January 2024 MFM and Dataslate

[Spurspinter1]

12 hours ago, MysticTemplar said:

From a game design perspective, it's to stop other Chaos armies from just being whatever they're doing + the best Daemon models, I suspect.  Plus, restricting Daemon allies more means that the Daemons can be better for a pure Daemon list.

 

So why give chaos armies the option in the first place? 

 

The whole point was to be able to pick the good units, doing a 180 (well not quite but a big amendment) then takes away that advantage. If you can have a 500 point supplement l, it'd would be pretty odd for you to scan through the units available specifically looking for bad ones to include on your list would it not? 

 

I'm back to harping on but it's not normal to screw rules up so bad that it needs huge lurches in other directions, you're talking about it as if it's normal. I guess people are numb to it or aren't bothered if it doesn't affect them directly and just relieved.

 

It's like the accursed cultists, to half their recursion, half their OC and still go up in points. You know what, it's probably needed and fair to other opponents, it was bordering cruelty to run 3 blobs of them with the HQs, but how were they so horrendously stacked in the first place? Is it just ministry of truthed that it was GW that chose the rules to be that way? 

[Karhedron]

14 minutes ago, Spurspinter1 said:

So why give chaos armies the option in the first place? 

 

Chaos soup has always been a thing. A CSM army spawning a few units of Daemons along the way was just how the army has always worked. I guess GW didn't want to wipe out that option but also didn't want to make it better than the basic Codex.

[TrawlingCleaner]

1 hour ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

That's really interesting; how does AoS do it?

 

From the most recent Battlescroll:

The Battlescroll has this overview page which just tells you which units have changed vs the MFM just being a list of all the points. So they highlight what's gone up and down and also how much they've changed by. The MFM is half way there at least but it's much easier with the Battlescroll.

 

The Dataslate changes are largely the same however, changes in another colour:

 

On another point I've seen mentioned a few times and something I hoped they would do with this update was release a Chapter Approved type thing, like how they did with 8th ed, with another detachment for the armies (not including SM chapters) that aren't getting anything soon. It would give a bit more playstyle options for those armies and could shake things up a bit too. Say for example WE getting a Red Angel's detachment. Changing their detachment can wildly change how their army builds, especially as they're essentially "Solved" with such a unit count

Edited January 31 by TrawlingCleaner

[AutumnEffect]

14 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Chaos soup has always been a thing. A CSM army spawning a few units of Daemons along the way was just how the army has always worked. I guess GW didn't want to wipe out that option but also didn't want to make it better than the basic Codex.

 

Agreed, mortals armies summoning daemons has always been sort of a narrative feature of Chaos. I think they would be poorer for it if it was entirely removed, and it sort of fills the 'Inquisition/Assassins/Imperial Weirdos' niche for the greater faction.

I kinda miss the old days when you could pre-game possess one of your characters with a Greater Daemon and have them pop out. Good times.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I noticed a few Imperial Armour updates, but for the life of me I cannot work out what was changed.

• Orks
• Chaos Knights
• Astra Militarum part 1 (no malcador vanquisher added  )
• aeldari

 

[Kharn13]

I’m hoping the daemon allies change gets reverted, but if not hopefully there will be detachments within the god specific codex’s that allows more daemons to be used than 25%.

[Orange Knight]

Typical Games Workshop. I play imperial Fists, and my army got worse because some other chapter and detachment combination was getting strong results out of some units.

 

What a great and fair game, ladies and gentlemen. 3 Cheers for Games Workshop.

[Mogger351]

4 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

The whole point was to be able to pick the good units, doing a 180 (well not quite but a big amendment) then takes away that advantage. If you can have a 500 point supplement l, it'd would be pretty odd for you to scan through the units available specifically looking for bad ones to include on your list would it not? 

 

I'm back to harping on but it's not normal to screw rules up so bad that it needs huge lurches in other directions, you're talking about it as if it's normal. I guess people are numb to it or aren't bothered if it doesn't affect them directly and just relieved.

