New Balance Dataslate just dropped

[Lord_Ikka]

=][= Keep the discussion on topic and related to the recent balance dataslate - debating past editions can be done in other topics. =][=

[DemonGSides]

18 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

Not to pick on it, but I have to point out that in these discussions, eventually someone brings this point up.

And the typical response is:  a lot of players do not have the luxury of playing with dedicated friends, many have little choice but to play in pick up games at a local shop. And assuming that shop does like to play with with strict, by-the-GW-playbook-most-current-rules, well that may not even necessarily be a bad thing as this is just there preference. And maybe that preference exists because it was incentivized by the increase in GW tournament mentality that has been on the rise for many years. Having moved a few times myself, one local scene was just like this. Good enough guys, but they were competitive minded and that's how they liked it. Youtube has helped(they were huge fans of the art of war group). No one was really open to playing outside the bounds of what was considered "not official" at the time. And that's just how they like to roll. So if I wanted a game using datasheets from legends, I was out of luck. But I certainly don't blame them for enjoying the game how they saw fit. 

 

 

You could always start your own group.  More work but if you like something it's worth putting effort into doing it.

[phandaal]

On 3/14/2025 at 3:54 AM, 01RTB01 said:

There has been a considerable shift towards "tournamentification" of the rules and this has been since 8th onwards. 8th was ok but 9th and 10th feel like they've had the life sucked out of them compared to yesteryear.

 

Agree. Hell, now the ITC even gives people a little standing boost for using the Warhammer app? 

 

Even outside of campaign games, that collaborative narrative aspect of playing a game feels like it has been pushed aside in favor of playing the rules at your opponent until they lose. Did it start with the community or with the company? Not sure, but these days we are in a reinforcement loop between GW and people who are trained on that tournament play mindset.

 

It is a big factor in why I moved away from using modern edition rules. In addition to not spending my free time using what is, to me, an unfinished product, the kind of people who are interested in using different rules are usually a lot more into that narrative collaborative mindset. And the people who want whatever these rules are nowadays can still have it. Win/win.

[Rain]

32 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Agree. Hell, now the ITC even gives people a little standing boost for using the Warhammer app? 

 

Even outside of campaign games, that collaborative narrative aspect of playing a game feels like it has been pushed aside in favor of playing the rules at your opponent until they lose. Did it start with the community or with the company? Not sure, but these days we are in a reinforcement loop between GW and people who are trained on that tournament play mindset.

 

It is a big factor in why I moved away from using modern edition rules. In addition to not spending my free time using what is, to me, an unfinished product, the kind of people who are interested in using different rules are usually a lot more into that narrative collaborative mindset. And the people who want whatever these rules are nowadays can still have it. Win/win.

I think that this is largely a generational thing. Back in ye olden days, most people coming to 40k were coming specifically for the face to face, customizable, semi-narrative experience, or from other face to face games like MTG or DnD.

 

Nowadays, I think most new players come from video games, both in general, meaning that they are avid gamers before picking up 40k, and even direct exposure to the 40k IP from video games. In a pvp game, you never see your opponent’s face, and there is no need to communicate with them. Your only goal is to win, and the game itself enforces the rules, so anything that the game “allows” you to do is a valid way to try to win.

 

If you play cheesy in a pvp game and your opponent hates you for it, too bad for them. The matchmaking algo will find you another opponent, or even make that same guy play you again. In face to face games, there is much more of an implicit social contract, which GW has been wrestling with in trying to turn the game into a “physical video game.”

[DemonGSides]

I've never experience that type of behavior in the public groups I've travelled in, but obviously that's anecdotal.  Seems like a sad way to interact with a social hobby and would self select yourself out of finding other people to play with.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/15/2025 at 11:41 AM, Rain said:

I think that this is largely a generational thing. Back in ye olden days, most people coming to 40k were coming specifically for the face to face, customizable, semi-narrative experience, or from other face to face games like MTG or DnD.

 

Nowadays, I think most new players come from video games, both in general, meaning that they are avid gamers before picking up 40k, and even direct exposure to the 40k IP from video games. In a pvp game, you never see your opponent’s face, and there is no need to communicate with them. Your only goal is to win, and the game itself enforces the rules, so anything that the game “allows” you to do is a valid way to try to win.

 

If you play cheesy in a pvp game and your opponent hates you for it, too bad for them. The matchmaking algo will find you another opponent, or even make that same guy play you again. In face to face games, there is much more of an implicit social contract, which GW has been wrestling with in trying to turn the game into a “physical video game.”

Yeah, sorta like ranked in apex.

