new balance data slate update this Thursday

[01RTB01]

4 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

On a serious note, the Eldar are at risk of being widely banned from tournaments I think. Unless something happens to weaken them substantially.

 

I'd feel for eldar players. Well sort of. Definitely more than Tau players. 

I don't understand why they didn't tier the amount of fate dice in 10th as they did with them in 9th. Having access to 12 dice be it 500 points or 20,000 makes no sense. Scaling those dice would help, jacking the points up would also help. 

 

When I played vs Eldar with my orks I looked after the game at their points and compared with what I was paying for ork stuff it made zero sense.

 

Still, we'll see happens Thursday. 

 

I was one of those that exclusively played heresy during 7th and I've zero issue doing that again - alongside AoS, SW legion.

 

 

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

Wouldn’t “Wolves” using Gladius just get counted as standard SM for recording purposes? What makes them Wolves at that point? They are just blue grey Ultras for all rules purposes. Or is it based on self reported faction? So I could show up with my WE but identify as Eldar to drive the numbers down. Take that Eldar! 

Depends on what they are counting. Divergent chapters like wolves get access to a large chunk of units that compliant chapters don't have, and those can be used with Gladius. If you state your faction as Space Wolves for example, you gain access to the 20-30 space wolf specific data sheets

[Madao]

To be honest - the game is currently bad enough for my gaming group to consider going back to AoO 9th or switching to the other ruleset completely. I guess there is more people like us

Edited September 5, 2023 by Madao

[Magos Takatus]

I am pretty demoralised by 10th. I reignited my old Ulthwé Eldar right at the tail end of 9th to compete in an escalation league and seeing the absolute state of 10th rules and Adeptus Mechanicus army balance I actually lost enthusiasm for the tournament and missed the last 2 games. I was playing what is considered the most powerful/broken faction and the thought of 10th still pretty much finished my interest in 40k. I am currently painting up a team for Blood Bowl until I get over how shoddy 10th edition looks to play. I could go on but this is about balance rather than core rules. I recently lost my mother as well so low enthusiasm due to game balance combined with great upheaval in my life has made 10th edition a very low priority. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

On the one hand I hope GW are actually able to make some meaningful changes to make the game better overall for everyone.

 

On the other hand, hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 

[Alternis]

The kind of changes I want to see. 
 

• Lethality on Eldar reigned in

• units generated that were not in your starting list (see biovore spore mines & GSC) cannot complete objectives

• Votann void armour being returned and revise on either their weapon range or BS+ army wide

• Tau clarification on their rules and points decrease

• Blood angels, general tidy up, sang guard points decrease, Mephiston can join Bladeguard 

• Ad mech - EVERYTHING. 
• Death Guard - generally needs more rules to mitigate damage

 

off the top of my head that’s what I think of right now 

[Sea Creature]

Can’t help but feel like a lot of people are going to be disappointed by the data slate… especially after seeing what’s expected by some.

[phandaal]

20 minutes ago, Sea Creature said:

Can’t help but feel like a lot of people are going to be disappointed by the data slate… especially after seeing what’s expected by some.

 

Been a while since I agreed with Black Blow Fly, but yes. Tempering expectations is the best course of action. If GW does knock it out of the park, even better.

[Madao]

After reading the leaks about AdMech changes, I have no hope for the 10th

[Sea Creature]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

Been a while since I agreed with Black Blow Fly, but yes. Tempering expectations is the best course of action. If GW does knock it out of the park, even better.

Hope is the first step towards disappointment.

[brother_b]

41 minutes ago, Madao said:

After reading the leaks about AdMech changes, I have no hope for the 10th

Oh no what did you hear?

[Wolf Guard Dan]

I would be very surprised if they made many changes to Ad Mech. They’re supposed to be one of the first codexes.

What I’ve heard is not specific to Ad Mech but not many changes to data sheets but more changes to core rules that are broken. Which would be disappointing if they don’t address obvious problems.

 

~36 hours until we know. They better do something or I may write off 10th at that point. Would have to re-evaluate when they try again to fix the edition again. 

[Omega-soul]

Well, i feel very pessimistic about this edition because my personal issues comes straight up from the core rules - not just indexes.

in 10th, there are several great things, but GW couldn't re-invent the overwhelming success of the 8th.

There's too much reduction in core game mechanics (like psychics, morale, vehicles/aircraft etc.) so it's not "simplified" it's primitivized.

