warhammer 10th edition June Balance Dataslate and Field Manual

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Managers are generally the business version of politicians. Completey useless and with no constructive or positive function. 

 

I do have some sympathy for the game designers. I'm not saying they are off the hook because to be brutal they could and should be doing a better job. BUT, with the sheer amount of moving parts in 40k, the clearly limited resources for playtesting and the absurd demands placed on them for new editions/mission decks/Crusade books it is a minor miracle we have a semi functional semi balanced product at all. 

Edited June 23 by The Praetorian of Inwit

[Special Officer Doofy]

23 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Again, this will vary by local meta. Our DG player was doing quite well with them at the release of 10th, after the first balance pass. He did go 4-1 at an international (team) tourney with them in 9th, though, so he knows what he's doing, and didn't jump ship when the internet said they're weak, like many competitive players did. 

 

Disregarding both our anecdotal experience, the majority found DG being terrible. GW's win rate had them second to last and another data collecter had them at dead last, so the evidence is against you. They would not have changed their terrible detachment bonus and drop point costs of just about every unit in the book if they were balanced accordingly.

 

But my argument was more so about your statement in general being wrong, not so much a specific faction being bad. There was multiple bad factions, and Eldar was head and shoulders above everyone. Turns out manipulating dice in a game of dice rolling is strong. 10th did not start off balanced.

[Chaplain Killmer]

21 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

We know from recent interviews with Priestley, Chambers etc that those guys spent a lot of times playtesting the new games and releases before they came out. They would put together mock-up miniatures to represent new releases that did not yet have something official.

 

You had the feeling from them that there was a a real sense of pride in their craft, of them as game designers, and what they were releasing, and trying to make it as fun, playable and balanced as they could (even though they acknowledge broken combinations of things slipped through the net).

 

I'm not sure at what point in the editions this stopped, or the developers* just were no longer given the time & resources to do likewise, as everything is funnelled into a maximum-speed miniature and game release strategy, at the behest of the sales/production teams.

 

*Whoever these people might be? The way they are treated like witnesses to a mob hit in an FBI witness relocation program.

 

Sometimes, when I read this kind of topic, I ask myself how if I would do a better job making the game with that many different points of view and ways players enjoy the game. Chambers and Priestly had it probably much easier back in the day.

 

Not so many other games that people could compare to; less preasure from competition that builds units alternative miniatures for GW games that they need to stay ahead of, Warhammer had not really dipped its toes into computer games to fish customers so no constant demand on "seasons", metawatch ...; they had to handle less factions, less units in that factions, much smaller community that was less diversified... and of course much less communication between player groups, turneys, social media and so on that broadcasts "the ultimate way to play your army".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karhedron]

47 minutes ago, Chaplain Killmer said:

Sometimes, when I read this kind of topic, I ask myself how if I would do a better job making the game with that many different points of view and ways players enjoy the game. Chambers and Priestly had it probably much easier back in the day.

 

I think there is some truth in that. There are many more factions than when Chambers and Priestly were leading development and many more units in most of the existing factions (especially Marines). This is then compounded by the fact they are trying to give some units rules without obsoleting very similar units in a cramped design space (Marines again in particular).

[Xenith]

On 6/22/2024 at 11:51 PM, DemonGSides said:

They got emergency buffed with the first balance pass and were one of the first factions to get a major overhaul to their core rules.  Your One Local Pilot doing well is exactly the problem we're talking about 

 

19 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

 the majority found DG being terrible.

 

Happy to agree that DG were terrible on release and needed the balance pass. 35% WR at the highest competitive levels is one thing, however as you'll both know if filled with confirmation bias (Eldar won tournaments because people thought eldar would win tournaments, and those actually trying to win would spot DG were weak and not play them, and the people taking one of the weakest armies to tournaments are likely just there for fun and to throw some dice about). We'd need to see actual casual game stats to know how they performed at a casual level, and I'd wager it was a bit more than 35% WR. Again, this doesn't excuse them, however I think my point that tourney results are skewed and don't necessarily reflect non-competitive metas still stands. 

