40k Balance Datasheet - Q1 2023

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.

**Lammia**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah, but the ammount of what GW needs to "correct" compared to what other companies need to correct and the fact that GW has also to correct day ONE (cue FAQ cue Votann) does show that their product is shoddy in this regard.

Day 0 patches make games good.

Joke aside, printed LoV were a reasonable Codex into Nids. The problem was twofold. 1, Nids are a very strong Codex with al ot of depth. 2, LoV were not going to be welcomed without the changes. That was made very clear to GW.

FAQs are required because GW aren't great at Tech. Writing and when they are, some players are very good at going 'but I think it should work this way, and GW aren't good at saying what they mean.'

**Not Online!!!**

Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.

**Lammia**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.

GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.

And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Still doesn't justify the price tag on the rules, especially when the format is inferior to earlier versions.
I don't care that it's hard cover and in colour, it's not a worthwhile product, especially when it's rendered obsolete as soon as it hits the shelves.
GW should really just release their rules for free like a normal company and sell the books as premium versions, complete with art and fluff, with maybe a few interesting hobbying articles.

**Dudeface**

Lammia wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.

And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.

It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.

**Lammia**

Dudeface wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.

And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.

It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.

That's an issue too. But if we say each test game is 3 hours long, it's 2 weeks for 2 people at work just to get a sample size that fits in the 45-55% WR, and those numbers are going to be heavily skewed.

**Slipspace**

Lammia wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.

And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.

It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.
That's an issue too. But if we say each test game is 3 hours long, it's 2 weeks for 2 people at work just to get a sample size that fits in the 45-55% WR, and those numbers are going to be heavily skewed.

GW is a company with a turnover in the 9-digit range. They can and should do better. Resource should not be an issue. They have an entire workforce at their disposal who pretty much all play their games, so it's not like they have to look far for playtesters.

I can accept there will be issues. There's no substitute for tens of thousands of people all using a product to find its flaws. However, it's also well known in usability testing circles that you get very rapidly diminishing returns on the number of issues identified beyond a fairly small number of testers. The same holds true for playtesting. Many of their problems are things people spot without ever actually playing a game and that's exactly the kind of thing they should be able to rectify quite easily.

The problem isn't resource, it's that GW don't care because people will buy stuff even if it's as broken as Tyranids are.

**Tsagualsa**

Slipspace wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.

And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.

It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.
That's an issue too. But if we say each test game is 3 hours long, it's 2 weeks for 2 people at work just to get a sample size that fits in the 45-55% WR, and those numbers are going to be heavily skewed.

GW is a company with a turnover in the 9-digit range. They can and should do better. Resource should not be an issue. They have an entire workforce at their disposal who pretty much all play their games, so it's not like they have to look far for playtesters.

I can accept there will be issues. There's no substitute for tens of thousands of people all using a product to find its flaws. However, it's also well known in usability testing circles that you get very rapidly diminishing returns on the number of issues identified beyond a fairly small number of testers. The same holds true for playtesting. Many of their problems are things people spot without ever actually playing a game and that's exactly the kind of thing they should be able to rectify quite easily.

The problem isn't resource, it's that GW don't care because people will buy stuff even if it's as broken as Tyranids are.

GW is, by their own admission, pretty much in the business of selling miniatures and accessories, with the games being mostly an afterthought, or at least has been in that position for a very long time under Kirby. That is or may be changing, but like all changes, that takes time and more risk than management is willing to take at once, so you get baby steps in the right direction from time to time, cautiously. It's not ideal, but better than it has been years ago, but also very far yet from where it could and would ideally be.

**cuda1179**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Um…

13+13=26
18=18

Two Warriors are just shy of half again the cost of a single Tac Marine. And they don’t get free upgrades, while Tac Marines do.

Did you miss the part where I said the bump to 13 points alleviates the issue?

If you compare 10 Votann to 10 Tactical marines with similar wargear the Votann would be about 170 points to the Marines 180. In what world is 1 Votann equal to one marine?

**Quasistellar**

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Tsagualsa wrote:
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.

Deathwatch are unfortunately a prime candidate for getting the axe in the next edition - they do not really have a unique presence on the board outside of their flyer, and that can easily be rolled into sth. like an inquisition/agents codex or even made available to all marines. As it stands now, they're just another 'Marines+' force that does not have much going for them, specifically. Shame, because their background is awesome and they could be made worthwhile, but some pruning of the MEQ factions is probably necessary.

Honestly, I’m all for them going into an inquisitorial force type thing, it would help them feel a bit more unique, 8th was nice because of the limited options for the deathwatch tbh.

I'm a Deathwatch player and I would love this. I actually really dislike the direction DW has been going, and would prefer if they were more of an "agents of the imperium" type force. You can add them into another imperium force, or you can take them and add an inquisition detachment.

In my head I always go back to the Eisenhorn Xenos book that features Eisenhorn's retinue fighting alongside DW and Imperial Guard. It's frustratingly difficult to recreate a force like this with 40k rules. Honestly the hardest part has always been the inquisitorial retinue, as since 8th they keep putting out just unbelievably terrible rules for them.

