Wh40k 10th Edition Munitorum Field Manual (Points)

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Considering how soon we're getting the admech codex, its already at the printers. Honestly if they do change anything it'll be a day 1 faq in which case why evwn buy the codex

[Blurf]

1 hour ago, Maritn said:

To those who think free equipment is bad in general: What should a meltagun or a plasma gun cost more than a flamer on a Tactical Space Marine or a Guardsman? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during list building? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during the game? Do you think this difference would significantly improve the game balance? Honest questions, I'd really like to hear your opinions.

I think that a Multimelta and a Heavy Flamer costing the same amount of points means I can literally throw every heavy flamer model I've built into the garbage.

 

 

[MagicHat]

I like that enhanchements costs points. Neat pointsfillers, which we kinda need now.

If I was conspirationally inclined, I would think that they introduced "power-points" and unit sizes in sets at the same time, so they could re-introduce buying models individually as a "We really listened to player feedback" and hope we forget about points.

 

A bit annoying that the cog-boys lost BS and Sv and stayed pretty much the same points cost.

 

10 minutes ago, Brother nathan said:

Having not played anything but nids for a long time... are certain weapon comparisons still as valid? The fact that meltaguns now wound most tanks with their single shot on 5s may go a fair way to reducing its effectiveness... compared especially against auto hitting flamershaving multiple chances to wound and being more effective against  chaff with more easy access to timely overwatch. From my brief looks and i may be wrong but a bunch of the lesser seen weapons seem to have other gains and improvements. Lascannons do look in a great spot but i think im more likely to try the auttocannons i got from forgeworld on my havocs than before.  

Iv more issue with the squad size tightness meaning fidgeting my last 20 points will be diffcult but sure list building jenga is part of the fun. 

 

Possibly some weapon have gotten closer in power. It is a bit ridiculous when a Tempestors choice of pistol is between hot-shot, bolt or plasma, and the melee is between chainsword, power weapon or a fist. Plasma and fist is just better. (I shouldn't grumble, they might balance it with "Tempestor pistol, S4 AP1" and "Tempestor melee, S4 AP1".

Or look at the Dunecrawler (I just realized it has a heavy phospor blaster statline it can't use on the datasheet, amazing proofread).

Do you pick the Onager phospor blaster, with Ignores cover. Or do you pick the Icarus array, with +12" range, +2A, +2S, Anti-fly 4+ and an extra improved krak missile shot? 

 

I don't really mind some free wargear, but everything? So if one weapon option is to good, they have to raise the entire units cost?

They already understood this in 9th, much of the weapons was free, but some was to good and needed increased points.

[BrainFireBob]

1 hour ago, Brother nathan said:

Having not played anything but nids for a long time... are certain weapon comparisons still as valid? The fact that meltaguns now wound most tanks with their single shot on 5s may go a fair way to reducing its effectiveness... compared especially against auto hitting flamershaving multiple chances to wound and being more effective against  chaff with more easy access to timely overwatch. From my brief looks and i may be wrong but a bunch of the lesser seen weapons seem to have other gains and improvements. Lascannons do look in a great spot but i think im more likely to try the auttocannons i got from forgeworld on my havocs than before.  

Iv more issue with the squad size tightness meaning fidgeting my last 20 points will be diffcult but sure list building jenga is part of the fun. 

Flamers may be the absolute better choice now. So no meltaguns. Yes, meltaguns would go down- but every unit for a faction carting the same weapon wouldn't, they've just changed them over. The problem was always having an optimal loadout, not what that loadout was.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 minute ago, Mechanicus Tech-Support said:

Considering how soon we're getting the admech codex, its already at the printers. Honestly if they do change anything it'll be a day 1 faq in which case why evwn buy the codex

Definitely don't buy their books. Ever.

That's the catchphrase among all my non-tournament groups.

 

Too many mistakes from a professional company to be honest,

too many FAQ/Errata docs,

too many imbalances after those things,

too many supplementary books with token rules,

too much FOMO created by them,

too much wasted time and money on them.

 

That is literally the Only good thing from 10th, free pdf access to the mess.

 

Now they will listen and remove them too.

[Blurf]

1 hour ago, Kastor Krieg said:

I think I got it.

They're "diversifying the product". Translating from corporate to human, they're making 40k the "casual beer & pretzels" game and stashing away all the grognards in the Horus Heresy 7ed corner, hoping that the highly competitive scene will follow.

Except Horus Heresy is just as stupid and broken as 40k was, it just has a thin veneer of 'try hard' over it.

HH's rules are getting by on A. Essentially only needing to balance 1 faction and B. having a relatively small community that all want to keep the 'Sci-Fi Historical' aspect of the game in place at least a little bit.