[DemonGSides]

31 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Happy to agree that DG were terrible on release and needed the balance pass. 35% WR at the highest competitive levels is one thing, however as you'll both know if filled with confirmation bias (Eldar won tournaments because people thought eldar would win tournaments, and those actually trying to win would spot DG were weak and not play them, and the people taking one of the weakest armies to tournaments are likely just there for fun and to throw some dice about). We'd need to see actual casual game stats to know how they performed at a casual level, and I'd wager it was a bit more than 35% WR. Again, this doesn't excuse them, however I think my point that tourney results are skewed and don't necessarily reflect non-competitive metas still stands. 

 

You're NEVER going to get "Casual stats" because that's kind of an oxy-moron, so then you're back to relying on anecdotes, and the anecdotes are almost universally terrible EXCEPT for your own where some DG Tournament Juicer figured out how to make a "quite well" run of; not a great run of it, in your own words.

So instead of listening to the people who played at that casual level and were still just laughed off the table, you're saying that everyone's wrong and 10th ed was super balanced for casual play on release?  I don't think you've made a compelling argument that that is true.

If anything, I think 10th has been "relatively" balanced over the past 6-9 months, but those first 6 months were REALLY rough. This most recent Balance Pass feels like TOO MUCH, but we will see how it shakes out.

[phandaal]

34 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

You're NEVER going to get "Casual stats" because that's kind of an oxy-moron, so then you're back to relying on anecdotes, and the anecdotes are almost universally terrible EXCEPT for your own where some DG Tournament Juicer figured out how to make a "quite well" run of; not a great run of it, in your own words.

So instead of listening to the people who played at that casual level and were still just laughed off the table, you're saying that everyone's wrong and 10th ed was super balanced for casual play on release?  I don't think you've made a compelling argument that that is true.

If anything, I think 10th has been "relatively" balanced over the past 6-9 months, but those first 6 months were REALLY rough. This most recent Balance Pass feels like TOO MUCH, but we will see how it shakes out.

 

There is a battle report from Miniwargaming right around the launch of 10th. Votann vs Eldar. The Votann player was shell-shocked at the end of the game, sitting there with his eyes glazed over like "well... those Eldar seem strong... so that's good..." and both had brought what they thought were reasonably good lists. The rules just did not work together, because the Eldar player was essentially using 10th++ Ed with inbuilt dice manipulation while the Votann guy was using 9.5th Ed with the scary stuff chopped off.

 

I remember the general chatter on Discord and Facebook Votann groups from "casual" players who had not kept up with the discourse prior to 10th. It was a lot of people asking if anyone else thought there was something off with the army because they had been playing games and getting bodied, a lot more people agreeing and sharing similar experiences, then one or two people like "lol no I just beat my friend who plays Eldar, get good."

 

It is honestly a little bit odd to see anyone saying that early 10th edition was balanced. Didn't Games Workshop themselves give the closest thing to a mea culpa before they started doing their initial balance passes?

Edited June 24 by phandaal

[Orange Knight]

Oh there's no question the game is a mess, and GW are in large parts the ones to blame for the way things are.

 

Games Workshop are the ones insisting on selling the rules piecemeal throughout an edition. They also hold model releases back for these arbitrary reasons, and it causes certain factions to lag behind. The Votann don't have a complete range, but they'll have to wait until after 5 Marine variants get seperate releases (another decision based in greed as the Astartes could all be updated in two books the same as they are in the Heresy game). 

 

Another massive issue I have is in the way the rules and detachments automatically funnel players into making specific types of lists. There's no question that you can optimise a list more or less, but the fact is that the detachments generally write themselves and armies start to look similar. The "casual" lists are just less optimised versions of the more "competitive" lists. For this reason, if you army happens to be better than another, the casual game ends up being very one sided.

[Xenith]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

So instead of listening to the people who played at that casual level and were still just laughed off the table, you're saying that everyone's wrong and 10th ed was super balanced for casual play on release?  I don't think you've made a compelling argument that that is true.

