Wh40k 10th Edition Munitorum Field Manual (Points)

[Redcomet]

19 minutes ago, The4thHorseman said:

There are so many Influencer Shills spinning the Points Costs. Its hard to find an honest opinion from someone who actually plays tournaments and isn't getting GW kickbacks.

I ran into two of them when I commented that needing an 18 page document to explain the rules was just pure incompetence 

[acrozatarim]

Thinking about it a bit, in practical terms I suspect that the vast bulk of players were taking units in regular sizes anyway, and generally sticking to 'optimal' loadouts regardless, making the supposed choices more cosmetic than anything else. How often were the notional cheap, worse options actually causing a significant shift in effectiveness? We've got Mr Fluff supposedly being obliterated by Mr Strong, but me not having Havoc Launchers on a couple of tanks is, what, a 10 point difference under 9e. Is me being down a notional two cultists in the new edition a big deal, really? How often were any of those fine-grained points costs even vaguely accurate or balanced anyway? Was a Havoc launcher ever really worth 5 points, and is Mr Fluff not having one really going to be the critical difference that shifts his army from having a chance to getting smeared into a thin paste?

 

Not to mention, we've got folks stating firmly how this means the obvious choice is to always take a plasma gun/melta, except elsewhere we have people firmly stating these now suck due to T shifts in the new edition. Flamers, meanwhile, have gotten a buff and also greater relevance with the wider application of Overwatch in 10th. Yes, there absolutely will be weapon options where there are clear and obvious winners, but did the bulk of these choices really warrant points differences in the first place? Is making a Devilspork 2 points a model and a Greater Manwhisk 3 points a model really going to account for the difference between them in a meaningful way, or are we just picking about at irrelevant margins that don't actually have a significant impact on the overall shape or size of the force we're taking?

 

And, I mean... maybe the answer is... yes, yes it is meaningful. Maybe the 5 points for that Havoc was always critical. Particularly, maybe that's the answer for you, the individual reader. Certainly, there has to come some sort of margin or line where we decide something is meaningful enough to have representation via points. For me, personally, I started back at the very beginning of 2nd ed; I love customisability, and I love 'my guys' levels of personalisation, and these are all things that have really gone by the wayside over the years in a manner that was very striking as someone who didn't touch the game from 4th to 8th. I would really love that sort of fiddliness back in the game. But that's my preference, and maybe that's not actually great for 40k as the game it is now. I've played other games that have similar approaches to army building and they're neither stupid or inadequate. I think it's at least worth asking these sorts of questions in the first place, considering them rather than rejecting it all out of hand, even if you do come to the considered opinion that you still think it all sucks.

 

In the end, I guess, the thing is - when we're talking about a tally of literally two thousand little grains of measurement, is the 'loss' of a few points here and there really going to change things? Is being down even some notional fifty points of an older calculation system because of you taking 'weak' choices really going to fundamentally change the fabric of the game? If you're focusing that hard on the cut-throat bartering of single digit differences here and there, is it even really about fluff or feel?

 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by acrozatarim

[Fenriwolf]

"Most people didn't like or use power levels, so this time we'll give no other option" 

 

I don't really know what to say without sounding extremely displeased, so i'll say nothing

[crimsondave]

No one used power level so GW makes it the only option.
Looks like 10th is another painting/modeling edition for me.

Edited June 16, 2023 by crimsondave

[Prot]

I'm not going to get into the debate of upgrades being included as a bad or good thing. It's simply too early (to me at least). 

 

All I'm asking for is consistency. I don't want to start assembling new squads, and adjust old ones, only to be ripping off arms/sponsons/bits because they decided to change the pointing system for wargear/weapons. 

[jimbo1701]

Some friends and I were having the following discussion just under a year ago. Why don’t they make all weapon options equivalent, and by that I mean if you can take a plasma or bolt pistol, then make the bolt pistol have say 3 shots to compensate and make all weapons in a category the equivalent power or points but have very different profiles. They don’t seem to have gone to that extreme but the principle was intriguing. 

[TempestBlade]

9 minutes ago, Kallas said:

They can. Land Raiders are up to 12 capacity, and Redeemers are up to 14; Crusaders stay at 16.

My bad they do! Happy times! 

[DarkChaplain]

2 hours ago, Dark Legionnare said:

“Unit sizes are now much easier to manage. Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box, so you won’t need to agonise over how to include all of the models you’ve bought."

 

What a crock of...

I see the plague marines box is still 7 guys. So.....

Way easier for me to add 7 guys to a squad, one at a time, rather than need to buy multiple boxes to meet increments of 5.