I really wish they had addressed the inquisition acolyte points costs here. They're outrageous. They were unfathomably high when they were first released, and now they're spit-take worthy. Can you imagine a new player seeing the new space marine points then looking at acolyte points? They'd probably assume acolytes are T4 3+ save BS3 WS3 with at least 2 attacks.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim**

It has always kinda left a sour taste in my mouth seeing entirely new armies pop up like votann while the inquisition hasn’t gotten any attention since forever, despite being a massive part of the imperium as an entity.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also, inquisitors just need a massive buff honestly, it’s weird seeing how weak they are, though I guess it’s maybe just because we usually see them as main characters in books.

**NAVARRO**

Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.

**CthuluIsSpy**

NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.

It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.

**Daedalus81**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Chainswords are just standard equipment.
That will never see the field of battle again, because everything that's better than them is now free. Do you understand this point yet? Are we getting through?

Daedalus81 wrote:
The thing is that a lascannon wasn't a shift in power, because it robbed from elsewhere in the army and so was never taken.
Daedalus81 wrote:
Same reason why four lascannons don't do much to the old ork horde. They're very "optimized" weapons.
You don't seem to get it. You're focusing on the "Lascannon" part of this too much. Again: This isn't about the Lascannon. The Lascannon is just an example. The point isn't "Lascannons shouldn't be free", the point is "Any upgrade to basic weaponry shouldn't be free".

"But you just said Lascannons shouldn't be..."

Yes, I did, as an example of the overall point. Do you want me to exhaustively list every possible upgrade with "... shouldn't be free!" after it to make it clear I was talking about everything, not just the three weapons I did list?

I do understand. There's just two things here - 1) free upgrades puts weapon selection on it's head and 2) whether or not these free upgrades would result in a list that is fun and fair to play against.

There's nuance to all of it.

Swapping a chainsword for a lascannon doesn't immediately make you a more effective model in all circumstances. You still have a choice to make an effective list and it probably isn't stuffing as much melta as you can, which means free upgrades isn't as simple as it might appear on it's face.

**oni**

NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

**Grimskul**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.

It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.

Yeah, the pendulum has swung too far the other way unfortunately. Now GW seems to be treating 40k closer to how video game developers patch live-service games, which is a shame because warhammer is fundamentally quite different and has wayyy more investment compared to people booting up a game and switching to the next best character in the meta and paying for some skins.

**Dudeface**

oni wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

How else do you expect marines to get out of their low win rate without rules intervention? I'm not necessarily talking competitive play, just in general, they're near bottom of the pile and regardless how they got there, it's not fair to keep them there without at least trying to amend the situation. They tried AoC which didn't work, they're now trying something else. Would you rather books just languish in this state until the next edition time after time?

**CoALabaer**

I must say i wholeheartedly welcome the idea of equipment baked into the points cost.
After playing AoS i can surely say it reduces a lot of stress when building (both models and non-top-powerlevel lists).
The issue i see is more with the fact that we are too used to there being "obviously more powerful" options ( why ever use a Bolt pistol when you could use a Plasma pistol?).
And of course a gazillion "options" which are bad.

But then: baby steps...

**Tyran**

oni wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.

IMHO in these days in which netlisting is easier than ever because the internet is closer than ever, I don't believe a game can survive without a focus on competitive balance.

Of course GW is doing it badly, GW really needs to learn how to write good rules and do proper playtesting, but refusing to acknowledge the competitive scene like GW used to do in the days of "beer and pretzel" already almost killed the game, so ignoring competitive players is definitely not a viable answer.

**nathan2004**

Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.

**Daedalus81**

nathan2004 wrote:
Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.

DG got kicked in the nuts with the core rules change.

Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. Similarly, some models have a rule
that reduces damage suffered by a stated amount (e.g. Duty
Eternal). In any of these cases, when such a model is attacked
by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any
damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to
the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already
lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/
battle round.

**tneva82**

Lammia wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.

Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
Every modern game has critical rule updates online. I don't understand the hostility towards fixing problems that are missed in development...

If it was that sure but it's marketing trick to get people change one op to other.

**JNAProductions**

Daedalus81 wrote:
nathan2004 wrote:
Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.

DG got kicked in the nuts with the core rules change.

Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. Similarly, some models have a rule
that reduces damage suffered by a stated amount (e.g. Duty
Eternal). In any of these cases, when such a model is attacked
by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any
damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to
the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already
lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/
battle round.

Weapons like that are NOT common, though. AoC loss is the bigger nerf to DG by far.

**tneva82**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah, but the ammount of what GW needs to "correct" compared to what other companies need to correct and the fact that GW has also to correct day ONE (cue FAQ cue Votann) does show that their product is shoddy in this regard.

Votann it was fine except they made it too obvious.

Not a bug. Feature. They didn't expect tournaments to even consider banning army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.

I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.

And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.

Texcept problems were visible by cursonary reading...you don't need data for that.

Feature. Not a bug. They just missed goal by margin enough for tournaments to conscder banning army from get-go. Without that no need for day 0 faq.