 

Easy now. That's not what I'm saying at all. You seem to be trying to pick a fight. If you read what I wrote instead of strawmanning me, I agree with you. My own initial comment showed bias to my meta, and I acknowledge that. I'm just reinforcing, as you keep hammering home, that not everyone's experience is the same. 

 

While the raw tournament stats, and many other peoples experiences quickly showed that Eldar were broken and DG were poor, not everyone experienced this, not least the studio who thought everything was hunky dory, because people play in different metas.

 

My overall point is that any variances in army level power are expressed most at the highest levels of tourney play. This is pretty common in most competitive activities - no point buying the best tennis racket if you can barely play, but with two highly skilled competitors, every minor advantage gives you an edge. 

 

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

It is honestly a little bit odd to see anyone saying that early 10th edition was balanced. Didn't Games Workshop themselves give the closest thing to a mea culpa before they started doing their initial balance passes?

 

No ones did say it. @DemonGSides is claiming I said (as above) it though so there's that. 

Edited June 24 by Xenith
typo

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

No ones did say it. @DemonGSides is claiming I said (as above) it though so there's that. 

 

Fair enough. I do remember plenty of people saying they were still having fun, but balanced is a whole other thing. 

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Easy now. That's not what I'm saying at all. You seem to be trying to pick a fight. If you read what I wrote instead of strawmanning me, I agree with you. My own initial comment showed bias to my meta, and I acknowledge that. I'm just reinforcing, as you keep hammering home, that not everyone's experience is the same. 

 

While the raw tournament stats, and many other peoples experiences quickly showed that Eldar were broken and DG were poor, not everyone experienced this, not least the studio who thought everything was hunky dory, because people play in different metas.

 

My overall point is that any variances in army level power are expressed most at the highest levels of tourney play. This is pretty common in most competitive activities - no point buying the best tennis racket if you can barely play, but with two highly skilled competitors, every minor advantage gives you an edge. 

 

 

No ones did say it. @DemonGSides is claiming I said (as above) it though so there's that. 

 

You acknowledged competitive win rates, which were definitely discussed, but you argued that casually, everything was fine on release;

 

On 6/21/2024 at 9:39 AM, Xenith said:

1) The power level variation between armies is only really a factor in the higher ends of competitive play, using extreme builds with the most efficient units - at local tourney or beer and pretzels, 'bring what you have' level, the armies were pretty balanced - as evidenced by internal playtesting, where they apparently found zero issue with the game state at release. 

  

On 6/21/2024 at 11:09 AM, Special Officer Doofy said:

Disagree 100% here. Played a few casual Death Guard games with the index just after launch. They were rough to play and not balanced. Lost disgustingly resilient, barely went up in toughness compared to others, shooting didn't really go up in strength, Mortarion was neutered, lost movement on some units, terrible detachment bonus and more. Win rate was in the 30% for a reason.

  

On 6/21/2024 at 5:24 PM, Orange Knight said:

wish this were true.

 

Generally this is how 40k used to be. Most units were middling, but there were a few combinations of warlord traits, psychic powers, etc that produced over powered results.

 

Today an entire army, literally every unit in it, can be poorly balanced against the units in another army.

 

It's why we just had an example where  the entire admech range had a stat adjustment. Some models are going from BS4+ to BS2+ in an attempt to get them to pereform.

 

I've never entered a tournament, I literally ONLY play casually, and DG was legitimately miserable on release (And frankly, was still miserable when they got their update, it's been the multiple points changes and other gameplay changes that have made them go from miserable to okay).  You're appealing to some sort of GW authority when we know they don't really playtest, and they admit as much.  It has nothing to do with meta; that's a cop out that's giving cover to bad game design.
 

I'm just very confused how you can think the game was balanced to a "Beers and Pretzels" level on release, and then when pushed back, your immediate response is "Well the tournament player I know did well with this subpar faction."

You do get how that makes 0 sense, right?  I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to understand how you are 'agreeing with me' when you're saying things in opposition to what I am saying and what I believe.