 

 

I'd expect kits like these will be getting reboxed for 10th. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Squark]

4 minutes ago, DarkChaplain said:

 

I'd expect kits like these will be getting reboxed for 10th. Wouldn't be the first time.

Plague Marines have 7 bodies across 3 sprues. That won't rebox nicely.

[acrozatarim]

5 minutes ago, Squark said:

Plague Marines have 7 bodies across 3 sprues. That won't rebox nicely.

 

What they should do, if they intend to see this paradigm of army construction through, is produce a new Plague Marine box of 10 or 5 bodies. Can't say I'm holding my breath.

[Borbarad]

Oh no, it’s LITERALLY unplayable 

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, acrozatarim said:

Thinking about it a bit, in practical terms I suspect that the vast bulk of players were taking units in regular sizes anyway, and generally sticking to 'optimal' loadouts regardless, making the supposed choices more cosmetic than anything else. How often were the notional cheap, worse options actually causing a significant shift in effectiveness? We've got Mr Fluff supposedly being obliterated by Mr Strong, but me not having Havoc Launchers on a couple of tanks is, what, a 10 point difference under 9e. Is me being down a notional two cultists in the new edition a big deal, really? How often were any of those fine-grained points costs even vaguely accurate or balanced anyway? Was a Havoc launcher ever really worth 5 points, and is Mr Fluff not having one really going to be the critical difference that shifts his army from having a chance to getting smeared into a thin paste?

 

Not to mention, we've got folks stating firmly how this means the obvious choice is to always take a plasma gun/melta, except elsewhere we have people firmly stating these now suck due to T shifts in the new edition. Flamers, meanwhile, have gotten a buff and also greater relevance with the wider application of Overwatch in 10th. Yes, there absolutely will be weapon options where there are clear and obvious winners, but did the bulk of these choices really warrant points differences in the first place? Is making a Devilspork 2 points a model and a Greater Manwhisk 3 points a model really going to account for the difference between them in a meaningful way, or are we just picking about at irrelevant margins that don't actually have a significant impact on the overall shape or size of the force we're taking?

 

And, I mean... maybe the answer is... yes, yes it is meaningful. Maybe the 5 points for that Havoc was always critical. Particularly, maybe that's the answer for you, the individual reader. Certainly, there has to come some sort of margin or line where we decide something is meaningful enough to have representation via points. For me, personally, I started back at the very beginning of 2nd ed; I love customisability, and I love 'my guys' levels of personalisation, and these are all things that have really gone by the wayside over the years in a manner that was very striking as someone who didn't touch the game from 4th to 8th. I would really love that sort of fiddliness back in the game. But that's my preference, and maybe that's not actually great for 40k as the game it is now. I've played other games that have similar approaches to army building and they're neither stupid or inadequate. I think it's at least worth asking these sorts of questions in the first place, considering them rather than rejecting it all out of hand, even if you do come to the considered opinion that you still think it all sucks.

 

In the end, I guess, the thing is - when we're talking about a tally of literally two thousand little grains of measurement, is the 'loss' of a few points here and there really going to change things? Is being down even some notional fifty points of an older calculation system because of you taking 'weak' choices really going to fundamentally change the fabric of the game? If you're focusing that hard on the cut-throat bartering of single digit differences here and there, is it even really about fluff or feel?

 

 

 

Havoc launchers were just a concrete example. It's not just that one Havoc launcher (or lack thereof) on that one tank. Actually, in retrospect, I will just claim that the smoke launcher that I modelled on that Predator is a "Havoc launcher" that fires very small rockets. If people complain, I can carry around an unpainted spare Havoc launcher model to lay on top of each relevant tank as needed so as to adhere to WYSIWYG.

 

But anyway, the point is that this applies to all upgrades across the board. While, yes, each one is just 5 points more, or 10 points more, or 15 points more, this all adds up and matters in the cumulative. No single raindrop is responsible for the flood, but raindrops lead to floods. Also, army building and equipment was one of the last vestiges of customization and "RPG-ness" left to the game, and it feels bad to know that you took the "wrong" option without even a small compensation elsewhere. It's not just that you took a cheaper option when a more expensive one is "probably worth the extra cost" it's that you took a strictly worse option. You got a Corolla and the other guy got a Porsche, but you paid the same amount.

 

Edit: I guess the car comparison is a bit hyperbolic. It’s more like getting a base level car with cloth seats and a crappy plastic wheel, but paying the same as the top trim of the same car with leather everything and heated seats. But you all get the idea.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Rain

[Maritn]

56 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

I mean, unless I'm just extremely out of touch (very possible!) why would I ever take a Heavy Stubber, over a Mining Laser or a Chain Sword over a Power Weapon for Neophyte Hybrids?