**Tsagualsa**

JNAProductions wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
nathan2004 wrote:
Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.

DG got kicked in the nuts with the core rules change.

Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. Similarly, some models have a rule
that reduces damage suffered by a stated amount (e.g. Duty
Eternal). In any of these cases, when such a model is attacked
by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any
damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to
the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already
lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/
battle round.
Weapons like that are NOT common, though. AoC loss is the bigger nerf to DG by far.

Not yet. But it may be the next round in the endless proliferation of rules-counterrules-exceptions. They still have not managed to make a satisfying AP system, so part of that gets 'outsourced' to FnP, ignore stuff and now again to ignore the ignoring. See also: mortal wounds.

**oni**

Tyran wrote:
oni wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.

IMHO in these days in which netlisting is easier than ever because the internet is closer than ever, I don't believe a game can survive without a focus on competitive balance.

Of course GW is doing it badly, GW really needs to learn how to write good rules and do proper playtesting, but refusing to acknowledge the competitive scene like GW used to do in the days of "beer and pretzel" already almost killed the game, so ignoring competitive players is definitely not a viable answer.

W40K suffered through 6th and 7th edition because they were just inherently bad editions, not because they were “beer and pretzels”. There is also a square peg, round hole situation.

Previous editions of W40K were not designed for competitive play, but with the proliferation of competitive play thanks to the ITC and Nova, a non-competitive rules set (square peg) was being forced to do something it was never intended to do, provide balanced game play for competition (round hole).

8th edition, while not perfect, hit a much needed reset switch with its complete overhaul and reinvigorated a lot of dismayed players and was also fun and simplified and so drew in a lot of new players. 8th edition also did it best spreading appeal to the various audiences as evenly as possible, across narrative, matched and competitive play. 8th had a play mode called Organized Play that was specifically for competitive play. 9th combined Matched and Organized and standardized on one mission design structure for all modes of play, which has been a HUGE mistake.

**Tsagualsa**

oni wrote:
Tyran wrote:
oni wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.

IMHO in these days in which netlisting is easier than ever because the internet is closer than ever, I don't believe a game can survive without a focus on competitive balance.

Of course GW is doing it badly, GW really needs to learn how to write good rules and do proper playtesting, but refusing to acknowledge the competitive scene like GW used to do in the days of "beer and pretzel" already almost killed the game, so ignoring competitive players is definitely not a viable answer.

W40K suffered through 6th and 7th edition because they were just inherently bad editions, not because they were “beer and pretzels”. There is also a square peg, round hole situation.

Previous editions of W40K were not designed for competitive play, but with the proliferation of competitive play thanks to the ITC and Nova, a non-competitive rules set (square peg) was being forced to do something it was never intended to do, provide balanced game play for competition (round hole).

8th edition, while not perfect, hit a much needed reset switch with its complete overhaul and reinvigorated a lot of dismayed players and was also fun and simplified and so drew in a lot of new players. 8th edition also did it best spreading appeal to the various audiences as evenly as possible, across narrative, matched and competitive play. 8th had a play mode called Organized Play that was specifically for competitive play. 9th combined Matched and Organized and standardized on one mission design structure for all modes of play, which has been a HUGE mistake.

And now they announced a World Championship.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/01/06/announcing-the-world-championships-of-warhammer/

At the time of writing, we have more than 170 qualifier slots from 18 countries across 3 continents. This includes Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US, to name but a few – and we’re still looking at expanding further! Keep an eye out for news of the full list of qualifying events in the coming weeks.

We’ll be announcing details of our own US Open series next week, with tickets set to go on sale in early February. Tickets for one of the major independent qualifier events – AdeptiCon – go on sale this weekend.

The World Championships are all about community and celebrating every aspect of the hobby, so each event will have their own qualifying criteria, determined by the individual organisers. At official Warhammer events, players might qualify through the competitive-centric Best Generalship award, or the more rounded Best Overall which also includes painting and hobby skills.

At the finals, players will not only be competing for personal glory, but also fighting for their country and continent. That means Warhammer fans around the world will be able to cheer on the players from their own territory – and watch along live from home!

Very good things will come from this.

**Grimtuff**

Removed - rule #1 please

**oni**

Dudeface wrote:
oni wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

How else do you expect marines to get out of their low win rate without rules intervention? I'm not necessarily talking competitive play, just in general, they're near bottom of the pile and regardless how they got there, it's not fair to keep them there without at least trying to amend the situation. They tried AoC which didn't work, they're now trying something else. Would you rather books just languish in this state until the next edition time after time?

9th edition W40K has this issue primarily because of the current mission design. Because you can choose your win condition during army roster creation and the tabletop terrain layout is fixed it promotes a specific style of play (i.e. the easiest secondaries to achieve) and rewards the factions who can do it best.

9th edition W40K is not a tabletop strategy game, it has been reduced to a puzzle that is solved during army roster creation.

A more robust and variable mission design that promotes diverse army roster creation solves all but the most extreme cases.

**Tsagualsa**

Grimtuff wrote:
Removed - rule #1 please

I should have made the sarcasm more obvious