Balance Dataslate - December 2025

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, Dark Shepherd said:

For many reasons they need to be a free pdf codex

Which is a massive irony when you compare them to daemons

Edited yesterday at 05:23 PM by Mogger351

[HeadlessCross]

10 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Are my eyes deceiving me or did they (somewhat) buff TSons by letting our Demons get Cabal of Sorcerers?

 

ETA:

Also new Assault Terminators datasheet.

Not entirely sure what's changed on it tho besides the model image.

The Assault Terminators truly have a new lease on life. Even Lightning Claws at an extra attack make them more appealing, and every turn giving Battleshock isn't the MOST useful but better than what it was. 

[HeadlessCross]

4 hours ago, Dark Shepherd said:

For many reasons they need to be a free pdf codex

Rules just need to be free in general. People will always pay a premium for the models. 

 

Also no changes to Grey Knights is pretty sad. Purgators getting a small price cut does nothing to address the fact that they have an absurdly trash rule. 

[Malakithe]

Hmm looking at Assault Termies for BA. LAG might be the best use of them.

[HeadlessCross]

9 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

Hmm looking at Assault Termies for BA. LAG might be the best use of them.

Claw Terminators with a Chap was an neat combo that just didn't go anywhere because of the superiority of the Shield. Shield might still be superior because durability, but they might get slightly more play now. 

[Dark Shepherd]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Rules just need to be free in general. People will always pay a premium for the models. 

 

Also no changes to Grey Knights is pretty sad. Purgators getting a small price cut does nothing to address the fact that they have an absurdly trash rule. 

Im convinced we are well on the road to digital rules, but theyll be subscription (for faction rules)

[HeadlessCross]

12 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Im convinced we are well on the road to digital rules, but theyll be subscription (for faction rules)

I'd rather a subscription with everything in one place (getting updated) than what happened in the old days (where some armies didn't get updated for MULTIPLE editions) or what currently happens (things get fixed but there's still too many documents, as better about it as they've gotten).

[Evil Eye]

50 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Im convinced we are well on the road to digital rules, but theyll be subscription (for faction rules)

Making the rules a subscription based live service would be the absolute final nail in the coffin for any chance of me playing modern rules ever again, and I suspect given how sick people are of the subscription based live service model for everything it might actually push a LOT of people away from GW.

[ThePenitentOne]

What are all of you talking about?

 

Imperial Agents have on update on page 18 of the Balance update for the Culexus Assassin's Etheric Emergence Rule. That isn't much, but it's more than Death Guard, Black Templars, Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Leagues of Votann.

 

Now, it's happened before that things were accidentally left out of a PDF when it was posted in the morning and added later once the oversight was noticed, and that's likely what happened here, so I'll avoid giving anyone sass for missing what is clearly there now: it probably wasn't the last time you looked.

 

But I will give some (respectfully worded) sass to those of you who used this initial oversight as an excuse to grind your own pet theories that Agents "shouldn't" be real faction, or to suggest that GW doesn't think of them as a real faction. Because what's clear, even before the update was published, is that none of you used the lack of a balance update to suggest that Space Wolves shouldn't exist, or weren't taken seriously by GW, or Death Guard or Votann.

 

So respectfully, and in all the kindness that my seasonably festive spirit can muster, please respect parts of the game that other people might love. Imperial Agents, in my personal opinion, have a greater reason to exist on their own than they ever have- three Arbites units (though only one kit), Navy and Rogue Trader units, new units being added by Kill Team (Sanctifiers) and as other Agent supporters pointed out, differentiation between datasheets when they are included in the Agents dex than the dexes of other armies in which they can also be included.

 

We also have proof that GW will ALWAYS exclude things when they try to consolidate in fewer books- first it happened to Deathwatch and then it happened to Daemons. YOU may recommend consolidating units into other books because if YOU were in charge of doing it, YOU might do it right, without taking units away... But clearly, GW can't be trusted to do it the way YOU would do it, so for those of us who love Agents, we'd rather not see the suggestion being made.

