Balance Dataslate - June 2025

[Blindhamster]

Happy to have helped

[Magos Takatus]

I think we need to collectively hoist Blindhamster onto our shoulders and march him to Nottingham to iron out the rules for 11th edition. 

[chapter master 454]

Personally, my thought for things that use templates is as other have suggested which is just having a fixed number of attacks for the weapon. Things like flamers could retain some randomness to them due to their auto-hit nature so they stay with their D6 nature but for blast weapons, my thought is you give them a number of attacks based on the weapon (like having a frag missile being 4 attacks flat, demolisher cannon at 6) but with 2 changes to blast:

Blast is now a Blast X variable, where for every 5 models in the unit you get that many more attacks to roll for so if a blast 2 weapon hit a 10 man squad it would have +4 attacks. However the caveat for blast weapons is they are fairly simple and not precise, they ignore hit roll modifiers of any kind. You can't dodge an explosion any better than you can get it on target. This would in my though however require blast weapons to have a simple Ballistic skill penalty built in to their stat sheets by default. You lose the random shot count but you have little worse accuracy to show how its about "good enough" with these weapons. Maybe some would still have good BS depending but mostly the big stuff would have 4+ to 5+.

 

Likely going to get cooked but meh, that's my thought.

[jaxom]

On 6/5/2025 at 6:07 PM, Magos Takatus said:

It feels like tournament meta lists get my armies hammered over and over again, even if I'm not playing the hot new thing.

I'll probably get trounced for this, but would your friend be okay with you using older points costs? If the Match Play points are adjusted for tournament play, and you're just playing with your friend....

[Magos Takatus]

6 hours ago, jaxom said:

I'll probably get trounced for this, but would your friend be okay with you using older points costs? If the Match Play points are adjusted for tournament play, and you're just playing with your friend....

Possibly, but he wants to play in a local tournament, so I'll try to reflect the official point values. I'll take my lumps to give him fair practice.

[Ahzek451]

On 6/5/2025 at 12:13 PM, Karhedron said:

 

I look at it a different way. I also have 4 armies but almost no duplicate units within them. This means that as editions and errata come and go, my armies flow and change. If a unit gets nerfed particularly hard, I put them back in the case for a while and dust off a few old timers instead. The wheel of fortune keeps turning but if you paint what you enjoy, you will have a selection of units to ride the cycle without having to chase it.

I'd prefer to have a system where the game is evolved enough that it doesn't rely on swingy rule patches to influence what units cycle on the shelf and instead, that incentive in choice is driven more by me and all my units are relatively non-nerfed and useful at the same time. 

GW realized a long time ago that all they really need to do to prop up the game and keep interest (just enough), is to sell hope. The promise that next time will be better. The edition cycle sells. I've been watching GW do this since 2nd ed. I remember being fully caught up in the hope that GW will "fix the game next time. They will do better". Technically they have. It IS technically better now than it was years ago. But I suppose spraying a turd in gold spray paint is technically an improvement as well. It took them this long (8th edition) to finally start listening to the community. 

I see a few of you argue that it was batter back in the day with the slower rate of patches  vs. what GW does today with frequent fixes. I don't think GW has succeeded with either. How many recall what GW actually says and does? For the last decade its been the same tired lines "We understand and hear your feedback, in the NEXT edition there will be less re-rolls, it will be simpler, less stratagems, etc." In reality GW fixes these things just enough to get attention, then bloat the edition for 3 years to the point that people are sick of it and then promise a new edition that fixes the old one. But GW tends to keep a lot of people in the GW sphere by having a "new edition" of one of its game systems almost every year. See HH. It's smart. 