If it becomes the place to go for competitive 40k 'style' gaming, it'll end up just like 9th but with WAY less interesting armies.

[crimsondave]

GW has done the impossible and united the community.  Probably not the way they intended.

[BrainFireBob]

1 hour ago, Maritn said:

To those who think free equipment is bad in general: What should a meltagun or a plasma gun cost more than a flamer on a Tactical Space Marine or a Guardsman? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during list building? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during the game? Do you think this difference would significantly improve the game balance? Honest questions, I'd really like to hear your opinions.

 

A flamer adds more strict anti-infantry firepower, which is what the rest of the squad is already equipped for- it makes them slightly better at what the squad could already do. Flamers also have a limited range and will be therefore be fired less often in a given squad.

 

A meltagun or plasma gun statistically on its own improves the performance of the entire squad against harder targets, whether it be monsters/vehicles or elite infantry. 

 

This in fact, across an entire army, could make significant composition differences; and on a case-by-case basis determine the capability of the squad to handle different circumstances. 

 

In-game, it significantly changes the capability of the squad to respond to threats, and will dictate its performance by the player. The question has an implied fallacy. The setup is "Is buying a single Tac squad plasma gun really an effect on the game?" No. Having 3 5 man tac squads with plasma guns and combi-plasmas means advancing your troops fearlessly toward that 5 man terminator squad or that big gribbly. Having flamers on those same squads means running away from the gribbly and devoting your own terminators to deal with the threat. 

 

Points have a built-in tradeoff mechanic; the only thing preventing running hellbent for leather on the mathematically best weapons was if they were the most expensive and the next best weapon (or third best) was significantly cheaper to the extent that one could buy significantly more of that lower-effective weapon for the same points. 

 

So yes to all- because it's a fallacy to frame the question in terms of a single squad in the context of a whole army. It's all the squads and how they slot in.

 

EDIT: Now the interesting question is if the costing should be the same for Guard vs. Marines for the same weapons. Weapons having a built-in strength and armor penetration decouples the model's own stats more than a close combat upgrade would. Guard also have more opportunity per point to take the upgrade, vs the Marine's increased likelihood to hit. Adding a plasma gun to a guard squad adds significantly more potential utility against, say, Elite infantry due to the poor performance of lasguns, vs. the plink damage of bolters against the same. That might be fun to discuss in Amicus.

Edited June 16, 2023 by BrainFireBob
Elaborating

[Marshal Loss]

Gutted.

 

Units being minimum/maximum sized is a disappointment but is also far less harmful, I think, than free wargear. If wargear is going to be free, it has to be equally valuable, and every index is littered with scores of examples of weapons that are just obviously not of equal value. Having everything priced equally blasts nuance out of list-building. Where in the past you might take a less effective option on a unit to fulfill a specific purpose, supported by the fact that its points are cheaper, that's simply no longer the case. Now if you don't put every upgrade and top gun on a unit, you're not getting the most out of the unit. My horde of bolter and knife-armed Plague Marines are now just massively worse than a unit armed with a veritable circus of free wargear. 

 

It's a real pity because I'm so happy with the CSM Index & the 10th edition core rules.

 

What a breathtakingly stupid decision.

[Kastor Krieg]

Hilariously, we can just divide each and every single "points" cost by 5 and agree that we're playing 400 PL games now :D

[Captain Idaho]

Uh, Scarabs for my Necrons are 3 or 6 strong... gross.

 

I know it's hardly the biggest deal but that actually annoyed me! 

[Scribe]

4 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Uh, Scarabs for my Necrons are 3 or 6 strong... gross.

 

I know it's hardly the biggest deal but that actually annoyed me! 

 

Yeah, I've hated how Necron units are set up since 9th, bought that Codex and was immediately put off by it to the point of just not buying in at all.

[MARK0SIAN]

2 hours ago, Maritn said:

To those who think free equipment is bad in general: What should a meltagun or a plasma gun cost more than a flamer on a Tactical Space Marine or a Guardsman? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during list building? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during the game? Do you think this difference would significantly improve the game balance? Honest questions, I'd really like to hear your opinions.

Deciding whether to prioritise extra bodies on the table or unit upgrades is (or at least was) definitely a meaningful tactical decision during the list building stage. Now you don’t have to decide, take all the upgrades and the extra bodies (provided you do it in set amounts).

 

To me though the problem is deeper. The whole rationale with points is that things that are more powerful should cost more points. Whether that power is direct offensive power, durability, force multiplication or any other type of power doesn’t matter, one thing is objectively more powerful than another so it should cost more. Now that only has legitimacy if it is applied consistently and absolutely. In this case, they’ve decided to apply it some times, like the difference between a Marine Captain and a Tactical Marine, but not in others like the difference between a Powerfist/combi-weapon sergeant and a chainsword/bolt pistol sergeant. A points system is meaningless if it is arbitrary and inconsistent which this one is sadly.