 

It would not take much to IMPROVE the Agents dex to the point where it was a better stand-alone book/ playable army; that's obviously a topic for another thread, but suffice it to say that this would likely be a better approach to solving any problems you might have with Agents, because it would avoid breaking the hearts of anyone who loves them.

 

(Did I say it in a non-toxic way, as free of anger and outright rage as I tried so very hard to make it? I hope so. It wasn't easy; a lot of you really pushed my buttons. Happy holiday season)

[Scribe]

lol subscription?

 

Own nothing and like it I guess, but that's a hard pass. Especially at GW quality and cost.

[Madao]

I am glad they have 'fixed' Fire dragons disembark without overwatch - shoot - embark combo. Although I would prefer this to become universal rule, that a unit cannot embark the same turn it disembarked (few other armies have such capabilities, but it does not seem oppressive e.g. with AdMech or Tau troops)

[Orange Knight]

I don't particularly want a subscription model for rules.

 

I also hate how the rules are never in one place outside of the app, but the app itself isn't as nice to look through as a book is.

 

Think about it - we get FAQs and Erratas. In the balance dataslate, there are profiles for weapons and units that are completely different from what's in the book. Instead of having rules appear in 3 different places, why not grant people access to a digital codex that we can print out when it's updated? Or something like that.

 

I despise looking at screens when I'm playing 40k. I don't want to carry a tablet around with me, and I don't want to squint at my phone throughout a game. Just give me a PDF that features all rules and datasheets for my army so I can print it out and have all the updated rules and profiles infront of me, and not scattered around 3 different documents.

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

I don't particularly want a subscription model for rules.

 

I also hate how the rules are never in one place outside of the app, but the app itself isn't as nice to look through as a book is.

 

Think about it - we get FAQs and Erratas. In the balance dataslate, there are profiles for weapons and units that are completely different from what's in the book. Instead of having rules appear in 3 different places, why not grant people access to a digital codex that we can print out when it's updated? Or something like that.

 

I despise looking at screens when I'm playing 40k. I don't want to carry a tablet around with me, and I don't want to squint at my phone throughout a game. Just give me a PDF that features all rules and datasheets for my army so I can print it out and have all the updated rules and profiles infront of me, and not scattered around 3 different documents.

Only concern there is duplication of effort.

 

The app is honestly not in a terrible place and I'd assume not going anywhere. So you then still have an app and a separate pdf collection document to copy the changes into. The compromise might be a bland "print out" version of the app content rather than a digital codex book.

 

[Orange Knight]

12 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Only concern there is duplication of effort.

 

The app is honestly not in a terrible place and I'd assume not going anywhere. So you then still have an app and a separate pdf collection document to copy the changes into. The compromise might be a bland "print out" version of the app content rather than a digital codex book.

 

 

I don't want to ever look at the app, and I don't want some ugly listing of wargear or a wall of text.

 

I just want the same format as the codex, with the datasheets, rules, detachments and points updated.

I bought a codex book because I like having a codex book.

[Beef]

I for one am old school and loved the codex's however i find the app so much better for referring to than the actual codex  Its all there in one handy place.  The app has been a life saver especially with profiles for example weapons with devastating (just click on the key word and it explains the rule).  I think for newer players or players who know the fluff but not the rules the app is great.  The actual codex is great for people who want some background lore.  I have recently got back into 40K and bought the SW codex, SM codex and the BA codex just for the online code.  I have not read much of the actual codex because i don't need to refer to them for the rules (i have the app) and as far as the lore is concerned i already know most of it.

 

 

[Mogger351]

26 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I don't want to ever look at the app, and I don't want some ugly listing of wargear or a wall of text.

 

I just want the same format as the codex, with the datasheets, rules, detachments and points updated.

I bought a codex book because I like having a codex book.

