Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Any thoughts or strong opinions inspired by the new balance update?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/04/25/warhammer-40000-metawatch-points-changes-inbound-in-the-latest-munitorum-field-manual/

The eldar changes seem pretty sensical to me. The stuff that went up in points is stuff that was seeing consistent use in competitive lists, and most of it only went up in price a little bit; enough to be felt if you're spamming those units, but not so much if you're splashing them into a well-rounded list. The units that went down in price are all generally agreed to be kind of meh with the possible exception of guardian defenders. But again, most things didn't change price so dramatically that we're likely to see people start spamming them.

On the whole, a pretty reasonable-looking update. My one nitpick being that the Phoenix Gem going from 25 points to 35 points makes it a bit iffy. It's still powerful, sure, but at that price point you're less likely to be able to use it to use up unspent points in your list (you'd probably rather have an extra warlock for 45 or a squad of rangers for 55), and my plans for adding a cheeky phoenix gem warlock to my crusade roster are probably going on the backburner now that the gem would nearly double said warlock's cost.

The necron changes mostly make sense but are a little more annoying.

The c'tan going up makes sense. Immortals going up a tiny bit makes sense as you'll feel it when spamming them but not when fielding a squad or two. Deathmarks going down by as many points as immortals went up has me wondering how deathmark spam (albeit limited by the rule of 3) would perform. It seems like their output is probably comparable if not better into marines and T9 or lower vehicles, and we can get crowd-clearing elsewhere.

I'm not keyed into the meta, but the increases on the various crypteks feel pretty severe with my technomancer going up something like 33% in cost. I was considering putting the guy in my warrior blob to try and lean into their durability, but now I'm not sure I can afford to do so. Heck, I can almost afford to just bring 10 more warriors or 3 more wraiths instead if I drop him.

I was bummed to see they didn't give warriors any help. The codex's changes to RP left them struggling to act as durable bricks and as limp as ever in terms of offense. (Especially if you're not fielding an Awakened Dynasty.) With immortals clearly being the more popular choice these days, it would have been nice to see warriors drop a point or get some sort of fix for their underwhelming RP rule.

Overall, its quite reasonable and mostly good changes. Healthy nudge for the meta overall.

Disappointed Deathwatch remain useless though. I'm happy enough just playing normal marines, but I wish if they're going to squat us they'd just say so. I have things I want to do with the army that I can't while its in limbo.

Hyped for Orks. Been building any army up in the background for a while and the new Codex is looking super fun. Definitely want to get them finished up and on the table soon.

I am happy with the CSM one, they seemed to have targeted units that were borderline good, and now they might be good.

The increase to technomancers feels rough if you're not using them to buff wraiths. In the accompanying video commentary they said they put the points on the technomancers to counter spamming them in combination with wraiths. They should have instead made it so that flying technomancers who can efficiently support wraiths went up in points, but those on foot didn't go up, or perhaps reduced the cost of other units (like warriors) to compensate.

I'm disappointed that there's no big changes yet for admech (that's what I'm currently painting), although it's interesting to hear they are testing something. Hopefully the summer brings some good changes for them so that they don't just have a further points reduction.

Hellblasters...good god...

So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

I mean, it was a points update. There's not really much to discuss?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Black Adder wrote:


I'm disappointed that there's no big changes yet for admech (that's what I'm currently painting), although it's interesting to hear they are testing something. Hopefully the summer brings some good changes for them so that they don't just have a further points reduction.

Bets on the "balance update" for AdMech just being another tweak to Skitarii?

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

I think these sort of changes are pretty minor and the game is fairly balanced right now, so it's not a big surprise there's not much discussion here. The bigger discussion comes when they change rules in a dataslate.

Purely anecdotal, but 40k is doing better than ever where I am.

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

I don't want to dig up that extensive fight - but I think its more just evidence that a lot of people on Dakka aren't playing. And if you aren't playing, what are you meant to say? Its why threads tend to evolve into discussing the philosophy of 40k rather than what's actually there.

In any case, my take would be something like:

I don't want to tempt the wrath of the forum's Ork players who know the faction far better than me. But it feels like they've taken the new codex which almost certainly had something good and potentially made it even better.

Ad Mech were dire and I think will remain dire after this change. "We'll get to them next time" is kind of annoying given this time was meant to be "next time". Much like the time immediately after the codex. And the codex. And the patch before the codex. And the index itself...
Making the most expensive army in the game even more expensive is just obnoxious at this point. (Okay it got obnoxious some considerable time back - but you get what I mean).

The situation with CSM seems weird to me, because I think they got quite heavily nerfed last time round when I wasn't really sure they needed it and as a result the competitive ability of the faction seemingly collapsed. Now they are being sort of "internally balanced" which I guess is nice, but from a very low base. But they have a new codex coming out imminently so its hard to judge whether that will slot in with these points or not.

DE didn't get anything, which suggests we are considered "fixed now" even though I don't think the results really show that.

Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.

I guess the biggest point of this patch was to end/undermine Necron dominance. Has it done that? Not convinced. Feels like GW have done the kid-gloves thing here which they sometimes do with other factions (looking at you Eldar). Especially with buffs to other units, I feel you may just see the best Necron lists adjust, but the faction as a whole continue to over-perform.

On the whole I'm not sure people were crying out for this points update which makes the whole thing feel a bit weird.

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

Overall discussions have been getting fewer since 10th and it's pretty interesting if you ask me.
For once GW basically does what many on this very forum asked them to do: the codex churn is pretty slow, indexes were for free, the App was for free for a short time, the Codex creep is quite small compared to probably every prior edition, the Codizes also are mere refinements of the Index rules so 10th is a conparably stable system.
However, this results in fewer things to talk/ argue about. Granted, in earlier editions there probably would have been a thread about the terrible Custodes rules and/ or the overpowered Orks rules so there might also be the problem of fewer members on dakka,
but I think GW just does a quite modest handling of 10th.

That or codex churn has burned out the dakka community, and I'm including myself as my whole gaming group has moved to OPR. Not because 10th is bad or anything but because GW lost all the good will we gave them in 8th with their 3 year cycle and FOMO.

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

The recent Custodes Codex was a test, is your community a 40k playing community or is it a non playing 40k drama community.

Custodes tactics thread - 20 comments since Codex.

Two drama threads - 1,300+ comments.

It was pretty obvious already, but it also really cemented which youtube channels were for players and which weren't. Good for filtering them out.

Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.

Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.

Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?

I forget, can GSC spam Attilans just to annoy you further?

EightFoldPath wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

The recent Custodes Codex was a test, is your community a 40k playing community or is it a non playing 40k drama community.

Custodes tactics thread - 20 comments since Codex.

Two drama threads - 1,300+ comments.

It was pretty obvious already, but it also really cemented which youtube channels were for players and which weren't. Good for filtering them out.

To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.

I played a game of 10th, my first/real/truemarines vs his upstart Primaris. I took a bunch of guns and blew him away. Much interesting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.

Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?

Why do you have such an animus towards GSC? The majority of armies I've seen use the GSC units, not Brood Brothers.

I was amazed at Custodes point drops. This may be the lowest I've seen Bikes since release. That being said, I don't think it's going to matter.

Also, not gonna lie, why are you pounding the hell out of BA right before release? Where is the thought in nerfing DC marines, but leaving the DA Storm Raven Ultra Meta chasing list untouched?

EDIT:

Just saw that Gaunt's Ghosts are still in the dex. I thought 10th was all "We need to drag 40k into the present, so we're sending everyone clearly dead to legends". That would include Guant's mob. Bragg at the very LEAST.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.

Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?

Why do you have such an animus towards GSC? The majority of armies I've seen use the GSC units, not Brood Brothers.

I have zero animosity towards GSC. I have an intense dislike for the people who behave as though they are entitled to the hallmark units of my army with no meaningful penalties.

I've never seen Medusas used...but I know a local GSC player who swears by them and Clamavus.

Tyel wrote:
Ad Mech were dire and I think will remain dire after this change. "We'll get to them next time" is kind of annoying given this time was meant to be "next time". Much like the time immediately after the codex. And the codex. And the patch before the codex. And the index itself...

Question on the AdMech - given they're trying to only do Balance Dataslates every six months, but points updates every quarter, what sort of additional tweaks could they have done to AdMech points to get them closer to "not dire"? Or are they in a situation where rules changes are needed?

Honest question, not sure what the current situation with them is.

Insectum7 wrote:
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.

I always thought it was funny that list building threads were labeled as tactics when no tactics were ever actually discussed in them.

Dysartes wrote:
Question on the AdMech - given they're trying to only do Balance Dataslates every six months, but points updates every quarter, what sort of additional tweaks could they have done to AdMech points to get them closer to "not dire"? Or are they in a situation where rules changes are needed?

Honest question, not sure what the current situation with them is.

I think it's fairly clear that the army needs rule changes. Perpetual points drops just add to the pain since it's already the most expensive army to acquire. A coworker of mine has shelved his admech, probably for the duration of the edition and has now started crons.

Kan- we've been through this before, and I don't want to fight with you about it- not trying to provoke.

But the fact that BB units cannot benefit from any faction rules, enhancement or strats- whether GSC based or Guard based IS a meaningful penalty. In theory, units are priced with their faction rules, strats and enhancements in mind. Take them away, and the unit ends up being weak for their points.

I do get where you're coming from- I know you're fine with GSC using the generic "Infantry Unit"- just not the special stuff. And that IS a reasonable point of view. But pretending these units perform as well in a GSC army as they do in a guard army isn't the way to make that point, because they are objectively weaker without all the extras.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.

I always thought it was funny that list building threads were labeled as tactics when no tactics were ever actually discussed in them.

