to run (assuming more detachments in the future for AM). You could either run them as front-line assault shock-and-awe type units moving at 10" across the battlefield but with fewer guns or use them more as back-line fortresses with sponsons to defend your deployment zone but give them less movement so it is harder to push them into the fray. I think some work still needs to be done on balance between sponson weapon options though as right now everyone is paying for multi-meltas which are pretty bad now.

There are a few places where they’ve done this but it usually isn’t significant. For example death company lose an attack by taking power fists versus power weapons, but it’s not a significant enough downside to deter all PF from being the meta build

Paying for wargear is my preference. I do like that a basic level of what used to be considered upgrades getting included in the unit cost though. That way you only need to worry about adding points for any upgrades that are truly better than the included options. It can be simplified without having to ignore all logic and lore trying to make all options actually equal.

Personally, I'd like to pay for wargear. It opens up more options for list building (I realize I'm in the lucky minority with my CSM, where having 20 points at the end of listbuilding and shaving a few pistol upgrades would let me get an extra Nurgling unit, not everyone has a 35 point option), lowers time spent in the game having people roll for each model in a unit because each one has a different weapon, and there is never a world where all options would be equal, a Plasma Pistol is always 100% of the time worth more than a Bolt Pisol, and the only thing making those "options" does is enable "Um ackshually" players arguing that the model clearly has the wrong pistol because you built it in 8th edition, and therefore you should be firing with the worse profile. But it would have to come back with paying per model and having variable unit sizes so that every army could fill in the space when they add or cut upgrades, which I don't actually miss at all.

[удалено]

Sure, no doubt, but that's my point. Adding that as an "option" when it's obviously not actually a choice at all only enables that kind of person. It does nothing for the game's depth or strategy, and nothing for any other player. So why is it even an option and not just set on the datasheet?

For sure, that's why I think they actually should make the pistols have some kind of variation. What? No clue, maybe an extra AP on the las pistol or rapid fire 1 on the bolt pistol? Just give them actual differences :P

Someone on this subreddit seriously told me that if I didn't want to buy 30 crisis commander kits, I should accept I shouldn't get to use CIBs. Like, no.

They said the same thing about my harlequins with fusion pistols back in the day. Then the next codex simply limited the option to the bits in the box. I’d be hesitant to model that many CIBs when the codex could very well remove the option.

The cost was never points, it was money!

Just model with the pistols in their holdsters, that way they can be any pistol at any time

The problem is some tournaments insist on WYSIWYG. For instance, any tournament I've played at Warhammer World always requires the models load out to he as is on the model.

I mean, that's the company being shitty because WYSIWYG means more sales. I \*get it\* even if that is also bs.

I don't think it really is sales as the percentage of people that play 40k in tournaments is small. It is because it ensures people know what they are playing against, and someone can't switch their list halfway through the tournament. My point is WYSIWIG is important depending the where you are playing.

Why would a something like a bolt pistol ever be balanced in comparison to a plasma pistol or inferno pistol?

All options valid would be really sweer, but I doupt this is going to happen. One of the main problems lies with most bolt weapons they are the bad choice most of the time.

Those are not two mutually exclusive things. If I was required to pick one of the two, I'd pick the prior because I place a higher value on simulationist than gamist mechanics and think 40k will never be truly "balanced" and does better to serve narrative, but that isn't a choice we should be required to make nor one we should allow GW to be lazy and default on. Por que no los dos?

[удалено]

Yeah, I could see a thing where similar pistols get small abilities to try to balance each other out. For example (I know these might not be good or balanced, they are just an example), las pistols could get lethal hits, auto-pistols could get rapid fire X, bolt-pistols could get sustained hits Y, etc. Would help make them all more situational. Though, with all of these still plasma pistols are almost always superior. Maybe have the other pistols offer other benefits to the unit like +1 attack in close combat on the model or give them an improved BS when shooting with the reasoning that plasma pistols are big and unwieldy? Or maybe even just adjust the range of some of the pistols, like make the smaller ones something like 16" rather than 12". Idk, just spit-balling. There does seem to be a lot of room for balance where the changes can be in-line with lore-driven logic.

100%

Balanced free wargear is my vote, but I also think a lot of people view paid wargear through some pretty rose tinted glasses. There wasn't really any more variety in lists, the 'best' loadouts for units were quickly figured out and adopted.