Back then, when I was rolling through the new 3rd, 4th, 5th ed, I thought and hoped GW was moving to a point where would start slowing down on edition turn, rules would be better tended to up front instead of throughout, and instead of seeing codex book distributed through an edition, they would be released in totality at the start of an edition. I thought GW would invest in a crack team of designers that would playtest the everliving daylights out of all of its products before release.  Boy that was foolish. What happens now sells, and it works for them. But is it right? Has the game ever actually evolved into something it needs to be? I would argue no. As long as fans keep being ok with what GW does as far as short edition turn with a codex release cycle that spans the entire edition to the very end, and by doing so, constantly keeping the game in a state of non-balance as GW frequently attempts to half-assedly fix it as it goes to the point that there is a pile of FAQ's and the game is an utter confusing mess then...oh look...its time for a new edition to fix everything! ....I suppose this is what we deserve. Some people enjoy this, I used to just be ok with it. These days, not so much. I do think more folks need to help put GW's feet to the fire. GW is making money hand over fist these days, what incentive do they have to change the business model? Very little. But I do wonder how and if this is affecting good will in the long run...

And don't get me wrong, I want new editions and change. I just would prefer not having only 3 years to enjoy an edition(and to fully enjoy your army in less time if your army book happens to be released late) and have that edition be a truly premium product keeping the necessity for FAQ's down to a minimum. Wouldn't it be something if GW put expiration dates on its rulebooks. 
 

Edited June 8 by Ahzek451

[Darwhine]

The new Tyranid detachment is completely broken.

 

You can make a tunnel after a deep strike at 9 then in the same phase take out monsters at 6 inches for a charge at 6.

If in addition the creature that comes out has the keyword burrower, it can itself create a tunnel etc. you can completely surround units, the Mawlock can reach 6 to do the BM and still charge.

 

They have not limited the number of tunnels, nor the type of creature that can come out: you can take out everything !

From the small termaguant to the toxicrene, or even why not, the Hierophant. It's nonsense.

I advise you to take out your anti-deep strike units at 12 (like the infiltrators or the navigators), otherwise there will not even be a match.

 

Fireside explains it very well in his video.

 

[01RTB01]

31 minutes ago, Darwhine said:

The new Tyranid detachment is completely broken.

 

You can make a tunnel after a deep strike at 9 then in the same phase take out monsters at 6 inches for a charge at 6.

If in addition the creature that comes out has the keyword burrower, it can itself create a tunnel etc. you can completely surround units, the Mawlock can reach 6 to do the BM and still charge.

 

They have not limited the number of tunnels, nor the type of creature that can come out: you can take out everything !

From the small termaguant to the toxicrene, or even why not, the Hierophant. It's nonsense.

I advise you to take out your anti-deep strike units at 12 (like the infiltrators or the navigators), otherwise there will not even be a match.

 

Fireside explains it very well in his video.

 

 

On this basis, the More Dakka detachment needs nerfing again!

[RagnarökNRoll]

On 6/8/2025 at 8:33 AM, Ahzek451 said:

I'd prefer to have a system where the game is evolved enough that it doesn't rely on swingy rule patches to influence what units cycle on the shelf and instead, that incentive in choice is driven more by me and all my units are relatively non-nerfed and useful at the same time. 

Easier said than done, especially when the threshold for what is considered "useful" is not the same for everyone. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

It really sucks that because of Tournament players then non Tournament players get screwed. It's also ridiculous to try and keep up with all these changes. Maybe if you do nothing other than follow GW but for adults with responsibilities or people enjoying multiple systems it's unrealistic. It's like GW looked at the worst practices of videogames and said let's do that.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

It really sucks that because of Tournament players then non Tournament players get screwed.

 

You are looking at the wrong way. Non-tournement players are not getting screwed, they are benefitting from the same balancing update being applied to competitive play after playtesting by thousands of players. Just because you are not playing a tournament game does not make it fun to turn up and get stomped by overpowered lists. Moar Dakka was not fun for anyone except Ork players and even then, I suspect the thrill was limited. Winning a game by completely kerb-stomping your opponent is actually not that much fun.

[kabaakaba]

6 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are looking at the wrong way. Non-tournement players are not getting screwed, they are benefitting from the same balancing update being applied to competitive play after playtesting by thousands of players. Just because you are not playing a tournament game does not make it fun to turn up and get stomped by overpowered lists. Moar Dakka was not fun for anyone except Ork players and even then, I suspect the thrill was limited. Winning a game by completely kerb-stomping your opponent is actually not that much fun.

well, there is always kind of people who's here for spomping opponent at any cost. like my local community. no matter how but win. meh i think friendly and fear not thae word adequate ppl still adjust their forces to not make game onesided.