I think it's your viewpoint that needs the readjustment here, it's not about allies rules existing for "taking the good units", that's an argument for them being taken away or limited as it erodes the faction identity they're from, the mechanic and the faction identity you're bringing them in to.

 

Allies exist to add flavour to tie forces together in a narrative fashion more than to enable power gaming and this has always been the case. Any time it's become too unfettered (see TauDar), the game suffers as a result.

[Tonius]

My "meta" units got up (Redemptor and aggressors) but as battlelines and flamer marines got down in price, I just had to remove an enhancement to keep my firestorm 2000pts lists.

 

[crimsondave]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Typical Games Workshop. I play imperial Fists, and my army got worse because some other chapter and detachment combination was getting strong results out of some units.

 

What a great and fair game, ladies and gentlemen. 3 Cheers for Games Workshop.

We gave up granularity for balance.  Right?  Right???  

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, crimsondave said:

We gave up granularity for balance.  Right?  Right???  

I don't know how to reply to this. I know you're making a pun at GW's expense, but the chapters were at best "not balanced" before and for the exact same reasons that have diddly squat to do with granularity?

[chapter master 454]

58 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

We gave up granularity for balance.  Right?  Right???  

 

This is actually an issue starting to crop up, though with how marines are going it isn't so much a marine problem any more but other notable examples exist, the poster child of it be Crisis suits.

Their point hike is because of the triple Cyclic load-outs people are running them with but now, they are way overcosted UNLESS you take Triple Cyclic with exemplar of kauyon commander. This highlights something of an odd duck issue that needs to be addressed and that is sometimes it isn't points that are the issue, its the rules.

Crisis suits could of been fixed by just giving them a "only 1 of each option can be taken" clause. Doesn't stop "da optimal loadout" being found but it nerfs the problem without having to punish everyone. Ok, triple flamer timmy here is a little disappointed but to be honest I think Crisis suits need to stop having the ability to take triple weapon load-outs. At most you can take 2 weapons of the same kind however this just gives you the twin-linked rule. A bit of choice: more options or consistency.

 

Similar things can be said for multiple units where their abilities are just non-abilities. Tacticals stand out for this which is just sad...whoever on the rule team has a hard-on for the whole combat squad thing needs to be shot. A logistics ability that can already be done by any other unit in the army by virtue through list building is not an ability.

 

Point changes are one tool but changing abilities needs to be seen as a method also for improving units people aren't taking. Marines have a billion and five units yet only like 3-6 are taken, and the rest aren't considered because their abilities are just straight trash (their points not really being the issue if I am being frank).

 

I want to give GW praise for at least doing these updates. Again, I don't want 7th edition and before times where we got our codex, one FAQ/Errata 2 weeks later then nothing for...however long til our next codex (so for marines, about 2 years. Everyone else? Roll some dice!) but I feel maybe they need to be a bit more involved and willing to not just change points but also look into units with abilities that aren't good. Infernus marines are only good because you get overwatch on them, their battleshock SUCKS. If their abilities was free overwatch instead of that, I think people would consider them REALLY good. Imagine 3 squads of those running around, might need a points bump though to 100 at that point!

 

They are listening and trying to improve but something tells me they are also trying to not upset higher up execs as well...I hold them to answer for their wrongs but at the same time I also don't want to just drop the hammer because this doesn't feel like its 100% on the rules team alone.

[MysticTemplar]

9 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

 

So why give chaos armies the option in the first place? 

 

The whole point was to be able to pick the good units, doing a 180 (well not quite but a big amendment) then takes away that advantage. If you can have a 500 point supplement l, it'd would be pretty odd for you to scan through the units available specifically looking for bad ones to include on your list would it not? 

 

I'm back to harping on but it's not normal to screw rules up so bad that it needs huge lurches in other directions, you're talking about it as if it's normal. I guess people are numb to it or aren't bothered if it doesn't affect them directly and just relieved.

