Wh40k 10th Edition Munitorum Field Manual (Points)

[jimbo1701]

I play so rarely these days that the impact it will have on me is minimal but I do feel it’s a shame they have gone with this system. I feel it is for making things (in theory) simpler for players and also for the rules team when balancing things. Reality may vary. I wonder if they did a community survey on this what the response would be? If overwhelmingly negative they can upload a completely different pdf for people to use but the app I suspect would be nowhere near as simple to rectify. 

[Blindhamster]

10 minutes ago, jimbo1701 said:

I play so rarely these days that the impact it will have on me is minimal but I do feel it’s a shame they have gone with this system. I feel it is for making things (in theory) simpler for players and also for the rules team when balancing things. Reality may vary. I wonder if they did a community survey on this what the response would be? If overwhelmingly negative they can upload a completely different pdf for people to use but the app I suspect would be nowhere near as simple to rectify. 

I think a community survey for this would be amazing.

Tbh, even a B&C poll for it would be great.

[Antarius]

I know this is not a fix, depending on how/where you play and who you play with. But if I was going to play 10th, I’d just divide squad size by 5 or 10 to figure out what one dude costs.

I sorta hope the apparent shortcomings of the new system will break people out of the idea that you can’t change the game to suit your needs.

[Dark Legionnare]

6 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I know this is not a fix, depending on how/where you play and who you play with. But if I was going to play 10th, I’d just divide squad size by 5 or 10 to figure out what one dude costs.

I sorta hope the apparent shortcomings of the new system will break people out of the idea that you can’t change the game to suit your needs.

For sure.

 

That's what we're doing with our games today for folks who have the mystical "four" members of smaller squads that are ao often a taboo number for some reason. So many smaller units go "3,5,6" for some absolutely unknown, nonsensical reason.

 

 

[phandaal]

39 minutes ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Here's hoping The Old World is better.

 

Hoo boy. I get the feeling like that one will be an even wilder :cuss: show than 10th Ed's launch. Real "did my homework on the bus" vibes. Only saving grace is because the target audience is so much smaller, the blowup will be more contained.

[Redcomet]

17 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Hoo boy. I get the feeling like that one will be an even wilder show than 10th Ed's launch. Real "did my homework on the bus" vibes. Only saving grace is because the target audience is so much smaller, the blowup will be more contained.

I dunno. The target demographic is veterans who already have armies. So old farts. Who LOVE to be bitter. 

[Sergeant Bastone]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

In fairness were you really able to do that anyway? 

Those 3 little changes i described were 60 points.  Change another powerfist to a power weapon and i have another infantry squad.

[Bazza]

Having granular points for weapons options does have a cost associated with it.  It's true that removing them means that there's no reason to use less powerful options *if you are prioritizing having the most cost effective options*, but not everybody does, and it's also true that having to consider the options is a cost, and having to spend more time pricing out your list is also a cost.  If I don't care about always using the most cost effective options then I'm adding work to the process of building a list (both in doing math and in the uncertainty of knowing how much a unit I want to add will cost until I do some analysis and math) for no benefit (to me).  I get that a lot of people here enjoy that part of the experience, but it's important to recognize that there is a cost associated with that extra step, and there absolutely are people who will not miss it at all. 

 

GW is very clearly prioritizing the see it -> buy it -> use it sequence, and stripping away things that add steps to that process, like looking through a bunch of weapon options, figuring out the best load-out and pricing out your army.  They aren't going to walk this back.  This is pretty clearly the strategy.

 

If you liked that part of the experience, then I'm sorry that the game is moving away from you, but GW is going to pursue the demographics that they're going to pursue.  Personally I don't love the fixed squad sizes, I have a lot of older armies where I can't use everything now and good luck getting more of those models to fill them out, but I had to give up on 9th entirely because it was just too needlessly complex and overdone, and I'm looking forward to getting back into it with the new edition.  Taken as a set I will take the 10th ed changes all day every day, and even the ones that I don't love, I see the reasoning behind it.

