Biggest Winners and Losers from New 40K Rules? Every Army in Arks of Omen



Let’s talk through each faction in the game and whether they gained or lost from the big Arks of Omen update…

Space Marines Changes video here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9pLtJmZG5o

— Patreon Page —
https://www.patreon.com/auspex
— SubscribeStar —
https://www.subscribestar.com/auspex

— Buy Warhammer 40K miniatures here —
Element Games in the UK: http://elementgames.co.uk/?d=10426
Amazon in the USA + Canada: https://amzn.to/303klKD

— Social Media —
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Auspex-Tactics-103129707773165
Discord: https://discord.gg/RrvQurN

— Subscribe to Auspex Tactics —
https://tinyurl.com/yc69mguy

0:00 Intro
0:35 Arks of Omen Changes
2:08 Got Lots Worse
2:26 Chaos Space Marines
5:20 Harlequins
8:02 Tyranids
10:54 Got Slightly Worse
11:12 Thousand Sons
13:17 T’au Empire
15:25 Drukhari
17:24 Grey Knights
19:54 Chaos Daemons
21:54 Adepta Sororitas
23:33 Leagues of Votann
25:33 Fairly Even?
25:55 Death Guard
28:10 Craftworld Eldar
30:42 Necrons
33:45 Slightly Improved
34:18 Genestealer Cults
36:07 Imperial Knights
38:28 Chaos Knights
39:59 Adeptus Custodes
42:39 Orks
45:11 Astra Militarum
47:49 Much Improved
48:17 Space Marines
50:59 Space Marine Chapters
54:11 Adeptus Mechanicus
55:56 Closing Thoughts

source

47 thoughts on “Biggest Winners and Losers from New 40K Rules? Every Army in Arks of Omen”

  1. The biggest hit to necrons is losing The Silent King in non Szarekhan dynasties as a side effect of the new arks of omen detachment rules. Not really sure if the small buffs to warriors and stuff will be enough to compensate losing out on the king, and Szarekhan dynasty is arguably the weakest of the dynasties.

    Reply
  2. GW saw T sons peaking their head at 50% plus WR and decided we needed to go back to ~45% or lower lol. Im glad they didn't decide to go through with the +2 PPM nerf to SOT, combined with AoC going away that would have dumpstered us.

    What really hurts Tsons though is that we were seeing some tournament success due to many of the meta armies (nids, CSM, harlequins, Daemons, even votann) brought psykers and we had very strong secondaries into those factions. I get that Wrath was very powerful, but outright removing it hurts when our current secondaries aren't great. PI was also a staple of just about every list, nerfing that makes us weaker into literally every faction in the game, so between losing AoC and not improving our secondaries while removing our most powerful one will really make T sons struggle a lot more.

    Reply
  3. I am normally a fan of your takes but some of your eldar analysis is confusing to me. The over all consensus that eldar were neutrally effected by the balance dataslate and the omens update but, nobody who plays eldar is happy about the webway changes, at 80 points the webway gave us another point to come out of strategic reserves with and halfed the cp cost of strategic reserves. Now that SR is free for everyone it completely nullifies half the gates effect and now the gate is 20 points more expensive. Also eldar used phantasm to put units into strategic reserve after deployment for 2 cp which was usually cheaper than doing pre game strategic reserves and gave us more info now those 2 cp are a huge cost. Eldar were better than everyone else at SR tricks and now everyone can do it for free. Things like the existence of the newest version of behind enemy lines and the points decrease on shroudrunners is big for us but none of us are happy about the strategic reserves changes its a huge nerf for us. The webway does less than half of what it used to and it's 20% more expensive. Just strange to list the strategic reserve changes as a positive for us.

    Reply
  4. I am so annoyed they nerfed TS. It doesn't seem like a top tier army to me, the Flamers were indeed OP and needed that nerf ( a great point increase would have been better imo… anyway ), but loosing AOC and not getting anything beside that really make me wanna go cry. Especially considering I just bought the battleforce and what I needed to have a 2000 points army :>
    And Magnus… come on

    Reply
  5. Is it me or does these balance changes just prove that GW has no clue about how to fix their game? Don't get me wrong, I really like to see some weaker armies getting buffed but such sweeping changes are always a sign of incompetence. Like what's the point of making all wargear free when some options are clearly stronger than others?

