Wh40k 10th Edition Munitorum Field Manual (Points)

[Bryan Blaire]

I don’t for a second believe that GW actually “listens to us” as opposed to “listens for what they want to hear already” and/or “garner and display feedback in a way to support what they wanted to do.”  They’d be fools to actually try and directly do what the community tells them to do (and if they did, the models would probably cost less).

 

Either that, or they’ve fallen into the age old trap of trying to please everyone.

 

Or, as I’ve said before, I just have to accept that this is not the game I love any more and move on - that’s okay, I can still paint and convert what I have, and only buy a model or two that are really cool when I finally work through my backlog.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Moonstalker]

8 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

So one of the topics of interest to me in online discussions is form.

 

You agree with most of us who are responding to posters saying you are now "free" to take suboptimal choices instead of confronting a Feels Bad from Building Wrong. That situation is unchanged due to it being unaffected here.

 

There is a separate parallel discussion as to whether the small updates mean anything that keeps intersecting

 

I'll admit to only having read the first few pages of the thread, and then skipped to the end and jumping in with my replies.  I am not sure who is on what side.

 

To try and be clearer, I am not about to get up in arms over this change.  Maybe the rich get richer, poor get poorer (or meta players get stronger, rule-of-cool players get tabled more), but I view that as a change of degrees, not of kind.  From that aspect I don't think this functionally changes anything - there'll still be the meta build, and all the other wrong ones.  That sucks, but GW hasn't demonstrated a knack for good balance and promoting high build diversity.  Players trade feeling like a sucker for paying 25 points for a missile launcher that shot twice and achieved nothing for feeling like a sucker for bringing 5 models in a 3/6 unit, and having to pay for a sixth guy they didn't bring.

 

It's difficult to argue against 'feels bad.'  As a GM and/or game developer, you always want to avoid making a player feel bad when playing a game, if you can help it - in that, GW have clearly failed.  I am of the opinion that a lot of the choices players were making likely did not matter as much as they might've thought (and that can hurt to confront, as we all like to think we're pretty sharp, that any of us could have the a-ha! moment that turns over the meta), but having the ability to make an inconsequential choice taken away from you can still feel bad.  It's within the realm of possibility (if not probability) that GW could make this not-power-level work where they failed with points  before - where players take units and their options to bring different tools to the tabletop, where there niches of weapons are more clearly defined with the expanded range of strength/toughness/anti-x/etc, and it's more about what you brought and how you used it than how you optimized your points.  It could promote more meaningful player choices as people cultivate a stable of units, ones that are good at x, good at y, bring special rule b that synergizes with special rule c, and it all works because they particularly like to play aggressively/defensively in a meta consisting of _____.

 

But if that's what they're aiming for, they've certainly failed in their messaging.

[Scribe]

Just as a quick note.

 

9th

10 Berzerker - 22 ppm

Plasma Pistol - 5 x 2

Evicerator - 5  x 2

Icon - 5 

- 245

 

10th

10 Berzerkers - 230

 

15 points per unit.

 

Rhinos are the same Combi Melta (10 pts) + Havoc (5 pts).

 

So, 30 points for free, for that combination. If I take 3 of them, thats a 'free' Jakhal squad, or almost Khârn. Which is a nice $50-$65 for GW.

[Vazzy]

3 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Just as a quick note.

 

9th

10 Berzerker - 22 ppm

Plasma Pistol - 5 x 2

Evicerator - 5  x 2

Icon - 5 

- 245

 

10th

10 Berzerkers - 230

 

15 points per unit.

 

Rhinos are the same Combi Melta (10 pts) + Havoc (5 pts).

 

So, 30 points for free, for that combination. If I take 3 of them, thats a 'free' Jakhal squad, or almost Khârn. Which is a nice $50-$65 for GW.

This alone tells me that all the outcry isn’t going to change anything because this change means that people will be spending more money to fill out their lists. 
 