[phandaal]

14 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Deciding whether to prioritise extra bodies on the table or unit upgrades is (or at least was) definitely a meaningful tactical decision during the list building stage. Now you don’t have to decide, take all the upgrades and the extra bodies (provided you do it in set amounts).

 

To me though the problem is deeper. The whole rationale with points is that things that are more powerful should cost more points. Whether that power is direct offensive power, durability, force multiplication or any other type of power doesn’t matter, one thing is objectively more powerful than another so it should cost more. Now that only has legitimacy if it is applied consistently and absolutely. In this case, they’ve decided to apply it some times, like the difference between a Marine Captain and a Tactical Marine, but not in others like the difference between a Powerfist/combi-weapon sergeant and a chainsword/bolt pistol sergeant. A points system is meaningless if it is arbitrary and inconsistent which this one is sadly.

 

This change also makes list building more difficult in some regards, instead of the stated goal of simplification. In the "old days," you could drop one or two models from a max size unit to free up points, or add one or two models to a unit if you have extra points.

 

Now you have to rework the entire list to fit the Tetris blocks together. Binary choices everywhere. No nuance, no leeway.

Edited June 16, 2023 by phandaal

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, Maritn said:

To those who think free equipment is bad in general: What should a meltagun or a plasma gun cost more than a flamer on a Tactical Space Marine or a Guardsman? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during list building? Do you think this difference would add meaningful decisions during the game? Do you think this difference would significantly improve the game balance? Honest questions, I'd really like to hear your opinions.

 

As others have said, it's a compounding effect. 

 

When arks of omen dropped for marines, players were able to add 500-800 more points of extra stuff because of how the savings compounded.  

 

It might be up in the air if a plasma gun is better than a melta gun, but the plasma is always going to be better than a bolter for the same cost; a plasma pistol better than a bolt pistol. And compounding say 6 MSU of crusaders, where 3 out of 5 have special weapons instead 6 units of 5 bolt guns, creates a stark difference.

[Blurf]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Deciding whether to prioritise extra bodies on the table or unit upgrades is (or at least was) definitely a meaningful tactical decision during the list building stage. Now you don’t have to decide, take all the upgrades and the extra bodies (provided you do it in set amounts).

 

To me though the problem is deeper. The whole rationale with points is that things that are more powerful should cost more points. Whether that power is direct offensive power, durability, force multiplication or any other type of power doesn’t matter, one thing is objectively more powerful than another so it should cost more. Now that only has legitimacy if it is applied consistently and absolutely. In this case, they’ve decided to apply it some times, like the difference between a Marine Captain and a Tactical Marine, but not in others like the difference between a Powerfist/combi-weapon sergeant and a chainsword/bolt pistol sergeant. A points system is meaningless if it is arbitrary and inconsistent which this one is sadly.

They're not even applying it across units.

Retributors and Devastators are basically 1 to 1, except the Devastators are superior in every way (stats, buffs, upgrades, detachment ability, army ability) yet Retributors are 10pts more expensive.

[OttoVonAwesome]

2 hours ago, BrainFireBob said:

 

A flamer adds more strict anti-infantry firepower, which is what the rest of the squad is already equipped for- it makes them slightly better at what the squad could already do. Flamers also have a limited range and will be therefore be fired less often in a given squad.

 

A meltagun or plasma gun statistically on its own improves the performance of the entire squad against harder targets, whether it be monsters/vehicles or elite infantry. 

 

This in fact, across an entire army, could make significant composition differences; and on a case-by-case basis determine the capability of the squad to handle different circumstances. 

 

In-game, it significantly changes the capability of the squad to respond to threats, and will dictate its performance by the player. The question has an implied fallacy. The setup is "Is buying a single Tac squad plasma gun really an effect on the game?" No. Having 3 5 man tac squads with plasma guns and combi-plasmas means advancing your troops fearlessly toward that 5 man terminator squad or that big gribbly. Having flamers on those same squads means running away from the gribbly and devoting your own terminators to deal with the threat. 

 

Points have a built-in tradeoff mechanic; the only thing preventing running hellbent for leather on the mathematically best weapons was if they were the most expensive and the next best weapon (or third best) was significantly cheaper to the extent that one could buy significantly more of that lower-effective weapon for the same points. 

 

So yes to all- because it's a fallacy to frame the question in terms of a single squad in the context of a whole army. It's all the squads and how they slot in.