 

I have no idea what other units are used for AT (I had to look up what Neophyte Hybrids are and what army they are from - so take my answer with a grain of salt  ), but looking at the index I'd think you would use the Laser when you think your unit stays stationary (BS 5+ with Heavy), so for backfield units, and the Stubber for your frontline units that will be moving and fighting other infantry (6 shots at 18").

Regarding the Chain Sword Vs Power Weapon, without doing the math, both might be similar in performance vs a MEQ, but the Chain Sword is better vs GEQ... But still the Power Weapon looks more tasty, I give you that  (but that might be subjective and not objective... quick intuition is wrong very often )

[danodan123]

So far this edition, convos always lead to something about Death Guard or Plaguemarines... odd

[The4thHorseman]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

If people complain, I can carry around an unpainted spare Havoc launcher model to lay on top of each relevant tank as needed so as to adhere to WYSIWYG.

I mean if everything costs the same points why does WYSIWYG even matter anymore if you provide a Printed List and everyone has datacards?

[Aramis K]

8 minutes ago, Squark said:

Plague Marines have 7 bodies across 3 sprues. That won't rebox nicely.

There have been two different sets of 3 death guard, so they could stick one of them in to make a 10 man box.

[caladancid]

I guess there’s a very simple way to ahead of the “stop crying you haven’t played any games” “this always happens” crowd. 
 

Were you playing with power levels and not points before? And if you weren’t playing with power levels when they were available, I think that says all that needs to be said. 

[Nagashsnee]

10 skitarii rangers cost 125 points, the only way to justify their use is to USE special weapons, the option of just 10 guns doesnt actuallly exist cause i have already been costed at 125 points.  And since the boc comes with 3 wildly different weapons i have been costed for ALL THREE. 

 

This is beyond lazy/disapointing/bad this is just sad.  What were they actually working on for whatever many hours it took them to write this down? Cause it wasnt any actual attempt at design/balance/ or even lore accuracy. 

[Isual]

Some just want to watch the (warhammer) world burn 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, The4thHorseman said:

I mean if everything costs the same points why does WYSIWYG even matter anymore if you provide a Printed List and everyone has datacards?

 

Because some of these things are still optional. I didn't model a plasma pistol on my Juggerlord because I think he looks cooler holding on to the Jugger with his opposite hand instead of holding a pistol, but he just has it fixed on his datacard. There is no other option, so I assume it is shoved up his crack, as should anyone else, as he has to have it, as must all other Juggerlords.

 

Havoc launchers are still an option on vehicles, but they are a free option with no downside. That said, I agree that any reasonable person should agree that under this new system both players should just play as if their vehicles have all free upgrades on them regardless of modelling. But assuming that other people are reasonable is itself unreasonable 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Rain

[Squark]

9 minutes ago, caladancid said:

I guess there’s a very simple way to ahead of the “stop crying you haven’t played any games” “this always happens” crowd. 
 

Were you playing with power levels and not points before? And if you weren’t playing with power levels when they were available, I think that says all that needs to be said. 

In fairness, the additional granularity would allow a level of nuance power. And it looks like they've tried to balance options against each other, although I think 40K simply has too much diversity in options for AoS's sidegrades to work.

 

I can see how someone at GW thought this could work. And maybe with a ground up rebuild in which a lot of old space marine stuff, crisis suits, and similarly diverse units got the axe or a complwte redesign, it would.

[Minsc]

Points seems to be all over the place but that's to be expected.

I really don't like the enforced "min or max-sized"-squads though (except the instances where squads aren't min or max-sized...)
It just makes listbuilding harder for no good reason, and along with free wargear it basically just means GW has finally forced PL down our throats (but they're being "sneaky" and calling it points).

"You may take 5 Intercessors for 5 PL 90 points, or you make take 10 Intercessors for 10 PL 180 pts :) "

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Minsc

[FerociousBeast]

Removing points costs for wargear upgrades flies directly in the face of the stated goal of making units tougher. 
 

If there’s no downside to adding those extra lascannons and HK missiles to my tanks… well alrighty then. I will.

Edited June 16, 2023 by FerociousBeast

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

Well, maybe I should overcome my visceral hatred for challenges mechanic and give the Heresy a closer look.

[Arkhanist]

8 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Points seems to bit all over the place but that's to be expected.

I really don't like the enforced "min or max-sized"-squads though (except the instances where squads aren't min or max-sized...)
It just makes listbuilding harder for no good reason, and along with free wargear it basically just means GW has finally forced PL down our throats (but they're being "sneaky" and calling it points).

"You may take 5 Intercessors for 5 PL 90 points, or you make take 10 Intercessors for 10 PL 180 pts :) "

 

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.