Its from a rumor on Faeit, reposted on BoLS. So. Dunno. Its not the worst, but ita not the best. It really dependa on where the points go, and if the restriction applies to <Hive Tyrant> Keyword.
I, genuinely, am growing to detest this "Playtest Team". They act with an aura of superiority on social media, and if they're now slowly being used as pawns for false rumors, OR truly submitting inside information, it's pretty annoying.
Cephalobeard wrote: I, genuinely, am growing to detest this "Playtest Team". They act with an aura of superiority on social media, and if they're now slowly being used as pawns for false rumors, OR truly submitting inside information, it's pretty annoying.
Prior to 8th edition, I don't think this group existed. Give them time to work out the kinks, it seems they want to please.
I don't mind them foreshadowing actual changes, but I would like it if there was something 'official' to how they do so. The moment I hear someone overheard something in a conversation, I lose interest in whatever the rumor is.
odin wrote: For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....
They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.
odin wrote: For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....
They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.
Well, gw could sell Citadel points adjustment stickers that players can buy and apply to their books representing adjustments that have been made through FAQ, white dwarf, facebook status updates, and chapter approved! Hell, they can even make them thermal print so that when your numbers are so faded they're illegible, you know a new faq is on its way!
odin wrote: For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....
They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.
I partly agree. If CA is an annual book with new rules and missions that also compiles FAQ's once a year for player convenience, I am fine with it. But if it starts getting in the way of them adjusting the game regularly then I would rather they drop the back end of CA that contains said adjustments. They definitely need to be adjusting things as the game developed though, waiting once a year to apply changes the game desperately needs would be a bad choice. After a while it does get confusing fast however, it's part of 40k though. The game is so unwieldy at this point that you really can't expect them to get everything right out the gate. I am thankful they are actually listening to consumer feedback for once.
odin wrote: For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....
They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.
Well, gw could sell Citadel points adjustment stickers that players can buy and apply to their books representing adjustments that have been made through FAQ, white dwarf, facebook status updates, and chapter approved! Hell, they can even make them thermal print so that when your numbers are so faded they're illegible, you know a new faq is on its way!
odin wrote: For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....
They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.
We already have a fair number of point changes in the FAQs.
Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.
The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.
GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.
Fafnir wrote: It comes to the point where GW is doing a really good job of showing just how out of date relying on purchased, print rules is.
Same thing that happened with PP's Mark 3 rules release. They just gave up and released the rules in a free PDF. Then they had to give up on their 'codexes' and insist people use a digital card managment app.
Carnikang wrote: Its from a rumor on Faeit, reposted on BoLS. So. Dunno. Its not the worst, but ita not the best. It really dependa on where the points go, and if the restriction applies to <Hive Tyrant> Keyword.
oni wrote: Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.
The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.
GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.
There is a lot wrong in the above statement;
The "Flying" Tyrant needs to be limited to one per detachment. I don't think it actually needs a price increase once it's limited and there shouldn't be a limit on the foot variant at all as it's the deepstrike + mobility that makes the flyrant so good. As for the carnifex while it's good it's not tearing down any houses right now. Even the old dakka fex with a -1 to hit (spore cysts) and hitting on 3's isn't that great since he's meh in CC and he has to get within 18" to start doing work. He's fine at 115pts. He does similar work to the wraithlord for the points and numbers but isn't as tough and isn't as good in CC. Yes he degrades but not worse than the carnifex until he's down to 2 wounds all for 8pts more and you don't see people complaining about him or wraithlords swarming the tables.
Overall I think the playtesters are doing a pretty bang up job from Nids forward. Most of the books have a lot of fun, solid choices. Some shenanigans made it through but they always will. At least unlike before those shenanigans are getting touched on every 6 months or so now instead of going on for years.
Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.
oni wrote: Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.
The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.
GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.
Obviously trolling. Carnifexes of all things you choose to complain about. The living tank that is essentially a dreadnaught. Are you assuming its a Leman Russ eqiuvilant that can shoot twice, can be brought in large numbers and are effective at shooting? You are mistaken.
If anything, the Tyranid codex is well balanced internally, aside from the FlyingHive Tyrant, but theyve always had issues balancing Tyrants.
Virules wrote: Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.
Virules wrote: Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.
Virules wrote: Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.
Doesn't even come close to evening out the difference. Especially not when you want to get close with those units anyway, and characters don't block characters anymore, and you're already spamming the unit. You don't see daemon prince spam winning. You do see flyrant spam winning. Because flyrants are better.
Virules wrote: Doesn't even come close to evening out the difference. Especially not when you want to get close with those units anyway, and characters don't block characters anymore, and you're already spamming the unit. You don't see daemon prince spam winning. You do see flyrant spam winning. Because flyrants are better.
In tournaments that favour them. Eldar laughed them off the table at LVO.
I'm fine with a detachment cap nerf. Id rather iconic units get to be powerful with limits to save ourselves from our dark gamer urges.
odin wrote: For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....
They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.
I partly agree. If CA is an annual book with new rules and missions that also compiles FAQ's once a year for player convenience, I am fine with it. But if it starts getting in the way of them adjusting the game regularly then I would rather they drop the back end of CA that contains said adjustments. They definitely need to be adjusting things as the game developed though, waiting once a year to apply changes the game desperately needs would be a bad choice. After a while it does get confusing fast however, it's part of 40k though. The game is so unwieldy at this point that you really can't expect them to get everything right out the gate. I am thankful they are actually listening to consumer feedback for once.
Let's wait if CA 2018 even contains point changes from CA 2017 or if you need BOTH...
Well it's all smoke&mirrors from them. They aren't aiming for balance anyway since the closer GW would get balance the more it would hurt their sales anyway.
Virules wrote: Doesn't even come close to evening out the difference. Especially not when you want to get close with those units anyway, and characters don't block characters anymore, and you're already spamming the unit. You don't see daemon prince spam winning. You do see flyrant spam winning. Because flyrants are better.
I'd definitely not say Flyrants are better in such a blanket definition.
Are they spammable? Absolutely.
But that's how they survive. The spam of a unit is absolutely a way of protecting said unit, and while is indicative of a problem, does not immediately mean there is a problem with the unit itself.
A single Flyrant is not terribly difficult to kill. A dreadnought can do it, or even a few IG tanks.
But a Daemon Prince is an absolute nightmare to actually get a chance at killing.
It's either in combat, not the closest unit, or a mixture of both.
Are they spammable? Hell no, they were clearly built to use the character rules.
That's the difference between a Hive Tyrant and a Daemon Prince.
While I will agree the Flying Hive Tyrant is probably too efficient, the walking Hive Tyrant shouldn't suffer for that fact ( just make wings more expensive) and I'd make the wager that the bigger problem is our ability to spam units in this edition.
oni wrote: Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.
The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.
GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.
There is a lot wrong in the above statement;
The "Flying" Tyrant needs to be limited to one per detachment. I don't think it actually needs a price increase once it's limited and there shouldn't be a limit on the foot variant at all as it's the deepstrike + mobility that makes the flyrant so good. As for the carnifex while it's good it's not tearing down any houses right now. Even the old dakka fex with a -1 to hit (spore cysts) and hitting on 3's isn't that great since he's meh in CC and he has to get within 18" to start doing work. He's fine at 115pts. He does similar work to the wraithlord for the points and numbers but isn't as tough and isn't as good in CC. Yes he degrades but not worse than the carnifex until he's down to 2 wounds all for 8pts more and you don't see people complaining about him or wraithlords swarming the tables.
Overall I think the playtesters are doing a pretty bang up job from Nids forward. Most of the books have a lot of fun, solid choices. Some shenanigans made it through but they always will. At least unlike before those shenanigans are getting touched on every 6 months or so now instead of going on for years.
If you put limit but not point increase you don't actually fix the problem which is it's too good for it's points. 0-1 limitations don't fix the balance. They just bandaid and make it smaller but IT STILL IS BROKEN UNIT. Every tyranid player will simply max 3.
Game balance wise 0-1 limits solve nothing and aren't needed if GW would actually bother to fix the issue rather than go for lazy solution.
I feel like, once you want to have your index, your codex, and chapter approved just to figure out what all your stuff costs, "point changes in a FAQ would be points in too many places" just isn't very persuasive. We're already past the point where everyone should just be using battlescribe or whatever.
Dionysodorus wrote: I feel like, once you want to have your index, your codex, and chapter approved just to figure out what all your stuff costs, "point changes in a FAQ would be points in too many places" just isn't very persuasive. We're already past the point where everyone should just be using battlescribe or whatever.
I like making my lists by hand.
Now, I think Ynnari is stupid by fluff, and an even worse idea in terms of gameplay mechanics, but they are a legitimate faction in 40k. In order to play a Ynnari army at this point (beyond a Supreme Command detachment of nothing more than 3 unique characters), a player would potentially require the Xenos 1 index, a Craftworld Eldar codex, a Dark Eldar codex, and Chapter Approved. Nevermind the upcoming Harlequins codex, or the inevitable Ynnari codex. At that point, you're looking at 6 books just to play one army. If GW keeps up this sloppiness with Chapter Approved 2018, we could potentially take it up to 7.
Virules wrote: Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.
And don't enjoy character targetting immunity.
This.
Easily explains the point similarity.
The Thousand Sons DP also can cast 2 powers and has a 4++ save. Additionally, the extra wounds don't matter as the DP enjoys character immunity instead, which is MUCH, MUCH better. Synapse doesn't mean anything in the comparison, it's just a Tyranid thing. So overall what a flyrant has over a DP is shooting and deep striking for free. On the other hand, a DP is much more deadly in close combat (unless you kit the flyrant for hth but then it can't shoot so...) and can select his powers from 3 different tables, not just one. A DP has access to amazing spells, while the tyranid powers are nothing to write home about. Also a DP has a reroll 1's to hit aura, which the Flyrant does not and a DP using the index warp pistol can also shoot.
The Flyrant really is not that overpowered. The quad devourers are. So either increasing their points or increasing the cost of the wings should do the trick. But walking tyrants with their silly Heavy Venom cannon (of which they can only hold one) should not have to be punished.
Also, for people who want a flyrant 0-1 limit, you have to question what HQs are left for the Tyranids. A tervigon is useless in matched play. Broodlord and Tyranid Prime are extremely overcosted and are only useful in very tailored lists spamming their respective troop choice. A neurothrope is good and all, but you can only have that many spells known with your one psychic lore. With 6 spells in total and each HQ knowing 2, besides your single hive Tyrant you have space for 2 Neurothropes before you run out of spells to use with your 70pt HQ which is completely useless outside the psychic phase.