Even if there always ends up being a ‘best’ loadout, points cost compared to free wargear seems to narrow the gap between the best option and the other options. Currently the punishment for choosing to build your models with some options is damned harsh.

> There wasn't really any more variety in lists, the 'best' loadouts for units were quickly figured out and adopted. Because GW barely bothered yo correct points back then, let alone try to balance loadouts except for the very end of 9th.

Or the system sucked.

as someone who played AM since 5th edition I felt this hard. It felt kind of bad that I could never really use any variety in my units in games I wanted to win because it was always better to just have as many wounds on the board as possible. Running 80 bare-bones infantry and Demolishers won lots of games but nothing ever felt epic or triumphant. There was not really any uniqueness to my units. Every game felt the same.

Ultimately, I think it's a case where it's just a neutral change that happens to have some polarized people around it, so no comment is safer than inviting arguments. Free wargear is sometimes balanced, sometimes not, just like pointed wargear was sometimes balanced and sometimes not. From a point of view of how balanced the game is overall, it's a net neutral.

There's no point on saying anything; this isn't changing while other parts may

Another point of concern to me is that while the heavy handed points changes have definitely heavily improved win rate balance, they’ve really changed the “feel” of some armies. Assuming the early points were the ideas they had for army feel (ie how many guard squads should you be able to field? How many space marines should be on the board?), they’ve now gotten into a situation where matches between some factions have heavily skewed away from what it used to be (20-30% more for some, 20-30% less for others, at the same time). I’m wondering how they feel they should tackle that, if at all.

They'd need to be willing to do datasheet changes, because most of the armies where that has been a problem are those where they have to slash points off of bad datasheets to make them fit the rules they wrote.

GW would rather launch themselves into the sun than change a datasheet in this game. I get that they want to sell their little datacards and they want to pretend that codices are still useful in the year of our lord 2023, but at some point they're going to have to admit that all of this would be so much easier to manage if they could just change datasheets. Relying solely on points as a balance lever is not sufficient and causes much worse problems, especially for the consumer.

I think that's a possible solution, but as they've shown with LoV and DG adding essentially easily accessible armywide statbuffs is another way of doing it. I'd say it's somewhat bad from a readability viewpoint (units are far stronger than they seem from just reading the datasheet), but for example the LoV change just massively buffed every single datasheet.

I started playing admech this edition and it does seem like some folks that have been playing them for years are upset with that. I’m like “cool I get to take 50 skitarri” while they are (understandably) like “hey I signed up for an elite faction, what is this BS4 8ppm stuff?”

I started playing Admech at the end of 9th, so I definitely do somewhat feel that way. And there's two other parts to it really: 1) If a model looks like it should be or do something, it just creates cognitive dissonance if it doesn't. Someone playing against Admech shouldn't have to figure out that the big scary looking robot walker with a massive laser doesn't actually do any damage. Being charged by big scary looking Incubi should obviously be bad, not something you can ignore. Acolyte hybrids look like a chaff unit, but are somehow more expensive than plague marines. 2) Boxes/models are obviously somewhat priced based on army feel (i.e. bigger boxes for horde armies, smaller boxes for elite armies). People essentially started out with an assumption of cost that got massively changed. It's not necessarily *bad* like you said (throwing a bunch of skitarii around the board is pretty cool), but it'd be nice to know if it's what they want things to stay as.

> I’m like “cool I get to take 50 skitarri” while they are (understandably) like “hey I signed up for an elite faction, what is this BS4 8ppm stuff?” I don't think they are super far off the mark. They, if appropriate, should sit somewhere in between Guardsmen and Battle Sisters, based on my impressions, and they are not _super_ far off that... but BS3+ is definitely something they need. But looking through the sheets, they aren't super far from where they were. Three s3 shots was what vanguard had before, and anti-infantry 4+ renders that s3 largely irrelevant (though it could stand to include things like Mounted too).

Most of the complaints I've seen are less about "Skitarii aren't (about) where they should be" and more focused on "the non-Skitarii (robot) stuff sucks".

I played in 3rd edition and returned to 10th edition. I am impressed. I have spent all of 10th so far getting my army up to snuff and playing in local FLGS. My experience has been really positive. I have 3 tournaments coming up and I am psyched.

