Wh40k 10th Edition Munitorum Field Manual (Points)

[Interrogator Stobz]

17 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

The introduction of characters joining units seems to go against the whole "simplified not simple". So much janky interactions. More questions than simplicity.

That's one bit I really do like, I way prefer it to bubbles. But it is still Janky with its execution. 

Needs work 3/5 stars

[Zebukkuk]

Just to back up the speculation that these points and army list options were rushed out at the final hour…. compare the old squadrons.

 

For example the Craftworlds— Vaul’s Wrath support weapons, Vypers, and War Walkers came in squadrons of one to three models prior to this document. Now they are units of one. That’s a max of three individual models in any given war host.

 

OK…. look at the Adeptus Mechanicus list. Ironstrider Balistarii and Sydonian Dragoons can be taken in squadrons of one, two, or three models in line with the latest codex. So you can have nine Balistarii and nine Dragoons in the same clade.

 

 

I don’t see any consistency here. What I *am* seeing is absolute minimal effort on something they were promoting as being far better than the Index books at the beginning of 8th edition.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Zebukkuk

[MaximusTL]

points definitely need a touch up. I see and feel both sides of the 'wargear should/shouldn't have points costs' arguement. i think that if they keep costs rolled into the unit, they should work harder to options balanced (for example, i think marine chainswords should have 2 more attacks than a power weapon given the lower strength and AP).

 

Honestly, my biggest gripe with tenth is making melee weak. Melee is more diffiuclt to use than shooting (having to actually get there) and riskier (being shot at the whole time, and then your target getting to swing back). Because of this, it makes good game sense to have melee units have more damage than shooting - it makes close quarters combat High risk High reward. right now, melee armies as in general seem to be at a disadvantage IMO. at the very least, its very frustrating that melee anti-vehicle weapons are ineffective at their roles now. One of my fondest memories is of dropping a 10-man squad of death company, all but one thunderhammer being shot off the board, and then that lone marine smashing apart a hammerhead. nowadays he would jut bounce off.

[MARK0SIAN]

I really dislike this way of doing points but I don’t think they’ll change. If this is how the 10th edition app has been built then changing back to costing wargear separately and adding single models to units instead of bricks of 5/10 would require a fairly major change to the app. They’ve already proved they can’t make an app that can reliably do that so I don’t think they’ll want to go that route. 
 

Sadly, I think this system is here to stay but I would dearly love to be wrong!

[Antarius]

On 6/16/2023 at 6:29 PM, phandaal said:

 

Yeah. Mainly, this will not be a net positive for the more fluffy people, since fluff no longer comes at a discount.

 

And like others have said, this will do nothing to streamline the actual gameplay experience because list building takes place before the game.

It never did, though. Not saying this is great, but fluffy choices have been ridiculed (not by everyone ofc) precisely because they’re not points efficient, since at least 5th edition. For as long as I’ve been aware of Warhammer 40.000 forums, “fluff choice” has really meant “overcosted”. In other words, there’s never been a “fluff discount”, rather there’s been a “fluff premium”, because fluffy choices means overpaying for what you get in terms of mechanical value. If it didn’t, it would never have been a problem to begin with.

 

So, again, not saying this set of points values looks great, but the core problem itself isn’t new.

[Brother Captain Alberic]

We do need to bear in mind this is only the start of an edition they will change things by the time the codexes come out. Saying that I’d rather not go back to having to tweak tiny points amounts to get a round 2k.

In my experience given a few months from an edition change things do calm down again.

[Ephialtes]

54 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I really dislike this way of doing points but I don’t think they’ll change. If this is how the 10th edition app has been built then changing back to costing wargear separately and adding single models to units instead of bricks of 5/10 would require a fairly major change to the app. They’ve already proved they can’t make an app that can reliably do that so I don’t think they’ll want to go that route. 
 

Sadly, I think this system is here to stay but I would dearly love to be wrong!

