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.

Hecaton wrote:


As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.

There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).

Toxicity consists not in advocating for what you want, but in advocating for what you want at someone else's expense. I am glad you and your crew were able to use points and improve the quality of the game for you.

PL worked better for my crew.

The game was better when both options existed.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

What I predict will happen:
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points

Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.
Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.
I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).

For, like, the hundredth time, sponsons are an example, not the entirety of the problem.
Even leaving aside whether drilling finished models and magnetizing them to deal with braindead rules changes is a reasonable approach, would you seriously suggest everyone chop up and magnetize the hands of all their Sergeants, magnetize all the wargear of every member of a command squad, magnetize hunter-killer missiles onto all their vehicles, and all the other little upgrades that in aggregate make a noticeable difference?

You haven't already done that? Wrists might not be as hard to do as you'd think.

For the sponsons, make a small hole in the underside, and poke a pre-glued magnet in through the hole, to stick to the inside where the sponson fits. Hold the magnetised sponson to the side to get it lined up. It's how I did mine (before assembly though), and there's no hole visible on the outside, as there isn't one.

As for the points issues, I am not happy that a bare-bones objective holder squad costs the same as a front-line fully-kitted squad with all the weapons. An infantry squad used to cost 1/2 more points with weapons and vox-caster, etc. 3x bare LRBTs can hold a position as well as 2 with sponsons, but now cost more.

Not having the option of PL (with toys) or points (optional) does take away prefernce on play style.

Tsagualsa wrote:
Somewhat hidden within their Tournament Mission article is the errata for the Index Decks: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8NI7qfP9dx5tLCkQ.pdf

Mostly stuff we expected like missing keywords etc.

A lot of stuff is still missing though - missing equipment options still persist, that one Ork Stratagem still does nothing etc.

The released the first errata before they released the datacards. This does not bode well for datacard sales.

there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Stuff like the un-equipable Krieger medi-pack is obviously not the intended design, this Errata is just lazy and half-assed.

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

It means its the first one, and the rest may be intended, or the rest may be errata'ed in round 2+. I'm amazed they released anything at all before people went in to pickup, take home and open the card packs so they can't return them.

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

I mean it's pretty clearly spelled oot:

A few other documents were mentioned in the video that you should be aware of. The first of these contains the initial balance updates that will launch in early July, seeking to address some of the early imbalances that have emerged in the new armies. Chief among these will be changes to Fate dice used by the Aeldari, and forms of indirect fire.

These are updates made for balance purposes – to keep the game fun for all – and we plan to revisit rules in this way with quarterly points updates, and rules updates every six months.

We’re also expecting a wider errata for all the new game content later in July. With 1,000 or more units and hundreds of pages of brand-new rules across 24 factions now in the wild, and thousands of games already played globally, a few more odd typos and niche interactions have been spotted, and we’d like to get them cleared up.

If you picked up a convenient deck of printed Index cards for your army, you’ll also want a quick read of this download. It’s the errata for the decks, to bring them in line with the digital versions you can find in the 40k app and the digital Indexes, covering a handful of known errors on the cards.

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

no gonna watch the video, but the article indicates that the pdfs are the correct version and the physical cards are outdated with those being the only parts of the cards that are wrong

so if we don't see that the cards show other values for units like wolfscouts, it would mean the pdfs are right as there are unlikely typos on both that is not corrected by the "typo errata" for physical cards

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

I mean it's pretty clearly spelled oot:

A few other documents were mentioned in the video that you should be aware of. The first of these contains the initial balance updates that will launch in early July, seeking to address some of the early imbalances that have emerged in the new armies. Chief among these will be changes to Fate dice used by the Aeldari, and forms of indirect fire.

These are updates made for balance purposes – to keep the game fun for all – and we plan to revisit rules in this way with quarterly points updates, and rules updates every six months.

We’re also expecting a wider errata for all the new game content later in July. With 1,000 or more units and hundreds of pages of brand-new rules across 24 factions now in the wild, and thousands of games already played globally, a few more odd typos and niche interactions have been spotted, and we’d like to get them cleared up.

If you picked up a convenient deck of printed Index cards for your army, you’ll also want a quick read of this download. It’s the errata for the decks, to bring them in line with the digital versions you can find in the 40k app and the digital Indexes, covering a handful of known errors on the cards.

Yup, but Kodos comment was vague enough I took it to mean they felt that tower/fate dice etc were all fine and working as designed, which the content clearly states are being addressed.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

It's still not clear if that's intentional or not, it's not possible to critique them not fixing something they don't see as a problem, however weird it is.

kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

no gonna watch the video, but the article indicates that the pdfs are the correct version and the physical cards are outdated with those being the only parts of the cards that are wrong

so if we don't see that the cards show other values for units like wolfscouts (so we know that there are typos which are ignored by GW) and/or we don't get a 2nd errata that updates the physical cards to match the updated pdfs, that's it

As is always the case, always has been and always will be. If it's surprising you at this point I don't think anyone can help you. Again we have no idea if the scouts is intentional or not, wolf scouts are generally firstborn veterans, whereas scouts in other chapters will be primaris at this point, which might account for the change. It might be there's a generic new scout kit coming but due tot he sapce wolf upgrade sprue they're left with the stunty old minis with lower wounds.