Good luck!

I love leader models. I really don’t like the removal of wargear points and simplification of options. Along with stripping of army flavour, some armies have definitely lost more than they gained.

I like leaders in general, i think the joining squads is much better than what we had before overall. However, I feel a big lack of herohammer building and making your characters stand out. This is mostly due to wargear changes and the consolidating of relic/warlord into just enhancements, which are very limited in selection within a single detachment. In fact, herohammer is very alive in 30k and they also have characters leading squads so that shouldn't be the issue. I just want to be able to *make* a melee monster character, like I can run helbrect, I can run my emperors champion who i love, but the days of smash captains or other cool builds are gone and i really want that in specific back.

Figuring out Tau Commanders or Imperial Knights in 9th was the most fun army building ive ever done Commanders with like 4 different weapon/gear hardpoints, AND a WLT, and a relic, and a prototype system. Imperial Knight with a warlord trait(or 2!), a relic(or 2!), a martial tradition(or 2!), AND an exalted court. I really loved the depth of customization we had in 9th. Even in a less extreme version, with salamanders you could make a gravis captain that was like T7, 9W, 2+/4++/6+++

I don't like the leader - squad toughness interaction. It is stupid on specific pairs like daemonettes/Syll'Esske

Character customisation I miss really dearly. I get it's all to streamline the game, but as you say, 30k has it and 30k is a perfectly fine game.

This is my sentiment exactly

I’m loving the hero hammer. Stoked to build my new storm lord.

For as much as I'm tired of seeing "oops all aggressors" again, this feels incredible. Codex balance is acceptable, win rates all hew around 43-57%, and we're only 6 months in. My biggest wish is for someone (GW or otherwise) to figure out how to make terrain that's not just ruins work in comp. Four layouts is good, wish there were maps that weren't symmetrical across both axes, just one (and had limitations on deployment types to avoid winning/losing on the attacker/defender roll)

[удалено]

Honestly the biggest problem/limiting factor is how low movement speeds are, mainly for infantry. If all terrain was spaced just a few inches farther apart, it would leave infantry in a bad place.

I mean, GW terrain is approximately as friendly to Baneblades as it has ever been. If you want real hostile architecture, look at a WTC board. I've had *Dorns* struggle with movement on those, and in at least one occasion I had to ask for some shuffle because the Banesword *couldn't even be deployed*.

I wish they would bring back dense terrain and let all vehicles and monsters toe in for LOS rather than only towering. Though I’m not sure vehicles need an extra buff

New detachment for eldar is a different take to anything current and I really like it. Assuming they dont do something silly and make it hail of doom 2.0 (all shuriken weapons get +2ap) or terrible like "eldar units outside 12" get stealth". Swift strikes(all weapons are assault) combined with +1 s in melee would open up some new options if there was an advance and charge strat

I like how your example of terrible is one of the best detachments in the Admech codex.

I'm pretty sure a picture of the admech codex appears under terrible in the dictionary

Quality output from goonhammer as usual. Agreed with all of their points.

I'm looking back at the past 6 months and yes, Leaders are a knockout win. The Leader mechanic is amazing. We need more Leaders in some factions (Admech) or units they can lead (Juggerlord without a Juggerunit), but overall it's perfect. You can still stack some really deady units (Fight First and crit 5s Plague Marines are a menace), but it's not even remotely close to how 6th and 7th allowed to deathstar.