Edited June 10 by kabaakaba

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are looking at the wrong way. Non-tournement players are not getting screwed, they are benefitting from the same balancing update being applied to competitive play after playtesting by thousands of players. Just because you are not playing a tournament game does not make it fun to turn up and get stomped by overpowered lists. Moar Dakka was not fun for anyone except Ork players and even then, I suspect the thrill was limited. Winning a game by completely kerb-stomping your opponent is actually not that much fun.

 

Yes and No.

 

How did non-tournament players benefit when Aggressors and the Biologis were nerfed with high costs because there was a powerful rule combination being abused in the Gladius detachment?

I play Imperial Fists, I was not abusing the Gladius detachment. Why were my models, that didn't perform in any exceptional way,  get nerfed?

 

The problem is that GW are unable to balance the rules in a lot of instances due to the way they cost things without accounting for Sub Faction bonuses, stratagems and enhancements. 

[Magos Takatus]

Personally, I think detachments should give a small points tax to units buffed by any particular detachment. If I'm taking the Taktikal Brigade faction, my Big Meks with Shokk Attack gun has a powerful synergy with Flash Gitz, not just because of an Enhancement that you pay points for, but because they can issue orders that will improve their effectiveness. The detachment also has better Stormboyz and Kommandos, but their Meganobz will not be as efficient as the Bully Boyz Meganobz. I expect to pay more for improved Stormboyz for my Taktikal Brigade because they can do things that Stormboyz in other detachments can't. I do not expect to pay extra for Tankbustas because you can do something horrific with them in Moar Dakka.

 

I understand this will make list building more complicated, but if you are going to improve different units in different detachments, you cannot seriously have them have the same points value. You can't even boost them uniformly. A detachment that makes Grots stronger cannot be treated the same way that a detachment that improves Battlewagons is. The power difference between the units boosted is not equal. 

 

I think detachments can work, but I think there needs to be a lot more checks and balances to stop one or two detachments running away with overly boosted units, or weak or overly situational stratagems.

[Orange Knight]

I think GW just pump out too many rules in general. They realised rules can be sold as cheap-to-produce DLCs and people will buy them. Again, financial interests and staggered model rollouts are counter productive to balance.

[Northern Walker]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are looking at the wrong way. Non-tournement players are not getting screwed, they are benefitting from the same balancing update being applied to competitive play after playtesting by thousands of players. Just because you are not playing a tournament game does not make it fun to turn up and get stomped by overpowered lists. Moar Dakka was not fun for anyone except Ork players and even then, I suspect the thrill was limited. Winning a game by completely kerb-stomping your opponent is actually not that much fun.

I think there's a difference between something that's blatantly overpowered at all levels of play, versus situationally abused combinations.

Unfortunately the design ethos of the current edition promotes poor behaviour in roster building. Personally I refuse to play with people who play tournaments, because the experience has always been sub-optimal. Vet your opponents and make sure they're signed up to play the way you're interested in.

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

How did non-tournament players benefit when Aggressors and the Biologis were nerfed with high costs because there was a powerful rule combination being abused in the Gladius detachment?

I play Imperial Fists, I was not abusing the Gladius detachment. Why were my models, that didn't perform in any exceptional way,  get nerfed?

 

That is fair and I agree it was a mistake on GW's part. It should have been the Enhancement that was nerfed, not the units that were being boosted since they were balanced in other setups.

 

GW still haven't learned that lesson as they have nerfed several Eldar units that were popular in Ynnari armies despite the fact that they are not broken outside that Detachment. It is the detachment that needed fixing, not the units.

 

The principle of balance updates is still a good approach and they make the game better for tournament and non-tournament players alike. It is GW's implementation that needs to improve, particularly their interpretation of data.