I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
In the case of what happens locally, the part that stops them is that they constantly claim they're "prepping for events" and thus "need to use points".
Anything that isn't points they automatically think will be useless to them. It's grand!
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
I hear that a lot. Have yet to see in practice this all thunderhammer spam people claim would infest PL games.
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
I hear that a lot. Have yet to see in practice this all thunderhammer spam people claim would infest PL games.
Well,
Take two units of rubric marines. Make them 20 strong each. they cost the same PL. One unit with boltguns and gets upgraded with 2 Soulreaper cannons for a total of 426 pts. The second unit gets warp flamers in every model and now costs 662 pts. These are two entries from the same army codex and the same unit, at the same unit size. How would anyone be able to balance something like this?
PL was introduced because GW wanted the 8th edition very easy to play for beginners. The 20 pages rulebook confirms that.
With PL you can build an army in zero time. And a beginner can assemble his/her models like he/she prefers without checking how much the upgrades cost or deciding what is better or more efficient points wise. That's the purpose of PL.
The intention of GW was to design a faster and simpler version of the game, I'm not sure if they managed to do that though, even with PL
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
I hear that a lot. Have yet to see in practice this all thunderhammer spam people claim would infest PL games.
I have. I used to enjoy PL but we had a couple people who started abusing the system and taking squads with every upgrade available and it got ridiculous. A lot of people followed suit to be competitive and eventually we collectively agreed that it had went too far and switched to points.
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
I hear that a lot. Have yet to see in practice this all thunderhammer spam people claim would infest PL games.
I have. I used to enjoy PL but we had a couple people who started abusing the system and taking squads with every upgrade available and it got ridiculous. A lot of people followed suit to be competitive and eventually we collectively agreed that it had went too far and switched to points.
Yup, that's the problem with PL; and some factions can abuse it more than others. What my local community did to somewhat mitigate this issue was to apply a zero tolerance WYSIWYG rule.
The problem I have with power levels is they usually work out to be pricier than mere points. I can fit more units into a 2000 point list than I can a 100 PL list.
That said, I hope whatever HQ nerf GW works into the FAQ only applies to points. It would be another way to differentiate between the two systems
techsoldaten wrote: The problem I have with power levels is they usually work out to be pricier than mere points. I can fit more units into a 2000 point list than I can a 100 PL list.
Mainly because 40K currently by and large favours keeping units cheap, especially troops, etc.. filling detachments for CP and getting bodies on the board.
Which is why PL is usually a very enjoyable game, if you don't build armies to abuse it and "just play with the miniatures". It allows you to bring lots of funny stuff you rarely see these days. Tac Squads with Plasma Cannons, Terminators with Chainfists and Cyclone, a variety of fancy upgrades on vehicles, etc.., all the bling that is sadly overpriced in 40K, by and large, compared to maximising bodies/units outside of units with very specific purposes.
I know I'll catch some flak for this because competitive players sometimes do not care about the narrative and there is the popular thought that the narrative should not influence rules, but the reality is that the narrative does influence rules and no amount of petulant whining, bitching or attacking me will change that; so...
Limiting the Hive Tyrant to one per detachment makes sense from a narrative aspect as well as a rules aspect. HQ units that are very powerful and/or shouldn't make up an entire army of just themselves are generally limited to one per army (e.g. a SM Chapter Master) or one per detachment (e.g. a Tau Commander) or even limited such that they can only be included if another unit is present (e.g. Court of the Archon). A Hive Tyrant (wings or no wings) falls into this category.
The same limitation needs to be placed on a lot of HQ units throughout all factions. 8th edition has devolved into Hero-hammer and is becoming a lot less fun to play because of it.
techsoldaten wrote: The problem I have with power levels is they usually work out to be pricier than mere points. I can fit more units into a 2000 point list than I can a 100 PL list.
That said, I hope whatever HQ nerf GW works into the FAQ only applies to points. It would be another way to differentiate between the two systems
Power Levels are basically designed to be the 'maximum' cost that a unit could conceivably be for all of its upgrades. Or at least that was the impression that GW was giving at launch.
oni wrote:Limiting the Hive Tyrant to one per detachment makes sense from a narrative aspect as well as a rules aspect. HQ units that are very powerful and/or shouldn't make up an entire army of just themselves are generally limited to one per army (e.g. a SM Chapter Master) or one per detachment (e.g. a Tau Commander) or even limited such that they can only be included if another unit is present (e.g. Court of the Archon). A Hive Tyrant (wings or no wings) falls into this category.
The same limitation needs to be placed on a lot of HQ units throughout all factions. 8th edition has devolved into Hero-hammer and is becoming a lot less fun to play because of it.
I agree with your sentiment but until more options are given or the Detachments get altered a bit, I just can't see this being a viable solution.
Marine Chapter Masters require you to have a Captain and then you use a Stratagem to make them a Chapter Master. That's a Good Solution IMO.
Tau Commander's change was a bit heavyhanded given the lack of "lesser" HQs equipped in Suits and the fact that Shadowsun and Farsight have the "Commander" keyword as well. This one hurts quite a bit when trying to do anything larger than a Battalion. If we'd gotten a Shas'vre option like we had in years past I could see it being a nice requirement there.
With Guard? I just can't ever see myself agreeing to that restriction. Orders are key to how the army functions, they only affect a single unit per Order, etc--that spamming of Officers becomes critical for actually issuing Orders.
Rework the Vox-Caster so that it becomes an Officer issuing an order issues the Order to everyone with/near a Vox-Caster? I could see myself being a little bit less opposed to trying a restriction like that.
Chamberlain wrote: I'm not convinced PL is only used by a tiny number of people. I think the kind of people who post on web forums and are part of regular store groups might use points a lot more than PL, but I think a lot of kitchen table players use power level.
More than this, a lot of the people who are regulars at my local shop use PL more than points. It can be used as a way to keep some of the sillier powergaming nonsense out since those individuals only want to play points rather than PL.
To be honest, it depends on what army you play. If every army had the same options and upgrades for similar PL units then PL would be absolutely fine.
But as it stands you get some armies who can have...say, 1-2 heavy/special weapons and a sergeant upgrade in a PL X unit...where other armies can upgrade every single member of the unit with half a dozen things. In points games that is reeled in heavily so to stop things like Arquebus or thunder hammer spam being everywhere for free. In PL games...well, advantage either goes to whoever has the most spare models/units for their army to allow them to go OTT with upgrades for free or little Timmy who built his squad out of the box like a clusterfeth.
I hear that a lot. Have yet to see in practice this all thunderhammer spam people claim would infest PL games.
Well,
Take two units of rubric marines. Make them 20 strong each. they cost the same PL. One unit with boltguns and gets upgraded with 2 Soulreaper cannons for a total of 426 pts. The second unit gets warp flamers in every model and now costs 662 pts. These are two entries from the same army codex and the same unit, at the same unit size. How would anyone be able to balance something like this?
And you see this sort of maxed upgrades in your pl games? Or are these just theoretical complains? I have zero interest in theory. Only practice. Never seen that in pl games in practicex have you?
PL are not maxed equipped units gw said median which was exceptionally unhelpful because they have zero clue what they considered the average load out to be.
Some armies can abuse PL some can not that's why it's a bad system.
When upgrades cost points it's a more level playing field, though far from perfect.
oni wrote: I know I'll catch some flak for this because competitive players sometimes do not care about the narrative and there is the popular thought that the narrative should not influence rules, but the reality is that the narrative does influence rules and no amount of petulant whining, bitching or attacking me will change that; so...
Limiting the Hive Tyrant to one per detachment makes sense from a narrative aspect as well as a rules aspect. HQ units that are very powerful and/or shouldn't make up an entire army of just themselves are generally limited to one per army (e.g. a SM Chapter Master) or one per detachment (e.g. a Tau Commander) or even limited such that they can only be included if another unit is present (e.g. Court of the Archon). A Hive Tyrant (wings or no wings) falls into this category.
The same limitation needs to be placed on a lot of HQ units throughout all factions. 8th edition has devolved into Hero-hammer and is becoming a lot less fun to play because of it.
Only makes sense narrativelw. Game mechanic wise doesn't fix problem. They could fiw it and not have limit but theydecided not to fix issue. And if they apply limit too much it's going to hurt balancb
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hobojebus wrote: PL are not maxed equipped units gw said median which was exceptionally unhelpful because they have zero clue what they considered the average load out to be.
Some armies can abuse PL some can not that's why it's a bad system.
When upgrades cost points it's a more level playing field, though far from perfect.
Both systems result is unbalanced junk.you do not play 40k if you want even tininiest sliver of balance
hobojebus wrote: Some armies can abuse PL some can not that's why it's a bad system.
Has anyone actually encountered abuse of PL? It seems like armies don't do it, but players do. And if you don't intend to do it, it's likely not going to happen. Gaming any system requires stopping and asking "how can I get an advantage here" and that's probably not a common mindset among those using PL.
The only time I could see this actually happening is if someone had an ax to grind and wanted to prove how possible abuse could be with PL. And self fulfilling prophecies like that are no proof at all.
PL seems to be working fine for the people who use it.
hobojebus wrote: Some armies can abuse PL some can not that's why it's a bad system.
Has anyone actually encountered abuse of PL? It seems like armies don't do it, but players do. And if you don't intend to do it, it's likely not going to happen. Gaming any system requires stopping and asking "how can I get an advantage here" and that's probably not a common mindset among those using PL.
The only time I could see this actually happening is if someone had an ax to grind and wanted to prove how possible abuse could be with PL. And self fulfilling prophecies like that are no proof at all.
PL seems to be working fine for the people who use it.
Yeah it legitimately works fine for people who want to use it.
It just somehow magically doesn't work for people who don't want it to.
It's like saying boxing is too dangerous because the other guy could be trying to kill you.
hobojebus wrote: Some armies can abuse PL some can not that's why it's a bad system.
Has anyone actually encountered abuse of PL? It seems like armies don't do it, but players do. And if you don't intend to do it, it's likely not going to happen. Gaming any system requires stopping and asking "how can I get an advantage here" and that's probably not a common mindset among those using PL.
The only time I could see this actually happening is if someone had an ax to grind and wanted to prove how possible abuse could be with PL. And self fulfilling prophecies like that are no proof at all.
PL seems to be working fine for the people who use it.
Precisely my point.
I have been using PL. I have been in league where it used.