I had great hopes for codex introduction of flavorful faction game mechanics, but it didn't happen (well there is little seeds of potential but it's negligible)

 

So if/when balance will be imposed - there is still uninteresting game we left with.

Recently I experienced very weird feeling of uninterest of using my models collection. I have all the Space marine units from the indexes - but after a dozen games I don't know what to field. I tried all the main units and I didn't liked interactions between most of them. It wasn't like that in 8th and 9th.

 

I feel very grateful that we have Horus Heresy 2.0 because i like it alot more than 10th (currently), even with all the rules bumps and imperfections. It feels much more impactful and flavourful even though there is less factions per se.

[Kastor Krieg]

3 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Been a while since I agreed with Black Blow Fly, but yes. Tempering expectations is the best course of action. If GW does knock it out of the park, even better.

Wait, you mean that @Sea Creature is a known sock of the banned user? And this is permitted by @Brother Tyler and the rest of the Moderati? 

[Cpt_Reaper]

The sheer brutal negativity in this thread is exhausting. We have the first codex in the wild and the first balance update of the entire edition isn't even out and you're writing off the whole thing? I sat on this reply for like an hour, debating whether I should engage or not. In the end I had to.

 

A balance update so quick is an amazing thing. I'd personally prefer one to coincide with every codex release of 10th, and not just every 3 months. More updates are objectively good. Less frequent updates or none at all remind me of the old days where you'd have a codex out of date for 2 editions and just had to suffer while a brand new codex roflstomped everything else including other newer codexes.

[Mogger351]

35 minutes ago, Omega-soul said:

Well, i feel very pessimistic about this edition because my personal issues comes straight up from the core rules - not just indexes.

in 10th, there are several great things, but GW couldn't re-invent the overwhelming success of the 8th.

There's too much reduction in core game mechanics (like psychics, morale, vehicles/aircraft etc.) so it's not "simplified" it's primitivized.

I had great hopes for codex introduction of flavorful faction game mechanics, but it didn't happen (well there is little seeds of potential but it's negligible)

Would you be willing to elaborate on this at all please?

 

I'm not sure what vehicle changes you refer to but morale and psychics were both things the community have asked for repeatedly in some formats. Common 9th complaints were that morale was a "kill more" mechanic rather than having any other impact. Likewise psychic bloat in terms of rules was often criticised, especially with marines, whilst also being something some armies basically just existing to pick up models in a phase of the game.

 

I'd also ask what sort of faction game mechanics you were hoping for?

[The Unseen]

33 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The sheer brutal negativity in this thread is exhausting. We have the first codex in the wild and the first balance update of the entire edition isn't even out and you're writing off the whole thing? I sat on this reply for like an hour, debating whether I should engage or not. In the end I had to.

 

A balance update so quick is an amazing thing. I'd personally prefer one to coincide with every codex release of 10th, and not just every 3 months. More updates are objectively good. Less frequent updates or none at all remind me of the old days where you'd have a codex out of date for 2 editions and just had to suffer while a brand new codex roflstomped everything else including other newer codexes.

 

It having been worse in the past still doesn't excuse a multi-billion dollar company shipping such a poorly designed rush-job. I work in food packaging, if this many people were rightfully upset about the product I had made them, I wouldn't just be out of a job, I'd probably have gotten my entire production line shut down for the FDA to tear it apart.

 

Especially when the corporate PR line was that laughable quote of "strong, not dominant" about Eldar performance. This is the start of an edition with a total reset, with the fewest number of moving parts, where every armies rules were (supposedly) developed alongside each other simultaneously; and its a giant mess. 40k editions tend to get *LESS* balanced over their lifespan, not more, as new codexes get designed that better take advantage of the ruleset and developers go off the rails. We are seeing end stage 40k edition level of bad balance BEFORE the first bloody codex hits. Its almost undoubtedly the worst 40k roll-out of a new edition EVER, in regards to initial balance. You can't piss on my umbrella and tell me its raining, sorry.

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, The Unseen said:

 

It having been worse in the past still doesn't excuse a multi-billion dollar company shipping such a poorly designed rush-job. I work in food packaging, if this many people were rightfully upset about the product I had made them, I wouldn't just be out of a job, I'd probably have gotten my entire production line shut down for the FDA to tear it apart.