[Sergeant Bastone]

Ages ago I built my first sentinels and put multilasers on them because that's what an AT-ST has for a weapon.  I should have put plasma cannons on them because it's a much better weapon.  At the time multilasers were 20 points cheaper so I at least got the benefit of them being cheap so I didn't feel like I Built Them Wrong.  Now they are the same points cost and the multilaser is a terrible weapon choice.  I now feel like I Built Them Wrong.

 

I can understand the "It's not the end of the world" people.  It's not the end of the world.  But i can't at all understand the "I welcome this change" people.  Thinking about lists, tinkering with lists, etc was a big part of my engagement with and enjoyment of the game.  I'm trying to build a 1000 point list for Thursday and while I'm still excited to play the list building part is way less fun for me now.  And even kind of frustrating.

 

An example: Player A likes to load his tanks up with multimeltas and hunter killers and all the bells and whistles.  Player B likes to run his tanks barebones and cheap and uncluttered by ugly sponsons.  Up until a couple of days ago both players could build their tanks they way they wanted to but now Player B can't.  What is there to welcome about this?

 

(this player B doesn't even know where his sponsons and hunter killer missiles are anymore)

Edited June 18, 2023 by Sergeant Bastone
Put best part first

[Kallas]

16 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Those 3 little changes i described were 60 points.  Change another powerfist to a power weapon and i have another infantry squad.

My friend has modeled his Leman Russ without sponsons, because he prefered them that way. Now he's punished for not having them - because his LRs simply have less firepower, instead of him having like 30pts extra or whatever per LR.

 

Some people are acting like these options weren't useful, but they were.

 

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

In fairness were you really able to do that anyway? 

It was never about a single item of wargear (unless it was a particularly expensive thing) allowing sweeping changes, it was about the cumulative effect generating a difference. You used to be able to consider going with minimal upgrades to allow yourself some extra room for more bodies (ie, Boys Over Toys) or the other way, with wiggle room in the middle. But with the 10e method, there is no choice: you take all of the toys you possibly can, or else your unit is actually worse off than the unit your opponent is using...which costs exactly the same but with more stuff.

 

Like @Sergeant Bastone said above, taking off those extra bits of wargear netted 60pts: that's another Officer for Orders for a different style of list, but not in 10e, where you don't get to choose.

[Ahzek451]

It is what it is. GW has always claimed to by a modeling(and IP) company first and game second. They know the game is a great vehicle to sell the models, but what incentive do they have to change the business structure? The business structure that has never once changed from 2nd ed on wards, which is to release an edition and codex books without ever letting the dust settle once(and if) refined. Change for the sake of Change because a new edition means more books to sell and a new hype period to grab new players and a bit more money from existing players. A business model GW sees little incentive to change. 

That being said, this model only requires a functioning game (the functioning part, of course being debatable), and no real need for refinement for any real duration because it would brake the business model cycle described above. Back then it used to be more of a secret on the inner workings of GW, now with a lot of those in-house secrets on game design and business decision being exposed and open to the world via social media/podcasts/etc., we know GW will continue to play out the cycle until one day it makes no business sense to do so. Every edition its the same thing, no matter how many positive "this one will be the best, you'll see!" lines they put out. New core game ideas is what shakes the game up and grabs attention, health of the balance and functional of the game is secondary and only needs the minimal effort to appear like it was cared for. 

So what is the point? Perspective I suppose. Tempering expectations. Although I will say, out of every edition release I have seen (since 3rd on wards), 10th is starting out to be one of the most controversial than the others. Even over 8th.  Which is understandable. It is a very nuanced combination of things, I think the summarized version being: "how can the index release with its myriad of errors and easily spotted imbalances spotted on day 1 coupled with a core rule system requiring a moderately lengthy commentary and clarification document day 1, be allowed? Have they learned nothing from the past? 

At which I then point to the beginning of my post: change for the sake of change, modeling company first. This is their business model. And if there is grief to be had, I wouldn't put it on the shoulders of the game designers. Upper management makes these calls. To continue with the same business model.  Tzeentch is the most powerful chaos god at GW HQ. 

The saving grace is, seemingly GW is willing to make changes(for many editions we never had this), leaving the bulk of game design balance in the hands of the players. However, as we have seen time and time again, we will see a long road of chaos as every new codex books shifts the game itself (much like the ever shifting warp) until finally, all the codex books are out, the relevant FAQ's and errata have finally settled and calmed the tides for one of the briefest periods of an editions cycle, and then...in a cruel twist of fate...that short lived calm is all uprooted again and the cycle repeats.   