Edited June 24 by DemonGSides

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

I'm just very confused how you can think the game was balanced to a "Beers and Pretzels" level on release, and then when pushed back, your immediate response is "Well the tournament player I know did well with this subpar faction."

If I read the thread correctly, the point was every local meta is different, not that the game was balanced.

[Cenobite Terminator]

At one time, which was a long period during 9th edition, it was common to see many people asking for a total reboot… which is just what we got. Gone is the drill down granularity of the game, which perhaps provided the highest degree of customization. So, when you see the same people complaining now I can’t help but feel like there is, and always will be, those that are never satisfied.

[DemonGSides]

4 hours ago, jaxom said:

If I read the thread correctly, the point was every local meta is different, not that the game was balanced.

 

Not quite, what was argued was that the game was fine at that meta level, but it absolutely wasn't.

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

At one time, which was a long period during 9th edition, it was common to see many people asking for a total reboot… which is just what we got. Gone is the drill down granularity of the game, which perhaps provided the highest degree of customization. So, when you see the same people complaining now I can’t help but feel like there is, and always will be, those that are never satisfied.

 

When people ask for a broad edition reboot ala 3rd, 8th and now 10th, they've generally gotten tired of compounding layers of bloat and rules creep, rather than the actual editions core rules. For 9th this was the layering of  faction bonus, subfaction bonus, warlord trait, stratagems and relics to basically invalidate the statline of affected units. People almost certainly never meant "toss out granular points" lol. GW knew no one wanted power level, which is why they advertised it being removed in their march 30th article and why people got so upset; they were effectively lied to. Let's not misrepresent dialing back the hidden power bonus-bloat with a removal of army building granularity. The part that stings the most is that these changes in 10th are only about removing entry barriers to attract even more new players, not to fix actual issues in the game.

[Pacific81]

21 hours ago, Chaplain Killmer said:

 

Sometimes, when I read this kind of topic, I ask myself how if I would do a better job making the game with that many different points of view and ways players enjoy the game. Chambers and Priestly had it probably much easier back in the day.

 

Not so many other games that people could compare to; less preasure from competition that builds units alternative miniatures for GW games that they need to stay ahead of, Warhammer had not really dipped its toes into computer games to fish customers so no constant demand on "seasons", metawatch ...; they had to handle less factions, less units in that factions, much smaller community that was less diversified... and of course much less communication between player groups, turneys, social media and so on that broadcasts "the ultimate way to play your army".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I think all of this is probably the case.

 

Although listening to their interviews, they also had the issue that if the game bombed, there was a very real possibility GW would have gone bust! So a lot of pressure on them to make the game a good one.

[Indy Techwisp]

Well then.

This certainly is one of the June Balance Dataslate and Field Manual discussions of all time.

 

Do we actually have anything left about the dataslate to discuss now?

We've not really had it long enough to get proper "here's how it's affecting games" reports from a tourney or whatever, but is the current avenue of discussion really on topic or is it just another opportunity to decry 10th ed as a fundamentally flawed product once more?

[TrawlingCleaner]

Different strokes for different folks is the order of the day but I personally don't understand the need to comment on and tell folks why you don't like 10th ed everytime (hyperbolic) there's a thread about the rules. I get it, there's a good amount of folk here that don't like the game as it's currently and that sucks but it seems tedious/fruitless/kinda depressing to me? I'd personally want to put my energy into something positive, like a collaborative effort into fixing the edition or discussing older editions or other game systems. The site has scope to do all of those things.

Anywho, starting to sound tinfoil badge-y

 

I've played a game with the new rules (not with Pariah Nexus) and most of the changes feel pretty good. Pivot was how I was playing for the entire edtion up until this point, I think I've been doing myself dirty up until now as I've been measuring angles of change on vehicles rather than just bending the tape measure. An older edition hang up!

I'm interested to see how moving through walls works out for Knights and the Norns, I think it has the potential to be a too little nuts but I've yet to see it in play.

[apologist]

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Well then.