 

This growing theory that the app is what drives the rules is, imho, absolute nonsense. Similarly, the notion that the app will constrain future development of 10th edition doesn't really hold water. GW's 'digital strategy' (if you can call it that) is not their business strategy. 

 

AoS has not yet made it out of beta and into the WH+ sub, the Vault content is slowing down, animation disappeared for almost 6 months and they think so little of their existing 40k app they announced their new one by saying "It actually works!".

 

GW just announced £440m worth of revenue (record levels!) and £170m of profit before tax (record levels!) and very, very little of that is down to WH+ which is a service that has so few subscribers they don't even bother to declare it in their annual report (compare to My Warhammer where they have announced the stats and growth).

 

The rules studio is not going to hamstring its number 1 money maker to an app that is part of that and, for its previous edition, was much derided for most of its life.

 

Or, short version, you could reintroduce wargear via paper only and have the app be a 'not PL army building app' as quickly as you could write the rules down. This would actually be in line with GW's digital content strategy, which is mainly to support new entrants to the hobby and give them a starting point, and let everyone else take care of the rest.

[Captain Idaho]

When AoS went no points and the game tanked, its supporters at the time and GW said it was just a few online malcontents until they 180'd that and said "we always planned to!"

 

It's possible GW will 180 this too if feedback does impact sales. A few people in a store having fun is a good sign initially, but the overall feeling has turned toxic for GW for the launch of something they should be rocking.

 

Just too many missteps leading up to this final straw. I think people were working with the FW legends and upset, but the points just piled on top as a massive problem.

 

Still, this is not AoS at its inception. It could be worse, it could be business as usual. We don't know as GW surely wouldn't AoS their money maker... but they did in a way we didn't see coming.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[MARK0SIAN]

7 minutes ago, Ephialtes said:

 

This growing theory that the app is what drives the rules is, imho, absolute nonsense. Similarly, the notion that the app will constrain future development of 10th edition doesn't really hold water. GW's 'digital strategy' (if you can call it that) is not their business strategy. 

 

AoS has not yet made it out of beta and into the WH+ sub, the Vault content is slowing down, animation disappeared for almost 6 months and they think so little of their existing 40k app they announced their new one by saying "It actually works!".

 

GW just announced £440m worth of revenue (record levels!) and £170m of profit before tax (record levels!) and very, very little of that is down to WH+ which is a service that has so few subscribers they don't even bother to declare it in their annual report (compare to My Warhammer where they have announced the stats and growth).

 

The rules studio is not going to hamstring its number 1 money maker to an app that is part of that and, for its previous edition, was much derided for most of its life.

 

Or, short version, you could reintroduce wargear via paper only and have the app be a 'not PL army building app' as quickly as you could write the rules down. This would actually be in line with GW's digital content strategy, which is mainly to support new entrants to the hobby and give them a starting point, and let everyone else take care of the rest.

To be clear, I don’t believe the app did drive the creation of the rules. I’m saying that if they wanted to change tack now then that would require either invalidating the app or altering it to work in a way they haven’t been able to in the past. That will make them more reluctant to make any significant changes to the current system.

 

I also doubt they’d go for a system where you have to create lists manually to pay for wargear and just use the app for a simple version. It just reeks of giving up and admitting you can’t do it.

 

As for the rules writers hamstringing themselves, they’ve hamstrung themselves over significantly less significant things in the past. We went through an entire edition (8th) where they tried to fix every problem that units had by using points cuts/increases because they refused to alter data sheet abilities as it would render the codexes obsolete (even though various errata and points costs adjustments had already done that).

 

They limited players (and their own) options and invalidated people’s existing armies by insisting wargear had to be only what was in the box. This also resulted in things like Primaris Captains having multiple data sheets because you had to have one for a captain with fist and plasma pistol, another for a captain with sword and shield etc rather than just combining them. Likewise the nonsense transport restrictions between Primaris and first born marines purely to keep them separate.
 