When most of a game's tactics derive from either listbuilding or rules exploits (many of which 10th patched out, see: pile-in shenanigans), that's not terribly surprising.

Pushed to extreme you can hypothetically fix anything with points - but it gets stupid at the £/$ to points element.

As an example - are Sicarian Ruststalkers "better" at 60/120 vs 70/140? Well... mathematically yes.

But the issue remains that they aren't that lethal into all sorts of stuff. WS4+ is a hostage to fortune. They don't have enough movement tricks to score objectives. So they are just sort of there. In a casual game a list is hypothetically very modestly better than it was before. But they aren't obviously good.

Its the same thinking with say Kastelan Robots. They weren't great at 100 points a model - are they going to be good at 90? I don't think so although maybe its worth testing. At some point you'd hit a tipping point where I can bring 12 of them (and characters) plus enough chaff to stand on objectives and weaker factions/lists just won't be able to cope with that. But that isn't what most Ad Mech players want.

To be fair - by Ad Mech standards, the Robots are a steal at just £285 for 1185~ points. So maybe this is the no-joke way to go.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.

I always thought it was funny that list building threads were labeled as tactics when no tactics were ever actually discussed in them.

Agreed. But I think listbuilding is an easier thing to talk about. Actual 40k tactics involve spacial relationships and cross-army context which are both harder to convey and less engaging for players in a different context or meta.

EightFoldPath wrote:

It was pretty obvious already, but it also really cemented which youtube channels were for players and which weren't. Good for filtering them out.

I blocked so many channels this week. Really helped clean up some of the spam I was getting.

Tyel wrote:
Pushed to extreme you can hypothetically fix anything with points - but it gets stupid at the £/$ to points element.

As an example - are Sicarian Ruststalkers "better" at 60/120 vs 70/140? Well... mathematically yes.

But the issue remains that they aren't that lethal into all sorts of stuff. WS4+ is a hostage to fortune. They don't have enough movement tricks to score objectives. So they are just sort of there. In a casual game a list is hypothetically very modestly better than it was before. But they aren't obviously good.

Its the same thinking with say Kastelan Robots. They weren't great at 100 points a model - are they going to be good at 90? I don't think so although maybe its worth testing. At some point you'd hit a tipping point where I can bring 12 of them (and characters) plus enough chaff to stand on objectives and weaker factions/lists just won't be able to cope with that. But that isn't what most Ad Mech players want.

To be fair - by Ad Mech standards, the Robots are a steal at just £285 for 1185~ points. So maybe this is the no-joke way to go.

Not a refutation of anything you’ve said, but I’m intrigued to see how the overall points changes of an army affects things. For instance, if your formerly 2,000 points is now 1,800? How to best spend those “bonus” 200 points is the thing to consider. For instance, if there’s a character or item combo which can buff those Ruststalkers, is the whole of that combo now worth it? Say if you can give them +1 to hit, and re-roll 1’s to hit.

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

Everybody is raging about the update. They like it. I just do not think a lot of people are using dakka. And the people who hang out here do not play 40k much. Is my suspicion.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not a refutation of anything you’ve said, but I’m intrigued to see how the overall points changes of an army affects things. For instance, if your formerly 2,000 points is now 1,800? How to best spend those “bonus” 200 points is the thing to consider. For instance, if there’s a character or item combo which can buff those Ruststalkers, is the whole of that combo now worth it? Say if you can give them +1 to hit, and re-roll 1’s to hit.

I agree - the 2000 points is what matters. (Unfortunately I don't think you can add any character to Ruststalkers, which is another issue...)

The problem is that all the Ad Mech buffs are for units you weren't really seeing (1 unit of rangers were maybe okay).

I mean does an army with say Cawl and lots of Ruststalkers, Kataphron Destroyers, Rangers, 3 Skatros etc work? Maybe. But it was kind of terrible before. Will it work now but with an extra unit? Maybe - but its hard to tell intuitively. I'm thinking no.

Does for example making the Dunecrawler and Disintegrator cheaper matter? Yes - in the context of these units versus the whole game. But if say Ironstriders were better at what you'd want those units to do - and are still probably better - nothing has really changed.

Just got a chance to read it. Archons can lead Incubi now- that's cool. The Ap buff to melee for Power from Pain is cool for the Alliance of Agony detachment and should help Wyches a bit.

I think generally good but the C'tan are about 100pts short of where they should be.

 Niiai wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

Everybody is raging about the update. They like it. I just do not think a lot of people are using dakka. And the people who hang out here do not play 40k much. Is my suspicion.

There is a lot of casual players who use the points changes, but don’t really discuss balance. Even 40K competitive when poll for it has a big casual players base that is there for general tips & tricks on running an army, but don’t get into the gritty details.
These takes are honestly weird.

Since posting a reply, I actually read the thoughts of people more on the balance tone for this sorta thing.
I am more into the design and how army’s play, the balance itself I couldn’t offer anything that’s not said better or better informed in other places.