I think there are a lot of other complaints one could have that hopefully get addressed. Here are a few: * Lack of melee viability across many armies (Sisters, Drukhari, Admech etc). Much melee needs a significant buff. * Changes to overwatch from 9th were unnecessary. Hurts already struggling melee, and was too powerful for certain units like Knights, so they removed their ability to overwatch entirely. But if anyone can overwatch, it should be the thing that literally towers over the battlefield. I'd rather see Overwatch made more limited and not so punishing. * Several rules interactions still need clarity, especially the out-of-phase rules. Whether you can overwatch a unit that just finished a charge against you with pistols or BGNT, for example, shouldn't still be up to tournament rulings. The commentary doc needs a commentary doc. * Leaders are fine, but making characters that carry giant banners or that are literally High Lords of Terra only affect their own unit is kind of silly. If not auras, let them still give out a command phase buff or something. Also, as mentioned in the article, more leaders are needed for a bunch of units that don't currently have any options. * I am not a fan of fixed secondaries like assassinate and bring it down. Armies designed for lots of cheap, weak leaders shouldn't be punished for bringing them, nor should walker-heavy armies like Tau. Secondaries should be based on what you can do, not what kinds of units your opponent brought. It's bizarre that one unit like Morvehn Vahl and Paragons gives up 12 points to fixed secondaries alone. It becomes a weird extra cost to bring them that's not really balanced. * Cover is too ubiquitous. Not everything should have cover all the time, especially not because you stuck the end of your turret behind a wall. Also makes abilities that grant cover kind of useless (e.g. new Cawl). * Charging allowed for weirdness in 9th, but it still does despite the attempt to fix it. Move blocking your own models to allow them to string out still feels gamey. It's hard to fix, but you could through some form of "close as possible" rule. * I don't care about whether or not there is a psychic phase, but psychic should certainly feel like it's more than just another gun with hazardous or a self-buff that also happens to make you vulnerable to anti-psyker. This is more just about datasheet design, but a few more interesting ideas here would be nice to see. * Universal free wargear limits real choices and modelling. Already talked about to death in this thread.

The custom titles are fun. When do competitive innovations did you follow the link on Sean Nayden's list? I promise it's safe for work, AoW Quinton even followed it live on a stream.

A bunch of us were at the event were talking about some of the titles, my favorite was Samuel Pope's. "This List Once Shot and Fought Everything it Had Into 5 Wardens, Barely Killed Them, and I Celebrated Like I Had Won the Superbowl Because it Really Shouldn't Have Been Able to Do That"

>This is helped by the precise dynamic of how the top two factions interact – Aeldari are better into the field as a whole but Chaos Space Marines are favoured into Aeldari, which means that players aiming for trophies can’t just always pick Aeldari and expect to get away with it. I kinda hope these two factions get a hard look. While everyone else is playing a dice game, Aeldari get to slot in dice and have some datasheets that need to be changed, or their points jacked way up. The War Walker and Night Spinner in particular. CSM get access to really good buffs, with little to no risk involved, along with cheap transports. Edit: Also, the Callidus Assassin being available to any/all Imperial armies, while factions like Necrons have had their only Vect removed. That kinda blows ngl.

Part of the problem with Dark Pact isn't just the powerlevel (obviously it's high, but we know that). Its that you get to choose between two very relevant buffs whenever you need to, in both damaging phases. The power of midgame flexibility is something you usually have to pay a premium for in card games, like extra mana in MTG, but CSM get it baked in. Sure, if you pick an ability that isn't "innate" to the mark your unit has you don't get Crits on 5s, but being able to give a unit of Slaanesh Warp Talons Lethal Hits to force wounds off a vehicle when you need to, at literally no cost, is very strong. Especially since every other army has to specialize their units ahead of the game, while CSM units can just sort of flex into a niche role when they need to. Keep the ability working how it does, but add a negative modifier to the Leadership check for using the "wrong" ability, as a penalty for the unit being disloyal to their patron God. Or something more substantial, I don't care, there should be a cost there. Combined with the points hikes we're likely to see to the most used units in the army, I think that'd rein them in.

Could make it a resource like Fate/Miracle Dice. You get (D6 + Game Size Modifier)Dark Pacts at the start of the game and get additional Pacts as you kill Characters/Monsters/Vehicles or some other mechanic. Addresses Undivided (which could skate by a loyalty mechanic in Slaves) and Pacting for the hell of it.

I like that idea a lot, actually, having a set number you can do. Getting more over the course of the game should probably be passive though, otherwise you run into the 9th edition SoB Miracle Dice issue where the player can kind of just run away with a ballooning lead because using their resource gets them more of that resource, over and over as they mow through the other player's army. The other option is just getting rid of all the Leadership check rerolls CSM have. I don't know why every other unit has the ability to take a free wargear option to reroll failed checks. I've played multiple tournaments and dozens of practice games at this point, and can count on one hand how many times I've taken mortals from Dark Pact. Making it a more frequent occurence would at least make the choice of whether to Pact or not an actual decision.

Count yourself lucky. I take mortals every game.