They have avoided doing the things that make the most sense for the game for lots of trivial reasons, having to rewrite their app to accommodate the changes easily fits this pattern as a reason they wouldn’t do something.

[Petitioner's City]

I think what will actually affect the points situation (and squad size situation) going forward is if points are in the codices or not.

 

If they aren't in the codices, the studio can easily change how point is done and add back in individual models and individuated wargear costs, by editing this pdf document at the drop of a hat.

 

If the points are in the codices, then this pointing system will exist at least until the release schedule gets past any books that have been finished and sent to the printers (ie those releasing more than a year from now?). Until at least that point we will keep seeing the paradigm the studio decided was what it wanted for the edition - and even any negative feedback right now might not be actioned until they have data that says yay or no to it.

 

The Goons do suggest all points will be purely digital this edition, which might be good. 

 

[Sergeant Bastone]

12 hours ago, Doghouse said:

I've been playing around with the points for a potential game with a mate of mine and I am genuinely not getting the usual enjoyment from list making that I've had in the past. I enjoy the whole robbing peter to pay paul aspect of the old system, fielding under strength max units to squeeze out the points for a character or extra wargear for a unit or vehicle that can tip the balance in my favour.

 

At the moment it feels like I am having to eat my greens before I am allowed dessert, it may sound daft but it feels like a bit of a chore because I am not really enjoying it. I get that it is quicker but for me personally it feels a bit soulless and I never found the old list building to be a lengthy process in the slightest anyway. It always gave me a sense of accomplishment when those decisions paid off in the actual game that followed.

 

We're hoping to get a game in tomorrow so I will see how I feel about it then. I'm not asking his opinion because he's a Death Guard player and not happy at the moment.

AND once you have your list you won't be able to add new units by changing that powerfist to a chainsword, taking the sponsons off, and downgrading the plasma pistol to a bolt pistol.  It'll have to be pure 'unit out, unit in'.  So I definitely won't be adding things to the army just because i wanted to model and paint them.

[Brother Captain Alberic]

4 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

AND once you have your list you won't be able to add new units by changing that powerfist to a chainsword, taking the sponsons off, and downgrading the plasma pistol to a bolt pistol.  It'll have to be pure 'unit out, unit in'.  So I definitely won't be adding things to the army just because i wanted to model and paint them.

To be honest I rarely change units from how I’ve modelled them anyway nor do I proxy very often. So this really doesn’t bother me much.

[Maschinenpriester]

I had my first game of 10th yesterday night.

The gaming experience itself did not feel too different to 9th to be frank.

Lethality was down a fair bit.

Necron Regeneration shenanigans are bonkers and highly penalizing for failing to wipe squads out.

 

I played CSM. In general i feel like they are in a good spot. I just would say noisemarines are borderline broken if it comes to points cost.

The amout of shooting they can pump out in a 5man squad for 85 points did not spark a lot of joy for my opponent.

 

Regarding listbuilding inmust say it is simple. Yes... but i did not enjoy it. There is no granularity, and no balance between all the options rendering a lot of options obsolete.

Noone needs an app anymore because lisbuilding can be done by a primitive exel sheet which every five year old can cobble togehter within 3 minutes.

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Maschinenpriester

[siegfriedfr]

I for one welcome the simplification of point managements and the introduction of not-power-levels points.

Sure, it's a paradigm change, and old timers are bound to make a scene out of it.

But in the end, given the size of their miniature range, they needed to simplify a few things, to at least make it easier to manage.

 

There is a reason Onepagerule and that russian website are popular : simplified loadouts, and free datasheets. GW is fighting back however they can.

Edited June 18, 2023 by siegfriedfr

[Ephialtes]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

To be clear, I don’t believe the app did drive the creation of the rules. I’m saying that if they wanted to change tack now then that would require either invalidating the app or altering it to work in a way they haven’t been able to in the past. That will make them more reluctant to make any significant changes to the current system.