Games have been actually pretty darn close...And lopsided games were due to a) first in scenario that REALLY screwed me up(when enemy can start within 6" of your troops if I don't pull back seriously from my DZ line...To get out some turn 1 charge protection needed pretty much hugging my table edge...And scenario objective requires you to go THROUGH enemy army...Yup that's easy to do for guard vs dark eldar!) b) opponent having effectively brought knife to a gunfight. Beginner player with random mix&match of primaris marines not really suited against vehicles vs my tank heavy IG army...Not sure point differences but even assuming I had like 1700 pts vs his 1500 pts or something(and that's fairly pessimistic scenario) I SERIOUSLY doubt extra 200 pts would have helped him...It was shooting turkeys in shooting gallery. As it was I had brought perfect anti-his-list along. Only thing that kept him having ANY chance was scenario that basically meant I had to hunt down his forces which resulted in his black templars running away and me chasing them across the board. Not easy for IG! As it was I'm confident that assuming my list was 1500 in regular point system he could have fielded 2000 pts in same style and I would have been in advantage. And if the scenario 50-50 roll off for roles had been reversed it would have been game over from the get-go...Hell on that case if his list was expanded on similar style 2500 would have been beatable!).
But mostly it's been close games where results are on the knife edge.
It's different system which has different use. You can abuse points if you want as well. If you play with TFG abusers you are in for miserable time either way.
I haven't found PL to be particularly prone to abuse. Taking all the available upgrades on most units wasn't a problem. The reason I stopped using it is basically the exact opposite - it feels like a huge penalty if you don't just pile everything on.
My Leman Russes just have a battle cannon and a heavy bolter. Put them up against some other Russes with Executioners, lascannons and plasma cannon sponsons, and it's no contest even though the PL is the same.
Basically, that's the big problem with PL. It's great for units with a narrow cost-band of available options, and absolutely terrible for units that could cost twice or three times as much as their basic loadout if they're fully loaded. I think the system has a good idea at its core, it's just not quite fully baked yet. Maybe next edition.
Nope. You can dress it as much as you like, but in the end of the day people will be taking advantage of the limits that the game allows them to.
It is never the players' fault for following bad rules. "Has anyone encountered abuse of PL?" does not make any sense. PL is not the primary game mode in the competitive settings hence why people don't encounter them often. but this discussion suggests the PL as an actual alternative mode to use in tournaments. And once you do that, you will see the powercreep in all its glory. And again, it's not the players' fault. It's ALWAYS the game's fault. not only in warhammer, everywhere. If GW wanted to be cool about PL, they should have given each and every unit equal number/quality of upgrades. Only they don't. The whole tyranid army can have adrenal glands and toxin sacs upgrades for free (and that's before we even go to the armaments), while the obliterators have zero upgrades available to them. So why would I ever want to play obliterators against tyranids in a PL game? Or really play obliterators in any PL game?
PL is used at the moment in FLGS and garage games, usually from people who just have the models glued this way and don't want to bother remodelling or fighting over wysiwyg. This should not be your demographic though when you want to promote PL as a legitimate way to play the game everywhere.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Nope. You can dress it as much as you like, but in the end of the day people will be taking advantage of the limits that the game allows them to.
Again I hear this lot. In practice in PL games that hasn't happened here.
STOP SPREADING THEORETICAL COMPLAINTS! If you can't back claim with IN PRACTICE REAL GAMES that have happened then it's 100% useless comment.
"PL should be scrapped because people abuse it"
Do they? If not in practice it has valid purpose.
If you can't back it up with actual evidence rather than theoretical speculation it's useless.
Oh and who here has said anything about PL being used for tournaments? Not me. Though then again that doesn't automatically mean abuse. PL in league has worked well in my experience.
It's 2 different systems. both have their usages. Neither is useless. Both are 100% incapable of producing anything remotely balanced.
Main difference between PL and points = summoning and suddenly those bring back units on a 4+ for no extra cost are worthwhile. I don't play PL, but I've played 40k enough to know that unfettered summoning really unbalances things.
ruminator wrote: Main difference between PL and points = summoning and suddenly those bring back units on a 4+ for no extra cost are worthwhile. I don't play PL, but I've played 40k enough to know that unfettered summoning really unbalances things.
Those are the open play and narrative rules, I've played matched games with PL and had no issues as it sets aside those caveats.
Stop right there because PL isn't meant for tournaments. It's for narrative ,fun, beer and pretzels games. NOt min-maxed optimized games. If you worry about that just use matched play points.
hobojebus wrote: I know casual at any cost types really want to boast about how they use PL and it's fine but no ones buying it.
Yes, because clearly they're all fething liars... Why give other people the benefit of doubt when you can reduce them to memes and stupid jokes to prolong another of the stupid tribal wars tearing through this community.
Everyone who's just having a fun time with the game using PL are part of some secret cabal with an agenda of misrepresenting the usefulness of power level.
And hobojebus is part of the conspiracy, to make criticism of PL look ridiculous by calling the people who have it work for them liars.
Now you are all deceived and you'll try PL and your games will implode and the cabal will laugh and rejoice, feeding off your misery!
Or, you know, people might just be honest about what they are experiencing in their games and it'll all be fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The March FAQ probably won't have much to do with the power level tangent, I guess. So I'll stop posting about it. Turns out there's an active thread that is more on topic:
topaxygouroun i wrote: Nope. You can dress it as much as you like, but in the end of the day people will be taking advantage of the limits that the game allows them to.
Again I hear this lot. In practice in PL games that hasn't happened here.
STOP SPREADING THEORETICAL COMPLAINTS! If you can't back claim with IN PRACTICE REAL GAMES that have happened then it's 100% useless comment.
"PL should be scrapped because people abuse it"
Do they? If not in practice it has valid purpose.
If you can't back it up with actual evidence rather than theoretical speculation it's useless.
Oh and who here has said anything about PL being used for tournaments? Not me. Though then again that doesn't automatically mean abuse. PL in league has worked well in my experience.
It's 2 different systems. both have their usages. Neither is useless. Both are 100% incapable of producing anything remotely balanced.
If you look back I said that we DID have these issues with PL. Not theoretical, it actually occurred. We instituted a WYSIWYG rule to try to stop it but it didn't fix it really. I had to quit because I couldn't keep up with the cost to make all my models WYSIWYG and not get destroyed by nearly everyone. Eventually we all agreed to points to stop the nonsense.
So what you're saying is PL works if the players want it to work. If they just want to maximize their advantages, you have to go to points to have a more precise balance.
Naturally, points don't fix everything since some units/options are not priced correctly there either.
Zero reason to believe that's real. You or I could write that and it would look exactly the same. Hell, that could just be a blurb of two friends discussing their guesses.
... am I a bad person for hoping its real, just so I could see the tournament scene collectively lose their s**t? <.<
Seriously though... I wouldnt be surprised if the implemented *some* sort of limitation on soup. Like no more than one ally, or point requirements (ie, 25% max for allies). Probably not an outright ban though, unless some armies got an exemption, like Inquisition, Assassins, etc.
I mean, top level tournament players won't care. They'll just move on to the next egregiously unbalanced and overpowered flavour, just like they always have and always will continue to do.
It'll definitely end up hurting lower level players who mostly just stick around for local tournaments and the like. Basically, your average community member who considers their army a long term investment. Depending on what side of things they fall on, they could very well end up mightily screwed, especially if their army becomes unplayable.
This would invalidate any army that runs with a non-Battalion. I am calling absolute bs. It would severely wreck a ton of armies. It would also make Imperial Knights unusable as a Faction. Literally 0% chance of being real.
Reminds me of the old force org chart, back when there was alot less on the table
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it could work, but its always the few that spoil it for the many ,and if some lists have to diversive then so be it
Zustiur wrote: I'm assuming that's fake because it would invalidate inquisition and assassins. And probably others I can't think of.
Also a direct attack on Ad-Mech (and Questor Mechanicus) and CSM/Daemons.
Looks mighty suspicious. Cap of 3 of any non Troops unit? Yeaaaaah. No. Not believing that. It would invalidate their whole 'new detachment type' angle that they've pushed since the word go.
hobojebus wrote: If I went to a tournament and it was PL I would pile on every upgrade on the assumption my opponent will do the same.
There's zero reason not to take the best option under PL.
I know casual at any cost types really want to boast about how they use PL and it's fine but no ones buying it.
It is fine. Even abusing the upgrade system too the max, all it does is juggle the meta around.
40k isn't balanced, it's never been balanced, it's never going to be balanced. The only thing that changes is ever few months something comes out that shakes up what is and is not powerful. Playing powerlevel instead of points is one of those ways. Tell me, do you honestly feel that if you played index necrons against Codex: CWE, that it would matter even a little whether you used PL or Points?
I got excited when someone said there was news and then immediately got disappointed when I saw it was that bollocks rumour mentioned before which is clearly not legit.
Apparently from the FAQ playtester group. Take with a big grain of salt.
If this is true, then I'm pretty much done with 8th. SoB only have 3 good units in their codex.
Read further down the page, thank god it's fake. How would it even work? Can I only take 3 rhinos in a list? How do armies with only 1 or 2 hqs make multiple detachments?
Theres no need to punish anyone. You should just reward fluffy non-spammy lists.
The brigade was an attempt at doing so, but some armies simply cant make a brigade cheaply enough to have a competitive army.
Just change battle forged a bit.
Make it so that you get 2 CP for being battleforged, and you get 1 extra CP for every detachment that comes wholley from the same codex.
With a 3 detachment limit that almost everyone has already been using you wont see too much abuse, but give one book armies an extra 2 CP over soup, and take 1 CP away from 3 book lists.
Eihnlazer wrote: Theres no need to punish anyone. You should just reward fluffy non-spammy lists.
The brigade was an attempt at doing so, but some armies simply cant make a brigade cheaply enough to have a competitive army.
Just change battle forged a bit.
Make it so that you get 2 CP for being battleforged, and you get 1 extra CP for every detachment that comes wholley from the same codex.
With a 3 detachment limit that almost everyone has already been using you wont see too much abuse, but give one book armies an extra 2 CP over soup, and take 1 CP away from 3 book lists.
I just gotta ask, this board seems to take "no spam" and "down with soup" as gospel. Why? There's nothing I herebtly wrong with either. I can sympathize if you want mono to be equal to soup, but what I usually see if folks calling for mono to be Superior to soup which makes no sense. Same with spam. So his army is all Terminators vs. yours which isn't? Who cares? If you balance the actual units it won't matter.
With the Indomitus and Black Crusades, soup and allies are just as fluffy as mono anyway.
Eihnlazer wrote: Theres no need to punish anyone. You should just reward fluffy non-spammy lists.
The brigade was an attempt at doing so, but some armies simply cant make a brigade cheaply enough to have a competitive army.
Just change battle forged a bit.
Make it so that you get 2 CP for being battleforged, and you get 1 extra CP for every detachment that comes wholley from the same codex.