I can’t lie, my biggest  grip is fixed squad sizes as I have multiple 5 man units that I’m gonna have to cope with or buy a new box. Which I find rather annoying but again accomplishes what GW wants: to sell more models. 

[Blurf]

1 hour ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

Its always been miserable to run an army of non-optimal units. I don't think power level makes it worse because it's never been a good experience. Most players who approach that game that way either find a good play group or quit.

 

To be clear I prefer points, but I actually think the lack of list building restrictions is going to have more of a negative impact than that change. Skew lists are going to be very popular unless something reigns vehicles and monsters in.

1. Powerlevel creates MORE non-optimal units. A unit of Heavy Flamer Retributors didn't used to be 'non-optimal' it used to be specialized. Taken for a specific purpose to do a specific thing, able to do that job because it's cheaper than the highest output unit. Now? It's just sub-optimal. You can basically throw your heavy flamer girls in the trash. (Oh, but overwatch tho! *Laughs in T3, 1W, 130pts.)

2. Not until they fix Eldar. As long as Eldar exist in their current state, the difference between vehicles and infantry is elementary.

Both die to Dcannons.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Blurf

[Scribe]

41 minutes ago, Vazzy said:

This alone tells me that all the outcry isn’t going to change anything because this change means that people will be spending more money to fill out their lists. 
 

I can’t lie, my biggest  grip is fixed squad sizes as I have multiple 5 man units that I’m gonna have to cope with or buy a new box. Which I find rather annoying but again accomplishes what GW wants: to sell more models. 

 

Yep, so all GW has really done.

 

1. Free Upgrades = Buy full kits/units to fill in the rest of your list. GW sees $$$$.

2. Free Upgrades = GW doesnt have to spend the time/effort/development on balancing points. GW sees saved labour costs.

3. Free Upgrades = GW can 'balance' based on unit cost. Oh, now your army is over/under budget? Well you cannot make up the difference on upgrades, I guess its a new box for you! GW sees $$$$.

 

Not a single thing here is helping the player.

[Lexington]

Anyone want to take bets on how long it’ll be before we see some fan-made points systems getting adopted by major tournaments?

Edited June 18, 2023 by Lexington

[Emperor Ming]

With points all being online now, they could reverse the free gear at some point I suppose

 

After we get an apology video from Mr workshop ofc

Edited June 18, 2023 by Emperor Ming

[crimsondave]

13 minutes ago, Lexington said:

Anyone want to take bets on how long it’ll be before we see some fan-made points systems getting adopted by major tournaments?

I hope sooner than later.  I really like the core rules.

[brother_b]

Why have GSC acolyte auto pistols? Why did I build them? To save points of course for other goodies. That’s the last editions. Worthless option now. The flamers are always better.

 

Same for my skitarii. Super expensive, but I can add free upgrades, including a TUA on my vanguards that want to be rolling up the board. Makes no sense.

[Zebukkuk]

I have been following 40k since Rogue Trader. One thing I have noticed is the ‘tick-tock’ patterns between editions.

 

For example ranged weapons vs. meleé. One edition will favour ranged weapons. The next edition will favour meleé. And vice versa.

 

It’s quite clear that the primary reason for changes in 40k rules is to push model sales.

 

Think about it for a minute. Tournament players prefer optimal builds within a points limit for each unit. Now this doesn’t matter anymore. Said tournament players now have an incentive to buy more models, even if the army they use is very old, or if optimal options have been stagnant for many years.

 

One specific example: Craftworld Eldar. Dire Avengers have been core battle line troops since the 2nd edition codex. Many Eldar players have twenty or more Avengers in their collections.

 

Fast forward to 9th edition. Kirby’s body double (a.k.a. Rountree) has two new Aeldari troops kits to sell— Redesigned Guardians, and Corsairs. Will he sell many if he doesn’t make them a more attractive option than Dire Avengers? Probably not of course.

