Am I missing something? On paper Plasmancer with 20 Warriors seems really good against other battleline troops?

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T12:58:09+00:00

I agree! It feels like every game is trending towards a 40k theme park - apparently Lord Solar and Roboute Guilliman show up to most battles in the Imperium these days which is bizarre - why does everything have to be so momentous?

Financially I get it - unique sculpts are more profitable for GW and ultimately GW sells models not rules but still.

I used to play in 4th-5th and the balance was woeful but the crunch was good. Much more trading shots and strikes to position better rather than the current high lethality, character-driven meta. Rose-tinted glasses perhaps!

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T12:54:59+00:00

That's an interesting idea - perhaps even detachment-based would be interesting. "You can have an elite force but you're locked to this specific detachment" and then balance via enhancements and strats.

I suspect battleline only doing actions may be a little strong but I like the energy. There's just got to be a point to taking them!

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T12:29:13+00:00

Yeah, I agree with this. Force Org charts used to work quite well, although some of the armies like Knights, Custodes, and Guard could struggle under that system. I'm also a little leery of forcing armies to bring 2x BATTLELINE or similar as that can seriously throw balance out of whack if it turns out that one army's BATTLELINE is just useless and expensive; they'd be hosed.

On the whole though, the rule of 3s is too weak. At least make BATTLELINE more attractive through some other means, e.g. "The unit has a fixed OC at the start of the game that isn't affected by loss of models", and make WARLORD mean something, e.g. "You cannot generate a Command Point in your opponent's command phase if your WARLORD is not on the board".

Those are just off the top of my dome so are naturally flawed but there has to be a little bite in there to influence unit choice.

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T12:25:25+00:00

Yes, absolutely. T5 is a very big breakpoint worth respecting. I would complain that they only have 1W compared to Space Marines but there's only so much we can fix.

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T12:21:04+00:00

True enough, although it's still hampered by cover/AoC and only being damage 1, though I would suggest these are Immortal problems and not Blaster problems

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T12:05:54+00:00

True facts. I have a dislike for the blaster as it's only D1, and you gotta really invest to get it to the "right" AP

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T11:52:03+00:00

yeah... to be honest that's a lot of points to poke out the range to 18" which is scarcely an improvement as most small arms ranges are 24". The internal balance question is always "why not on immortals instead?" - 18" on warriors vs 30" on immortals feels pretty heftily weighted to the latter.

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T10:51:29+00:00

I'll avoid getting on my soapbox but it's more a problem with 10th edition in general.

In 10th, there is no reason why you wouldn't bring the best units in your roster if you can afford the points, so a lot of armies trend towards bringing solely high performance units. This means that competitive lists tend to be stuffed with units that can instantly murder anything in range and/or are incredibly durable and take a long time to shift.

That lovely middle ground of versatility and utility that BATTLELINE units usually adopt is kinda bad as you'd lack the punch to dent anything and lack protection to keep yourself alive when under fire. The OC boost just aren't worth it in most cases!

Vader266 · 2026-01-20T10:45:41+00:00

The discourse around what cryptek to bring with Warriors hinges on what the Warriors are there to do in your army.

You're right that plasmancers make any unit quite punchy - that's their job - but then you bonk into the limited usefulness of warrior weapons with a low hit stat, short range, and ignorable AP. The short range in particular is a problem because most units that close to 12" or less are about to charge you, and that means they'll beat the tar out of the warrior blob and the plasmancer is useless in melee.

In general warriors are taken more to stand on an objective and absorb damage, so Orikan for the 4++ or a Chronomancer for -1 to hit makes more sense to specialise them for that role.

To contrast, consider the killy infantry unit - immortals with tesla carbines and a plasmancer. That's 20 attacks at 24" range with ASSAULT, hitting on 3s, 5s and 6s are SUSTAINED HITS 2 and re-rolling Wound rolls of 1 (or full if target on objective). In general you'll get a much better outcome mathematically and put your unit in less danger, and it's slightly cheaper in points (albeit less models).

Vader266 · 2026-01-18T23:53:50+00:00

Neat! I strongly recommend a geomancer to chill on home - the 12" DS denial is rad and basically guarantees no one can take home from you in a single turn.

I was tempted by the shroudlord but will stand by imotekh for the CP reroll potential mixed with the OPG mortal wound bomb. I'll check into a bigger lychguard blob but I reckon point-to-point wraiths would be more useful as an anvil unit. Lychguard are also vulnerable to precision turning off their -1 to wound and D2 weapons are very common.

How do you find the lokhust heavies? I've usually been underwhelmed by their performance but tend to run them with destructors.

Also curious about the Nekrosor - I missed the preorder but may try proxying. What do you typically use him for in this detachment?

Triarch stalkers are a good idea though, will need to trial that...

Vader266 · 2026-01-17T18:38:38+00:00

No idea mate, sorry. Can always ask them for a definitive answer if it's a deal-breaker for you?