With a 3 detachment limit that almost everyone has already been using you wont see too much abuse, but give one book armies an extra 2 CP over soup, and take 1 CP away from 3 book lists.
I just gotta ask, this board seems to take "no spam" and "down with soup" as gospel. Why? There's nothing I herebtly wrong with either. I can sympathize if you want mono to be equal to soup, but what I usually see if folks calling for mono to be Superior to soup which makes no sense. Same with spam. So his army is all Terminators vs. yours which isn't? Who cares? If you balance the actual units it won't matter.
With the Indomitus and Black Crusades, soup and allies are just as fluffy as mono anyway.
I only call for soup to be diminished because it breaks balance so clearly. If every army had equal footing and you didnt get such a clear advantage from it I'd have no problem with it.
Galas wrote: GW: *Puts out the Adeptus Custodes Codex that has <Imperium> based buffs*
Also GW: *Bans all of that two months after*
I don't think nu-GW is capable of that. (But oh boy if they are!)
Well old or new same. Reason they aren't likely to do is they care about money so they have been removing restrictions rather than adding. This would go against idea of selling as much stuff to as wide group as possible. Having custodes only playable as custodes army for example means no IG player has reason to add few units to their IG army=GW loses money=GW unlikely to do it
stormboy wrote: It certainly would not help sales of their new mini-knight...
You can field them in units of 1-3, so you could still field 9 Armigers and most likely 9 Helligers in a single army with this restriction.
What army? No HQ's for you with no allies.
Or are we looking at just Super Heavy detachments, I guess, with 3 knights and 9 armigers, and that's your lot forever?
Can't do that. That is 6 LoW.
2 LOW detachments. But that would be rather expensive weird solo army not many are likely to buy. Certainly would sell less armigers and knights than if you can soup them up
Eihnlazer wrote: Theres no need to punish anyone. You should just reward fluffy non-spammy lists.
So did the Necron Bone Kingdom Of Drazak just suddenly cease existing as it isn't "fluffy"? What do you consider to actually be "fluffy"? One-of-everything armies that look AND perform terrible on the table because they don't have a cohesive look AND strategy to them?
"Fluffy" is another one of those eye of the beholder things though. One of my first 6th edition games was against a "fluffy ork" army made up of two mobs of boyz, some lootas and were led / assisted by that named Bloodletter, fiends of slaanesh and nurgling swarms.Totes fluffy!
I want this silly rumor to be true just for the entertainment factor.
Eihnlazer wrote: Theres no need to punish anyone. You should just reward fluffy non-spammy lists.
The brigade was an attempt at doing so, but some armies simply cant make a brigade cheaply enough to have a competitive army.
Just change battle forged a bit.
Make it so that you get 2 CP for being battleforged, and you get 1 extra CP for every detachment that comes wholley from the same codex.
With a 3 detachment limit that almost everyone has already been using you wont see too much abuse, but give one book armies an extra 2 CP over soup, and take 1 CP away from 3 book lists.
GW would be better off dropping CP tied to FOCs entirely. It's too skewed by unit point cost and varies a lot between armies.
It would be better to tie it to something every army has in common, like a tiered faction system. Add +1 CP for your army's (not detachment's) first shared keyword (Imperium). Add +2 CP for your army's second shared keyword (Imperial Guard). Add +3 CP for your army's third shared keyword (Cadia).
You can soup, but can't get around it costing you CP.
Would still be a patch, though. 8th ed's entire framework is shoddy.
The one thing I find annoying in regards to the response to this bit of news – real or fake, is a lot of people’s general reaction to instantly complain about it without considering the bigger picture.
Yes, some armies would struggle, but it wouldn’t “invalidate” them. Knights can still play with 3 Knights and the new Armiger kits (and that’s if they lump all the different main Knight variants into 1 “unit” header). Sure, transports would need to be exempt from this, but that’s an easy fix. Likewise, allowing assassins etc into armies is also easy to fix
As for all the “but this army only has 3 “good” units in its current form” is just pointless whining. Sure, some index units might suck right now, but, 1, there will be updates within a codex and 2, we don’t know what else is changing in the FAQ.
For a long time people have complained about soup and spam being the “go-to” in top end tournament lists, but, the moment something is linked to potentially solving those masses of complaints, it gets complained about.
Is restricting the units so heavily the right way to go? I’m not sure, but I’m on the “no” side of the fence right now… But then, I look at all the list I’ve used/planned to use in events and I realise that this wouldn’t affect me in any shape or form, should it turn out to be true and gets put into effect. This is simply because my lists have always tended to be TAC style lists. Sure, it might not be as good as running 8 Dark Talons or 9 Flyrants most of the time, but it doesn’t mean I can’t do well.
People have seemed to forget that just because a dozen people vocally, continuously, say something is bad across the board, it doesn’t always mean it is “un-usable”. A lot of people have seemed to forget how to think and plan for themselves and to experiment.
As it stands the army that will get hit the hardest by something like this is… Harlequinns. This is simply because they have such a tiny selection of units (which may or may not change with their codex). Other armies are limited in certain aspects (E.g. Thousand Sons and Fast Attack) if you discount forgeworld options, but in reality, this does not stop you building an army or theming an army. All it -really- does, is prevent you from spamming certain models. You also need to take points into account. Armies with limited options for certain roles (i.e Grey Knights and their single Fast Attack choice) are generally expensive in terms of points, naturally restricting their spam options. 3 full, basic units of Interceptors for example, rocks in at 750 points – this could naturally become 6 squads if you wanted – all it does is prevent you from getting +1 CP. Armies designed around hordes and getting brigades + other detachments also won’t suffer too much from this, as they have enough options to still do that.
Sure, it’ll bring down the power of a lot of lists, but, it’ll also increase the amount of different units on the table.
I think a lot of these problems would go away if the FoC actually meant something. As long as you can take special extra FoC's to spam unit types then army composition will never mean anything. Just max out the formations required for the best units and/or most CP.
the problems wouldn't go away, they would be different. Either people minimalizing troops or if you went really strict you'd just buff the armies with the best troops.
Earth127 wrote: the problems wouldn't go away, they would be different. Either people minimalizing troops or if you went really strict you'd just buff the armies with the best troops.
Term troop tax wasn't invented for nothing.
These limitationss are just bandaid. They don't fix the real culprit but try to hide it.
My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
casvalremdeikun wrote: My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.
In that instance though, Crimson Fists can still take 30 Sternguard (min 534 points), 30 Devestators (admittedly only 12 heavy weapons… min 390 points before weapons). So, for all lascannons that alone would bring you to 1224 points before HQs, and between 6 and 12 units to start with (due to combat squads). You can then easily add in other units linked to the Crimson Fists to round out the army.
Blood Angels can get 30 Assault Marines, 18 Inceptors, 30 Vanguard Vets, 30? Sanguinary Guard, 60? Death Company, Emperor knows, how many Jump Pack Characters.
Saim-Hann. 27 Windriders, 27 Shining Spears, 9 Vypers THEN you have all the tanks, Wave Serpents and Flyers…..
It doesn’t affect “fluffy” lists as much as people think it will, especially when points cost is factored in. A Saim-Hann Eldar list with 27 Windriders, 27 Spears, 9 Vypers and an Autarch on a bike without upgrades on anyone comes in at 2151 points.
casvalremdeikun wrote: My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.
You could still run 30 devs, sterguard, or assault Marines in those examples, and each group of 3 would cost 6-700+ points. Surely you can think of other fluffy options for the army? If your idea of a fun fluffy army is just the same unit over and over, maybe you should be more imaginative?
Cephalobeard wrote: If you see a 0-3 Limitation, you'll see 3x 40 Cultists and Poxwalker swarms take over the game.
Entirely depends on how the event is run... Besides, you already see a LOT of that anyway.
Chess Clocks would eventually be the bane of this style of army though, as they'd never really get much done.
I don't think we see a lot of that currently. We would see much, much more afterwards, though.
Well, wasn't there a rumour that "The Dead Walk Again" would possibly be FAQed to cost reinforcement points and Tide of Traitors would be capped at 10 Cultists or so? (independent and before the Detachment-Limit Rumours).
casvalremdeikun wrote: My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.
In that instance though, Crimson Fists can still take 30 Sternguard (min 534 points), 30 Devestators (admittedly only 12 heavy weapons… min 390 points before weapons). So, for all lascannons that alone would bring you to 1224 points before HQs, and between 6 and 12 units to start with (due to combat squads). You can then easily add in other units linked to the Crimson Fists to round out the army.
Blood Angels can get 30 Assault Marines, 18 Inceptors, 30 Vanguard Vets, 30? Sanguinary Guard, 60? Death Company, Emperor knows, how many Jump Pack Characters.
Saim-Hann. 27 Windriders, 27 Shining Spears, 9 Vypers THEN you have all the tanks, Wave Serpents and Flyers…..
It doesn’t affect “fluffy” lists as much as people think it will, especially when points cost is factored in. A Saim-Hann Eldar list with 27 Windriders, 27 Spears, 9 Vypers and an Autarch on a bike without upgrades on anyone comes in at 2151 points.
I agree, and in fact would argue that the 0-3 restriction FORCES more fluffy lists. Or at the very least makes a spammy list look more fluffy. For example, Eldar lists had tons of Windriders in 7th. That did not make it Saim-Hann. If you could only take 3 untis of Windriders, you would then have to take something else, possibly Vypers or Shining Spears. NOW you have a Saim-Hann list
Although, I can certainly see the counter argument that you can still spamm 30 Dark Reapers with this 0-3 limit. Although if the unit size for Reapers gets "fixed" to 3-5 Reapers per unit, the 0-3 unit limit per army suddenly caps Reaper at 15 per army ever. Much more reasonable.
I don't think and hope that the 0-3 thing isn't real either.
Tough Matched play I think stops properly working at anything above 2500 points and in some ways even 2000 is pushing it. The current restrictions don't scale. So the "every strategem can only be used once per phase" is fine at 1000 but can get reallly restrictive at 2500. Same goes for psychic powers.
You could make the limits of 1 scale with points tough. Topic for another time.
casvalremdeikun wrote: My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.
You could still run 30 devs, sterguard, or assault Marines in those examples, and each group of 3 would cost 6-700+ points. Surely you can think of other fluffy options for the army? If your idea of a fun fluffy army is just the same unit over and over, maybe you should be more imaginative?
So if I want to run a squad of Devastators and a squad of Sternguard, that leaves me only one choice for another non-Troopa unit. So say I want to run a Vindicator. That means I can't run a Dreadnought or Terminators. Heck, if I run the classic Command Squad (Veterans, Apothecary, Ancient), I can't run any other units besides Troops in my army. Oh wait, that means no HQs. So if I run a Battalion, I have ONE choice in my army besides Troops.