 

you can gain ranked points just for lasting longer, so a lot of people go find a corner to hide in for most of the game and don’t fight until they’ve already broken even or as close as they can.

 

obviously that wasn’t the developer’s intent, but there’s no good way to fix it either.

[Sergeant Bastone]

On 3/14/2025 at 4:52 AM, sairence said:

 

One FOBs and 2 HWTs with Mortars supported by some orders had become the staple cheap indirect support package and was showing up in most Bridgehead lists. (Which was, for the last few months, pretty much the only Guard detachment you saw)

 

So those datasheets got adjusted up a bit to account for that.

Another example of New Points System being too inflexible.  Only 1/3rd of the FOBs are Indirect and only 1/5 of the HWTs are, yet they all need to be points increased together.

 

Furthermore, the indirect was a problem in the strongest detachment (Bridgehead) while the weakest detachment (Recon) desperately needs the direct-fire versions of both to have some way to deal with vehicles since we lost heavy weapons in our Infantry Squads.  I am salty. 

 

*At least that's how i'm trying to get some anti-tank in my Recon list.  I have the other problem of basically not being able to put my beloved Heavy Weapon Teams on the board at all since they no longer go in Infantry Squads and are way too fragile for the cost on their own. 

Edited March 18 by Sergeant Bastone

[HeadlessCross]

8 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Another example of New Points System being too inflexible.  Only 1/3rd of the FOBs are Indirect and only 1/5 of the HWTs are, yet they all need to be points increased together.

 

Furthermore, the indirect was a problem in the strongest detachment (Bridgehead) while the weakest detachment (Recon) desperately needs the direct-fire versions of both to have some way to deal with vehicles since we lost heavy weapons in our Infantry Squads.  I am salty. 

 

*At least that's how i'm trying to get some anti-tank in my Recon list.  I have the other problem of basically not being able to put my beloved Heavy Weapon Teams on the board at all since they no longer go in Infantry Squads and are way too fragile for the cost on their own. 

Siege Regiment seems to be agreed to be the weakest. Recon is actually quite strong if you actually lean into cramming the bodies necessary to run it. 

[ThePenitentOne]

On 3/15/2025 at 11:02 AM, phandaal said:

 

Agree. Hell, now the ITC even gives people a little standing boost for using the Warhammer app? 

 

Even outside of campaign games, that collaborative narrative aspect of playing a game feels like it has been pushed aside in favor of playing the rules at your opponent until they lose. Did it start with the community or with the company? Not sure, but these days we are in a reinforcement loop between GW and people who are trained on that tournament play mindset.

 

It is a big factor in why I moved away from using modern edition rules. In addition to not spending my free time using what is, to me, an unfinished product, the kind of people who are interested in using different rules are usually a lot more into that narrative collaborative mindset. And the people who want whatever these rules are nowadays can still have it. Win/win.

 

We've been warned about staying on topic, but like I wrote in my response to a similar line of thought on page three of this thread, I'm compelled to respond to assertions like this, and I'll challenge it every time I see it no matter where I see it.

 

To at least somewhat address the topic, I will say this: it is certainly true that BALANCE UPDATES are skewed to tournament play. They take their data from tournaments in order to make the adjustments... And admittedly, it's the easiest place to get such data- Narrative garage hammer heroes don't report their data to GW. To that, I will add: very few Warcom articles (relatively speaking) are targeted to Narrative play, and while White Dwarf's Crusade content is always top-notch, it doesn't appear in every issue.

 

But that's about as far down your rabbit hole as I can go, because Crusade really and truly is the most ambitious and fully integrated narrative system that GW has ever attempted in 40k, and it's only been around for the last two editions. The Grand Narrative runs in parallel with the Grand Tournament. There have been three Crusade only books released this edition, and only two matched play decks, one of which has actually been adapted for Crusade play IN ADDITION to the corresponding Crusade book.

 

Which means, yes, just like there was in 9th, there are actually more resources for 10th that include Crusade content than there are that don't- the strongest evidence there is that GW provides equal (or greater) support for 40k narrative play than they do for tournament play. Period. Full Stop. If you choose not to play it, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. If your group or store won't let you play it, that also doesn't change the fact that it exists. Therefore, neither of these points are relevant as a basis to assert that 9th or 10th is skewed to tournament play.

 

To come back to the on-topic piece above, I will say that 9th was better at restricting the interminable balance updates to Matched Play only which insulated and isolated Crusade from balance patches... Which do feel tournament oriented. I do wish this practice had continued into 10th- changing points every three months creates roster/supply limit incongruities which matter far more to me than any supposed balance gains to be had by making this unit 10 points more expensive and that unit 10 points cheaper.