 

So what happens? He asks the Development Team to put Dire Avengers in the back seat. The unit is now put in the *heavily* contested Elites role. The double price increase on Avengers back in 6th edition (same price, half the models) comes full circle.

 

Guardians and Corsairs have arrived to fill the Avengers’ foot wear. Basic shuriken catapult range is increased to 18”. Guardians get many of the same profile stats as Avengers. Etc. The end game is that Rountree just sold thousands of brand new Guardian kits.

 

The reality is that all GW’s rules updates are carefully designed to sell models. 10th edition is no different. Rountree (Kirby’s mind controlled doppelgänger) sees too many Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support kits gathering dust in the warehouses, so the Force Organization charts are now gone.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Lexington said:

Anyone want to take bets on how long it’ll be before we see some fan-made points systems getting adopted by major tournaments?

 

I mean it would depend on if the people involved or those on social media actually understand that this is a bad development for the players.

 

Not as if GW hasnt been told before, this is all the same points raised when AoS was first released. PL is a joke of a system.

[Captain Idaho]

The real question there is whether the tournament crowd will bother to create points or just leave the game?

 

I have no inclination to play a tournament with my substandard list now.

 

This is different in many ways to AoS. The game was built from the ground up with its rules in mind. 40K there are too many moving parts for this kind of broad stroke approach, so the points system will be woefully inadequate.

 

Cor I hope GW actually responds to a backlash favourably to the community. I doubt it though. Admitting they were wrong? Nah never happen on this scale.

 

Also, introducing points will take time. Even if they rush it as priority, it'll likely be what, 6 months?

 

Unless they use 9th points and just work to update them for the next balance update?

[The Spitehorde]

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Unless they use 9th points and just work to update them for the next balance update?

 

Me and a few gaming mates will be trying that next weekend. To a man we all absolutely detest the unit size thing and power levels masquerading as points so we're going to try 10th rules with 9th points. 

 

It can't be any worse than what GW are currently dumping on us, can it? 

 

 

 

 

[Dark Shepherd]

Feels like theyve gone with easiest way to balance points WITHIN  A THREE YEAR CYCLE

 

I dont like the fixed unit size thing at all, but kinda buy the theory theyve gone simple so the App doesnt melt down

[Evil Eye]

I'm beginning to wonder if the problems will persist as long as GW is the one writing the rules AND making the models. In ye days of old, it used to be that rules writers and mini-sellers were mostly independent of each other; even Citadel used to be a separate company partnered with GW rather than being fully folded into them. That at least enabled a degree of separation of model production and rules development such that it would be much harder, and less desirable, for an unscrupulous company to deliberately overpower units to sell a model, as the rules guys were focused purely on writing the rules and thus didn't stand to gain anything if a Dreadnought outsold a Predator or whatever. Sometimes this disconnect backfired (see Fimir having normal-guy stats in WHFB despite being Ogre sized models) but for the most part it kept things in check.

 

When GW is making the models and writing their rules, it enables them to pull the ol' Saturday Morning Cartoon move of promoting the New Shiny Toy, except instead of said toy featuring in the latest episode of the cartoon, they give them nasty new rules that make them more powerful on the tabletop. The lack of a disconnect allows them to use the rules as a marketing ploy to sell what they want to sell; and one could argue the transition to free rules is an even more blatant example of that. The rules aren't a product in and of themselves, they're really just advertising for the real product- the minis. Having them be available for free, whilst seeming like a gesture of good will, is more a sign that they consider the rules of such little value even GW won't charge for them anymore. You get what you pay for after all.

 

In short, this endless cycle of banality isn't going to stop all the while GW makes models AND rules. They make decent models so if they were to relinquish either I'd rather it be the rules side. Not sure who they'd actually give the rules duties over to though as most of the other big guys on the tabletop scene are almost as bad (remember the D&D fiasco we saw recently?) and I somewhat doubt it'll happen short of a hostile takeover, but a man can dream.