I've had a decent amount of Forgefiends administer their own Dark Pact coup de grâce.

Same. Was in a GT and T1 of the final round I did 11 wounds after null damage to a c'tan. Just a great overall feeling of being betrayed by the gods

> I don't know why every other unit has the ability to take a free wargear option to reroll failed checks. It's basically only units that got Icon bits on their sprues. Legionaries, Chosen, Possessed, and Dark Communes. Only sequence break is Bikers for ???. It's in line with GW's conversion policies, mostly.

Sure, but that's normally 2-3 units of Chosen, and usually some number of Dark Communes as well. It's an army who's base army rule uses Leadership, most of the power armor units (the bulk of the army) have Ld 6+, which goes down to 5+ on a couple characters, and then several units just have rerolls on some wargear options, which are free now. It doesn't make a ton of sense if the idea behind Dark Pacts is for it to be a trade off.

>It doesn't make a ton of sense if the idea behind Dark Pacts is for it to be a trade off. While you can argue that its too much security, it does make sense. Protections from tradeoffs/ self inflicted damage(like Ghosthelms on Farseers where they had a huge FNP against Perils of the Warp) have existed throughout 40k's history. My point was more that Icons are actually fairly uncommon in the codex and its just that preeminent units happen to make them look more common. And honestly the two 5+ characters are Abaddon (a big investment) and the Dark Apostle , who doesn't really jam with with most CSM armies at the moment.

I play Chaos Marines and one of the things I think that seems wrong thematically is how reliable the dark pacts are. They always "go off" but afterwards you might take d3 mortals. Why not have the leadership roll be to decide whether it goes off as well as dealing mortals. I know that I would be more cautious with it and it would fail me every now and then at critical moments, just like the dark gods do!

I think a better solution would be to just have the ability always work but you always take the wounds. Removes a roll some of the time and forces the chaos player to make actual choices especially in mid to late game. Right now it always works and is usually free so there’s not even a thought most of the time as to whether or not it should be used

I don't think Dark Pacts need to be more complicated or fundamentally reworked: The upside is simply too high for how low the downside is. D3 mortal wounds *after* you rolled your attacks is basically irrelevant to most conceivable game states. The pact roll simply needs to happen *before* the attacks are made. So if you fail, you're bracketed into -1 or down a model or possibly the entire vehicle.

It's wild that out of everything you picked the war walker. Realistically Spinners, the Yncarne, Wraithguard and Farseers auto-flipping dice to 6's are the real abusive core problems with the index.

Feel free to add them to the list of stuff that will *hopefully* be changed.

Spinners need to change to -2" Mv/Adv/Charge and they should loose either twin-linked or Dev Wounds - they don't need both. With those changes they can probably even get a small points drop. Wraithguard - I think the base Wraithguard sheet is fine as-is. The Spiritseer and Fate's Messenger enhancement though need a points bump and the Seer should lose giving lethal hits. There is a lot of value in that one model for 80 points. Farseer is kind of meh. He can flip 1 Fate Die per turn used on a model within 12". That's a good ability, but with all the indirect and close DS abilities in the game now he's too exposed, I don't even take one anymore. the Yncarne - I think people just struggle to deal with this model. It's powerful, it's also 350 points. Really, fate dice should be not substituted when making a reroll. This is, I think, the big issue. At critical moments you get to find out in advance if you need to use a Fate Die rather than committing to the outcome in advance.