 

I also doubt they’d go for a system where you have to create lists manually to pay for wargear and just use the app for a simple version. It just reeks of giving up and admitting you can’t do it.

 

As for the rules writers hamstringing themselves, they’ve hamstrung themselves over significantly less significant things in the past. We went through an entire edition (8th) where they tried to fix every problem that units had by using points cuts/increases because they refused to alter data sheet abilities as it would render the codexes obsolete (even though various errata and points costs adjustments had already done that).

 

They limited players (and their own) options and invalidated people’s existing armies by insisting wargear had to be only what was in the box. This also resulted in things like Primaris Captains having multiple data sheets because you had to have one for a captain with fist and plasma pistol, another for a captain with sword and shield etc rather than just combining them. Likewise the nonsense transport restrictions between Primaris and first born marines purely to keep them separate.
 

They have avoided doing the things that make the most sense for the game for lots of trivial reasons, having to rewrite their app to accommodate the changes easily fits this pattern as a reason they wouldn’t do something.

 

All of the things you cite there are core to the game (Codexes) and selling models (the ability to use them in game). The app is neither of those things. I'll go out on a limb and say there are more codexes sold than there are users of the app, but I have no citation.

 

To give you a real world example of how they get around any constraint the app presents: announce a new game type, "Super Turbo Maths Edition", with all the complexity we agonise over baked back into it. They release the points value either for free, or via a campaign book or books. Then they support it via the app in the exact same way they support crusade and boarding actions in the app; they don't.

 

Problem solved. The app still supports the 'core' version and is not invalidated, and however many people are using it to build lists can continue to use it.

[01RTB01]

53 minutes ago, Brother Captain Alberic said:

To be honest I rarely change units from how I’ve modelled them anyway nor do I proxy very often. So this really doesn’t bother me much.

I'm in the same boat. With over 12,000 points of orks my total list has shifted by about 20 or so points.

 

The difference is so meagre it doesn't register.

 

I understand people's frustration but people will get used to the change or they'll move on.

 

I certainly won't be ripping apart painted squads or models because of the points being fixed regardless of wargear equipped. 

 

The only thing I need to look at is army building rules as I get the impression I'm limited to 3 dreads as they're no longer squadrons. However, as they're also 150 each now, I can't see me wanting to take more than 3 in a 2k.list anyway. 

 

I shall Resere full judgement until I get some games in but I'm in no rush. 

[MARK0SIAN]

24 minutes ago, Ephialtes said:

 

All of the things you cite there are core to the game (Codexes) and selling models (the ability to use them in game). The app is neither of those things. I'll go out on a limb and say there are more codexes sold than there are users of the app, but I have no citation.

 

To give you a real world example of how they get around any constraint the app presents: announce a new game type, "Super Turbo Maths Edition", with all the complexity we agonise over baked back into it. They release the points value either for free, or via a campaign book or books. Then they support it via the app in the exact same way they support crusade and boarding actions in the app; they don't.

 

Problem solved. The app still supports the 'core' version and is not invalidated, and however many people are using it to build lists can continue to use it.

You must be correct about the number of codexes sold as you can't really use the app to build an army without buying the codex if you want view the rules for your units. I think however that what you're suggesting is pretty unlikely. I won't say impossible because GW do all sorts of things that we would never have imagined but they will know that most people will play the full version, they won't want their app to be relegated to supporting an entry level type game. Especially as the pressure from the player base will be for them to make the app work for the full game mode.

[Noserenda]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

I bet some guy at GW HQ is feeling frustrated over the fact that a bunch of men in their 30’s and 40’s are ripping into his firm’s newly released rules that they carefully crafted for what they see as their target market of 12 year olds on ADD medication.

I mean, its funny, but also Stu Black and at least one other member of the 40k team got their start in retail... 

[Warden-Paints]

1 hour ago, siegfriedfr said:

I for one welcome the simplification of point managements and the introduction of not-power-levels points.