 

It's like the accursed cultists, to half their recursion, half their OC and still go up in points. You know what, it's probably needed and fair to other opponents, it was bordering cruelty to run 3 blobs of them with the HQs, but how were they so horrendously stacked in the first place? Is it just ministry of truthed that it was GW that chose the rules to be that way? 

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at - the idea isn't that you would want to take the "bad" units, it's that adding an opportunity cost to bringing allies lets GW make them better for their original context, because bringing them as allies is less attractive.  Plus, from a game design standpoint, if every CSM list is headlined by Greater Daemons, you've honestly got a bit of a problem for faction identity and distinctions.

 

To your other point, well...   At the end of the day, GW has never been good at writing 40k rules.  The primary difference these days is that they actually try to fix the problem rather than just letting it sit for the years between codices.

Edited January 31 by MysticTemplar

[SvenONE]

3 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

I want to give GW praise for at least doing these updates. Again, I don't want 7th edition and before times where we got our codex, one FAQ/Errata 2 weeks later then nothing for...however long til our next codex (so for marines, about 2 years. Everyone else? Roll some dice!) but I feel maybe they need to be a bit more involved and willing to not just change points but also look into units with abilities that aren't good. Infernus marines are only good because you get overwatch on them, their battleshock SUCKS. If their abilities was free overwatch instead of that, I think people would consider them REALLY good. Imagine 3 squads of those running around, might need a points bump though to 100 at that point!

 

They are listening and trying to improve but something tells me they are also trying to not upset higher up execs as well...I hold them to answer for their wrongs but at the same time I also don't want to just drop the hammer because this doesn't feel like its 100% on the rules team alone.

 

There's no question that GW's current active hand in balance has really put 7th edition in the rearview mirror, but there is an irony to it. We're early in this edition and we've yet to see what other detachments come out of the design team, are we doomed to see the warts of 7th happen again? I think at this point we can all agree 7th was a mess by the end, but it started with good intentions from GW (for them at least) and excitement from the player base (who didn't want free rhinos in their lists!). As time went on however, balance was a MESS as it became so unwieldy to do so; balance formation rules, balance USRs, balance D weapons, balance profiles, where do you start and how do you keep it tidy?

 

GW needs to create some demand by writing interesting rules to justify selling codexes AND giving players options with their collections. Of the codexes that have been released, each has a fair bit of detachment rules with each: SM (7), Necrons (5), Admech (5), Tyranids (6), and DA (10 if you include access to SM) with Tau, CSM, Orks and Custodes on the way. I can't say for certain, but it's not clear to me how granular GW's data gets for these tournaments, but these detachments complicate it for sure. Do you rebalance unit cost around a specific detachment that wins 60% of the time while there's barely enough data on other detachments within the same codex? Or do you just buff/nerf those specific detachments when they overperform to your liking, maybe the latter, maybe the former, maybe both!

 

Time's going to tell I think if GW can keep things from getting out of control with detachments, we've been here before and it wasn't pretty. The active balance seems to help, but then I guess the question is what impact does that have on your more casual playerbase who maybe only gets a handful of games per quarter, or even year! I'm very interested to see where we are in Dec of 2024!

Edited January 31 by SvenONE
spelling

[jaxom]

On 1/30/2024 at 2:57 PM, DemonGSides said:

Death Guard going up in points for Plague Marines is pretty funny. GW wants us to use our legion marines, but not TOO much. 

 

22 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

I play DG, and I totally agree that a plague marine shouldn't be cheaper than an intercessor, no matter how the faction win% was.

 

20 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

If they really want to diversify the units people bring they need to change the meta entirely.

I have a slim margin of hope because the, "This update is starting to look deeper into internal balance" bit. 

[Blurf]

On 1/30/2024 at 11:45 AM, MoshJason said:

180 pts for an exorcist... seems excessive. At 160 pts it already felt way outclassed by the castigator.