 

I suppose all I'm saying is this is the nature of the beast, and we accept it in a way. Y'all go back and forth over some of the issues of the new edition and it's just the same echo that goes on repeat with every edition release. If there is a problem, its are the core of the business model and not the game. Because the Business model is what is dictating these grand resets as apposed to a more natural and positive evolution to a complex game system. 

 

There are natural reasons to push the reset on a game, and theres doing it "just because" which is what it feels like with GW. They introduce new ideas but keep rotating the same mistakes. But that is by design, via their business model. 

 

It would be fantastic if we just had an edition where all the primarily issues and imbalanced hammered out, and then just left alone for awhile to enjoy instead of jumping into a new edition and resetting the clock. 

 

40k has ever been the "Artefacts" episode on hammer and bolter. We are the black legion, and GW is trazyn. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Ahzek451

[Arkhanist]

1 hour 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.

 

=][=

 

Having the 'anyone less excited for 10th' thread in amicus arbitrarily closed, while the 'good job GW' thread stays open, means this has become a magnet thread for people's unhappiness; particularly since a LOT of that unhappiness IS about the new points method specifically. That and mass deletion of comments for being offtopic or not being 'positive' enough (because the more appropriate thread is shut) is having the opposite effect to intended.

 

And being told that everything is fine and we should stop whining by frater is rather the cherry on top. Between that and moderation enforcing being nice about GW is putting me right off B&C right now.

[Oxydo]

8 minutes ago, Bazza said:

Having granular points for weapons options does have a cost associated with it.  It's true that removing them means that there's no reason to use less powerful options *if you are prioritizing having the most cost effective options*, but not everybody does, and it's also true that having to consider the options is a cost, and having to spend more time pricing out your list is also a cost.  If I don't care about always using the most cost effective options then I'm adding work to the process of building a list (both in doing math and in the uncertainty of knowing how much a unit I want to add will cost until I do some analysis and math) for no benefit (to me).  I get that a lot of people here enjoy that part of the experience, but it's important to recognize that there is a cost associated with that extra step, and there absolutely are people who will not miss it at all. 

 

GW is very clearly prioritizing the see it -> buy it -> use it sequence, and stripping away things that add steps to that process, like looking through a bunch of weapon options, figuring out the best load-out and pricing out your army.  They aren't going to walk this back.  This is pretty clearly the strategy.

 

If you liked that part of the experience, then I'm sorry that the game is moving away from you, but GW is going to pursue the demographics that they're going to pursue.  Personally I don't love the fixed squad sizes, I have a lot of older armies where I can't use everything now and good luck getting more of those models to fill them out, but I had to give up on 9th entirely because it was just too needlessly complex and overdone, and I'm looking forward to getting back into it with the new edition.  Taken as a set I will take the 10th ed changes all day every day, and even the ones that I don't love, I see the reasoning behind it.

 

The sticky issue is that by not taking the optimised set up in 10th is that you are actively punished for not doing it because the units will be priced according to their optimal performance.

 

Guess what, this system already existed in 8th and 9th and you could have used it if you wanted to. It was called Power Level. Are there any specific reasons you didnt use it?

[Bazza]

22 minutes ago, Oxydo said:

 

The sticky issue is that by not taking the optimised set up in 10th is that you are actively punished for not doing it because the units will be priced according to their optimal performance.

 

Guess what, this system already existed in 8th and 9th and you could have used it if you wanted to. It was called Power Level. Are there any specific reasons you didnt use it?

 

Again, you're punished if cost optimization is a priority for you.  I'm not saying it's good or bad or common or uncommon, but that's the necessary piece for that argument to proceed. 