This certainly is one of the June Balance Dataslate and Field Manual discussions of all time.

 

Do we actually have anything left about the dataslate to discuss now?

We've not really had it long enough to get proper "here's how it's affecting games" reports from a tourney or whatever, but is the current avenue of discussion really on topic or is it just another opportunity to decry 10th ed as a fundamentally flawed product once more?

 

Fair point. Concentrating on the constructive side, then, the Core Rules updates are what interest me primarily. 

 

A few scattered thoughts:

 

Core rules changes vs FAQ

I find it interesting what they've decided should be an official change, and what can be explained as part of the FAQ. For example:

‘If for any reason a model cannot be set up in Unit Coherency,

or cannot be set up following any restrictions stated by other rules (e.g. while setting up using the Deep Strike ability), that unit cannot be set up. If a unit cannot end a move in Unit Coherency, it cannot make that move and its models are returned to their previous positions.’

(Emphasis in the original)

This struck me as more of an FAQ thing, as I would have presumed that the exceptions could be covered there (under Deep Strike etc.). Perhaps simply for future-proofing, in case more exceptions arrive?

 

Likewise Firing deck is now a very long and involved rule that perhaps should have been left as-is, and a note added to the FAQ along the lines of 'Don't be silly, of course you can't do that.'

 

Lean towards physical models over card-game feel

While I generally like abstraction, I think 40k is currently as the cusp of the physical models being sidelined, weighing so much more towards abstract game than simulation that it risks feeling a bit 'detached'. Changes that emphasise the physical nature of the game and common sense over card-game style abstraction therefore get my thumbs-up. Persisting effects, for example, seem like one of those things that I would have assumed was how it was done anyway.

 

Move units likewise gets my approval. Adding pivots and explaining straight lines is perhaps a bit of an awkward cludge, but I'm glad there's a sense coming from GW that they want to make vehicles (etc.) feel more distinctly different from smaller models. I hope this presages a more physical edition that puts the models and board front and centre, and makes manoeuvre and placement matter.

 

On the other hand, this note from Shooting phase implies that the card-style 'triggers' are still taking precedence over what you might expect from a simulation style.

Designer’s Note:This doesn’t change the unit’s eligibility to shoot, but it does mean that a unit can’t be selected to shoot at nothing, and therefore won’t qualify for other rules triggers (e.g. Gargoyles’ Winged Swarm ability and Dark Pacts).’

 

 

Wording and layering

The legalistic way the rules are written means that I'm glad that examples are given – e.g. a whirlwind firing to illustrate Out-of-phase rules – to help frame and clarify things, even if the implications are against what I would expect. (In this example, I find it weird that being bombarded doesn't have the same effect in one phase as another).

 

The very complicated wording of Mortal Wounds makes me think that the layers of core mechanics aren't interacting as desired, and while I'm glad the studio are trying to address it, again the layers are pulling a series of veils over immediate interaction and adding to that 'detached' feeling. There must be a clearer way than this of resolving interactions; and it makes me think that the underlying ruleset needs to have more muscle, and rely less on layered rules.

 

+++

 

This Balance Dataslate hasn't done anything so drastic that particularly makes me want to play this over other games, but does leave me more hopeful that we'll see an edition with a bit more emphasis on the models on the table, and less on the bits of cardboard around it.

[Special Officer Doofy]

12 hours ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

At one time, which was a long period during 9th edition, it was common to see many people asking for a total reboot… which is just what we got. Gone is the drill down granularity of the game, which perhaps provided the highest degree of customization. So, when you see the same people complaining now I can’t help but feel like there is, and always will be, those that are never satisfied.

 

The issue started with the mono bonus space marines got in the supplements. They already gave the Primaris marine 1ap on their new rifles then they got another on top of that. They have the most basic Primaris marine with 2ap and then balanced every codex in 9th based on that. I just wanted the lethality toned down, it got ridiculous. Armor of contempt was the ap coming full circle back to marines. Most everyone on here thought the lethality was getting out of hand. How else were they going to reset it? Reverse codex creep? Yeah right.

