Wh40k 10th Edition Munitorum Field Manual (Points)

[SkimaskMohawk]

35 minutes ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

Great points here's a good example too... Power Fist vs Thunder Hammer, any unit that can take a both like Space marine Sargeants why am I ever gonna take a power fist? Same Str same AP same WS same Dmg but Thunder hammer has Devastating wounds. Where's the tradeoff? For everything to have the same value there's gotta be a tradeoff in there.

 

Fists tend to hit on the best weapon skill now, while thunder hammers have one worse point. So it's trading reliability for potential spike damage, but honestly unless you can juice up the amount of attacks for thunder hammers you're better off taking fists on seargents.

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, The4thHorseman said:

The best part is the implicit assumption on their part that the playerbase is so stupid that multiplying PL’s by a scalar and calling them “points” will cause people to like PL’s without realizing that it’s PL’s. Take that, haters!

 

It’s like trying to trick a toddler into eating vegetables by calling them candy.

[Nephaston]

Wow, I'm late to the party.

 

Gotta say, I'm fascinated how GW always chooses to apply all the solutions for a problem (real or imagined) when a single one would suffice.

 

And apparently this time they had a problem with a sensibly implemented and granular points system, that after their fixes somehow punishes tournament players and beer n' pretzels players (odd numbered cult marines anyone?).

 

Or perhaps they took offence at the fondness people had for 8ths index phase so now they messed this one up just to enable them to sell the solution later.

[OttoVonAwesome]

If GW really gonna run with the idea that all guns are created equal to thier intended role then alot of changes need to be made. For instance unit leaders, Chainsword vs Power weapon, Bolt Pistol vs Plasma vs Hand Flamer vs Grav, Bolter vs Combi Weapon. Bolter's, Chainswords, and Bolt Pistols (still losing to grav but what else can you do) need to become Master Crafted for d2 or else what is the point? I won't even get into different guns but alot of changes need to be made already this wasn't really all that well thought out if I can figure this stuff out day 1.

Edited June 17, 2023 by OttoVonAwesome

[macradam_hue]

9 hours ago, Arkhanist said:

 

Amen to that. Plus it makes life a right pain with transports. We already knew razorbacks were virtually pointless now with forced 10 man tac squads, but for example, i was planning on sticking 5 bladeguard and a judiciar in the impulsor (6 man transport) from the BA combat patrol as a little roving stabby squad. Nope! can only pay for 3 or 6 bladeguard, so to do that I'd have to pay for a 6th BG but not use him. Or buy a bigger transport that costs much more. Or buy a librarian dread to do his 'fly, my pretties' wings power. It's just ARRRRRRRGH.

This is it for me. Characters not fitting with their units into vehicles is just such a self inflicted issue

[Blurf]

I keep sitting down to try and Mathhammer my units and keep just losing interest.

 

No amount of number crunching is going to let Sisters compete with Marines or Eldar. 240pts of Desolator marines can kill 600pts of battle sisters with # of shots rolls. A Wraith Knight can ignore every weapon in the army while also wiping out 2+ vehicles per turn with their D-Cannons and their +1 Miracle dice.

[macradam_hue]

At the start of 9th, a lot of things were excused and put down to COVID, supply chain etc.

This feels as rushed, if not more so...so what's the excuse this time?

[Sergeant Bastone]

9 hours ago, Vazzy said:

One, as someone coming back to 40k after a long heresy hiatus, and as someone who is now an adult with a real job and responsibilities, being able to build how I want for list purposes is extremely appealing. 

But that's the exact opposite of what's going on here.  You have way FEWER choices of how to build things, in fact nearly none if you want to use models you already have.

 

Previously I could build a Russ and keep it cheap and barebones, or go the middle route of heavy bolter sponsons, or spend the points on the all the bells and whistles loading her up with multimeltas and heavy stubbers and hunter killer missiles.  Now with this rule change I'm always paying for the multimeltas and stubbers and hunter killer missiles so I'd be an idiot to not take them since they are obviously stronger.  I have lost all of the choice!