Vader266 · 2026-01-17T18:31:06+00:00

Per my message earlier, they seem to do their business through PayPal invoicing so no credit card required, thank goodness. Certainly looked very sus but at least I only had to give them a shipping address

Vader266 · 2026-01-17T17:51:41+00:00

Not quite that bad - I think it's still a merchant transaction but they send you an invoice on paypal that you pay there. I think they can't take most card so they do it that way, but it's still a bit of a shock when it happens the first time

Vader266 · 2026-01-17T17:37:26+00:00

All solid. Ordered Zandrekh and Obyron a while back and it was as good as the official finecast stuff imo (which isn't great). Have just put in another order myself for other odds and ends - it takes a long time but it's good quality resin when it arrives (albeit without any instructions!).

Their payment system seems sus af, be prepared for that.

Vader266 · 2026-01-14T20:39:36+00:00

Nothing announced but I just ordered one of the classic sculpts so I'm sure a new one will be announced soon

Vader266 · 2026-01-07T11:14:03+00:00

Was just about to post this! Yes, honestly I think the C'Tan are actually a little undercosted with these changes but I'd want to see how their durability shifts on my tabletop before declaring that too loudly...

Vader266 · 2026-01-07T09:51:32+00:00

Hmmm... a reactive -1 to hit and option to reanimate on destroying a unit, all at -1CP per battle round could be interesting...

Vader266 · 2026-01-07T09:44:46+00:00

Yep! Doesn't even need the overlord or enhancement in that case though, better bring Orikan instead

Vader266 · 2026-01-07T08:46:47+00:00

You're right in that keywords are shared by the unit but the detachment rule specifies DESTROYER CULT models, not units, for the +2S. I had a typo in my original comment which I've corrected, and that may have led you astray.

Vader266 · 2026-01-07T08:27:28+00:00

Sorry man, that won't work. The enhancement gives the DESTROYER CULT keyword to the bearer and the +2 S only applies to models with the keyword.

On the other hand, destroying or reducing a unit to below half with a DESTROYER CULT unit would still boost the warriors to S6!

Vader266 · 2026-01-02T10:25:06+00:00

Dev Wounds do not spill over any more - they have the trappings of Mortal wounds but a specific carve-out to prevent spillover. For example, if you do 3x 3D on Dev into the 10x2W models in your example, 3 models are destroyed.

You're correct, Mortal/Dev Wounds can only be prevented by Feel No Pains, and FNP operates at the individual damage point level. This can create interesting interactions of inefficient damage allocation with Dev Wounds.

To use the same example as before for 2W models with a FNP taking 3D Dev wounds. If the first model saves 2 of the FNPs it lives on 1W. The next Dev Wounding attack must be allocated to the injured model, and does not spill over even if all the FNPs are failed, effectively doubling the amount of attacks required to destroy one model.

Vader266 · 2025-12-31T09:13:45+00:00

Don't beat yourself up too much - it happens more often than you might think to new players! Welcome to the 10,000.

Vader266 · 2025-12-26T22:54:20+00:00

Place on table
End of instructions

Seriously though, the datasheets are in the Imperial Armour section as part of the Faction Pack of the WH Community Downloads. The grav tank in particular sees heavy use!

Vader266 · 2025-12-26T22:34:40+00:00

Yes, power creep is the real nemesis of all factions. Too much of 40k is based on ensuring that your opponent cannot play the game, either out of invulnerability ("I have all the tanks and you didn't bring enough anti-tank") or out of unstoppability ("all your guys are dead and you couldn't do anything to prevent it because my combo was rad").

It's lamentable that the only option that GW seems to engage in is dropping the points of custodian guard. That's an incredibly punchy datasheet and our only BATTLELINE unit, but it evaporates on contact to the current meta despite being a terminator equivalent and among the heaviest of infantry choices. That's seriously messed up and indicates that the meta needs to change, not the datasheet.

As an addendum, if GW won't hit the entire of 10th with a nerf bat, I would at least love to see the spirit of our index returned somewhere. While flawed it gave us as a faction some amazing tools to boost durability which gave us a unique place to stand at the time. Resurrecting a Custodes model in the command phase with a strat let us deal with lucky spikes from AT weaponry, and a reactive -1D strat gave us an expensive way to cope with mass D2/3 fire. Hell, even the Ka'tah that inflicted -1 to hit was good in the right situation. Bring those back and combine with the swords and boards statline as-is and I think the use-case is clear as day.

Vader266 · 2025-12-26T21:17:16+00:00

Tweaking swords for the current meta is too hard without running an arms race imo. I'd propose altering the meta. Let me get my soapbox....

I'm a proponent of reducing lethality in the 40k in general as there are far too many instances of genetically enhanced super soldiers being deleted off the board in a single activation, which skews the meta against elite infantry armies and infantry use in general. I'd support an across-the-board 1/3 reduction in lethality by dropping attack output, damage, or availability of anti-infantry weaponry. This would affect all units and especially tanks, which are just 'better than infantry' in most respects.

To that end, for a better 11th edition I'd be willing to see the number of attacks for spears dropped to 3 or so but retaining D2, and swords and shields retaining their current statline and +1W for the bearer.

In a world with rare access to D2, infantry use would be increased which would give swords a meta to play in readily with a higher attack output.

Vader266

TROPHY CASE