 

There were some of us who wanted a fix and thought a reset was the only way. We wanted the lethality and stacking rules under control. That's it. NO ONE asked for a barely play tested, unbalanced launch that was shoving unpopular ideas like power level disguised as points down our throats or unbalanced free war gear, set unit size costs, leaders joining squads, etc. That was all GW, none of us asked for it.

 

Edit: I am a big fan of the one page rules idea. That toned down the amount of strats and stacking rules that 9th had.

Edited June 25 by Special Officer Doofy

[Mogger351]

5 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

leaders joining squads

I actually saw this asked for a lot, but what they didn't mean was "restricted access" to joining squads.

[DemonGSides]

Yeah leaders joining squads is a positive of this edition.

 

Loss of pointed war gear or at least non set squad sizes is the real annoyance. 

[phandaal]

13 hours ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

At one time, which was a long period during 9th edition, it was common to see many people asking for a total reboot… which is just what we got. Gone is the drill down granularity of the game, which perhaps provided the highest degree of customization. So, when you see the same people complaining now I can’t help but feel like there is, and always will be, those that are never satisfied.

 

This is an interesting thing to say for an account created after the launch of 10th edition. Assuming you are referring to people elsewhere, not people on this website?

 

For myself, in any case, I was very positive about 10th edition during the previews. It seemed like GW did understand the problems people were having.  Of course, what actually happened has been hashed out over and over again since the launch of 10th edition and it does not need to get brought up again. People have their reasons, and as far as this website goes we actually have a lot of common ground between people no matter where they land on liking or disliking 10th edition.

 

You can be forgiven for not having seen or heard these previous discussions, since this is a brand new account with no connection to any previous accounts that may have been banned (twice) or anything like that.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, apologist said:

 

Fair point. Concentrating on the constructive side, then, the Core Rules updates are what interest me primarily. 

 

A few scattered thoughts:

 

Core rules changes vs FAQ

I find it interesting what they've decided should be an official change, and what can be explained as part of the FAQ. For example:

 

 

(Emphasis in the original)

This struck me as more of an FAQ thing, as I would have presumed that the exceptions could be covered there (under Deep Strike etc.). Perhaps simply for future-proofing, in case more exceptions arrive?

 

Likewise Firing deck is now a very long and involved rule that perhaps should have been left as-is, and a note added to the FAQ along the lines of 'Don't be silly, of course you can't do that.'

 

Lean towards physical models over card-game feel

While I generally like abstraction, I think 40k is currently as the cusp of the physical models being sidelined, weighing so much more towards abstract game than simulation that it risks feeling a bit 'detached'. Changes that emphasise the physical nature of the game and common sense over card-game style abstraction therefore get my thumbs-up. Persisting effects, for example, seem like one of those things that I would have assumed was how it was done anyway.

 

Move units likewise gets my approval. Adding pivots and explaining straight lines is perhaps a bit of an awkward cludge, but I'm glad there's a sense coming from GW that they want to make vehicles (etc.) feel more distinctly different from smaller models. I hope this presages a more physical edition that puts the models and board front and centre, and makes manoeuvre and placement matter.

 

On the other hand, this note from Shooting phase implies that the card-style 'triggers' are still taking precedence over what you might expect from a simulation style.

 

 

 

 

Wording and layering

The legalistic way the rules are written means that I'm glad that examples are given – e.g. a whirlwind firing to illustrate Out-of-phase rules – to help frame and clarify things, even if the implications are against what I would expect. (In this example, I find it weird that being bombarded doesn't have the same effect in one phase as another).

 

The very complicated wording of Mortal Wounds makes me think that the layers of core mechanics aren't interacting as desired, and while I'm glad the studio are trying to address it, again the layers are pulling a series of veils over immediate interaction and adding to that 'detached' feeling. There must be a clearer way than this of resolving interactions; and it makes me think that the underlying ruleset needs to have more muscle, and rely less on layered rules.