 

Furthermore, point costs helped me be able to fill out lists and play.  Say we're playing escalation league and I have a 1500 point army.  Next month we are going to play 2000 points.  I'm pretty busy next month and don't have the time or cash to get more stuff but i can still get to that 2000 points by giving everyone plasma pistols, power fists, multimelta sponsons, hunter killer missiles, etc. 

 

So that's now my 2000 point army.  And if I buy some new things I can fit them into the army by removing some of the upgrades.  But now that all of the upgrades are included I can't do that.  The only way to get new units into my army is to take units out of my army.  I already put the money, time, and effort into those units so nah.

[Cadian Bandstand]

37 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

But that's the exact opposite of what's going on here.  You have way FEWER choices of how to build things, in fact nearly none if you want to use models you already have.

 

Previously I could build a Russ and keep it cheap and barebones, or go the middle route of heavy bolter sponsons, or spend the points on the all the bells and whistles loading her up with multimeltas and heavy stubbers and hunter killer missiles.  Now with this rule change I'm always paying for the multimeltas and stubbers and hunter killer missiles so I'd be an idiot to not take them since they are obviously stronger.  I have lost all of the choice!

 

Furthermore, point costs helped me be able to fill out lists and play.  Say we're playing escalation league and I have a 1500 point army.  Next month we are going to play 2000 points.  I'm pretty busy next month and don't have the time or cash to get more stuff but i can still get to that 2000 points by giving everyone plasma pistols, power fists, multimelta sponsons, hunter killer missiles, etc. 

 

So that's now my 2000 point army.  And if I buy some new things I can fit them into the army by removing some of the upgrades.  But now that all of the upgrades are included I can't do that.  The only way to get new units into my army is to take units out of my army.  I already put the money, time, and effort into those units so nah.

This last point especially, having carefully curated an army now there are units I might as well throw in the bin. Now everything's costed for maximum loadout I can't save points by lowering spec here and there.

 

It's maximum spec, no nuance, bye bye fun list building. Feeling very sad about 10th, and I was feeling very optimistic about tenth until the points dropped...

[Sergeant Bastone]

I don't understand the point of locking unit sizes (outside of 10-man squads for line troops and such and minimum/maximum unit sizes).  I love Nork Deddog so I had to buy a 3-pack of ogryns to build him.  Then I was stuck with 2 ogryns that I paid a lot for but can't play so I bought another pack.  So now I have 5 ogryns.  I can only run them as either 3 or 6 man units so I'm back to having 2 ogryns that I paid a lot for that I can't play.  What is the benefit of this?!

[Cadian Bandstand]

Good job a Chimera can hold 4 Ogryns...

[OttoVonAwesome]

2 hours ago, AdRoc said:

This is it for me. Characters not fitting with their units into vehicles is just such a self inflicted issue

Or attach a Captain and Lt or Banner guy or Apothecary. The transport stuff doesn't bother me as much if I want to stick a big assualt unit into something it's gonna be a Redeemer for obvious reasons. Although 30k did account for this very situation.

3 minutes ago, Cadian Bandstand said:

Good job a Chimera can hold 4 Ogryns...

Ok that's objectively hilarious.

[OttoVonAwesome]

14 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

I don't understand the point of locking unit sizes (outside of 10-man squads for line troops and such and minimum/maximum unit sizes).  I love Nork Deddog so I had to buy a 3-pack of ogryns to build him.  Then I was stuck with 2 ogryns that I paid a lot for but can't play so I bought another pack.  So now I have 5 ogryns.  I can only run them as either 3 or 6 man units so I'm back to having 2 ogryns that I paid a lot for that I can't play.  What is the benefit of this?!

They explained it they don't want us hurting our pea sized brains by doing precious maths.

[Halandaar]

The Hammer/Fist comparison brought up earlier is actually maybe not one of the bad ones. It's a trade-off between more reliable hits Vs higher chance to cause extra damage.

 

I know AoS is cited negatively a lot here, but the weapon options there are usually similarly balanced: hit more often Vs hit less often but with more guys, more attacks vs less attacks with higher damage. Those things can cost the same because they are light variations on the same statline, not wildly different weapons with different purposes.