[Wolf Guard Dan]

18 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

That is fair and I agree it was a mistake on GW's part. It should have been the Enhancement that was nerfed, not the units that were being boosted since they were balanced in other setups.

 

GW still haven't learned that lesson as they have nerfed several Eldar units that were popular in Ynnari armies despite the fact that they are not broken outside that Detachment. It is the detachment that needed fixing, not the units.

 

The principle of balance updates is still a good approach and they make the game better for tournament and non-tournament players alike. It is GW's implementation that needs to improve, particularly their interpretation of data.

Not to take this too far off but you can get a combo very similar in anvil and arguably better than what Gladius can do now after nerfs. Architect of War Biologis and Battle drill recall gives you sustained 1 and ignores cover. Instead of getting the -1 AP in dev doctrine with Storm of Fire that unit if stationary  gets crit hits on 5+ and heavy. 

[kabaakaba]

main problem there is always gonna be some combo-wombo. if GW gonna fix it that way we get dumphammer in result.

[01RTB01]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are looking at the wrong way. Non-tournement players are not getting screwed, they are benefitting from the same balancing update being applied to competitive play after playtesting by thousands of players. Just because you are not playing a tournament game does not make it fun to turn up and get stomped by overpowered lists. Moar Dakka was not fun for anyone except Ork players and even then, I suspect the thrill was limited. Winning a game by completely kerb-stomping your opponent is actually not that much fun.

 

I'll keep coming back to planes. They're universally agreed as useless this edition yet they don't appear in tournaments so they get ignored. There's been enough balance dataslates this edition they could rework them but they don't appear in tournaments so why should they bother.

 

They also overtune. They can't get the balance right as they overkill things when they nerf. 

[chapter master 454]

Certainly some overtuning has occurred however due to the rather hit-miss nature of DLC detachments I wouldn't say they are being pumped out to push units incredibly hard. Moar Dakka was certainly a mistake but largely a lot of detachments tend to be quite tame or restrained with outlying issues within them causing issues overall.

 

Gladius was certainly the biggest example of this. The detachment overall is currently still arguably the best detachment for marines but imo more because the others just don't have any sauce to cook with. Lets be frank, Uriel and his amazing Centurion teleporting trick wasn't exactly fun and within Gladius the issue wasn't the detachment, just that GW for some reason took FAR too long to address the elephant in the room that was fire discipline.

The other detachments could do with some tuning up, maybe just to help push them a bit more. HOWEVER, this is something people don't like (or at least people here have expressed annoyance at) which is changing rules in updates making publications out of date.

My piece for this: I haven't heard ANY complaints from Mechanicus or custode players about this in the slightest. In fact, I do encourage you to go play RAW codex mechanicus and custodes. I'll wait.

 

Again, I don't have any desire to return to the dark ages where if your codex launched bad it stayed bad. In fact, I remember distinctly that as an edition wore on, with more codices coming out, the later codices were always more powerful. So yea, I don't want to return to that sort of thing.

[Ahzek451]

10 hours ago, RagnarökNRoll said:

Easier said than done, especially when the threshold for what is considered "useful" is not the same for everyone. 

No one that is in good faith is expecting Emperor's children level of perfection. The game is too to big for that. But there is an obvious level of disparity on what is given to us that GW could improve on. I would ask them to shorten that gap. It is doable (if they wanted to) to knock out a few known glaring issues that have existed for quite some that include but not limited to:

1. Flyers have been horrible for the last few editions. If it is the case that GW is trying to remove them, well...crap or get off the pot and stop messing with us. IF they are going to stay, figure it out instead of making them mostly undesirable/overcosted.

2. Detachment disparities. Rules that crank a particular units's power in one detachment but not in others and being punished for it. Why make it a thing? 

3. GW's approach to "fixing" things with a heavy handed fist, often related to #2. Good for squashing the armies/units that are steam rolling, but often neglecting many units underperforming.  Nearly every army has a unit or more that has not seen the light of day in some time. The Necron Obelisk for example has never been good across multiple editions. Even at its dedicated anti-flyer role. I will say lately GW has been better at making adjustments via rule changes instead of strictly using points to make a unit/rule "healthy". 