Not in my experience. I don't think it needed to go up, but I'm still going to keep 1 Exorcist in every list. The Castigator is really hamstrung by only being 3 damage. Against most targets you want to use them on, both the Exorcist and Castigator will be lucky to land one wound per turn. The Exorcist can turn that into a kill shot, the Castigator is lucky to make it a haircut.

[crimsondave]

4 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I don't know how to reply to this. I know you're making a pun at GW's expense, but the chapters were at best "not balanced" before and for the exact same reasons that have diddly squat to do with granularity?

Yet we had granularity before.  Now we have neither.

[DemonGSides]

10 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

Yet we had granularity before.  Now we have neither.

 

This statement presumes that the game was balanced before, and that's just a lol worthy statement if I've ever heard it.

Like points all you want.  It doesn't lead to an automatically more balanced game by its inclusion.

7th wasn't some bastion of balance because of points.  Someone here has forgotten the Tau.

Edited January 31 by DemonGSides

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, SvenONE said:

Time's going to tell I think if GW can keep things from getting out of control with detachments, we've been here before and it wasn't pretty.

 

The fact that the Detachment bonuses are now 1-in-1-out rather than being cumulative and layered will go a long way to help here I think. As you say, time will tell.

[crimsondave]

7 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

This statement presumes that the game was balanced before, and that's just a lol worthy statement if I've ever heard it.

Like points all you want.  It doesn't lead to an automatically more balanced game by its inclusion.

7th wasn't some bastion of balance because of points.  Someone here has forgotten the Tau.

What are you talking about?  Where did I say the game was balanced before?  Hint:  I didn’t.

 

We had granularity, now we don’t.  Is the game more balanced?

 

Than 7th?  Yeah.  7th sucked.  Than 9th?  Nah.

Edited January 31 by crimsondave

[DemonGSides]

17 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

What are you talking about?  Where did I say the game was balanced before?  Hint:  I didn’t.

 

We had granularity, now we don’t.  Is the game more balanced?

 

Than 7th?  Yeah.  7th sucked.  Than 9th?  Nah.

 

I disagree, but that's opinions.  9th at this same stage of life was also a bit of a mess, and it's simply Angron-tinted glasses that you're saying otherwise, although it might be better to compare it to 8th, considering they were both rules re-launches.

Edited January 31 by DemonGSides

[OttoVonAwesome]

I don't know why they are even trying to balance anything if there's just gonna be a new edition flipping everything on it's head every 2-3 years. Wait forever for a codex you barely get to use and everyone else that had one has been kicking your butt the whole time. They finally had 9th in a good place and instead of running campaign supplements and riding on the fact the game state was good they flipped the table and reset to zero. The churn is so bad everyone is even predicting a date for 11th edition like wth is going on Horus Heresy runs for 10 years and 2.0 will run for another 10 but we gotta have a new 40k every 3 years? Why? Takes the average person longer than that just to finish a new army.

[Spurspinter1]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I think it's your viewpoint that needs the readjustment here, it's not about allies rules existing for "taking the good units", that's an argument for them being taken away or limited as it erodes the faction identity they're from, the mechanic and the faction identity you're bringing them in to.

 

Allies exist to add flavour to tie forces together in a narrative fashion more than to enable power gaming and this has always been the case. Any time it's become too unfettered (see TauDar), the game suffers as a result.

 

If you're bothered about the narrative side you can just do the AOS narrative style of play and include literally any unit you want in a list regardless of faction, as long as it's agreed then that's fine. I'm thoroughly not into the lore but Chaos is Chaos and to switch around rules about what's allowed ally wise mid edition is pretty absurd imo. But the bootlickers are used to the absurdity so it's par for the course.