 

Especially when the corporate PR line was that laughable quote of "strong, not dominant" about Eldar performance. This is the start of an edition with a total reset, with the fewest number of moving parts, where every armies rules were (supposedly) developed alongside each other simultaneously; and its a giant mess. 40k editions tend to get *LESS* balanced over their lifespan, not more, as new codexes get designed that better take advantage of the ruleset and developers go off the rails. We are seeing end stage 40k edition level of bad balance BEFORE the first bloody codex hits. Its almost undoubtedly the worst 40k roll-out of a new edition EVER, in regards to initial balance. You can't piss on my umbrella and tell me its raining, sorry.

9th was pretty well balanced at it's closure and early 8th was just as much, if not more of a shambles than this is.

 

What you're seeing is a bumpy launch during it's most visual and publicly discussed state, so you're constantly bombarded with more voices than previously telling you that it's bad.

 

Have you personally suffered from the state of the game? Have most people complaining? I have a hard time believing everyone exists in a gaming group with a Votann player getting dumpstered every game and an Eldar player getting free wins.

 

What I'm trying to say is I feel a lot of people are pointing at tournament stats and going "IT'S TERRIBLE" rather than supply their own opinions formed from their own experiences.

[Cpt_Reaper]

1 minute ago, The Unseen said:

 

It having been worse in the past still doesn't excuse a multi-billion dollar company shipping such a poorly designed rush-job. I work in food packaging, if this many people were rightfully upset about the product I had made them, I wouldn't just be out of a job, I'd probably have gotten my entire production line shut down for the FDA to tear it apart.

 

Especially when the corporate PR line was that laughable quote of "strong, not dominant" about Eldar performance. This is the start of an edition with a total reset, with the fewest number of moving parts, where every armies rules were (supposedly) developed alongside each other simultaneously; and its a giant mess. 40k editions tend to get *LESS* balanced over their lifespan, not more, as new codexes get designed that better take advantage of the ruleset and developers go off the rails. We are seeing end stage 40k edition level of bad balance BEFORE the first bloody codex hits. Its almost undoubtedly the worst 40k roll-out of a new edition EVER, in regards to initial balance. You can't piss on my umbrella and tell me its raining, sorry.

 

Acknowledging it was worse in the past means you acknowledge it is better now. If you don't, then that says to me you are ignoring the positive and actively looking for negatives. The basic core rules are exactly as promised - simplified and improving the biggest issues with 8th and 9th, namely being the psychic and morale phase.

 

Also you cannot, in any way, compare 40k to food processing. A poorly written index doesn't give people salmonella, as much as they might claim it did. You can't release a balance dataslate and undo internal haemorrhaging caused by iron filings in your burger, you can to fix a gaming product.

 

Thirdly, I feel like you misremember older editions, those built on the older ones. 6th and 7th built on the mess of the end of 5th, and made it worse. 8th and 10th were both a hard reset, built off of nothing so are starting at 0. Again, we only have the indexes and a single codex out. You cannot judge the edition so soon, as much as you want to.

 

You can't stand under an umbrella crying and tell me its raining.

[sairence]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The sheer brutal negativity in this thread is exhausting. We have the first codex in the wild and the first balance update of the entire edition isn't even out and you're writing off the whole thing? I sat on this reply for like an hour, debating whether I should engage or not. In the end I had to.

 

A balance update so quick is an amazing thing. I'd personally prefer one to coincide with every codex release of 10th, and not just every 3 months. More updates are objectively good. Less frequent updates or none at all remind me of the old days where you'd have a codex out of date for 2 editions and just had to suffer while a brand new codex roflstomped everything else including other newer codexes.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Yes, some of the core rules are clunky, but that is honestly to be expected in a rules-reset. Personally, my weekly games have felt that issues with core rules for me were mostly down to getting used to the changes from 9th.

 

As for the balance, I absolutely maintain that this is primarily an issue at the very top and very bottom. And yes, it's a serious issue there that needs adressing, but guess what...that's happening. If tomorrow doesn't go far enough, away, the next update will. But all the armies in between are, in my view, mostly fine and just need a few tweaks here and there. 

 

Maybe some people are spending a bit too much time shouting into their echo chambers.

[Omega-soul]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Would you be willing to elaborate on this at all please?

 

I'm not sure what vehicle changes you refer to but morale and psychics were both things the community have asked for repeatedly in some formats. Common 9th complaints were that morale was a "kill more" mechanic rather than having any other impact. Likewise psychic bloat in terms of rules was often criticised, especially with marines, whilst also being something some armies basically just existing to pick up models in a phase of the game.

 

I'd also ask what sort of faction game mechanics you were hoping for?