 

Heck, slap one Battle Honour on any "weak" unit and it might just take the Pepsi challenge with someone else's elite but inexperienced unit. In that environment, of what relevance can a points adjustment possibly be?

 

 

Edited March 19 by ThePenitentOne

[phandaal]

14 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Which means, yes, just like there was in 9th, there are actually more resources for 10th that include Crusade content than there are that don't- the strongest evidence there is that GW provides equal (or greater) support for 40k narrative play than they do for tournament play. Period. Full Stop. If you choose not to play it, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. If your group or store won't let you play it, that also doesn't change the fact that it exists. Therefore, neither of these points are relevant as a basis to assert that 9th or 10th is skewed to tournament play.

 

You are challenging an assertion I did not make. In fact, if you care to scan back through all of my posts over time (wouldn't recommend it ) you will find that I am always very positive on the non-tournament resources GW releases. I actually own most of it, because the missions are fluffy and are close to "evergreen" if you do not mind tweaking things to fit whatever ruleset you use. You and I are in agreement that it is the best gaming content GW makes right now. We are not weighing it in a scale against tournament content.

 

So I would turn this one around and say the fact that this non-tournament content exists does not change the way people are playing the game. Like I said, I am not sure where this originated or who is the main driver (GW or the community), but my own personal experience has been that it is like pulling teeth to get people to play a game of the Current Edition without using whatever are the most recent tournament rules.

 

What I have found is that the people who are willing to break from using Current Edition are also more inclined to play those kinds of games that are not focused on blasting the rules at your opponent until they vanish in a hail of dice. It has been a very positive experience for me. I recommend everyone try it if their friends or local scene can handle it.

[Aarik]

I think that ultimately the problems stem from the initial versions of codexes and rules that GW releases simply not being up to snuff and requiring immediate fixes, which results in the physical books being quickly outdated and the rules/points changes being scattered between a number of different PDF documents (or paywalled behind the app).  And one of the main problems underlying the issue of the initial rules being relatively poor is GW's pattern since 8th edition of wiping the slate clean with each new edition and starting fresh, rather than building on the previous versions.  As a result, it seems like much of the balancing that's done in (very roughly) the latter half of the prior edition is not incorporated into the new versions, so we end up repeating the initial balancing over and over and over again.  I'm hoping that with 11th edition GW just builds on and tweaks the 10th edition core rules and sticks with the detachment system so that they can keep the codexes playable until the new 11th edition versions come out.  Hopefully that would raise the quality of GW's balancing at the top end (i.e., not making anything too overpowered) and leave them more time to focus on internal balance and raising up underpowered armies and units.  And people with codex releases in the latter half of the edition wouldn't feel as though they wasted money on a codex that's only useable for six months, and won't be whiplashed by going from index to codex back to index again.

[ZeroWolf]

1 hour ago, Aarik said:

I think that ultimately the problems stem from the initial versions of codexes and rules that GW releases simply not being up to snuff and requiring immediate fixes, which results in the physical books being quickly outdated and the rules/points changes being scattered between a number of different PDF documents (or paywalled behind the app).  And one of the main problems underlying the issue of the initial rules being relatively poor is GW's pattern since 8th edition of wiping the slate clean with each new edition and starting fresh, rather than building on the previous versions.  As a result, it seems like much of the balancing that's done in (very roughly) the latter half of the prior edition is not incorporated into the new versions, so we end up repeating the initial balancing over and over and over again.  I'm hoping that with 11th edition GW just builds on and tweaks the 10th edition core rules and sticks with the detachment system so that they can keep the codexes playable until the new 11th edition versions come out.  Hopefully that would raise the quality of GW's balancing at the top end (i.e., not making anything too overpowered) and leave them more time to focus on internal balance and raising up underpowered armies and units.  And people with codex releases in the latter half of the edition wouldn't feel as though they wasted money on a codex that's only useable for six months, and won't be whiplashed by going from index to codex back to index again.

Should be pointed out that only 8th and 10th were resets in that regard. 9th built on top of 8th, and all whispers are pointing to 11th building on 10th. 12th edition could be the next rules reset (which then could set the precedent of even numbers resetting and odd numbers expanding).

[Northern Walker]

Totally agree with what a lot of others have said in bemoaning the current state of the game with the competetive focus. 10th is not my favourite edition, and I feel very blessed to only play my actual friends who aren't playing optimised lists. Balance sheets can't correct the core flaw in design philosophy.