 

As for PL, I played more Crusade than anything else in 9th so I did use power level, mostly.  I was okay with points when that's what people wanted to do.  I see the value in granular points.  All I'm saying is that there is a cost to that, and from GW's point of view it makes a lot of sense to remove that cost.  All things being equal I would probably have chosen to keep points if I were in charge, but I see why they went the other way and I can live with it.  It does have its upside, although B&C is very clearly heavily loaded with people for whom that upside isn't obvious.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Bazza

[Bazza]

Really, the issue now is that, if you are prioritizing taking the most optimal choice, there is only one optimal choice.  If you care about other things more than which choice is most optimal, the new system gives you what you wanted with less work.  So you're reducing the level of effort for one group of people in exchange for reducing the range of "viable" options for a different group of people.  You can argue about the tradeoffs and relative merits of that decision, but it's a decision they made, not a mistake.

 

It's totally fair and reasonable to be upset about it, but I personally don't expect them to change direction.

[Blindhamster]

35 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

 

Having the 'anyone less excited for 10th' thread in amicus arbitrarily closed, while the 'good job GW' thread stays open, means this has become a magnet thread for people's unhappiness; particularly since a LOT of that unhappiness IS about the new points method specifically. That and mass deletion of comments for being offtopic or not being 'positive' enough (because the more appropriate thread is shut) is having the opposite effect to intended.

 

And being told that everything is fine and we should stop whining by frater is rather the cherry on top. Between that and moderation enforcing being nice about GW is putting me right off B&C right now.

I don't think Idaho is saying "don't be vocal about the issues you have with the points stuff", I think he's saying "respect that your fellow frater have different opinions (potentially)".

 

Not sniping eachother for having different opinions is a start.

 

Overall I doubt anyone is 100% satisfied with the points system (I honestly fall into the category of thinking "wow this is bad", but it didn't mean I resorted to name calling or anything if others liked it - not saying you did either, more defending Idaho in that there wasn't a statement of "be nice about GW", there was a statement of "be nice to eachother").

 

and yes, I agree the "anyone less excited for 10th" thread should be reopened, there's clearly a lot of people that aren't enthused, and having a proper place to talk about that would be helpful.

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Bazza said:

Really, the issue now is that, if you are prioritizing taking the most optimal choice, there is only one optimal choice.  If you care about other things more than which choice is most optimal, the new system gives you what you wanted with less work.  So you're reducing the level of effort for one group of people in exchange for reducing the range of "viable" options for a different group of people.  You can argue about the tradeoffs and relative merits of that decision, but it's a decision they made, not a mistake.

 

It's totally fair and reasonable to be upset about it, but I personally don't expect them to change direction.

This has been explained before in this thread, but no, the new system does not let you “take what you want” with “less work” it actively punishes taking anything other than the best choice, especially when the choice is X weapon or nothing, or upgrading bolt weapons to special weapons.

 

Let’s take sponsonless tanks, as others have noted. Say you think they look cooler that way, or you play White Scars and read in lore that WS like to run sponsonless Predators. This was never optimal, but before you would pay fewer points for such a tank, which you could then use to buy upgrades for other units, or combine with other saved upgrade points to buy a whole other unit.

 

Now that is gone. You can still run your sponsonless tank, but instead of it being “suboptimal but with the tradeoff of more upgrades or new unit elsewhere” it’s just strictly worse, which means worse in every way. Not just suboptimal, which means that the tradeoff is statistically probably not worth it. There is no tradeoff. You are losing shots from the sponson guns, but not gaining anything in return. So it’s punishing people that model for fluff or appearance by turning what was before merely judged “wrong on average” into wrong in every case, with no upside.

 

That said, I agree that it probably won’t change.

[Redcomet]

51 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

 

Having the 'anyone less excited for 10th' thread in amicus arbitrarily closed, while the 'good job GW' thread stays open, means this has become a magnet thread for people's unhappiness; particularly since a LOT of that unhappiness IS about the new points method specifically. That and mass deletion of comments for being offtopic or not being 'positive' enough (because the more appropriate thread is shut) is having the opposite effect to intended.

 

And being told that everything is fine and we should stop whining by frater is rather the cherry on top. Between that and moderation enforcing being nice about GW is putting me right off B&C right now.

Or maybe take a break from venting. You are unhappy. We get it. Many are. And have been saying it for days now. No one is saying your aren’t allowed to be unhappy, but saying it every where all the time is not constructive. I am not super thrilled either. But at some point you just gotta stop. Read a book. Get a beer. Go for a walk. Put your your mind to something other than 40k for a while. 