Spoiler

1) Vehicles - well it's all downhill from 7th - but at least in 8-9 there were last bits of game mechanic - degradation table - it means that your opponent have some impact while dealing with this kind of targets. It was a consolation prize - but at least something that differs mechanically vehicle from infantry (no infantry had that kind of rule and all vehicles had that)

Now - it's just a minor debuff that do not stack with other multitude sources of -1 to hit imposed on opponents. In most of the cases I got in - this -1 to-hit never felt as crippling breakdown of vehicle (or monster). I'd suggest other restrictions as crippling effect - like halve the shooting distance, shooting only closest target, shooting only with one weapon etc. it's would be at least different and thus more interesting than pesky and unstackable -1 to-hit

 

The other "novelty" of vehicle is the ability to shoot out of the fight is... nice touch but there are not so many close combat against vehicles due to many reasons. But anyway - it's not unique ability as it is equal to leaving combat and shooting (not all infantry can do that, but it's not rare).

And then there is Aircraft which is indeed a vehicle with a unique game mechanic. But it's.. just bad. Uninteresting and overcosted for what it can do. There is nothing engaging about it.

 

2) Current morale is a very strange thing as it's almost nonexistent (at least in my games there were never a crucial point where battleshock played a significant role) in most of the cases - it's easier and reliable to eliminate target unit than expect it to fail battleshock and not use Insane bravery to recover from that. Maybe in very large games like 5000 points or higher with multiple crucial objectives it wouldn't mean so much but there are greater count of bodies in larger games.

Anyway - battleshock has so little impact on the game that opponents even forget to track.

As for me - I think Battleshock should impose much more restrictions on unit - like halve the movement and deactivation of dataslate abilities and special rules. Then - make Insane bravery at the very least 2 cp (i'd remove it at all) because the battleshock condition itself is unreliable and insane bravery IS reliable. I would prefer that factions would use units that help other units to recover from battleshock, than this dumb stratagem. It would mean much more interactions on a battlefield. There is a great potential in morale mechanic, but I doubt GW would improve it (in balance dataslate at least)

 

3) Psychic - poor unwanted child of the whole system. It is truth that there was a psychic bloat - but it doesn't mean you should eliminate part of the game entirely.

The latter part of the message was lost so I'll point the basics - Psychics gone. It's another shooting weapons now. Previous versions had problems that should be solved not scrapped. Psychic had game mechanic of casting and denying powers. Psychicless factions should have their unique version of rules/mechanics to deal in psychic phase. I don't know, like Soul harvesting for Dark eldar (dealing battleshock test for certain units) or Necron machinations with anti-warp gears affecting any warp-related units or their effectiveness. Tau could use Etherials for some morale boosting mechanics - like in enemy phase every successful enemy power grants one of your unit near Etherial battleshock immunity or whatever. In your own phase you could restore battleshocked units. Or giving boost to OC characteristics.

Anyway - there are plenty of ways to make things interesting and not be bloated.

 

4) I hoped for a faction game mechanics like in AoS. Frankly - there are engaging faction mechanics - but they restricted to Crusade mode. Some of the current Faction also do (still) have fun game interactions - like Eldar (yes it is broken and too powerful now but the core principle is great and synergetic) which opposed by straight combat bonuses - like take rerols or +1 tohit/towound etc.

 

The thing is - the more leverage you have that engage opponent the more fun game is. More firepower or more effective combat is not making fun games.

 

5) The whole balance of close combat and shooting in the game got fully shifted towards shooting. Now Shooting is the main form of waging battles. There are tons of various shooting weapons that are cheaper, easier to use, and effective in terms of S, AP and Dmg that close combat is becoming redundant. And I say this as Blood angels player.

Yes there are exceptions (there always are) but generally it's preferably shoot than go close combat. And again that could be easily fixed by simply removing fallback move except making current Desperate fallback a stratagem for 2 cp, and taking losses on 1-3. With that change close combat will have a crucial advantage over shooting again and this will pull the other interesting game mechanics. Like - vehicles that could fire out of combat now looks like a real advantage over infantry. Etherials in psychic phase could make units leave the combat. Other factions could also have specialist that allow someone to leave combat (like this Lieutenant give a free Desperate escape stratagem to his unit etc. for the sake of uniformity). Or on the contrary there could be units/characters that make leaving combat even harder making Desperate escape stratagem deadlier (successful fallback roll now on 5+ or even 6+).