 

The problem choices here aren't Power Fist Vs Thunder Hammer or Plasma Gun Vs Meltagun where the "correct choice" is subjective and/or situational, it's Power Fists Vs Chainswords, Plasma Guns Vs Bolters, Sponsors Vs No Sponsons etc, where the former is always objectively better than the latter. The increased cost used to be the tradeoff - now there isn't one, so there is never a reason not to take the best wargear you have access to.

 

For me personally it's not going to change anything, I'm going to continue playing by rule of cool because I always have, and I would caution those of you who aren't playing in actively competitive environments against ripping the weapons off all your models. It'll all change again next edition and probably within 1 or 2 editions we'll be back to having individual profiles for different vanguard and chosen weapons and being sold that as a great boon to your ability to customise your army.

[Kastor Krieg]

And now I already have a ton of models that I will not be fielding anytime soon because I can't fit them all into a 2k list anymore with the cost bloat - and I have 2 Leviathan boxes coming on top of it all. I guess I'll sell them all piecemeal because :cuss: this noise... :|

[Brother_Angelus]

7 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

It'll all change again next edition and probably within 1 or 2 editions we'll be back to having individual profiles for different vanguard and chosen weapons and being sold that as a great boon to your ability to customise your army.

I'd put good money on it changing in this edition. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Today's BnC Thought for the Day:

 

"To withdraw in disgust is not apathy"

 

Seems appropriate. 

[Arkhanist]

4 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

The Hammer/Fist comparison brought up earlier is actually maybe not one of the bad ones. It's a trade-off between more reliable hits Vs higher chance to cause extra damage.

 

I know AoS is cited negatively a lot here, but the weapon options there are usually similarly balanced: hit more often Vs hit less often but with more guys, more attacks vs less attacks with higher damage. Those things can cost the same because they are light variations on the same statline, not wildly different weapons with different purposes.

 

The problem choices here aren't Power Fist Vs Thunder Hammer or Plasma Gun Vs Meltagun where the "correct choice" is subjective and/or situational, it's Power Fists Vs Chainswords, Plasma Guns Vs Bolters, Sponsors Vs No Sponsons etc, where the former is always objectively better than the latter. The increased cost used to be the tradeoff - now there isn't one, so there is never a reason not to take the best wargear you have access to.

 

For me personally it's not going to change anything, I'm going to continue playing by rule of cool because I always have, and I would caution those of you who aren't playing in actively competitive environments against ripping the weapons off all your models. It'll all change again next edition and probably within 1 or 2 editions we'll be back to having individual profiles for different vanguard and chosen weapons and being sold that as a great boon to your ability to customise your army.

 

I agree entirely with the first half; but not the last paragraph. Not because choosing to stick with giving yourself an effective points penalty is a bad thing in a friendly environment;  taking sub-optimal choices for the hell of it is half the fun in that arena. But because I don't believe GW intend to swing back towards more flexibility and more choice.

 

GW wanted us to use power level when they brought it out, and boy were points in AoS done grudgingly. Now they're forcing PL on all of us, and the trend is moving towards units with fixed loadouts, model count and minimal options in most cases, exactly like AoS - it's what they've been doing with primaris for example. Take what they've done to sternguard; there is simply no expectation that they're going to get back the ability to take specials or other heavy weapons, and units that have effectively had the same thing 'encouraged' via power level will most likely follow suit in future. in AoS, if you're building an army of entirely new models (which most everyone has due to the rules breaking up and slowly squatting all older WFB armies), well, that's your option from the start or you don't play.

 

Lots of people have built up their 40k armies over years and years, and are now effectively crap units at a stroke with the new paradigm. The trend will swing towards even greater restrictions, not less, and you either adapt or shelve those models - just like people had to do with their WFB armies (yes, I'm still bitter about my dwarves being pretty much squatted to force buying new balloon boys or head-dress fetish ones). GW have learned that doing it one fell stroke generates a LOT of backlash; so for 40k, they're doing it in stages. Mandatory power levels is next ratchet turn.

