Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WHC has the new 40k updates available now: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/06/20/warhammer-40000-metawatch-downloading-the-new-balance-dataslate/

Quite a lot of changes in both points and rules. Many of the datasheet changes highlight how stupid it is that no unit Abilities are USRs. Massive changes to AdMech that may make them playable. Also, big news - Deathwatch changes! 3 of them! GW remembered they exist.

Imperial and Chaos Knights now get to smash through buildings taller than 4" once more, though you roll a dice, and on a one you are battleshocked.

M.

How does it feel to be beta testers, where you pay instead of get paid, for a project that we all know will be scrapped in less than three years, and any lessons learned from the project will be thrown out instead of being used to improve the next iteration of the project?

Personally was hoping for Custodes to at least get a 5+++ against MW/DW; as usual GW disappoints.

Encouraged by the SW Champions of Russ & the TS Ritual changes though.

I find it more amusing that they already have errata for Pariah Nexus fixing cards that, once again, have been misprinted.

Not to mention doing nothing to stop all 40k tables being the same L-shaped ruin crap. I like cityfight boards as much as the next person, but all the fething time? How bland.

The change to DW in general does mean the specific Custodes detachment now protects them from it again.

One bugbear for me is the sheer amount of times they repeat the phrase "unless specified otherwise" in the various documents. Just have it as a general caveat and you don't have to keep saying it all the damn time.

It's good that GW have decided to make big changes where required, to things like AdMech and the SW detachments. It shows a willingness to correct problems in whichever way is best, rather than restricting themselves to only points changes, for example. Of course, this being GW, they can't stop themselves then screwing the whole thing up by finally reintroducing variable costs for a unit like Scourges, then immediately forgetting it exists when they get to Deathwatch - they're even right next to each other in the MFM.

WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF

Yeah, SW looks good.

Didn't check the SW updates, but they are an army I've always thought was cool and yet weak.

They got a glow-up? I saw they were trying to improve the special detachments for the Big Three, presumably to avoid just taking Ironstorm or whatever codex nonsense

Ironstorm took some hits. Stormraven quite expensive now, nerfs to enhancements and CP increase for Mercy is Weakness. Tall flower syndrome I guess.

Wayniac wrote:
Didn't check the SW updates, but they are an army I've always thought was cool and yet weak.

They got a glow-up? I saw they were trying to improve the special detachments for the Big Three, presumably to avoid just taking Ironstorm or whatever codex nonsense

Their own detachment got better. The big problem with SM is they can use any detachment, even if you're one of the non-Codex chapters. SW, DA and BT were all getting power boosts from using one of the regular SM detachments. GW have attempted to fix that here. Wolfen and TWC went up, but that was probably deserved. Max TWC is a pretty crappy experience to play against.

Notably they cracked down on some non-compliant mixing. DW can't take any of their units and scouts. Black Templars are required to take the melta variants of the Gladiator. Space Wolves can't take Apothecaries if they for some reason were. Tac/Devs are not allowed for anyone who cares.

As a thousand sons player for one of my primary armies, I am ok with the changes they made to the rituals. I would rather that then a price increase to further lower their model count. All the changes make sense, and the take away all armor saves was never going to last as it was ridiculously good. The ability is still decent (-3 ap for most weapons when combined with the initial -1). I am very surprised that Magnus did not get a points nerf even with these changes. He is in literally every competitive list without exception, and he is probably one of the, if not the, best individual models in the game with his offense, defense, and support.

For CSM the points increases were expected, but I think 10 on the legionaries was to much, 85 would have been a better raise and see how that went. Vindicators also go up, and I don't think that was super necessary, they were good, but now it will be back to forgefiends. And I would rather they nerf the warptalon ability then have increased their points so much, as they just don't feel worth it now.

A lot of the Tyranid changes feel good -a bunch got Synapse to make them viable; the changes strength on synapse is a good one. I feel like GW has tried to address the heavy-armour issue that Tyranids have in having very few anti-heavy weapon options; but having a lot of options for everything else.

+1 strength when in synapse range is nice!

Wayniac wrote:


Not to mention doing nothing to stop all 40k tables being the same L-shaped ruin crap.

While I dislike the monotony of L-shaped ruins as much as you do, it's up to tournament organizers and stores who run pick-up games to fix that, not GW, because the "rules" that created those L-shaped Ruin tables were not created by GW.