 

6) Terrain rules - became simpler than in 9th but uniformity of rules it give is just bland. I could write a whole article about great old save system with cover save and how it should be improved, but I won't digress

 

7) Removing Force chart and battle roles - is also a bad move, but I'll wait other codecies detachment to see if there is still some notable restrictions to army composition. But as for now Battleline is nonsense. Every army is basically old version of Unbound game mode within one faction. So now every unit in codex compete with each other in terms of raw effectiveness - be it intercessor squad or chaplain or whirlwind. Only raw combat prowess matters now (or means of improving that prowess). For example - basic squad with 2 wounds cost 100 points character that gives 6+ FNP cost same 100 points and give to that squad almost nothing aside of that. So in this case I am inclined to take 2 squads (or one full squad) because FNP could possibly save less wounds/models that i would have if I take just additional squad with 10 wounds. The same goes for attacking potential - sometimes it's better just to have 2 squads than 1 squad with some combat bonus.

And that comes from a straight almost unrestricted competition.

 

And a side note - I should notice that current mission system is the best since ever in the game, and current character vs unit interaction is also right stuff.

Current stratagems system is better than in 8-9th but i feel there is still room for a cut.

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Omega-soul

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Omega-soul said:

Spoiler

1) Vehicles - well it's all downhill from 7th - but at least in 8-9 there were last bits of game mechanic - degradation table - it means that your opponent have some impact while dealing with this kind of targets. It was a consolation prize - but at least something that differs mechanically vehicle from infantry (no infantry had that kind of rule and all vehicles had that)

Now - it's just a minor debuff that do not stack with other multitude sources of -1 to hit imposed on opponents. In most of the cases I got in - this -1 to-hit never felt as crippling breakdown of vehicle (or monster). I'd suggest other restrictions as crippling effect - like halve the shooting distance, shooting only closest target, shooting only with one weapon etc. it's would be at least different and thus more interesting than pesky and unstackable -1 to-hit

 

The other "novelty" of vehicle is the ability to shoot out of the fight is... nice touch but there are not so many close combat against vehicles due to many reasons. But anyway - it's not unique ability as it is equal to leaving combat and shooting (not all infantry can do that, but it's not rare).

And then there is Aircraft which is indeed a vehicle with a unique game mechanic. But it's.. just bad. Uninteresting and overcosted for what it can do. There is nothing engaging about it.

 

2) Current morale is a very strange thing as it's almost nonexistent (at least in my games there were never a crucial point where battleshock played a significant role) in most of the cases - it's easier and reliable to eliminate target unit than expect it to fail battleshock and not use Insane bravery to recover from that. Maybe in very large games like 5000 points or higher with multiple crucial objectives it wouldn't mean so much but there are greater count of bodies in larger games.

Anyway - battleshock has so little impact on the game that opponents even forget to track.

As for me - I think Battleshock should impose much more restrictions on unit - like halve the movement and deactivation of dataslate abilities and special rules. Then - make Insane bravery at the very least 2 cp (i'd remove it at all) because the battleshock condition itself is unreliable and insane bravery IS reliable. I would prefer that factions would use units that help other units to recover from battleshock, than this dumb stratagem. It would mean much more interactions on a battlefield. There is a great potential in morale mechanic, but I doubt GW would improve it (in balance dataslate at least)

 

3) Psychic - poor unwanted child of the whole system. It is truth that there was a psychic bloat - but it doesn't mean you should eliminate part of the game entirely.

The latter part of the message was lost so I'll point the basics - Psychics gone. It's another shooting weapons now. Previous versions had problems that should be solved not scrapped. Psychic had game mechanic of casting and denying powers. Psychicless factions should have their unique version of rules/mechanics to deal in psychic phase. I don't know, like Soul harvesting for Dark eldar (dealing battleshock test for certain units) or Necron machinations with anti-warp gears affecting any warp-related units or their effectiveness. Tau could use Etherials for some morale boosting mechanics - like in enemy phase every successful enemy power grants one of your unit near Etherial battleshock immunity or whatever. In your own phase you could restore battleshocked units. Or giving boost to OC characteristics.

Anyway - there are plenty of ways to make things interesting and not be bloated.

 

4) I hoped for a faction game mechanics like in AoS. Frankly - there are engaging faction mechanics - but they restricted to Crusade mode. Some of the current Faction also do (still) have fun game interactions - like Eldar (yes it is broken and too powerful now but the core principle is great and synergetic) which opposed by straight combat bonuses - like take rerols or +1 tohit/towound etc.