It is a gakky limitation that only encourages homogeneous armies with little to no variation.
For the record, I don't spam any units in my army. The largest number of non-Troops units that I run is I run two squads of Hellblasters. Otherwise I run a lot of different units. Aggressors, Sternguard, Honour Guard, Devastators.
But really, the fact this limitation would invalidate any Battalion or Brigade army is exactly why it is an utter bs rumor.
I don't think that's the point. I think it's "you can never run more than 3 dev squds" but even if you run three you can still run 3 whirlwinds or whatever.
casvalremdeikun wrote: My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.
You could still run 30 devs, sterguard, or assault Marines in those examples, and each group of 3 would cost 6-700+ points. Surely you can think of other fluffy options for the army? If your idea of a fun fluffy army is just the same unit over and over, maybe you should be more imaginative?
So if I want to run a squad of Devastators and a squad of Sternguard, that leaves me only one choice for another non-Troopa unit. So say I want to run a Vindicator. That means I can't run a Dreadnought or Terminators. Heck, if I run the classic Command Squad (Veterans, Apothecary, Ancient), I can't run any other units besides Troops in my army. Oh wait, that means no HQs. So if I run a Battalion, I have ONE choice in my army besides Troops.
It is a gakky limitation that only encourages homogeneous armies with little to no variation.
For the record, I don't spam any units in my army. The largest number of non-Troops units that I run is I run two squads of Hellblasters. Otherwise I run a lot of different units. Aggressors, Sternguard, Honour Guard, Devastators.
But really, the fact this limitation would invalidate any Battalion or Brigade army is exactly why it is an utter bs rumor.
This isn't a "only 3 units other than troops allowed in your army" restriction... This is a "you can't take more than 3 of the same unit - unless it is a troops choice" restriction.
njtrader wrote: Matched Play ought to be limited to 1500 points, specifically for reasons related to time maintenance.
Well, tournament play with 3-hour slots probably should. But why limit everyone else? If Matched Play is the "default" as everyone argues, people should be free to play a 1 Million Point Matched Play game over the weekend if they feel like it.
njtrader wrote: Matched Play ought to be limited to 1500 points, specifically for reasons related to time maintenance.
Well, tournament play with 3-hour slots probably should. But why limit everyone else? If Matched Play is the "default" as everyone argues, people should be free to play a 1 Million Point Matched Play game over the weekend if they feel like it.
Sure, I agree. I am saying in timed events the 2,000 point standard is a little too high.
I honestly don't see how they can "fix" this issue beyond making only troops scoring models. Everything else is unable to score, possibly, and tabling an opponent is not an auto win?
casvalremdeikun wrote: My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.
You could still run 30 devs, sterguard, or assault Marines in those examples, and each group of 3 would cost 6-700+ points. Surely you can think of other fluffy options for the army? If your idea of a fun fluffy army is just the same unit over and over, maybe you should be more imaginative?
So if I want to run a squad of Devastators and a squad of Sternguard, that leaves me only one choice for another non-Troopa unit. So say I want to run a Vindicator. That means I can't run a Dreadnought or Terminators. Heck, if I run the classic Command Squad (Veterans, Apothecary, Ancient), I can't run any other units besides Troops in my army. Oh wait, that means no HQs. So if I run a Battalion, I have ONE choice in my army besides Troops.
It is a gakky limitation that only encourages homogeneous armies with little to no variation.
For the record, I don't spam any units in my army. The largest number of non-Troops units that I run is I run two squads of Hellblasters. Otherwise I run a lot of different units. Aggressors, Sternguard, Honour Guard, Devastators.
But really, the fact this limitation would invalidate any Battalion or Brigade army is exactly why it is an utter bs rumor.
This isn't a "only 3 units other than troops allowed in your army" restriction... This is a "you can't take more than 3 of the same unit - unless it is a troops choice" restriction.
Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.
I just gotta ask, this board seems to take "no spam" and "down with soup" as gospel. Why? There's nothing I herebtly wrong with either. I can sympathize if you want mono to be equal to soup, but what I usually see if folks calling for mono to be Superior to soup which makes no sense. Same with spam. So his army is all Terminators vs. yours which isn't? Who cares? If you balance the actual units it won't matter.
With the Indomitus and Black Crusades, soup and allies are just as fluffy as mono anyway.
If it's fluffy and hard to balance it belongs in narrative play, like having your entire army deep strike for instance. I think soup falls into that definition almost perfectly, because It greatly increases the difficulty of balancing the game. Imagine if your job was to balance any combination of these 12 armies against a single army army, while keeping that single army in balance with any one of those twelve armies. If soup stays in matched play there will have to be some way to disincentivize soup, and the most logical form that takes is some sort of CP or stratagem restrictions. When GW first told us about CP and stratagems they told us in the context of rewarding mono list, but somewhere along the way it became mono detachments, that back step has caused several large balance problems.
As for limiting non-troop Spam, it was originally suggested after the very first GT (Boise Cup) when the winner ran a flyer spam list. Then there was scion spam, commander spam, dark reaper spam, now carnifex spam, and probably a few flavors of spam I missed. It is pretty obvious that if they don't put some control on spam they are going to have to keep patching the rules everytime there is a new flavor of spam. By making a blanket no more than 3 of a given non-troop unit per army they preemptively fix a hundred such problems.
Also it's fluffy is not a valid defense of crap rules, at least in matched play where the goal is to provide as balanced a play experience as possible. Movie marines are fluffy, but the rules are not appropriate for a faction that is supposed to be the poster child of 40k.
Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.
There are is more than one type of knight there are paladins, errants, gallants, wardens, and crusaders. That is before the armigers and forgeworld varieties, so I think they will be alright.
Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.
5 Chaos Knight lists of 5 Knight Crusader lists, maybe.
Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Knight Errant, etc. are all separate datasheets, so you can field 3 of each type of Knight in a list under that rule. It would only lock you out after 15 full-sized Knights and 9-18 Armigers (depending on how many datasheets the kit can make).
(And if FW is included, that allows for 30~ish Knights.)
People only really use Wardens and Crusaders, though. I've literally never seen anyone field a Paladin or Errant. There's very little reason to do so when Titanic Feet is just better than their bad weapons most of the time.
Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.
5 Chaos Knight lists of 5 Knight Crusader lists, maybe.
Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Knight Errant, etc. are all separate datasheets, so you can field 3 of each type of Knight in a list under that rule. It would only lock you out after 15 full-sized Knights and 9-18 Armigers (depending on how many datasheets the kit can make).
(And if FW is included, that allows for 30~ish Knights.)
Very true. And it doesn't look like they are combining any of the Knight data sheets, so that is good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cephalobeard wrote: People only really use Wardens and Crusaders, though. I've literally never seen anyone field a Paladin or Errant. There's very little reason to do so when Titanic Feet is just better than their bad weapons most of the time.
Pretty much. The Avenger Gatling is just too good.
well they can run 3 wardens and 2 crusaders, or the other way around. Likely when they get their codex, the optimal build will involve some armigers, which will make it very unlikely they will be negatively affected by the 3 cap.
Sorry if it's been mentioned elsewhere but just want to know: Has there been any info at all of when to expect the FAQ? I heard someone mention Tuesday but no such luck so far.
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thejughead wrote: Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.
Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thejughead wrote: Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.
Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?
Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.
And the poor T'au still haven't received theirs.
They'd announced weeks ago that the Tau FAQ was going to be delayed and sent out with the big FAQ, so I wouldn't consider them separate releases.
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.
And the poor T'au still haven't received theirs.
They'd announced weeks ago that the Tau FAQ was going to be delayed and sent out with the big FAQ, so I wouldn't consider them separate releases.
I meant to imply that running into the timeline of Dark Eldar/Necron FAQs doesn't matter if the T'au one was steamrolled by the big FAQ. Those could too.
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thejughead wrote: Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.
Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?
Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?
List submission final date is set for 30th April (23:59 time wise). So, 20 days and counting - but if the FAQ is as big as we're starting/hoping to believe, then i'd certainly hope it gets released well in advance of then as a lot of list changes would have to be done by people.
London GT rules are mix of eternal war and maelstrom games.
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thejughead wrote: Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.
Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?
Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?
List submission final date is set for 30th April (23:59 time wise). So, 20 days and counting - but if the FAQ is as big as we're starting/hoping to believe, then i'd certainly hope it gets released well in advance of then as a lot of list changes would have to be done by people.
London GT rules are mix of eternal war and maelstrom games.
Kdash wrote: Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.
I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!
When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thejughead wrote: Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.
Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?
Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?
List submission final date is set for 30th April (23:59 time wise). So, 20 days and counting - but if the FAQ is as big as we're starting/hoping to believe, then i'd certainly hope it gets released well in advance of then as a lot of list changes would have to be done by people.
London GT rules are mix of eternal war and maelstrom games.
With Highlander restrictions on detachments!
Yeah, max of 1 of each type of detachment… I keep forgetting to mention that fact!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is why that rumor is probably bogus. I really doubt GW will release a rule that negates a rule they just introduced for an army.
If you mean the max one of any type of detachment, that's not part of the rumored changes being discussed. That's a limitation already in place at some tournaments, by tournament organizers not GW.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is why that rumor is probably bogus. I really doubt GW will release a rule that negates a rule they just introduced for an army.
If you mean the max one of any type of detachment, that's not part of the rumored changes being discussed. That's a limitation already in place at some tournaments, by tournament organizers not GW.
Ah whoops, misunderstood then. I don't follow tournaments that much
I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
I hear this argument a lot, but this requires taking one more HQ than if you use 3 patrol detachments. 3 HQs is already a big tax for DE's mediocre HQ choices. I don't love the idea of upping it to 4, just for 1 command point. Then again, I don't really play competitively, so I don't have the same viewpoint.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Not all tournaments are doing this – only a few currently, so it’s not really going to have that much of an impact overall.
That said, not being able to run 3 patrol detachments also isn’t going to have that much of an impact either imo. Sure, it’s a neat interaction and opportunity, but, in reality – and top table games at events, I doubt you’ll see this being used.
As for the HQ tax – it’s essentially up to ~80 points, but of course completely depends on your list. 80 points for, not only +1CP, but also the option to further shape my army seems like a no brainer to me. Patrols are handy if needed, but, with only 2 slots for non-troops it’s very restrictive and you’ll often be looking at getting that 3rd fast attack or heavy support option – but doing so will often risk loosing detachment bonuses. Sure, you could run a 3 cabal patrol list, but, at that point, for 1 extra HQ you could prob just run 2 battalions instead and get +2CP.