If they had been, they would appear in the terrain section of the BRB, and they do not.

If you want change, you have to complain about and to those with the power to make the change you seek, and while I imagine it IS possible for GW to issue a decree to TO's and stores, there is no guarantee that any of those entities would comply... Unless customers start talking directly about and to them, rather than putting the responsibility on GW.

Which rules encourage L-shaped ruins?

 Crimson wrote:
Which rules encourage L-shaped ruins?

Ruins are basically a result of the game running on TLOS. Ruins are one of the few terrain types that abstract the LOS rules and therefore become the dominant choice for ensuring terrain actually allows players to hide their models from shooting.

 Crimson wrote:
Which rules encourage L-shaped ruins?

GW provide layouts for their tournaments that are basically entirely ruins. GW are actually a bit better than ITC or WTC for not making everything strictly L-shaped, but it is still pretty dull to play on.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Imperial and Chaos Knights now get to smash through buildings taller than 4" once more, though you roll a dice, and on a one you are battleshocked.

M.

And you can no longer see TOWERING models over or through ruins.

 xeen wrote:
As a thousand sons player for one of my primary armies, I am ok with the changes they made to the rituals. I would rather that then a price increase to further lower their model count. All the changes make sense, and the take away all armor saves was never going to last as it was ridiculously good. The ability is still decent (-3 ap for most weapons when combined with the initial -1).

Having doombolted an assassin recently, the changes seemed pretty reasonable to me. I do think Twist of Fate could have gone down in cost a little to compensate. AP-3 is measurably less good against marines, after all. Although weirdly, Sv2+ units probably aren't all that impacted given how many of them probably have invulns anyway. So dropping Twist down a Cabal Point or two would be nice, but I'm nitpicking.

ELDAR:
Some good changes. Some weird changes. Aspect warriors probably didn't need the price hikes they got, but said hikes were pretty minor. People will just have to finally stop running that 35 point phoenix gem they were holding on to to compensate. I never ran d-cannons, but early mutterings make it sound like they might finally be too expensive to be worth taking. Which... if it was an auto-take until you priced it into being a never-take, that feels like it should be a textbook example of a unit that needs a rule change instead of a points change.

A strict RAW reading of the core rules making 1" the minimum Movement stat could be (trollishly) argued to mean that you can now move webway portals around. Which is amusing.

The pivoting rules seem like they're going to be raise more problems than they solve. See: deepstrikers possibly having less than 9" charges coming out of reserves.

My tank shocks just got a little better, so that's nice.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
A strict RAW reading of the core rules making 1" the minimum Movement stat could be (trollishly) argued to mean that you can now move webway portals around. Which is amusing.

No, because the Core Rules do still make a distinction for a Movement characteristic of '-', which is not the same as '0'.

I think one of my early favorites is clarifying that you can use the Command Re-Roll with fast rolling. No more having to slow roll saves for your leaders!

 Gnarlly wrote:
How does it feel to be beta testers, where you pay instead of get paid, for a project that we all know will be scrapped in less than three years, and any lessons learned from the project will be thrown out instead of being used to improve the next iteration of the project?

it feels better than 4th through 7th, where we were doing the exact same thing but each iteration was separated by a decade.

I look at complaints like this and I remember that there were armies using 4th edition codices in 6th edition and I just laugh.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
How does it feel to be beta testers, where you pay instead of get paid, for a project that we all know will be scrapped in less than three years, and any lessons learned from the project will be thrown out instead of being used to improve the next iteration of the project?

it feels better than 4th through 7th, where we were doing the exact same thing but each iteration was separated by a decade.

I look at complaints like this and I remember that there were armies using 4th edition codices in 6th edition and I just laugh.

Felt like I was getting a finished codex and stable product for $20 rather than an unfinished and soon-obsolete one for $50 though.

Tbf the hardbacks started around 6th ed I think. That's when I began to roll my eyes. Well, that and Centurions.

I'm... surprised about the IG changes. Do I really understand correctly that Regiment units now have lethal hits against non-Monsters/Vehicles ALL THE TIME as long as they see them? And Squadron Units really have it all the time as long as they can see them?

So apart from the odd mortar in an Infantry squad, all those Infantry/Catachan/Cadian/Deathkorps guys have lethal hits on all the time. Maybe I overstate this, but that sounds pretty massive...