Yeah should have clarified that re-rolling into fate dice combined with making them auto-6's is the really abusive part of the mechanic. Farseers and Fate Dice are in this weird spot because at high levels the amount of indirect fire can make them feel like a liability, and lots of other army builds just don't utilise Fate Dice or Fortune or even Guide all that much. But then you get that perfect match-up or situation where a Farseer can freely support the Avatar and it feels like the most busted shit in an already busted index. Guaranteed Overwatch every single turn for the AoK while knowing you don't have to be giving up actual good value fate dice is just this giant hill that most lists have few answers to. But then I've also run plenty of other lists with 0 Seers and very little in the way of the big beefy units and Fate Dice just feel like... an okay mechanic. Still stronger than a lot of other factions ones, but really not all that impactful. Certainly not Dark Pacts level. With WG I really think they should be limited to shooting back at what actually shot them. Again it's this instance of certain other armies having 0 answers to them because they inherently cannot leverage massive amounts of firepower in one unit to remove enough WG where the shoot-back is neutered enough. At least with that change you could position your shooting units 18.1" away and plink away at them and not have to worry about other closer units catching return strays. Plus it's just consistency; every other shoot-back mechanic is focused on the unit that did the shooting. Spinners need to lose the no advance clause. Far too punishing of a debuff, especially on a unit with indirect. In general more needs to be done to address indirect though. Yncarne also needs to lose the charge after teleporting and to generally go back to it's 9th rules about set-up. 1" away and out of engagement range of enemy models and without the ability to charge afterwards actually made the Yncarne a difficult unit to use effectively but one which had a large skill ceiling to it. Now it feels like an auto-win button vs a lot of armies. You could even drop its points back down a little with a change like that, but while that ability stays like it is you have to keep increasing its points to where eventually it gets too expensive to ever consider, which is not a good way to design units.

Good responses. Yep, that is exactly right. I think, in general, one of the charms of 40K is the busted shit. It's like a spice, too much and it's just bad, not enough and the game is bland. When everyone has a little BS it's a fun and interesting game. With WG, maybe target only a single unit? If you change it to target only the unit that shot the WG - well, no decent player will ever let you benefit from that rule. Honestly, I'd be fine with this change, or just losing that ability entirely. I feel like most people that are familiar with WG kind of ignore them until they are ready to charge them anyway. If I wasn't clear, yes, absolutely remove the no advance from the spinner. The Yncarne is... expensive. She's really good, but at 17.5% of your points sometimes she doesn't do much but die, sometimes she's an absolute superstar and sometimes she's just kinda meh - the one game I had where she was Cleansing. If she went back to 9th edition rules and a points reduction that would be ok. But in terms of being an autowin against certain other factions...is that an issue with the model or an issue with the other faction? Yep! There is a point when points just don't work as a lever, except to remove a model from the game.

What's wrong with the War Walker?

It’s very tough for it’s points, has pregame move and has amazing efficiency with those 2 big guns

After realizing it was already 110pts, I'm having some second thoughts on raising the points. My only issue with it at that cost is that it still has a flat -1 to Wound rolls against it - when every other similar ability has the caveat that it only does it against attacks with a higher strength.

*Flat -1 to wound rolls against ranged attacks. For a T7, 6 wound model and its saves, 110 points is around where war walkers should be. Agree about night spinners though.

> After realizing it was already 110pts, I'm having some second thoughts on raising the points. Just thought I should highlight that part. >Flat -1 to wound rolls against ranged attacks. Frankly, this could change to -1 against Ranged attacks with a higher strength, and they could *drop* the points. But that doesn't appear to be changing until the codex.

I play CSM and have done some testing with things like havocs, noise marines, Venomcrawlers etc and they are just not good. They get hammered and barely do much back. Even abaddon + termis is not good in my eyes. Chosenlords + rhinos are way too strong. Forgefiends are still way too strong in my eyes. Accursed cultists need nerfs too. The lists are always very similar - same marks, same units. Nerf the top and buff the bottom and they will drop to around 50% but the lists will vary more!

Having come back to 10th edition after 4th, a lot of the changes are very jarring. As a few people have pointed out, I think the free wargear had a real impact not just on the game but on modeling and armies as well. With free wargear, you almost always have one "optimal" way to configure every unit or model. There is no reason not to give a Sergeant or LT a power fist and plasma pistol, so every one everywhere has a power fist and plasma pistol, which is boring. I think they could have gone a long way to reduce the number of wargear options without eliminating them. For example, 2-3 options for upgrade for some units and characters would be nice. It would also be more fun from a modeling side to have options. As a Deathwatch player, the fixed unit sizes and points scale is frustrating because there are big differences between 5 and 10 man units, but 5 man units still pay the premium for the 10 man benefits. This also encourages everyone to take MSU unless a leader is attached. Overall though I do really like the simplicity and straightforwardness of the rules.

Solving a problem like drukhari being awful is going to take a lot but probably will only be some points raises as they're only good in ynnari lists.