Also, if you want to restrict detachments that give CP, you can’t then ignore it when 3 of 1 detachment provide extra CP, it is, somewhat backwards in itself.
Plez GW, just drop a rough estimated time frame. If you told us it'd take a week, a month, even expecting it to take 6 months, I don't think we'd care if you gave us an estimated time frame. GeeDubs, come on m8s. Get ya game togetha
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Not all tournaments are doing this – only a few currently, so it’s not really going to have that much of an impact overall.
That said, not being able to run 3 patrol detachments also isn’t going to have that much of an impact either imo. Sure, it’s a neat interaction and opportunity, but, in reality – and top table games at events, I doubt you’ll see this being used.
As for the HQ tax – it’s essentially up to ~80 points, but of course completely depends on your list. 80 points for, not only +1CP, but also the option to further shape my army seems like a no brainer to me. Patrols are handy if needed, but, with only 2 slots for non-troops it’s very restrictive and you’ll often be looking at getting that 3rd fast attack or heavy support option – but doing so will often risk loosing detachment bonuses. Sure, you could run a 3 cabal patrol list, but, at that point, for 1 extra HQ you could prob just run 2 battalions instead and get +2CP.
Also, if you want to restrict detachments that give CP, you can’t then ignore it when 3 of 1 detachment provide extra CP, it is, somewhat backwards in itself.
You're thinking too laterally, dark eldar are now 3 armies that lose bonuses if they cross units in detachments. If you have a batallion you're locking yourself out of 2/3 of the book for that batallion.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Not all tournaments are doing this – only a few currently, so it’s not really going to have that much of an impact overall.
That said, not being able to run 3 patrol detachments also isn’t going to have that much of an impact either imo. Sure, it’s a neat interaction and opportunity, but, in reality – and top table games at events, I doubt you’ll see this being used.
As for the HQ tax – it’s essentially up to ~80 points, but of course completely depends on your list. 80 points for, not only +1CP, but also the option to further shape my army seems like a no brainer to me. Patrols are handy if needed, but, with only 2 slots for non-troops it’s very restrictive and you’ll often be looking at getting that 3rd fast attack or heavy support option – but doing so will often risk loosing detachment bonuses. Sure, you could run a 3 cabal patrol list, but, at that point, for 1 extra HQ you could prob just run 2 battalions instead and get +2CP.
Also, if you want to restrict detachments that give CP, you can’t then ignore it when 3 of 1 detachment provide extra CP, it is, somewhat backwards in itself.
I haven't actually seen a tournament that doesn't apply a 3 detachment limit, but I'll accept that you've seen one or two and that they exist. However, as GW is the one who established that suggested limit in the first place, I'd say it's probably more common than not. Keep in mind that without it, an effective army could run 3 patrol detachments and another more focused detachment to fit in the units you want rather than being forced to pay HQ and troop taxes in order to maintain the obsessions. The funny part about this is that we'll never know how effective that flexibility could be because it's outright disallowed, and as you pointed out, it's not because it's strong - it is seemingly disallowed because somebody decided it isn't strong enough, which is super weird.
Tiberius501 wrote: Plez GW, just drop a rough estimated time frame. If you told us it'd take a week, a month, even expecting it to take 6 months, I don't think we'd care if you gave us an estimated time frame. GeeDubs, come on m8s. Get ya game togetha
alextroy wrote: Mostly is a funny word. It does not mean exclusively, just more of this and less of that.
Mostly can mean 95% and you know it.
2 points here.
1st flayed ones blow and you know it, and nobody is taking more then 60 of them in matched play ever
2nd if your wanting to re enact something from the fluff to this degree then your already better off playing a none matched play game.
Your reaching real hard for that branch mate.
Flayed Ones aren't terrible for the price, so no you might not take 60 ordinarily unless you're facing mostly swarming opponents. However, I should have the option to do so in a tournament setting if I felt like it.
Flayed Ones aren't terrible for the price, so no you might not take 60 ordinarily unless you're facing mostly swarming opponents. However, I should have the option to do so in a tournament setting if I felt like it.
They are terrible, one of if not the worst unit in the necron codex. A tomb spyder is better point for point against MEQ, and freaking scarabs are better point for point against GEQ. I don't have a dog in the rest of the fight, but please stop using flayed ones as an example of anything other than a unit that desperately needs a point reduction.
Cephalobeard wrote: People only really use Wardens and Crusaders, though. I've literally never seen anyone field a Paladin or Errant. There's very little reason to do so when Titanic Feet is just better than their bad weapons most of the time.
Best Knight player at ATC used 3 Paladins and 1 Crusader. Went 6-0 and was ranked 15th overall.
Lemondish wrote: I haven't actually seen a tournament that doesn't apply a 3 detachment limit, but I'll accept that you've seen one or two and that they exist. However, as GW is the one who established that suggested limit in the first place, I'd say it's probably more common than not. Keep in mind that without it, an effective army could run 3 patrol detachments and another more focused detachment to fit in the units you want rather than being forced to pay HQ and troop taxes in order to maintain the obsessions. The funny part about this is that we'll never know how effective that flexibility could be because it's outright disallowed, and as you pointed out, it's not because it's strong - it is seemingly disallowed because somebody decided it isn't strong enough, which is super weird.
I don't think they're talking about the "three detachment" limit. They're talking about a limit some tournaments impose of no more than one of each detachment, which would suck for drukhari even more than the "three detachment" limit.
Flayed Ones aren't terrible for the price, so no you might not take 60 ordinarily unless you're facing mostly swarming opponents. However, I should have the option to do so in a tournament setting if I felt like it.
They are terrible, one of if not the worst unit in the necron codex. A tomb spyder is better point for point against MEQ, and freaking scarabs are better point for point against GEQ. I don't have a dog in the rest of the fight, but please stop using flayed ones as an example of anything other than a unit that desperately needs a point reduction.
Wanna give the math on Scarabs and Spyders there? Please by all means do.
As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
Barnyard Brawl, a GT on the weekend of the 28th, has done that.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Not all tournaments are doing this – only a few currently, so it’s not really going to have that much of an impact overall.
That said, not being able to run 3 patrol detachments also isn’t going to have that much of an impact either imo. Sure, it’s a neat interaction and opportunity, but, in reality – and top table games at events, I doubt you’ll see this being used.
As for the HQ tax – it’s essentially up to ~80 points, but of course completely depends on your list. 80 points for, not only +1CP, but also the option to further shape my army seems like a no brainer to me. Patrols are handy if needed, but, with only 2 slots for non-troops it’s very restrictive and you’ll often be looking at getting that 3rd fast attack or heavy support option – but doing so will often risk loosing detachment bonuses. Sure, you could run a 3 cabal patrol list, but, at that point, for 1 extra HQ you could prob just run 2 battalions instead and get +2CP.
Also, if you want to restrict detachments that give CP, you can’t then ignore it when 3 of 1 detachment provide extra CP, it is, somewhat backwards in itself.
I haven't actually seen a tournament that doesn't apply a 3 detachment limit, but I'll accept that you've seen one or two and that they exist. However, as GW is the one who established that suggested limit in the first place, I'd say it's probably more common than not. Keep in mind that without it, an effective army could run 3 patrol detachments and another more focused detachment to fit in the units you want rather than being forced to pay HQ and troop taxes in order to maintain the obsessions. The funny part about this is that we'll never know how effective that flexibility could be because it's outright disallowed, and as you pointed out, it's not because it's strong - it is seemingly disallowed because somebody decided it isn't strong enough, which is super weird.
2 things, 1 why are you getting CP for patrol detachments? Is that a dark eldar thing? I haven't looked too much at their book but patrol detachments for other armies don't get give any CP. Seems like an odd army benefit.
Second, I would like to say that I have only seen the 3 detachment limit bypassed in matched play events for 2 reasons 1. Because going all out with whatever you can fit was the point of the tournament. 2. WAAC people taking advantage of TOs that didn't know any better to run their theorycraft turbo cheese.
ERJAK wrote: 2 things, 1 why are you getting CP for patrol detachments? Is that a dark eldar thing? I haven't looked too much at their book but patrol detachments for other armies don't get give any CP. Seems like an odd army benefit.
ERJAK wrote: 2 things, 1 why are you getting CP for patrol detachments? Is that a dark eldar thing? I haven't looked too much at their book but patrol detachments for other armies don't get give any CP. Seems like an odd army benefit.
Second, I would like to say that I have only seen the 3 detachment limit bypassed in matched play events for 2 reasons 1. Because going all out with whatever you can fit was the point of the tournament. 2. WAAC people taking advantage of TOs that didn't know any better to run their theorycraft turbo cheese.
Yes, it's a drukhari thing. They get bonus command points for running either 3+ or 6+ patrol detachments because kabals, wych cults, and haemonculus covens each have their own choices for subfactions, which means you can't combine kabal and wych cult, or wych cult and haemonculus covens, etc., in the same detachment and still get the benefit of their subfaction special rules.
And, I'm still pretty sure nobody is talking about tournaments bypassing the limit of three detachments. That was just the person you quoted misunderstanding the topic at-hand. The discussion is about some tournaments placing a limit of 1 on each type of detachment, making it illegal for instance to run two spearheads or two supreme commands, which is relevant because of the aforementioned bonus for drukhari taking three patrols.
ERJAK wrote: 2 things, 1 why are you getting CP for patrol detachments? Is that a dark eldar thing? I haven't looked too much at their book but patrol detachments for other armies don't get give any CP. Seems like an odd army benefit.
Second, I would like to say that I have only seen the 3 detachment limit bypassed in matched play events for 2 reasons 1. Because going all out with whatever you can fit was the point of the tournament. 2. WAAC people taking advantage of TOs that didn't know any better to run their theorycraft turbo cheese.
Yes, it's a drukhari thing. They get bonus command points for running either 3+ or 6+ patrol detachments because kabals, wych cults, and haemonculus covens each have their own choices for subfactions, which means you can't combine kabal and wych cult, or wych cult and haemonculus covens, etc., in the same detachment and still get the benefit of their subfaction special rules.
And, I'm still pretty sure nobody is talking about tournaments bypassing the limit of three detachments. That was just the person you quoted misunderstanding the topic at-hand. The discussion is about some tournaments placing a limit of 1 on each type of detachment, making it illegal for instance to run two spearheads or two supreme commands, which is relevant because of the aforementioned bonus for drukhari taking three patrols.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
I'd rather have 6 hive tyrants be mandatory for every army regardless of faction than be forced down to 3 of the same unit choice max, and no that isn't hyperbole. 318$ seems like a fair trade.
Ice_can wrote: How is a CCHQ with a 2+ invuln a weak unit?