[Arkhanist]

20 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

Or maybe take a break from venting. You are unhappy. We get it. Many are. And have been saying it for days now. No one is saying your aren’t allowed to be unhappy, but saying it every where all the time is not constructive. I am not super thrilled either. But at some point you just gotta stop. Read a book. Get a beer. Go for a walk. Put your your mind to something other than 40k for a while. 

 

I have been, I've spent a lovely day with my family. My comment above was my only one on the whole site for more than 24 hours, and I'm not intending to make any more after this one today. Yet apparently that is still too much.

 

35 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I don't think Idaho is saying "don't be vocal about the issues you have with the points stuff",

 

 

No, he didn't, but other moderation actions certainly have been making that point instead.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Arkhanist

[Oxydo]

54 minutes ago, Bazza said:

 

Again, you're punished if cost optimization is a priority for you.  I'm not saying it's good or bad or common or uncommon, but that's the necessary piece for that argument to proceed. 

 

As for PL, I played more Crusade than anything else in 9th so I did use power level, mostly.  I was okay with points when that's what people wanted to do.  I see the value in granular points.  All I'm saying is that there is a cost to that, and from GW's point of view it makes a lot of sense to remove that cost.  All things being equal I would probably have chosen to keep points if I were in charge, but I see why they went the other way and I can live with it.  It does have its upside, although B&C is very clearly heavily loaded with people for whom that upside isn't obvious.

 

No, you get punished for not running the optimal loadout with all the extra.

 

Lets take a simple example, crisis suits.

 

9th: If you kit your 3 suits with 2 Burst cannons, 1 flamer and 1 shield generator each you get a okish unit for 210 pts.

If you instead pick the strongest/most expensive weapon per slot and go for 3 CIBs and shield generators each max out drones and all the other extras, you get a squad that pumps out a horrendous amount of firepower and is extremely hard to kill. But it costs you 415.

 

10th: welp, I guess they cost the same now regardless of performance and impact. As soon as said murder-ball of crisis suits have run roughshod over people they will get a price increase. This will make your fluffy, non-oppressive and even kinda :cuss:e BC-Flamer Crisis even worse for what you pay for them.

Bonus punishment for having to change your entire army for when that price increase causes your forces to go over the pts limit and there is no other way to cut costs.

 

Liking the PL system is fine, dont get me wrong, but it is not in any way, shape or form more balanced or easier to balance. Nor does it somehow only punish optimisers. It rewards optimisers while actively punishing non-optimisers. So please, for the love of the Emperor, stop trying to claim the opposite.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Oxydo

[Antarius]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Ages ago I built my first sentinels and put multilasers on them because that's what an AT-ST has for a weapon.  I should have put plasma cannons on them because it's a much better weapon.  At the time multilasers were 20 points cheaper so I at least got the benefit of them being cheap so I didn't feel like I Built Them Wrong.  Now they are the same points cost and the multilaser is a terrible weapon choice.  I now feel like I Built Them Wrong.

 

I can understand the "It's not the end of the world" people.  It's not the end of the world.  But i can't at all understand the "I welcome this change" people.  Thinking about lists, tinkering with lists, etc was a big part of my engagement with and enjoyment of the game.  I'm trying to build a 1000 point list for Thursday and while I'm still excited to play the list building part is way less fun for me now.  And even kind of frustrating.

 

An example: Player A likes to load his tanks up with multimeltas and hunter killers and all the bells and whistles.  Player B likes to run his tanks barebones and cheap and uncluttered by ugly sponsons.  Up until a couple of days ago both players could build their tanks they way they wanted to but now Player B can't.  What is there to welcome about this?

 

(this player B doesn't even know where his sponsons and hunter killer missiles are anymore)

I don't relish these changes myself, but, point of order: Player B CAN still build his tanks the way he wants to.
I see your point and agree with it up to a point, but your point really is "why would he" not "he can't", because he absolutely can. And, love it or hate it, that's probably GW's reasoning: people can now build their models however they like and not worry about points. For most people, this will mean tacking all the upgrades in the world on it, but I don't think that's a given for everyone.