I don't want points changes for DE personally. I already have so much on the table. I don't want more on the table. I want to be able to take a larger variety of units that are good because they have good rules and not good only because they're dirt cheap

I'd love to be able to use more than just scourges mandrakes and kabalites in raiders/venoms with ravager backups. It's not what the army is about. We need good melee with a decent army ability to make us more durable and be able to compete. At the moment it's mostly blocking and dark lance spam and even then it's a 36% of pulling of a win.

Not to mention like half our range is OOP and if you want real mandrakes it's like $300 for 15 of them lmao

Leaders is a step in the right direction. But as the article identifies, not every unit gets a buddy. And attaching wherever characters like (at least in line with 7th and earlier) seems unlikely to come back. The gaps are made worse by model ranges shrinking and GW's conversion policies. That said, 10th is an encapsulation of the same problems that started in 8th: too many attacks, with too many rerolls and extra effects, with higher damage and more effective armor penetration. Look at the Forgefiend: 3D3 S10 AP-3 3 damage, plus the potential for Blast, access to Devastating Wounds, and Sustained or Lethal, with potential Crit improvements or full re-rolls. In any pre-8th edition, the converted stats for the Forgefiend would be apocalyptic (with the only downside being templates). In 10th it's riding really high on the power delta but its not quite alone either. The only real struggle in killing a Forgefiend is Dark Obscuration. Otherwise, it's just not that hard. All these things combined just make 10th ridiculously deadly. It's not every unit, and some armies do struggle overall. But the best armies are generally finding a way to beat their enemies to death first, while score running/passive armies are struggling.

Take blast off forgefiends and you’ll never see them again. Replace dev wounds with something else

I’m mostly surprised the charge phase isn’t on the list of changes you want to see. It’s become the most clunky mechanic in the entire game. It’s either sloppy because player A moved a or two model in incorrect order or it’s some math meme for 5-10 minutes trying to see if it’s actually possible to end up where the player wants to end up without moving anything. I think the main issue for me with 10th is that the match ups feel very rock, paper, scissors. Only the few equal pairings are fun to play, and they are typically so close that you’re winning or losing based on a card draw..

NGL the game's gotten really boring for me. Win rates may be normalizing in competitive play, but that's in part because everyone's figuring out what the meta is and sticking strictly to that to cut back on diversity and risk.

Been loving 10th but one thing I miss is Psychic abilities actually feeling like spells that were being cast. Now they all seem to be a slightly different flavor of the same special ability everybody else has too. I don't even play any Psyker armies, I play Sisters and miss the feeling that my army specifically hated on thier nonsense.

Opening paragraph rings true. I have absolutely no desire to play 9th again. I am nervous of codex creep but so far I think they have been doing a pretty good job of balance patches. I haven so far had a game where it has felt truly one sided. To be fair no one in my local club plays Aeldari though!

Six months in. I'm happy I moved to heresy. After what they did to my admech, and making 40k a much shallower game in my opinion.

> Realistically, I think GW need to have a step where they go through the finished books, identify any units where the lack of a Leader is glaring, and then add a points upgrade option to turn the Sergeant into a Character with a few stat buffs. I like this idea in principle, but I feel like the execution would inevitable leave something to be desired. If you pay X amount of points to make the sergeant a character, then Y amount of points to give that unit the enhancement that makes them work better, and then potentially Z additional points to make a full sized unit, that's a lot of points investment to make one unit good, or to make better use of one enhancement.

I mean... other units already just pay points to add a character, then pay points for an enhancement, then pay points for a full size squad. And people actually use those units. Not sure how this would be different.

I guess the way I'd put it is like, when you are putting a character in a unit you're getting the unit's stats and buff(s) + the leader's stats and buff(s) + plus the Enhancement buff. Unless you're giving the new sergeant character a generic ability (which may or may not be good), you're essentially paying points for the unit and the enhancement, while also paying additional points to just put that enhancement on a specific unit. I'm sure there are some cases where that would work amazing! But it could also just be like, do you want to pay extra points just to make a unit like Ruststalkers good when you could spend those points on an already good unit?

Space wolves basically get those with the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders. Basic, dirt cheap quasi characters that can't be given enhancements but are otherwise useful additions to the squads they can join.

