warhammer 10th edition June Balance Dataslate and Field Manual

[Karhedron]

Although it has only been out for a week, Goonhammer have their first set of results indicating how factions may have gone up or down in response to the various changes and new mission cards.

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-stats-from-the-first-10000-games-of-pariah-nexus/?fbclid=IwY2xjawDvqGFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVm3dsAtWimQZvgN_UKQx3b4RsrMvj8PIBe_W8185ZteiTiekkt8o4MBZg_aem_vCCD396ehKQOCv9pQPqdhA

 

 

One slight caveat is that the Deathwatch results all came from one player so their jump is more to do with one guy having a good run. Outside of this, the results actually look pretty good with all but 2 armies falling in the desired 45-55% winrate range.

 

Of the two outliers, Imperial Knights were doing quite well anyway and have benefitted from some points drops as well as the ability to crash through walls. A 57% winrate is probably a smidge higher than GW would like and may see some of their points drops reversed if this is replicated in larger datasets.

 

Chaos Marines on the other hand seem to have suffered disproportionally from their recent price hikes. However as Goonhammer point out, many Chaos players also play other flavours of Chaos so some of the more competitive CSM players may have jumped ship to factions like Thousand Sons which are performing better.

[DemonGSides]

DG probably need a slight dropping on points for either Plague Marines or their heroes, or need to get actual battleline options now that Nurglings have been jettisoned.

[Special Officer Doofy]

17 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

DG probably need a slight dropping on points for either Plague Marines or their heroes, or need to get actual battleline options now that Nurglings have been jettisoned.

 

Make Plague Marines Great Again!

[Karhedron]

18 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

DG probably need a slight dropping on points for either Plague Marines or their heroes, or need to get actual battleline options now that Nurglings have been jettisoned.

 

Poxwalkers are only 50 points for 10. Only T3 but a 5+++ means they are just a bit harder to shift than your opponent really wants. Nurglings get more wounds per point but the 5+++ on the Poxwalkers actually makes them more durable per point in practice. Plus with OC1, they can contest Objectives as well as performing actions.

[Cleon]

DG really need a sorcerer (back - whether that's the Heroes model being made general release or a new model, or a terminator sculpt, but it's the key 'missing' in the current range if you are looking for a single model release.

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Poxwalkers are only 50 points for 10. Only T3

 

Poxwalkers are T4

[DemonGSides]

Most importantly to the conversation being had, they aren't battleline. DG have a very limited battleline (a lot of factions have this problem but I play DG :P) access. 

 

Poxwalkers are fine, but they aren't what I want for doing objectives in the Pariah Nexus. 

 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

DG really need a sorcerer (back - whether that's the Heroes model being made general release or a new model, or a terminator sculpt, but it's the key 'missing' in the current range if you are looking for a single model release.

 

I have two plague casters and I sometimes run one. I don't think it's the missing piece for the faction.

 

What we need is something akin to the demon Prince giving out the FnP but more Power armor sized. 

[Karhedron]

6 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Poxwalkers are fine, but they aren't what I want for doing objectives in the Pariah Nexus. 

 

Battleline gets a minor boost in PN but is not that big a deal. Poxwalkers can contest Objectives and perform actions just fine and are cheap enough that you don't lose out much.

 

The PN bonuses to Battleline actually benefit more expensive Battleline units more in that that get bonuses like Advance + Action. Armies that get cheap Battleline action monkies benefit slightly more from PN but it is not a huge deal.

[DemonGSides]

I'd still rather they be battle line.  I'd gladly take 4 groups of 10.

[Maritn]

On 6/20/2024 at 2:11 PM, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

Would you rather go back to the "good ol' days" where codex were dead on arrival for multiple editions and we got little to no updates during said edition? These frequent and in depth updates are objectively a good thing, because it means GW are trying (if not succeeding) to keep the game balanced and healthy.

 

Late to the party and not meaning to derail the thread, but can we as a community please start to expect GW to release properly tested codices with good internal and external balance? That would reduce the amount of fixing needed. Thanks.

[Maritn]

On 6/20/2024 at 9:00 PM, Halandaar said:

Really helpful update. Lots of changes to lots of different things across lots of different factions is just what I was looking for to confirm my opinion that this edition is a complete train wreck and I will be steering clear of playing 40k for at least the next 2 years. 

Not saying it's not a train wreck, but it's not like 9th edition wasn't a train wreck of the same magnitude. The (at least for us) unprecedented codex power creep coupled with dozens of stratagems made 9th completely unenjoyable for our group. GW should stop sticking to fixed schedules for releases and start putting out properly tested rules. We as consumers should hold them accountable and just stop buying stuff, including rules. It's not like there's no way to find the rules in other places.

[Evil Eye]

At this point I don't even know why GW bothers writing the rules. They've demonstrated in their current form they're completely incompetent at it, and given IIRC a very, very large proportion of their profits actually come from licensing deals re: merch etc, I wonder if we'd all be better off if they just contracted out the rules writing to someone else and focused their in-house development purely on the minis. We might actually get well-written rules for 40K and they'd make even more money. I can only assume they don't to try and keep a complete stranglehold on control of the game. Perhaps they're worried a contractor might write a ruleset that is more permissive of conversions/models they don't sell, ignoring the fact that at this point people buying non-GW models for 40K are doing so not because of missing models for datasheets but because they just don't want to buy GW's models, rendering the "no model no rules" policy utterly pointless. Ironically if GW did license out the rules to someone else and the end product was good? I might actually start buying more GW models, as there'd be an incentive to do so (a solid ruleset to play them with).