I think you'll have to accept you're in the minority at this point and the current game state isn't designed around that sort of view.

 

Genuinely not wanting to devalue it, I love looking through a book, but the rules and the rate of change make printed materials problematic at best and I can't see then wanting to sink the time and effort in for the minority who want a book to print themselves and reprint chunks every 3 months or so.

 

It's sort of the living justification for digital rules.

[Orange Knight]

6 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I think you'll have to accept you're in the minority at this point and the current game state isn't designed around that sort of view.

 

Genuinely not wanting to devalue it, I love looking through a book, but the rules and the rate of change make printed materials problematic at best and I can't see then wanting to sink the time and effort in for the minority who want a book to print themselves and reprint chunks every 3 months or so.

 

It's sort of the living justification for digital rules.

 

As long as GW are selling expensive books, I don't have to accept it at all.
 

If the game can only function via digital rules, then don't sell the rules in a printed format.

[Mogger351]

14 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

As long as GW are selling expensive books, I don't have to accept it at all.
 

If the game can only function via digital rules, then don't sell the rules in a printed format.

Which is why people are suggesting switching to a digital subscription model via the app and have been for years now.

 

It's universally understood the printed materials are a waste of time for the game itself.

[Evil Eye]

22 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

It's universally understood the printed materials are a waste of time for the game itself.

I would much rather they switched back to a game design model that wasn't incompatible with printed rules myself. A wargame- you know, an analogue medium with physical models- needs NOT to be tied to a smartphone app.

[Karhedron]

1 minute ago, Evil Eye said:

I would much rather they switched back to a game design model that wasn't incompatible with printed rules myself. A wargame- you know, an analogue medium with physical models- needs NOT to be tied to a smartphone app.

 

One of the regular complaints of older editions was how long it took to fix over/under performing units or armies. The large number of armies and units means GW clearly can't balance test internally thoroughly enough and rely on tournament data for balancing. Sometimes points changes are enough but sometimes units come out with broken rules or unintended interactions and need rewriting.

 

It's not ideal and I would like if GW could publish balanced rules day 1 but I think we have to accept that the game has grown beyond that being feasible.

[Mogger351]

17 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I would much rather they switched back to a game design model that wasn't incompatible with printed rules myself. A wargame- you know, an analogue medium with physical models- needs NOT to be tied to a smartphone app.

Arguably you can just play with books only now and enjoy the classic GW experience.

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

One of the regular complaints of older editions was how long it took to fix over/under performing units or armies. The large number of armies and units means GW clearly can't balance test internally thoroughly enough and rely on tournament data for balancing. Sometimes points changes are enough but sometimes units come out with broken rules or unintended interactions and need rewriting.

 

It's not ideal and I would like if GW could publish balanced rules day 1 but I think we have to accept that the game has grown beyond that being feasible.

 

Which is why I'm suggesting they update digital codex books, so we can print out the updated datasheets.

The app is ok to look up a certain rule, but it's rubbish for quickly revieweing multiple datasheets, wargear, etc etc

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Which is why I'm suggesting they update digital codex books, so we can print out the updated datasheets.

The app is ok to look up a certain rule, but it's rubbish for quickly revieweing multiple datasheets, wargear, etc etc

I honestly don't agree at all, but to each their own.

[DemonGSides]

Yeah with the addition of the Command Bunker feature I don't think the app has many bad spots any more. I would like a slightly different form of organization for updates rules but it's fine as is.

 

I still think the sub should get you access to all data sheets (I'm somewhat okay with keeping army builder locked to codex purchase if this is the case) so that I can reference an opponents rules easier. That's about my biggest annoyance with the current form of the app. 

[Karhedron]

What bothers me with the App is that it is quite expensive with a monthly subscription and then you need to buy codices on top of it so they sting you at both ends.

 

Either the subscription should cover everything or the app should be free and you use the digital codes from codices. I am not interested in paying twice.