[Captain Idaho]

6 minutes ago, Brother_Angelus said:

I'd put good money on it changing in this edition. 

 

"For Matched Play, here are itemised points and variable squad sizes, just as planned!"

 

Oh yeah, they can add "Matched play" datasheets for things they messed up, like Vanguard and Wulfen, while they're at it.

[Sir Clausel]

I like the streamlining that has been done. But some of it is overdone if youd ask me. 

Some weapons needed to be brought up in power to match others. I like that a lot of weapons have clear targets for what they are good against. And you want weapons that are good against different targets because thats what you usually go against. 

But sometimes the options just aint worth the same. Some options are just plain better and those needs to be costed correctly. 

Stuff like this adds to the fun of building a list.  And we need to be able to take whatever squadsizes we want without having to pay for models we arent using. I really do not like this. 

[Nagashsnee]

7 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

"For Matched Play, here are itemised points and variable squad sizes, just as planned!"

 

 

Even if they did, it would be even more rushed and poorly put together/play tested then what we got now. The whole point of a new edition is that it was planned and tested to be BETTER.  The 3 year circle just doesn't allow for that, and dropping the ball and trying to rush fixes even less so. 

 

The more i think about 10th the more i settle on the view that making a balanced game simply is NOT a priority for them, either cause their aim is purely beer and pretzel or cause it conflicts with their actual priorities whatever those are. 

[Valkyrion]

Everyone should cancel their Leviathan sets ordered from GW Direct (keep the ones ordered via indies - they shouldn't suffer). There's no greater sign of community displeasure than the withholding of money. 

[AenarIT]

5 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Everyone should cancel their Leviathan sets ordered from GW Direct (keep the ones ordered via indies - they shouldn't suffer). There's no greater sign of community displeasure than the withholding of money. 

That's what I'll do. 
In a couple of years time, when leviathan boxes become scarcer on the secondary market, they will go for RRP or even more. 
Once considering for the FLGS discount, that's going to beat inflation for sure.

[Captain Idaho]

17 minutes ago, Nagashsnee said:

Even if they did, it would be even more rushed and poorly put together/play tested then what we got now. The whole point of a new edition is that it was planned and tested to be BETTER.  The 3 year circle just doesn't allow for that, and dropping the ball and trying to rush fixes even less so. 

 

The more i think about 10th the more i settle on the view that making a balanced game simply is NOT a priority for them, either cause their aim is purely beer and pretzel or cause it conflicts with their actual priorities whatever those are. 

 

Oh yeah, totally.

 

Let's just say I know a guy who reliably told me that playtesting was more insufficient than you might think... don't want to reveal his information here but when he told us we were like... wow. That's awful.

[OttoVonAwesome]

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Fists tend to hit on the best weapon skill now, while thunder hammers have one worse point. So it's trading reliability for potential spike damage, but honestly unless you can juice up the amount of attacks for thunder hammers you're better off taking fists on seargents.

That's one that's not as obvious as say Chainsword vs Power weapon but I'm still not too sure on cuase mortal wounds are mortal wounds and the difference isn't that vast it's just a hit modifier but if I spike a 6 then AP isn't an issue at all it just goes through invulnerables included. Now if they were one less AP and two more Str or had a different ability like Lethal hits or twin linked or something the choice between Thunder Hammers and Powerfists would be tougher but as it stands mortal wounds are mortal wounds and the real nasty buggers with Invul's are set at 4++ also Oath of Moment exists so the only situation I'm seeing where a powerfist is legitematly better aside from hordes and well Power weapons are allegedly better there is when I've attached an Lt or am getting lethal hits from another source but then we come back to it mortal wounds are mortal wounds and 2+ saves and invuls mean nothing to them.

9 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

Oh yeah, totally.

 

Let's just say I know a guy who reliably told me that playtesting was more insufficient than you might think... don't want to reveal his information here but when he told us we were like... wow. That's awful.

I could tell that too just from the cycle and how they culll thier data and well all of 9th edition. They haven't really playtested in ernest since 5th edition.