 

+++

 

This Balance Dataslate hasn't done anything so drastic that particularly makes me want to play this over other games, but does leave me more hopeful that we'll see an edition with a bit more emphasis on the models on the table, and less on the bits of cardboard around it.

I think core rule changes are the ones that prevent abuse and FAQ answers are the ones that clarify. For example, previously one might have moved a unit with one model out of coherency and then remove the model because they were out of coherency; then in the next phase get a bonus to shooting for being below starting strength. The rules allowed for it, even though the only people I've ever heard of using tactics like that are tournament players and pick up WAACs.

 

Ironically, I think the Mortal Wound issue arose because there needs to be another special rule. Mortal Wounds had/have two effects: direct damage and spillover. If those were separated, it would have been easier to tune different powers and weapons. Call it something like Mortal Wounds and Sustained Wounds. Heck, I think that would be a better way to handle beam-type weaponry than Sustained Hits; limited number of attacks, but wounds spill over.

[chapter master 454]

In discussing what was changed in this pass, I feel it was basically positive across the board with changes all being considerate and not massive over-reaction. Mechanicus got their long advertised changes and from the sounds of it they are happy with it, however I do hear a few grumbles here and there but largely seems they are now more content.

Guard (both Imperial and Custodians) have fairly positive changes to help boost them in places they needed and to remove the fact that Combined regiment was just an artillery detachment (and despite what Mordian Glory will say, they were far too dependent on artillery to do damage). Only thing I would like to see is Leontus somehow reworked...he is just far too auto-include though I suppose this might change once the guard codex launches, second last one of the edition before Emperor's Children :D Custodians I feel have benefit more from core changes but I am interested to see if Auric Champions is worth it now for them, with the change now meaning character lead units being quite a menace against the chosen targets.

 

As prior stated, I feel the "Lord of Battle" change (just adhoccing a term here for the whole "zero the cost for a stratagem" ability) is largely a buff, and only a nerf to the cases where it was being outright abused. Sadly marines did get the shaft end of this but hey, playing Standard marines has always been the worst way of playing marines and always will be unless we get something to benefit being non-divergent.

 

In a personal field, Imperial Knights are getting benefits which are nice but...I am not sure how the change to moving through ruins will do. I do notice in their tournament companion for Pariah Nexus for Terrain layouts they have specific recommendation for sections of terrain (and not just entire tiles but sections of tiles) to have terrain that is ether  less than 2" in height or greater than 5" which puts an interesting note on their changes with knights as when looking at their layouts, we see there is serious consideration for put these shorter ruins in places that may help such units move around and also remove an element of being able to hide so easily in such terrain.

Still would like for Bondsman to be restored to what it was at the start of the edition...watch out...the Warden is going to run rampant and be unstoppable! Watch out...oh wait eldar are a thing with 3 damage haywire, don't worry about it.

Just a note: why do Eldar have such things? Like they are strangely equiped to be basically the best faction to kill anything that dares have vehicle keyword and only marginally less good against monsters. Haywire stands out to me as a knight player...why in the emperor's name is it both Anti-Vehicle AND devastating wounds? Assault Cannons would LOVE to have just anti-infantry 5+, but no. Over here in the world of Phil Kelly though, we can invalidate entire armour columns with zero interaction...

Gentlemen...I...hate...Eldar. Gentlemen, I DESPISE eldar...their movement...their damage and their lack of interaction. Their lack of playing the game! Gentlemen...I HATE Eldar.

 

In relation to the recent note on Leaders, I feel the change to not allow leaders in certain units was a fairly sensible idea. The only caveat is that isn't exactly consistent and can lead to issues where certain units aren't valid due to character access which is a little odd. My only comment would be I would like it if Chaplains for marines could have Judicars joins them inside of units like Lieutenants to Captains. After all, their lore is they are marines learning to be chaplains so I would think it natural for them to accompany Chaplains to observe how they perform their duties.

Though some characters just struggle by the virtue of their abitilies not being all that useful in the units they can join...though this really only shows in Marine style armies just because we have more character options than some armies have units.