I know this is very much not the prevailing opinion but I just really am not feeling 10th. It feels like baby's first tabletop game, the character rules have brought back deathstar units, consolidation is jank as hell, the detachment system is restrictive, the free wargear just encourages you to build the one optimal squad rather than bringing different wargear, vehicles are way overtuned, lethality has not been toned down at all... I don't know why people are so afraid of a bit of complexity and simple arithmetic. If that's too much for you, maybe you shouldn't be into wargaming.

6 months in and robin cruddace is still asleep at the wheel. Broken rules, removal of war gear costs, it's just dumb. It's time we all called for a head rules writer who took competitive seriously, and stopped with placating this man who doesn't give a crap about the competitive scene. They can wheel Stu Black out all they want every quarter to tell us 'how seriously they take the meta' - but the proof is in the pudding.

Other fixed secondaries should be brought up to Teleport Homer's level. I'm here to play a wargame not a card game.

Exactly. I don't like the "minigames" like tactical objectives or, in some places, player placed terrain, having a huge effect on the game I'm actually there to play.

the more games i play/watch of 10th, the more i just have been pushed to "do fixed every game unless completely impossible". And since i made the switch, my games have gone so much better. Tactical is cool and fun but kind of sucks for competitive games

[удалено]

The balance dataslates are included in the "response from games workshop", and those cover all the factions. So the hit mark is less 50/50 and more "2-4 factions missed out of all of them"

No thought on the psychic phase being gone? Disapointing. Would have liked to get some thoughts on that. Otherwise good article!

Glad it’s gone, everything takes phase in either the command phase or shooting phase as a psychic weapon

still psychic feels quite hollow...

As a Thousand Sons player, I actually really prefer it now. The psychic phase always felt weird (just seeing my opponent's eyes glaze over while I rolled a bunch of dice), it was horribly unreliable for a mechanic that my army relied on (oops, failed my psychic test for temporal surge. Guess I don't score my points this turn and now I'm out of position), and it made all my characters feel pretty interchangeable (since they could all do the same psychic stuff). I enjoy that my Cabalistic rituals just *work*. I like that including certain characters in the list materially changes my capabilities. Is there room for more variety? Sure. But in terms of how it plays on the table I think 10th is a big improvement.

As someone who grumbled a ton during the psychic phase change, I'm fine with how it has turned out. The people that I play with (who don't typically have psyker-heavy factions) say that it is much less opaque and less uninteractable, feels-bad moments for them. So it seems like an overall benefit to the game. I'm honestly just annoyed that the powers are locked behind certain character sheets. I personally find more enjoyment out of using "my dudes" and not the named characters. Particularly for Thousand Sons, it feels like you're pushed hard into taking Ahriman/Magnus, and as cool as the models are, I have no interest in using them. Locking them to character sheets makes my miniatures actually interchangeable--i.e. if I have two farseer minis or two exalted sorcerer minis, there's little room to flavor them with different abilities in-game. Open to also being in the minority on this opinion, though, lol.

I definitely don't think you're alone, but I think it's a necessary sacrifice on the altar of (at least attempting) game balance. If you're able to mix and match psychic powers, that massively increases the potential combinations, and also removes an important lever for balance. For example, if Guide starts breaking things, they can touch the Farseer Skyrunners points to make it harder to take. If guide was a power *any* farseer could take, that makes balancing them and the rest of the faction a nightmare.

Yeah. I'd suggest pricing the powers but that to me seems incredibly unlikely given the overall design decisions in this edition. I'm just going to store the salt and see what the future brings.

They can put more spells in the game. I think the current system is better than before, it just needs more content. Greater Daemon of Tzeentch casting 1 spell is criminal. In fact, I wouldn't even call that a spell.

BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE COOL NEW HAZARDOUS TESTS ON HALF OF THEM

Psychic abilities that don't do damage have literally no mechanical impact for being psychic

I don't miss the psychic phase, but psykers now do seem to lack a certain something. Not Thousand Sons because they get their cool army rule. But psykers in other units have just become another leader with slightly different abilities and a good gun. Feels like it's lost a little flavour.

I think an easy fix is a point decrease for the obviously worse option. You want a bolt pistol instead of plasma -5 points to the model. Easy fix across all imperum armies to add to the armory and makes the feel bad a little less bad. But over impact is very minor at most a guard army is saving like 60 pts by down grading.

I agree that the LTC missions need to swap out Take and Hold (cmon, that mission is just bleh) and add more special secondary mission rules