 

The point of allies in the case of knights at least was to be able to get models that are of a different profile of the bulk of the army that can do the tasks that the knights cannot. Nurglings being nurgle battleline obviously means they can still fulfill that role, but I don't think many people want to clog up their list with blue horrors to be able to field the changeling. It was a cheap backline board model but now you might as well have another war dog because of how changeling and the horrors add up points wise. It's real life money and in game points I don't really want to spend but that's only my opinion of course.

 

Rather than the weird ass daemon rule change I thought they'd actually look at chaff units winning games by doing nonsensical secondaries ie kroot hounds / literal wolves getting asked to investigate signals, but that would have made too much sense.

 

 

[Spurspinter1]

37 minutes ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I don't know why they are even trying to balance anything if there's just gonna be a new edition flipping everything on it's head every 2-3 years. Wait forever for a codex you barely get to use and everyone else that had one has been kicking your butt the whole time. They finally had 9th in a good place and instead of running campaign supplements and riding on the fact the game state was good they flipped the table and reset to zero. The churn is so bad everyone is even predicting a date for 11th edition like wth is going on Horus Heresy runs for 10 years and 2.0 will run for another 10 but we gotta have a new 40k every 3 years? Why? Takes the average person longer than that just to finish a new army.

 

To quote DJ Shadow, "It's the money!"

 

5 hours ago, MysticTemplar said:

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at - the idea isn't that you would want to take the "bad" units, it's that adding an opportunity cost to bringing allies lets GW make them better for their original context, because bringing them as allies is less attractive.  Plus, from a game design standpoint, if every CSM list is headlined by Greater Daemons, you've honestly got a bit of a problem for faction identity and distinctions.

 

To your other point, well...   At the end of the day, GW has never been good at writing 40k rules.  The primary difference these days is that they actually try to fix the problem rather than just letting it sit for the years between codices.

 

In this specific case of chaos knights, you are now being pushed towards units that aren't a good fit for the army. It's on me for getting baited in to the allies system, plus embarrassingly giving money to GW, this latest thing is enough for me to finally get in to 3d printing so at least GW won't profit from me due to their lack of shame. Yeah boohoo tiny violins and all that who cares, but this method of operation just isn't normal even if people pretend it is. I love playing the game itself but I literally wouldn't recommend it to a friend, there's so much that doesn't make sense. Blood Angels players have got a printed codex on the way preordered with points values that are redundant before they've even arrived? After everyone initially had rules for free? Yeah I'm good, games-workshop / battle scribe / Printing and I'll be a lot happier dealing with the nonsense.

 

And on the 2nd paragraph yes, it's so kind of them to do massive lurches in different directions every 3 months before potentially landing on something that resembles balance before it's ripped up completely to start a fresh new disaster with some really nice new artwork, brilliant stuff.

Edited January 31 by Spurspinter1

[MegaVolt87]

5 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I don't know why they are even trying to balance anything if there's just gonna be a new edition flipping everything on it's head every 2-3 years. Wait forever for a codex you barely get to use and everyone else that had one has been kicking your butt the whole time. They finally had 9th in a good place and instead of running campaign supplements and riding on the fact the game state was good they flipped the table and reset to zero. The churn is so bad everyone is even predicting a date for 11th edition like wth is going on Horus Heresy runs for 10 years and 2.0 will run for another 10 but we gotta have a new 40k every 3 years? Why? Takes the average person longer than that just to finish a new army.

 

Yeah 9th was a good edition. My problems with it were chip dmg, strategem bloat, lack of unit entry consolidation for adjacent units and fixed box unit loadouts.

 

The actual rules are so bad now points adjustments are no longer enough to balance the inter faction power. Ok points increase, you still reaching for that triple cyclic crisis suit/ aggressors etc because it's still better than adjacent units. Points increases just means a lower model count and the "bad" units still not being taken or sold. If you wanted to be facetious about it, the game is cheaper $$$ because you just take the good units to be viable, they are a lot of points so you have less minitures to buy to have a viable/playable/ competitive army list. 

Edited February 1 by MegaVolt87