[Ahzek451]

1 hour ago, Zebukkuk said:

I have been following 40k since Rogue Trader. One thing I have noticed is the ‘tick-tock’ patterns between editions.

 

For example ranged weapons vs. meleé. One edition will favour ranged weapons. The next edition will favour meleé. And vice versa.

 

It’s quite clear that the primary reason for changes in 40k rules is to push model sales.

 

Think about it for a minute. Tournament players prefer optimal builds within a points limit for each unit. Now this doesn’t matter anymore. Said tournament players now have an incentive to buy more models, even if the army they use is very old, or if optimal options have been stagnant for many years.

 

One specific example: Craftworld Eldar. Dire Avengers have been core battle line troops since the 2nd edition codex. Many Eldar players have twenty or more Avengers in their collections.

 

Fast forward to 9th edition. Kirby’s body double (a.k.a. Rountree) has two new Aeldari troops kits to sell— Redesigned Guardians, and Corsairs. Will he sell many if he doesn’t make them a more attractive option than Dire Avengers? Probably not of course.

 

So what happens? He asks the Development Team to put Dire Avengers in the back seat. The unit is now put in the *heavily* contested Elites role. The double price increase on Avengers back in 6th edition (same price, half the models) comes full circle.

 

Guardians and Corsairs have arrived to fill the Avengers’ foot wear. Basic shuriken catapult range is increased to 18”. Guardians get many of the same profile stats as Avengers. Etc. The end game is that Rountree just sold thousands of brand new Guardian kits.

 

The reality is that all GW’s rules updates are carefully designed to sell models. 10th edition is no different. Rountree (Kirby’s mind controlled doppelgänger) sees too many Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support kits gathering dust in the warehouses, so the Force Organization charts are now gone.

This has been pretty much what in alluding to. A business model that never changes and is designed to sell minis at its core. But who can blame them?

 

What if...there was a legal way for the community to take the rules in their own hands? No sales. Free. Grassroots. These ideas have been thought up for sure, and even attempted. But what if enough momentum finally took hold. One can dream indeed. 

[Sea Creature]

Remember when Frontline Gaming was pushing Reecius40k with all its house rules? Look how well that worked out.

[crimsondave]

16 minutes ago, Sea Creature said:

Remember when Frontline Gaming was pushing Reecius40k with all its house rules? Look how well that worked out.

I missed that.  What was that?

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

3 hours ago, Lexington said:

Anyone want to take bets on how long it’ll be before we see some fan-made points systems getting adopted by major tournaments?

I don’t know about you sir, but I for one am not in the habit of taking suckers’ bets :P

[Sea Creature]

49 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

I missed that.  What was that?

Frontline Gaming, which runs the ITC, came out with a bunch of house rules for their tournaments during seventh edition. They were no longer used once eighth edition was released. Basically you’re trading one set of issues for another.

[Blurf]

1 hour ago, Sea Creature said:

Remember when Frontline Gaming was pushing Reecius40k with all its house rules? Look how well that worked out.

You mean the ITC FAQ in 7th? Which was not only wildly popular but directly responsible for GW making their own FAQ that was mostly just a copy paste of the ITC's?

 

Just because ETC didn't use it (and was a much worse format as a result) didn't mean it wasn't very successful.

1 minute ago, Sea Creature said:

Frontline Gaming, which runs the ITC, came out with a bunch of house rules for their tournaments during seventh edition. They were no longer used once eighth edition was released. Basically you’re trading one set of issues for another.

Wow an FAQ for an edition isn't used in a totally different edition?

 

Shocker.

[Sea Creature]

Not everybody is a fan of ITC. I did like their mission format for eighth edition.

[crimsondave]

I know what ITC and FLG is.  I guess I wasn’t paying close attention in 7th to notice.  I hated 7th (taudar edition) with a passion so that’s not surprising.

 

I’d be fine with ITC coming up with something.  I can’t believe it would be worse.

[Sea Creature]

They never altered points or data sheets.