 

EDIT: Now the interesting question is if the costing should be the same for Guard vs. Marines for the same weapons. Weapons having a built-in strength and armor penetration decouples the model's own stats more than a close combat upgrade would. Guard also have more opportunity per point to take the upgrade, vs the Marine's increased likelihood to hit. Adding a plasma gun to a guard squad adds significantly more potential utility against, say, Elite infantry due to the poor performance of lasguns, vs. the plink damage of bolters against the same. That might be fun to discuss in Amicus.

Great points here's a good example too... Power Fist vs Thunder Hammer, any unit that can take a both like Space marine Sargeants why am I ever gonna take a power fist? Same Str same AP same WS same Dmg but Thunder hammer has Devastating wounds. Where's the tradeoff? For everything to have the same value there's gotta be a tradeoff in there. GW didn't change the stats of some weapons enough to be able to call them equal.

 

I'm dead sure GW didn't playtest anything. They have stuck all this out into the wild and now they are waiting on us to provide them with the data they never bothered to get from our tournements and events. 

 

I'm also even more baffled by Hierloom weapons and Grey Knights and I'm dead sure it wasn't done for balance but for convuluted reasons related to the devastator squad lawsuit for ages ago. They didn't price the units based on maximum potential like everything else wich is super wierd it was only done to melee units that have total freedom of choice they also didn't decide to limit those choices to say 1 in 5 gets x or whole squad must upgrade to just flat out derped the whole thing. I have to assume it's beacuase all of them are getting new kits with differen't load out capabilities to what they had before and GW just burnt the old ones to the ground for legal and marketing purposes.

[OttoVonAwesome]

20 minutes ago, Blurf said:

They're not even applying it across units.

Retributors and Devastators are basically 1 to 1, except the Devastators are superior in every way (stats, buffs, upgrades, detachment ability, army ability) yet Retributors are 10pts more expensive.

There's a ton of points costs don't add when compared to other indexes I have another, Flamer marines vs intercessors 90 pts and 95 pts, Now we look at Prosecuters vs Witchseekers 50 pts and 75 pts. Shouldn't flamer marines cost more? Desolators are also priced identically to Devastators but essentially have two guns. 

[Minsc]

11 minutes ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

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

 

There is a tradeoff: Thunder Hammers have worse WS (4+ instead of 3+) to compensate for them getting Devastating Wounds. 

[Blindhamster]

11 minutes ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

Great points here's a good example too... Power Fist vs Thunder Hammer, any unit that can take a both like Space marine Sargeants why am I ever gonna take a power fist? Same Str same AP same WS same Dmg but Thunder hammer has Devastating wounds. Where's the tradeoff? For everything to have the same value there's gotta be a tradeoff in there. GW didn't change the stats of some weapons enough to be able to call them equal.

think you need to read thunder hammers again. I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, there definitely are weapons where theres an actual choice to make, but the example of fist and hammer was bad. Fists are more accurate on basically any squad that can take them than hammers are for the same squad. (usually fists are WS 3+ whilst hammers are WS 4+). hammers have the devastating wounds rule though. so the two are genuinely pretty well balanced against eachother accuracy vs chance to cause mortal wounds. Honestly on lots of the more basic units, fist is better because you simply dont have the # of attacks to benefit enough from devastating wounds (tactical squads for example, in either case, its just 2 attacks).

 

Taking the tactical squad as a "good" example though... the sword gets 1 more attack, but loses 3 strength and 1 damage, the power weapon is almost always worse in that matchup, and the chainsword loses another strength and a point of AP to get another attack vs the power weapon. The power weapon is better than the chainsword in most cases. And the fist is better than both. Something I liked in the last couple of editions, was the fact power swords had a niche in the melee weapons as having the best AP. Had power sword been AP-3 or fists AP-1, the power weapon vs fist would probably a legitimate tough call (+1 attack and +1 AP for -3 strength and -1 damage)

[Captain Idaho]

There are some shocking examples though. Sergeants with bolt pistols vs plasma pistols, for example.

 

Techmarines with full servo harness vs stock build is another depressing one.

[MithrilForge]

Hmmm it really is a beer n pretzels game now … I shall play it as is and see how drastically it changes our games, the proof is in the playing, which GW may or may not have done much of …

time will tell. 
also Damn !!! My Stompa clocks in at a whopping 800pts … 

although just for funsies … now I’m interested to see how it’d  go against 800pts of my mates guard !!! 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Mumeishi

[Minsc]

2 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

There are some shocking examples though. Sergeants with bolt pistols vs plasma pistols, for example.

"The Bolt Pistol is better though, since it won't tempt you to overcharge and as such, kill your precious sergeant." //GW, probably. 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Minsc

[Rain]

Wait, you you guys get close combat weapon options on your squad leaders?

 

[The4thHorseman]