Because something is assumed to be unintentional doesn't mean it is and it doesn't mean they'll "fix" something that to them isn't broken.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards

That's exactly what it says on the article tbh and that there's a more encompassing wave next month.

Dudeface wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards

That's exactly what it says on the article tbh and that there's a more encompassing wave next month.

Of course the PDF's have already been stealth updated with fixes that aren't being mentioned.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards

That's exactly what it says on the article tbh and that there's a more encompassing wave next month.

Of course the PDF's have already been stealth updated with fixes that aren't being mentioned.

Like what? where is anything being "stealth updated"?

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I did not say GW is making PL bad on purpose,

Color added by me:

 vict0988 wrote:

Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose.

PL is bad on purpose, because to fix it would be to make it into pts, by choosing PL instead of pts GW deliberately chose the bad instead of the better. I did not claim that deliberately made PL any worse than it needs to be. But it needs to be bad, because if PL was not bad, then it would not be PL. It is simply impossible for it to be good by reason. Because by reason a pts system is meant to balance, but PL deliberately does not balance wargear options or odd unit numbers.

PenitentJake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.

There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).

I think it was at least 2, there have been what 4 that said to get rid of PL?

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I did not say GW is making PL bad on purpose,

Color added by me:

 vict0988 wrote:

Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose.

PL is bad on purpose, because to fix it would be to make it into pts, by choosing PL instead of pts GW deliberately chose the bad instead of the better. I did not claim that deliberately made PL any worse than it needs to be. But it needs to be bad, because if PL was not bad, then it would not be PL. It is simply impossible for it to be good by reason. Because by reason a pts system is meant to balance, but PL deliberately does not balance wargear options or odd unit numbers.

PenitentJake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.

There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).

I think it was at least 2, there have been what 4 that said to get rid of PL?

I mean to be fair the language used by those advocating the removal of PL kinda made it seem more lopsided.

Dudeface wrote:


Like what? where is anything being "stealth updated"?

Runtherds are now T2 when being shot at in a Gretchin squad instead of Gretchin being T5.

I'd wager we can find a few more from the errata thread.

So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."

So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.

Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?

 Trickstick wrote:
So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."

So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.

Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?

In all probability they'll just start putting granular point tweaks in again. They've given a baseline, see which one gets taken most/abused and tweak that variant, if all variants drop off, lower the base and so on.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Like what? where is anything being "stealth updated"?

Runtherds are now T2 when being shot at in a Gretchin squad instead of Gretchin being T5.

I'd wager we can find a few more from the errata thread.

That's not new

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable", and you once again nitpick at minor things instead of addressing the argument - great "gotcha" moment, I'm sure.

Breton wrote:
And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.

Units and loadouts fade in and out, sure - but the issue is much worse with PL as the strongest loadout of a datasheet will have to dictate the points cost of ALL of the loadouts of that datasheet.

 Trickstick wrote:
So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."

So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.

Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?

I doubt Field Ordnance Batteries will go up at all in the targeted tweak at some forms of indirect fire that have been causing problems.

Desolators were specifically called out as being "vastly underpriced", so probably them and D-Cannons (if they're not caught up in whatever larger Aeldari changes happen).

 Asmodai wrote:
I doubt Field Ordnance Batteries will go up at all in the targeted tweak at some forms of indirect fire that have been causing problems.

Maybe, but an across the board adjustment for indirect is also possible.

However, I posted it more to highlight the problem of balancing only certain options for units. Without wargear costs, you just don't have the ability to balance properly without causing a lot of collateral damage to weaker options. Like I don't think the ghostglaive/scattershield wraithknight is on anyone's radar for being super op, but balancing double wraithcannons through points will affect that build too.

 Trickstick wrote:
So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."

So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.

Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?

There is no way around a return to granular points. Codices will fix it.

nekooni wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable", and you once again nitpick at minor things instead of addressing the argument - great "gotcha" moment, I'm sure.

I openly said I was nitpicking and being pedantic to highlight an overarching thought process some hobbyists go through. You know, addressing a wider topic and audience than you and your personal thoughts. Way to totally miss the point, which you then double down on.

nekooni wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",

Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.

Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.

 Trickstick wrote:
So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."

So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.

Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?

My guess is 2 models with D6 each, total 2D6 Indirect shots isn't what they're talking about. Even the Malleus Rocket Launcher(s) with D6+6 a piece max 2D6+12 is probably not what they're aiming at, but its getting closer. Its probably the sticker shock of 10D3 blast Indirect that has no indirect penalty, 10D6 +10 Blast Super frag from the Desolation Marines, although they're already up there in price.

They described 240 points for desolation marines as "...probably [audio skip] by a vast amount." Could have been "too cheap"? Not sure, listen yourself at 22:00ish:

https://youtu.be/bEaO-DD8i18?t=1317

The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.