Personally, if I were player B I'd talk to player A about getting a discount on my un-sponsoned tanks (or just run them as fully upgraded and remind people that they actually had plasma sponsons or whatever), but if there were actual balanced point options for weapons/wargear that would ofc suit me much better. There's never really been that though. I mean, there's been more granularity, but there's never been balanced points for upgrades. One edition plasma pistols were undercosted, so people stuck them on everyone who could take one; next edition they were overcosted and strictly a "fluff" choice for filthy casuals.

So, again, it's not relly a new problem, although I agree that the scale of the problem is bigger (or at least more noticeable) with this approach.

Actually, I think my ideal scenario would be fixed points, but equally useful weapons/wargear (i.e. a chainsword would be different, not worse than a power sword) like someone else mentioned upthread. But that's neither here nor there...

Edited June 18, 2023 by Antarius

[littledave89]

This topic has kept me well entertained, people just need to learn adapt to the new situation, this is what 40k needed by a long shot, old way was to bloated in the list building, this way is straight to the point.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Tyriks
trolling

[Captain Idaho]

52 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I don't think Idaho is saying "don't be vocal about the issues you have with the points stuff", I think he's saying "respect that your fellow frater have different opinions (potentially)".

 

Not sniping eachother for having different opinions is a start.

 

1 hour ago, Arkhanist said:

 

Having the 'anyone less excited for 10th' thread in amicus arbitrarily closed, while the 'good job GW' thread stays open, means this has become a magnet thread for people's unhappiness; particularly since a LOT of that unhappiness IS about the new points method specifically. That and mass deletion of comments for being offtopic or not being 'positive' enough (because the more appropriate thread is shut) is having the opposite effect to intended.

 

And being told that everything is fine and we should stop whining by frater is rather the cherry on top. Between that and moderation enforcing being nice about GW is putting me right off B&C right now.

 

It's not the place to discuss it here, but since it is was raised, I can confirm so we can move on that I'm definitely not trying to stifle opinion with that post, I don't think anyone has accused me of being overly positive about 40K and GW before, after all! Nor is it the intent for the team when stuff was removed.

 

Tensions are high I know, let's just not be too spicy with each other.

 

And as I said, it is desirable we have all voices and that includes those being "negative" about a product for sure. (Terms I don't like as it is dismissive and setting a context for right and wrong opinions. I'd prefer just "critical of X")

Edited June 18, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

2 hours ago, jimbo1701 said:

I play so rarely these days that the impact it will have on me is minimal but I do feel it’s a shame they have gone with this system. I feel it is for making things (in theory) simpler for players and also for the rules team when balancing things. Reality may vary. I wonder if they did a community survey on this what the response would be? If overwhelmingly negative they can upload a completely different pdf for people to use but the app I suspect would be nowhere near as simple to rectify. 

 

 

It bothers me that GW doesn't engage with us more if I'm being honest. They've benefited from taking our feedback, and yet they don't seem to learn from it. Compare the release for SoB in 8th to leagues of votann. Both were effectively new armies (SoB were barely supported for years and actually cheaper when they went to plastic kits lol). One had a beta codex and a feedback period that they used well and one was getting updates before it shipped.

 

They have a boatload of free playtesters if they want them.

 

1 hour ago, Oxydo said:

 

The sticky issue is that by not taking the optimised set up in 10th is that you are actively punished for not doing it because the units will be priced according to their optimal performance.

 

Guess what, this system already existed in 8th and 9th and you could have used it if you wanted to. It was called Power Level. Are there any specific reasons you didnt use it?

 

I don't like they basically went to a more granular power level, but I don't think it punishes people anymore than it has in the past for building non-optimal units. There always has a been a pretty big difference between optimal builds and everything else cause 40k has never been particularly balanced. What bothers me is that there were some options that just haven't been used in a long time, and they didn't try to make them better.

 

As far as power level goes, the reason I didn't use it is because the optimal builds with points, and the optimal builds for power level were vastly different. 

 

[Scribe]

56 minutes ago, littledave89 said:

This topic has kept me well entertained, people just need to learn adapt to the new situation, this is what 40k needed by a long shot, old way was to bloated in the list building, this way is straight to the point.

 

Your /s is missing.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Tyriks
removed quote