 

The thing is - the more leverage you have that engage opponent the more fun game is. More firepower or more effective combat is not making fun games.

 

5) The whole balance of close combat and shooting in the game got fully shifted towards shooting. Now Shooting is the main form of waging battles. There are tons of various shooting weapons that are cheaper, easier to use, and effective in terms of S, AP and Dmg that close combat is becoming redundant. And I say this as Blood angels player.

Yes there are exceptions (there always are) but generally it's preferably shoot than go close combat. And again that could be easily fixed by simply removing fallback move except making current Desperate fallback a stratagem for 2 cp, and taking losses on 1-3. With that change close combat will have a crucial advantage over shooting again and this will pull the other interesting game mechanics. Like - vehicles that could fire out of combat now looks like a real advantage over infantry. Etherials in psychic phase could make units leave the combat. Other factions could also have specialist that allow someone to leave combat (like this Lieutenant give a free Desperate escape stratagem to his unit etc. for the sake of uniformity). Or on the contrary there could be units/characters that make leaving combat even harder making Desperate escape stratagem deadlier (successful fallback roll now on 5+ or even 6+).

 

6) Terrain rules - became simpler than in 9th but uniformity of rules it give is just bland. I could write a whole article about great old save system with cover save and how it should be improved, but I won't digress

 

7) Removing Force chart and battle roles - is also a bad move, but I'll wait other codecies detachment to see if there is still some notable restrictions to army composition. But as for now Battleline is nonsense. Every army is basically old version of Unbound game mode within one faction. So now every unit in codex compete with each other in terms of raw effectiveness - be it intercessor squad or chaplain or whirlwind. Only raw combat prowess matters now (or means of improving that prowess). For example - basic squad with 2 wounds cost 100 points character that gives 6+ FNP cost same 100 points and give to that squad almost nothing aside of that. So in this case I am inclined to take 2 squads (or one full squad) because FNP could possibly save less wounds/models that i would have if I take just additional squad with 10 wounds. The same goes for attacking potential - sometimes it's better just to have 2 squads than 1 squad with some combat bonus.

And that comes from a straight almost unrestricted competition.

 

And a side note - I should notice that current mission system is the best since ever in the game, and current character vs unit interaction is also right stuff.

Current stratagems system is better than in 8-9th but i feel there is still room for a cut.

 

 

 

Just put a spoiler in for a chunk to take less space but thank you for taking the time to respond. In the context of between 3rd and now, yes I can see how the vehicles have radically altered, I'm sorry I thought you meant 9th>10th. Otherwise whether I agree entirely or not with your points is largely irrelevant, the quality of your response is great.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

5 hours ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Wait, you mean that @Sea Creature is a known sock of the banned user? And this is permitted by @Brother Tyler and the rest of the Moderati? 

I think the issue here is the word 'known'. It's difficult to say for certain they are the same person.

Also, what a sad existence that would be, to every day log into a website where everyone dislikes you and you are an object of continuous ridicule, a website you have publicly stated you have no wish to ever return to, and would look like an absolute fool were you to continue to do so while pretending not to.

Surely, no one would be that pathetic?

[Alternis]

The one thing that’s really getting under my skin about GW’s balance dataslates, is that their answer to balance is to just increase/reduce points costs. 

 

That is not how you balance things at all. 
 

let’s take SM Desolation for EG, you stick on a Primaris Apothecary on that unit with Bolter Discipline, and it’s hilarious the damage output, GW’s answer to this, was increase points cost. 
 

I cannot stress how general rules change or weapon profile tweaking needs to happen on certain things, just changing its points cost is not a balance 

[Vassakov]

3 minutes ago, Alternis said:

The one thing that’s really getting under my skin about GW’s balance dataslates, is that their answer to balance is to just increase/reduce points costs. 

 

That is not how you balance things at all. 
 

let’s take SM Desolation for EG, you stick on a Primaris Apothecary on that unit with Bolter Discipline, and it’s hilarious the damage output, GW’s answer to this, was increase points cost. 
 

I cannot stress how general rules change or weapon profile tweaking needs to happen on certain things, just changing its points cost is not a balance 

 

That's just not accurate though - the first 10th Ed "patch" changed the Aelderi faction ability fairly significantly and previous dataslates have amended datasheets, faction abilities and strategems as well as points. In 9th they also changed the entire indirect rules (though regrettably didn't learn their lesson for 10th) so I don't think they are trying to change things simply via points (though as it's the easiest dial to change they'd prefer that to an alternative.)