[DemonGSides]

On 3/15/2025 at 2:49 AM, Lord_Ikka said:

=][= Keep the discussion on topic and related to the recent balance dataslate - debating past editions can be done in other topics. =][=

 

It'd be most excellent if the bemoaners could follow the mods post just once but hey, it wouldn't be a thread about anything even remotely related to 10th edition without someone coming in and complaining that the past was better.

 

It'd be even cooler if those some complaints were at least based on facts and not made up (9th edition wasn't a brand new ruleset) but hey, if we are just complaining, I'd like prices to go back to 7th Ed prices when I started buying a lot more heavily. 

[ThePenitentOne]

@phandaal Thanks for the clarification, and sorry I misinterpreted your post. I feel a bit silly now, but I'm also happy to have found another like-minded poster.

 

Great point about narrative missions being closer to evergreen. I've found Crusade rules in general to be at least somewhat edition agnostic.

 

To bring it back to topic, even though balance updates (including this one) DO apply to Crusade games, no update thus far (including this one) has every modified any Crusade content. Obviously, the add-on content provided by White Dwarf for Sisters, Kroot and GSC is a kind of update, but it didn't modify any of the existing content, merely added to it.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

It'd be most excellent if the bemoaners could follow the mods post just once but hey, it wouldn't be a thread about anything even remotely related to 10th edition without someone coming in and complaining that the past was better.

 

It'd be even cooler if those some complaints were at least based on facts and not made up (9th edition wasn't a brand new ruleset) but hey, if we are just complaining, I'd like prices to go back to 7th Ed prices when I started buying a lot more heavily. 

As a habitual bemoaner, and patron saint of “they changed it, and now it sucks” even I think that 10th is an improvement over the absolute cluster that was 9th. 
 

Cult Chaos Legions did not need subfactions, and every army did not need 40 strats, including some strats that you could use on the second Thursday of the month on any unit within 3 inches of another unit that has an “i” in its name.

[Ahzek451]

On 3/15/2025 at 9:51 AM, DemonGSides said:

 

You could always start your own group.  More work but if you like something it's worth putting effort into doing it.

I appreciate it, but this was the 1st thing considered. Turns out it only works if the people exist in your area. Not everyone is so lucky. Naw, every place has there quirks. And you just hope you find one that fits yours, be lucky enough to be an area where fresh minds are willing to try new things, or change yourself. 

[ThePenitentOne]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

As a habitual bemoaner, and patron saint of “they changed it, and now it sucks” even I think that 10th is an improvement over the absolute cluster that was 9th. 
 

Cult Chaos Legions did not need subfactions, and every army did not need 40 strats, including some strats that you could use on the second Thursday of the month on any unit within 3 inches of another unit that has an “i” in its name.

Except that chaos cult legions in 10th STILL have subfactions (they're just called detachments now) so that's not an improvement over 9th, and the faction with the least amount of strats in 10th (Sisters I think) still has 24, and the faction with the most (Space Marines) has 42... It's just that you can only use six in any given game, which you were always free to do in 9th, and which, realistically, most people DID actually do, because building an army that could effectively use all 40 was damned near impossible.

 

(You yourself even tacitly acknowledge this by saying "including some strats that you could use on the second Thursday of the month on any unit within 3 inches of another unit that has an “i” in its name." What that means when said in different words is that although these strats are in your book, they aren't relevant to your game in any meaningful way... Unless you chose ONLY units that had the letter "i" in their name, always moved them in battlegroups of 2-3 units and always used the 2nd Thursday of the month Secondary/ Agenda... Which is kinda the same thing you do when you build a list that is tailored to the detachment you're using.)

 

Now, in 9th it might have been more like 8 or 10 rather than 6, so there's some simplification in 10th, but not as much a difference as the "New Ed Better/ Old Ed Bad" propaganda would have you believe.

 

Plus, in 9th, psychic powers weren't just weapons or armour, and different psykers of the same type could actually have different abilities, units had more equipment options , and equipment options were also more meaningful because they came with costs. And again (to bring it back to topic), the best part of 9th was that these interminable, seemingly weekly ridiculous balance updates could be ignored by people with the good sense to exclusively play narrative Crusade escalation campaigns and leave matched play to the meta chasing tourney crowd instead of forcing themselves to play exclusively Matched and whining incessantly about how much doing so sucked.

 

And yes, I know that last clause sounded really harsh, so before anyone drags out the pitchforks, let me walk it back a bit by saying I know that for some people without a circle of like minded friends, or space to play at home or a store full of open minded people, playing Matched was either the only, or the easiest option.

[Lord_Ikka]

=][= As per tradition, a week has passeth from dataslate drop, so now the topic is locked. Further discussion can be had in each faction's subforum. =[[=