Sure, it's a paradigm change, and old timers are bound to make a scene out of it.

But in the end, given the size of their miniature range, they needed to simplify a few things, to at least make it easier to manage.

 

There is a reason Onepagerule and that russian website are popular : simplified loadouts, and free datasheets. GW is fighting back however they can.

 

Interesting points. 

 

This game is so far removed from what it used to be, almost all of the simulation elements are gone. I do think it's a shame, but I also accept it. I will hopefully get some games in soon, I'm keen to judge for myself. 

[Redcomet]

3 hours ago, siegfriedfr said:

I for one welcome the simplification of point managements and the introduction of not-power-levels points.

Sure, it's a paradigm change, and old timers are bound to make a scene out of it.

But in the end, given the size of their miniature range, they needed to simplify a few things, to at least make it easier to manage.

 

There is a reason Onepagerule and that russian website are popular : simplified loadouts, and free datasheets. GW is fighting back however they can.

And for a while now there has been a trend towards simpler games, in both board games, ttrpgs and miniatures games. GW is if anything behind the curve.

[Captain Idaho]

 

=][= Let's cool our jets, guys. No need to get heated in here. And yes, we are allowed to like different things and have different opinions. Quite encouraged in fact. If someone says something you don't agree with and you feel it needs to be discussed, quote it and do so politely.

 

I know there is a lot of resentment to GW building here guys, I'm also not happy in case you haven't noticed, but it's critical the opposing viewpoints be allowed to be heard. Posts from both main viewpoints (it's actually a spectrum but whatever) are getting spikey. This is the B&C, let's save the spikes for our models.

 

Thank you.

 

=][=

Edited June 18, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[01RTB01]

5 hours ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

AND once you have your list you won't be able to add new units by changing that powerfist to a chainsword, taking the sponsons off, and downgrading the plasma pistol to a bolt pistol.  It'll have to be pure 'unit out, unit in'.  So I definitely won't be adding things to the army just because i wanted to model and paint them.

In fairness were you really able to do that anyway? 

[Blindhamster]

2 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

=][= Let's cool our jets, guys. No need to get heated in here. And yes, we are allowed to like different things and have different opinions. Quite encouraged in fact. If someone says something you don't agree with and you feel it need to be discussed, quote it and do so politely.

 

I know there is a lot of resentment to GW building here guys, I'm also not happy in case you haven't noticed, but it's critical the opposing viewpoints be allowed to be heard. Posts from both main viewpoints (it's actually a spectrum but whatever) are getting spikey. This is the B&C, let's save the spikes for our models.

 

Thank you.

 

=][=

sorry Idaho.

 

on topic:

 

Overall, the new points system feels a failure, not all options are equal, so the way points are handled sucks because now you’re essentially penalised for not taking the best option all the time - stifling modelling creativity.

 

the flat squad sizes really sucks for everyone that hasn’t already got their units built as such - I’ll need to buy another box of aggressors potentially as I have 5, and no spare bodies (6th was used for a conversion).

 

I also agree with the sentiment that the two main changes takes away from the decision making and opportunity to tweak lists and as others have said will likely result in one in one out mentality resulting in fewer people experimenting with lists as much.

 

I think most things in the game that changed overall I like, but yeah the points system and bodies buying both kinda suck to me

[Dont-Be-Haten]

It was a tough call on 10th edition. I've seen what I've needed to see though. I'll try it because I still have some 40k models, but I'm pretty much done with the system as a whole. Here's hoping The Old World is better.

 

That being said, hopefully, I'll get a few more good years out of heresy before they turn it into....into whatever -this- is.

 

 

 

[Malakithe]

6 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

In fairness were you really able to do that anyway?

Yes...all the time. I only ever took barebones vehicles to save points for other stuff. Like the Battlewagon. I liked the deff rolla. Never took the wreckin ball or klaw or 4 extra bit shootas due to points. Those points are saved and moved to something else. Same thing applies to most Guard and Space Marine vehicles.