No innate delivery system, the save goes away at your first failed one (and you can't even spend command points for a reroll), and decent damage output relies heavily on relics and warlord traits. An archon with a Djinn Blade and solid warlord trait is a force to be reckoned with (assuming you take the resources to get him in there), but every Archon after that is a tax.
As an HQ, he's also lacking since his buff aura does nothing to support the units that you'd want to take him with anyway. The court all get their own buff for being in range that supersedes his own, Incubi are not affected at all, there are no <Kabal> units that want to see combat where he clearly wants to be, and his delivery system requires him to be in a transport where he can't buff his own units, and those units themselves also are usually in transport where they can't receive those buffs anyway.
In the context of fluff, a debuff aura or targetted ability would make much more sense, and in terms of gameplay, it would work much better with the army he's meant to support. But as things stand, you're either paying for a beatstick that requires more investment than you can duplicate across the multiple ones you'll need to run more than a patrol, or a ravager buff slave that invests in moderate close-combat potency that he'll never really get to use. Either way, it really does not make sense on a conceptual level.
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
Barnyard Brawl, a GT on the weekend of the 28th, has done that.
Most of the big events did plan around the FAQ releases – the guy running then London GT for example told me that the event was set with prior knowledge of the probably schedule taken into account.
They also usually have list deadlines, which also mark a “cut off” point for things like new codices and faqs etc.
What most events however cannot account for, is the sudden, massive delay on GWs side.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
Matched play and tournaments are supposed to be balanced match of skill. Having no limit to detachments break the game balance badly thus goes against that goal.
If you don't care about balance as "anything goes" shouldn't you be proposing open play for tournaments then? Bring whatever you can! Balanced match of skills isn't goal of tournament games after all.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
Matched play and tournaments are supposed to be balanced match of skill. Having no limit to detachments break the game balance badly thus goes against that goal.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Not all tournaments are doing this – only a few currently, so it’s not really going to have that much of an impact overall.
That said, not being able to run 3 patrol detachments also isn’t going to have that much of an impact either imo. Sure, it’s a neat interaction and opportunity, but, in reality – and top table games at events, I doubt you’ll see this being used.
As for the HQ tax – it’s essentially up to ~80 points, but of course completely depends on your list. 80 points for, not only +1CP, but also the option to further shape my army seems like a no brainer to me. Patrols are handy if needed, but, with only 2 slots for non-troops it’s very restrictive and you’ll often be looking at getting that 3rd fast attack or heavy support option – but doing so will often risk loosing detachment bonuses. Sure, you could run a 3 cabal patrol list, but, at that point, for 1 extra HQ you could prob just run 2 battalions instead and get +2CP.
Also, if you want to restrict detachments that give CP, you can’t then ignore it when 3 of 1 detachment provide extra CP, it is, somewhat backwards in itself.
I haven't actually seen a tournament that doesn't apply a 3 detachment limit, but I'll accept that you've seen one or two and that they exist. However, as GW is the one who established that suggested limit in the first place, I'd say it's probably more common than not. Keep in mind that without it, an effective army could run 3 patrol detachments and another more focused detachment to fit in the units you want rather than being forced to pay HQ and troop taxes in order to maintain the obsessions. The funny part about this is that we'll never know how effective that flexibility could be because it's outright disallowed, and as you pointed out, it's not because it's strong - it is seemingly disallowed because somebody decided it isn't strong enough, which is super weird.
This, this, this!! The only reason its disallowed is because people have decided they dont want to change anything, and in their view it isnt important enough to DE to need a change.
I think people who dont play DE really struggle to understand the army. Or at least they dont think things through properly. DE have very few units, especially now the book is split in 3.
People who say that taking a brigade is better? Please. Go try to make a brigade. You cut out 2/3 of the book as you aren't taking anything else after that. We aren't that cheap. Also it cuts down your options as you find you only have 1, maybe 2 choices per slot.
We can make good lists without patrols, but there is no reason not to make an exception. It doesn't have to effect any other army.
There also are many potential problems with what could come in the FAQ.
0-1 HQ limit? Cripples DE.
Highlander? Very tough.
3 max limit on non troops including transports? Are you kidding?!?
Also think about Harlequins. How are they supposed to deal with any of this with 8 units in their book?
Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
Tournaments are a match of skill. Its just that we often conflict what skill it is a match of.
40k tournaments are a match of skill. The skill being how good you are at discrete mathematics and probability calculations (both listbuilding and target priorities)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Ok, let’s look at DE logically.
Kabals – 2 HQs, 1 troop, 3 elites, 1 fast, 3 heavy, 2 flyer, 2 transport (not 7 elite, 4 fast. Oops. Ty Scotsman)
Wytch – 3 HQs, 1 troop, 4 elite, 3 fast, 2 heavy, 2 flyer, 2 transport (not 6 fast. Oops. Ty Scotsman)
Coven – 3 HQs, 1 troop, 3 elite, 1 fast, 4 heavy, 0 Flyer, 2 transport (not 4 fast. Oops. Ty Scotsman )
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Colonel Cabbage wrote: [spoiler]
This, this, this!! The only reason its disallowed is because people have decided they dont want to change anything, and in their view it isnt important enough to DE to need a change.
I think people who dont play DE really struggle to understand the army. Or at least they dont think things through properly. DE have very few units, especially now the book is split in 3.
People who say that taking a brigade is better? Please. Go try to make a brigade. You cut out 2/3 of the book as you aren't taking anything else after that. We aren't that cheap. Also it cuts down your options as you find you only have 1, maybe 2 choices per slot.
We can make good lists without patrols, but there is no reason not to make an exception. It doesn't have to effect any other army.
There also are many potential problems with what could come in the FAQ.
0-1 HQ limit? Cripples DE.
Highlander? Very tough.
3 max limit on non troops including transports? Are you kidding?!?
Also think about Harlequins. How are they supposed to deal with any of this with 8 units in their book?
Not sure where the “0-1 HQ” limit has come from. I’ve not seen that anywhere myself. Everything has been rumoured to be set to 0-3 bar troops.
Highlander is also different from what I believe – something like, “you can only take a 2nd of each unit until you have 1 of everything” or something like that. This is 0-3 of each datasheet.
Every army can take 3 units of everything and still be massively above 2000 points. The only one that doesn’t is Harlequinns – and even then a min everything (and only 3 troops) comes to a total of 1985 points. Bulk up the jetbikes, hand out some standard upgrades, and you are suddenly way past the 2000 points. Can you make a “competitive” list though without spamming transports? Maybe, maybe not. BUT, their codex is round the corner and it potentially changes things in that regard.
Guard break 3000 points before they even start adding in upgrades or heavy support units lol.
However, I do agree on the transport front in a way – but, even then it only really affects Harlequinns, Eldar, T’au and Nids. All the other armies have 2+ forms of transport/units that can transport models. Does it suck that you won’t be able to run 6-10 Venoms? Yeah I guess, but, wouldn’t it also be good to see 3 Raiders added into a list for once? 3 10 man Kabalites in 3 Raiders is 435 points before upgrades, so it’s not like you won’t be able to fill out 2k lists.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
Lets look at DE through the lens of someone who might actually know what they're talking about.
Kabal: 1 unique HQ (Drazar, who is both terrible, and limited to 0-1 in your army, and you've counted him as an HQ for each subfaction), 1 standard HQ. 1 standard troop. 2 elites that actually fill elite slots (Courts of the archon, which you've counted as 4 elites, don't function as such because they never fill slots). 1 fast attack, I have zero idea where you're getting 4 from here, they get Scourges. 1 Codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld Heavies. 2 flyers.
Wyches: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 troop. 3 elites, no idea where you're getting 4 from, they get Incubi beastmasters and Mandrakes. I suppose you could be counting Bloodbrides from the index, which you could take if you...liked spending more points for no reason to make one of your troops not obsec? Bloodbrides are literally the definition of a non-option at this point, their stats, abilities, weaponry and options are IDENTICAL to current wyches except theyre not troops and cost like 5ppm more. Reavers Hellions and Scourges make 3 fast attacks, not sure what the 4th is unless you're counting...all the beasts as a fast attack slot for some reason? Beasts don't take up slots either. 2 Forgeworld heavy, no codex heavy. 2 flyers.
Covens: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 Troop. 3 Elites. 1 fast, it is impossible for you to have misconstrued something for the additional 3 coven fast here, this is just a lie, they get Scourges and that's it. 2 codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld heavy. 0 flyer.
your example of "1 battalion, 1 vanguard, 1 spearhead" of Kabal gives you the following:
4 mandatory, predetermined HQs - you MUST take the terrible Drazar and 3 terrible Archons.
3 mandatory, predetermined Troops - you MUST take 3 squads of Kabalites
3 of your choice between good Mandrakes and Terrible Incubi - we're assuming you're going to a tournament, so I suppose we'll say 3 mandatory mandrakes.
3 of either your 1 choice out of the codex, or 2 forgeworld units. Keep in mind at this point that one of those forgeworld units is essentially a Ravager that costs more points and has a heavy gun instead of an assault gun with an identical damage profile and defensive profile.
The choices you get to make with your army list are:
-What are my 3 kabalite squads riding in?
-What relic and warlord trait do I want?
-What do I equip my 3 ravagers and 3 kabalites with?
-Do I buy a 200$ tantalus instead of 1 ravager?
and that's it. Realistically, that's 1400 points bare minimum of completely locked in mandatory choices.
Ehm.. And what point are you trying to proof? If I build a cabal only army I will obviously be locked into cabal only units. The onld "bad" thing I see in your example is 4 HQs instead of 3.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
Lets look at DE through the lens of someone who might actually know what they're talking about.
Kabal: 1 unique HQ (Drazar, who is both terrible, and limited to 0-1 in your army, and you've counted him as an HQ for each subfaction), 1 standard HQ. 1 standard troop. 2 elites that actually fill elite slots (Courts of the archon, which you've counted as 4 elites, don't function as such because they never fill slots). 1 fast attack, I have zero idea where you're getting 4 from here, they get Scourges. 1 Codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld Heavies. 2 flyers.
Wyches: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 troop. 3 elites, no idea where you're getting 4 from, they get Incubi beastmasters and Mandrakes. I suppose you could be counting Bloodbrides from the index, which you could take if you...liked spending more points for no reason to make one of your troops not obsec? Bloodbrides are literally the definition of a non-option at this point, their stats, abilities, weaponry and options are IDENTICAL to current wyches except theyre not troops and cost like 5ppm more. Reavers Hellions and Scourges make 3 fast attacks, not sure what the 4th is unless you're counting...all the beasts as a fast attack slot for some reason? Beasts don't take up slots either. 2 Forgeworld heavy, no codex heavy. 2 flyers.