4. Untested rules and half-baked playtesting. Why spend the extra effort on your product before release when a whole community can do it for free? How many times has it happened that a book is released...and within moments the average gamer can deduce just by reading the codex that a particular rule/army is going to be strong? Eldar at the start of 10th? Why are such big oversites being missed? And it's been this way for years. Only since 8th have they finally started making adjustments, mostly using tournament data. This is fine to do...in a world that doesn't have 3-year edition turn with a never ending chaotic need to balance due to a slow codex release cycle. I would love it if GW managed to stretch the lifespan of an edition, and shorten the codex release cycle. Something like(and assuming GW does a better job up front with playtesting).....New edition drops, spend first 1-2 years releasing codex books. After all books have been released, spend 2 years enjoying what we have and making minimal reasonable tweaks. Ideally we would have about 2 years of relative uninterrupted, 90% balanced peace. Release new missions in those last 2 years to keep things "fresh". 

Edited June 10 by Ahzek451

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

1 hour ago, Ahzek451 said:

Something like(and assuming GW does a better job up front with playtesting).....New edition drops, spend first 1-2 years releasing codex books. After all books have been released, spend 2 years enjoying what we have and making minimal reasonable tweaks. Ideally we would have about 2 years of relative uninterrupted, 90% balanced peace. Release new missions in those last 2 years to keep things "fresh". 

 

That would be great. I can't see it ever happening because capitalism, but it would be nice. 

5 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Yes and No.

 

How did non-tournament players benefit when Aggressors and the Biologis were nerfed with high costs because there was a powerful rule combination being abused in the Gladius detachment?

I play Imperial Fists, I was not abusing the Gladius detachment. Why were my models, that didn't perform in any exceptional way,  get nerfed?

 

The problem is that GW are unable to balance the rules in a lot of instances due to the way they cost things without accounting for Sub Faction bonuses, stratagems and enhancements. 

 

Exactly my point. If tournament players spam, break or abuse something GW panics and non tournament players who weren't abusing it, who weren't steamrolling people, just get messed about. 

[gaurdian31]

1 hour ago, Ahzek451 said:

 I would love it if GW managed to stretch the lifespan of an edition, and shorten the codex release cycle. Something like(and assuming GW does a better job up front with playtesting).....New edition drops, spend first 1-2 years releasing codex books. After all books have been released, spend 2 years enjoying what we have and making minimal reasonable tweaks. Ideally we would have about 2 years of relative uninterrupted, 90% balanced peace. Release new missions in those last 2 years to keep things "fresh". 

I could not agree with this point more. Editions need to last longer, have dents hammered out and then let the rules rest and introduce new missions for a couple of years before moving on to the next edition. Basically finish a rule set and get the adjustments done sooner rather than later and then let people enjoy playing with those rules.

[HeadlessCross]

5 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Yes and No.

 

How did non-tournament players benefit when Aggressors and the Biologis were nerfed with high costs because there was a powerful rule combination being abused in the Gladius detachment?

I play Imperial Fists, I was not abusing the Gladius detachment. Why were my models, that didn't perform in any exceptional way,  get nerfed?

 

The problem is that GW are unable to balance the rules in a lot of instances due to the way they cost things without accounting for Sub Faction bonuses, stratagems and enhancements. 

If there's even a potential for problems, it needs to be addressed. You can argue about how GW's double smash nerfs are usually too much (and they often are), but let's not pretend that YOUR unit shouldn't be hit just because YOU didn't use it a specific way. 

2 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

 

I'll keep coming back to planes. They're universally agreed as useless this edition yet they don't appear in tournaments so they get ignored. There's been enough balance dataslates this edition they could rework them but they don't appear in tournaments so why should they bother.

 

They also overtune. They can't get the balance right as they overkill things when they nerf. 

You're just bringing up the point that GW lets units suffer for prior mishaps. That's not the fault of balance patches, that's the fault of Cruddace writing to begin with.