On the other hand: a pitty that our artillery gets less of a bonus for standing still now.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm... surprised about the IG changes. Do I really understand correctly that Regiment units now have lethal hits against non-Monsters/Vehicles ALL THE TIME as long as they see them? And Squadron Units really have it all the time as long as they can see them?

So apart from the odd mortar in an Infantry squad, all those Infantry/Catachan/Cadian/Deathkorps guys have lethal hits on all the time. Maybe I overstate this, but that sounds pretty massive...

On the other hand: a pitty that our artillery gets less of a bonus for standing still now.

That's true, but by limiting it only to specific targets it's now a lot less impactful. You won't get Infantry Squads killing C'Tan or Avatars with massed lasgun fire any more. It also encourages a more mobile playstyle, which is good. It's a big buff to Kasrkin, who often didn't get the benefit of LH because they always counted as having moved.

 Gnarlly wrote:
How does it feel to be beta testers, where you pay instead of get paid, for a project that we all know will be scrapped in less than three years, and any lessons learned from the project will be thrown out instead of being used to improve the next iteration of the project?

Feeling fine.

I only pay for the models.

I see, I mixed up squadron and platoon.

Some odd things though, Wyverns and Punishers have leathal wounds against Vehicles but not Infantry. But the Rapier laser destroyer has it against Infantry but not vehicles etc.
A bit weird, but OK

Its funny, the more I look at the movement rules changes the more I see they were definitely for a competitive play issue. Most of the new stuff I think most casual players did anyway, like the fitting though gaps. I have never been like "oh the wings of your daemon are clipping the top of this ruin so you can't fit though there" on anyone, nor has anyone done that to me. I think most players in the casual setting were pretty accommodating about making static miniatures work in their environment. I guess it is nice to have it being officially a rule, but it kind of shows the level of pettiness you could experience in the competitive setting.

Oh and for the pivoting thing for deepstrike, they just need to say you can never need less than 9" on a charge from deepstrike unless you have a modifier to charge rolls. This would stop the pivoting issues, and also some other jank stuff I have seen on fringe cases.

Some really nice Daemon changes, love the fact that all GDs now have a Shadow of Chaos bubble, means a GUO will always have a 4+ FNP which is just...gruesome. My hopes still aren't high for the CD Codex but this has encouraged me to give them another go.

Can't believe some of the core changes however, not so much the rules themselves but the over state of the game that they imply. The fact that the rules now have to state "a Round Base is round", and that you have to pivot "on an axis perpendicular to the table" makes me think what gak were WAACs actually trying to get away with?

I guess the answer is "play some games and find out" - but I feel Ad Mech might be quietly OP with the changes.

There are some big points hikes here, so you are losing a unit, probably two.

But while being Battleline or in 6" of a Battleline unit imposes some positioning restrictions, "just have +1 AP for shooting and assault" is giving me 9th edition flashbacks. The cumulative effect on melee units getting +1 WS and +1 AP can approach a 100% improvement in damage output into say MEQ with certain damage profiles. Moving guns that were AP- to AP-1, or AP-1 to AP-2 can likewise start to add up.

On the shooting castle approach, Heavy is always a bit situational - but chicken walkers going back to 2 Lascannons, potentially hitting on 2s (with sustained hits) if they stand still, for 70 points? Feels like it should be good. Although not sure how often it would come up in a competitive game.

Both Sicarians look dramatically better. Whether you can conga-line effectively I guess will be the trick - but Infiltrators getting +1 AP on their shots, then potentially charging with an extra attack, +1 WS and AP? That's a bump from expecting to kill 1-2 MEQ to killing 3-4. Okay not game breaking - but that's from a 70 point unit - the definition of fire and forget.

With AdMech, sadly, the solution to the biggest issue centered around the Cult stuff(which has been an issue since DAY FRICKING ONE) is continually ignored.

We never would have gotten to this point if the unit pointed, statted, and lorewise treated as chaff were sold like it: the Electropriests. They should have been sold in packs of 10.

Real talk though, this errata was kinda worthless. I don't know who was the lead on the book, but boy howdy did they fumble it hard. Sydonian Dragoons get separate datasheets but not Onagers? Not stiltman? GSC get to pull a whole other codex's roster into a lone detachment but no Knight detachment for AdMech? Certain factions get their "special weapons" bumped down into being a generic catch-all, but we can't do that for the Plasma Caliver & Arc Rifle to be a generic "Archaeotech Weapon"?