    Reply
  6. Tyranids needed to be nerfed, I get it (Tyr player here), no problems about that. The point is, if after 8 months you still need to do heavy changes to the codex, what the fuck were they doing when they were designing the thing? The moment you need a 50% raise in the Malecetptor cost barely 2 months into the codex release, how the hell did you playtested the damn thing? They sell expensive books, expensive miniatures and the players have to deal with heavy changes because GW is way more concerned in releasing the codexes as early as possible, without a proper playtest. This is simply preposterous.

    Reply
  7. Played vs Tzeetch Deamons yesterday. Flmaers stil smash with access to deep strike and +1 to hit warpstorm power. I absolutly despise deaom saves. Yes they're weak in meele, but fast and manouvrable helping to avoid it. I had a 170 points tank firing 4 turns only killing 2 flamers and about 2 horros… That's guite disshearting.

    Reply
  8. Tbh you say thousand sons are worse overall but as someone that never used anything of what they lost/changed (apart from armour of contempt) it really doesn’t effect me personally and will continue fielding forgefiends and rubrics, as for armour of contempt I wanted it gone from the game when it came into play really didn’t like it even with ap -1 and D1 I was still sitting better than other marines before it came into play. I already payed my premium for inferno bolters, increased armour on D1 and being able to fire heavy weapons with no penalties

    Reply
  9. Which necron units did they make better? A few points off some mediocre or bad units that don't actually matter and nerfing Silent King by locking him to Szarekhan Dynasty in Arks of Omen detachments seems pretty detrimental.

    Reply
  10. Don't think Blood Angels did that well tbh, and Votann are actually pretty strong still since they kept void armour, when AoC is gone, and because of the new detachment rules people are mainly just removing a unit of Hearthkyn they were mainly taking for troops tax purposes anyway.

    Reply
  11. This is why I dont play wh40k anymore. The rules keep changing all the time ! Risk, on the other hand, has had the same rules since it came out decades ago and its still just as fun and uncomplicated as it is.

    Reply
  12. My most minor gripe as as an eldar player was losing hidden path. It wasn't great but playing iyanden with wraithblades made it a very fun secondary to play.

    Rangers are probably stil going to be taken for scout the enemy as our secondaries are still kinda bad.

    Reply
  13. 52% win rate isn't "STRONG" as 50% itself is perfectly balanced.

    Also compare 52% to 70% or whatever insane numbers Tyranids and Harlequins were pulling before.

    Reply
  14. Another update comes and yet again my Grey Knights are left without any meaningful changes. Our ranged weapons remain terrible, and our ability to survive to get into melee is nerfed.

    Reply
  15. Sporemines shouldn't cost points from the Biovore/Harpy. If they dont want players to get "free" models, then just have it ruled that on a miss the mines were 'destroyed' before impact.

    Reply
  16. Great Video! As a daemons player who just played a tournament with the new rules I will say that the flamer nerf is really nothing to worry about, hitting on 3s instead of auto hitting obviously hurts but not as bad as you might think. It also helps that AoC is gone because now they feel better against space marines. I am worried about losing my god specific warpstorm options, because they are more necessary then ever with the nerfs, but flesh hounds going to 15 points a model is really nice and skull cannons were a kind of slept on pick before now and I think we might see a lot more of them, seeing as they are AP-2 Dam2 and ignore cover, they are very good marine killers, especially eliminator killers.

    Reply
  17. I am BEYOND tired of these over- corrections. This is what happens when you don't play test the new codecies and keep allowing codex creep. Adjusting points is such a lazy fix, but then the REALLY showed how dumb they can be with the flamers.
    Instead of trying to tweak them, they just made them THE ONLY FLAMER UNIT IN THE GAME that doesn't auto-hit. What are you doing, GW!? Are you TRYING to make us all play the SM!? If that's the case, just pull the Xenos lines and be done with it.
    At this point, I just want to paint the models…

    Reply
  18. I was thinking about a better fix for AP creep then AoC. Wouldn't something like "All weapons of AP -3 and higher get the AP lowered by 1" I get that hurts specifically AP -3 weapons more than 4 but I think it's worth the sacrifice.

    Reply
  19. Damn, I just started a Tyranid army before last christmas. XD
    Quick question thought, when I hear Nachmund, Nephilim or Arks of Omens, is it a yearly thing, or it follows an edition ? (Like 8th = Nachmund, 9th = Nephilim, 10th = Arks of Omens?)

    Reply

Leave a Comment