Covens: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 Troop. 3 Elites. 1 fast, it is impossible for you to have misconstrued something for the additional 3 coven fast here, this is just a lie, they get Scourges and that's it. 2 codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld heavy. 0 flyer.
My bad on the court of the Archon – didn’t realise they didn’t take slots. As for the fast attack, mistake again as the 3 beasts are listed as available for each of the 3 factions – when in fact they can only be Cults due to the Beastmaster requirement… Downfall of quick checks at work, a bad memory and battlescribe!
As for Drazhar being terrible, it isn’t an excuse as to make something “impossible”. Rather it is an excuse to address his imbalance, which would be highlighted to a bigger degree if these restrictions were put in place?
He also has to be counted as a possible for each faction, because, he can be taken in each faction. Can’t argue there isn’t options, just because some of them are “bad”.
Again, in regards to Wytch Cults – Sure, Lelith is limited to 1 sub-faction, but, is still an option. Same as Bloodbrides. Just because they might be deemed “not up to scratch” doesn’t disgard them from being there as an option should you need extra units. Yeah, mistake on beasts and slots :/
Covens, same as Wytch Cults really.
(I’ve now updated my original post to reflect the corrections you’re highlighted)
In terms of forgeworld, they can’t be discounted from the “options” list, just because they are FW.
the_scotsman wrote: your example of "1 battalion, 1 vanguard, 1 spearhead" of Kabal gives you the following:
4 mandatory, predetermined HQs - you MUST take the terrible Drazar and 3 terrible Archons.
3 mandatory, predetermined Troops - you MUST take 3 squads of Kabalites
3 of your choice between good Mandrakes and Terrible Incubi - we're assuming you're going to a tournament, so I suppose we'll say 3 mandatory mandrakes.
3 of either your 1 choice out of the codex, or 2 forgeworld units. Keep in mind at this point that one of those forgeworld units is essentially a Ravager that costs more points and has a heavy gun instead of an assault gun with an identical damage profile and defensive profile.
The choices you get to make with your army list are:
-What are my 3 kabalite squads riding in?
-What relic and warlord trait do I want?
-What do I equip my 3 ravagers and 3 kabalites with?
-Do I buy a 200$ tantalus instead of 1 ravager?
and that's it. Realistically, that's 1400 points bare minimum of completely locked in mandatory choices.
So, for 3 Archons, Drazhar, 3 min Kabalite squads, 1 Incubi and 2 Mandrakes, 3 Ravagers, 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms a list comes in at 1548 points. Is that any good? Highly likely, no, but, it is an example of what you can do. Most DE lists now will prob be running an Airwing/flyers competitively anyway, which, at min cost, costs 405 points.
We both know that the likelihood of you running a competitive, Kabal only, list at events is a very small.
If you could build a competitive dark eldar army right now, what would you take? I’m personally thinking a Kabal or Coven Battalion, a Wytch Outriders and a Kabal Air Wing. Which, for me clocks in around 2000 points and wouldn’t be impacted by these potential restrictions at all.
Now, if you did want to run full Kabal, and weren’t going to a competitive event, then, as I’ve said before, there will probably be no issue between you and your mates/club if you relaxed the restriction every so often.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. That being said it is doable. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports. 2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored. 3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators. 4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
It would be fine if everyone had good options but not all armies do. And I play a solo Inquistion army. No soup. Or I play Inquisition souped with sisters of silence.
It does hurt my GK because I run 6 units of interceptors for more deepstrike. I only run one GMDK though. Also that 1 cp from the extra 3 Interceptors is huge. I have the perfect number of cp allowing me to use all my big stratagems once and one left for an important re-roll.
Again I'd be okay with this if everyone had plenty of balanced options.
You mentioned FW, my local tournaments disallow FW so you can take all of those out of what's available to me.
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
While I sort of agree with your point, that seems an overly harsh way of phrasing it - how were these events meant to know GW wouldn't stick to their publicly advertised schedule when it came to issuing the "March" FAQ?
And by sort of agree, I think all tournaments should have a section in the rules pack clearly stating that any army books, FAQs, etc, released within 30 days of the event are considered not to be valid...
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
While I sort of agree with your point, that seems an overly harsh way of phrasing it - how were these events meant to know GW wouldn't stick to their publicly advertised schedule when it came to issuing the "March" FAQ?
And by sort of agree, I think all tournaments should have a section in the rules pack clearly stating that any army books, FAQs, etc, released within 30 days of the event are considered not to be valid...
Kind of funny if a tournament douesn't do that. 8th ed is such a big and overt WIP that you just can't plan for what GW cooks up next.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
It would be fine if everyone had good options but not all armies do. And I play a solo Inquistion army. No soup. Or I play Inquisition souped with sisters of silence.
It does hurt my GK because I run 6 units of interceptors for more deepstrike. I only run one GMDK though. Also that 1 cp from the extra 3 Interceptors is huge. I have the perfect number of cp allowing me to use all my big stratagems once and one left for an important re-roll.
Again I'd be okay with this if everyone had plenty of balanced options.
You mentioned FW, my local tournaments disallow FW so you can take all of those out of what's available to me.
I’d love to see your Inquision army! It’s not something I have the pleasure of seeing very often, so it’s always a treat!
I agree, that the loss of the 1CP hurts Grey Knights more than it should, but I feel that that is something that needs to be addressed with GKs as a whole, as opposed to a reason not to do something like this. I accept that that isn’t exactly the best way to go about it for the Grey Knights, but GKs need a bigger fix overall.
I agree, if there were way more balanced options, then this discussion would be a hell of a lot easier, and a change that could get supported by more of the community, but, I also see this as a potential means to that end. By reducing the ability to just spam the top 2-3 units, you introduce a situation where some of the lesser units are introduced into game play. You can then start to use that to start to address more of the units at once, as opposed to waiting for the next spam list to appear, nerf it, then the next etc etc. It’ll take time to get through it, but, it’ll certainly be quicker this way then doing it one at a time every 2 or 3 months.
Eh, restricting FW, to me, is an outdated and frustrating stance – but I accept that it is outside of many people’s hands. The unfortunate fact is, that FW units are part of each army, and have to be considered when we have discussions like this due to it being based around the competitive stand point and the majority of the mainstream events allowing it.
Idoneth stream yesterday had this question constantly being asked, Ceri commented that "they don't know when it will be ready, they're actively working on it and to keep an eye out. It'll be ready when it's ready."
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
Matched play and tournaments are supposed to be balanced match of skill. Having no limit to detachments break the game balance badly thus goes against that goal.
If you don't care about balance as "anything goes" shouldn't you be proposing open play for tournaments then? Bring whatever you can! Balanced match of skills isn't goal of tournament games after all.
Well, the original post I had said I would like detachments with 0 CP to be excluded. The 3 detachment limit is not so unimpeachable that we should invalidate army specific rules and fortifications.
TBh whatever the outcome it’s no big deal. You don’t have to slavishly follow the Matched Play Rules if that generates a game that isn’t to your liking. Go Open and incorporate as many or as few of those rules as you and your opponent like. Tournament play isn’t the be all and end all of 40K.
JohnnyHell wrote: TBh whatever the outcome it’s no big deal. You don’t have to slavishly follow the Matched Play Rules if that generates a game that isn’t to your liking. Go Open and incorporate as many or as few of those rules as you and your opponent like. Tournament play isn’t the be all and end all of 40K.
JohnnyHell wrote: TBh whatever the outcome it’s no big deal. You don’t have to slavishly follow the Matched Play Rules if that generates a game that isn’t to your liking. Go Open and incorporate as many or as few of those rules as you and your opponent like. Tournament play isn’t the be all and end all of 40K.
For many of us tournaments is the only moment we play, because is more easy to go to 2-3 tournaments at weekends a month and have 3 games per tournament than trying to fit games mid-week, when everyone is working, with his family, etc...
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
It popped up in the comments for War of Sigmar.
Supposedly it's this:
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
"Gentlemen, we have some serious problems with Tyranid flyrant spam... Solutions."
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
"Gentlemen, we have some serious problems with Tyranid flyrant spam... Solutions."
"Nerf the Grey Knights"
"...Give this man a raise."
Honestly, Flyrant spam is the least of their worries with how cheesy the teams tournament was...
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
"Gentlemen, we have some serious problems with Tyranid flyrant spam... Solutions."
"Nerf the Grey Knights"
"...Give this man a raise."
Honestly, Flyrant spam is the least of their worries with how cheesy the teams tournament was...
Oh, I hadn't heard anything about the Team Tourney went.
I keep hearing rather disconnected "OH GOD EVERYTHING WAS DEATH" accounts in really abstract terms... What were the specifics here
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
Or a buff to a more useful range. Only your ability to parse incomplete info and be outraged can decide!
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
Or a buff to a more useful range. Only your ability to parse incomplete info and be outraged can decide!
Well according to the picture posted that is definitely a nerf. They had a niche use before in loading up into a storraven or land raider, jumping out and inflicting large amounts of MWs. Now they're just really bad.
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
Or a buff to a more useful range. Only your ability to parse incomplete info and be outraged can decide!
6" is a more useful range? for a unit that can't deep strike? change the damage from D6 to 2 is good?
Are you kidding me?
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
Or a buff to a more useful range. Only your ability to parse incomplete info and be outraged can decide!
6" is a more useful range? for a unit that can't deep strike? change the damage from D6 to 2 is good?
Are you kidding me?
Captain buffs it to 12". I'm not sure i'd want to throw my 1 attack 28 point 1W models into melee.
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
Or a buff to a more useful range. Only your ability to parse incomplete info and be outraged can decide!
Well according to the picture posted that is definitely a nerf. They had a niche use before in loading up into a storraven or land raider, jumping out and inflicting large amounts of MWs. Now they're just really bad.
And that's a hell of an investment (600+ points) for two smites that you might fail to cast and then could still roll equal to or worse damage 33% of the time.
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
Or a buff to a more useful range. Only your ability to parse incomplete info and be outraged can decide!
6" is a more useful range? for a unit that can't deep strike? change the damage from D6 to 2 is good?
Are you kidding me?
Captain buffs it to 12". I'm not sure i'd want to throw my 1 attack 28 point 1W models into melee.
To make 2 damage you have to take 5 overpriced PAGK (they are PAGK, nothing more), buy a captain, put them into a stormraven and bring them all to the target.
If they had left d6 it would have been a good choice.
Alternatively, if you gate them (that means no gate for GMDK) you can deal 2 damage using a captain. 2 damage. for 292 points.
To make 2 damage you have to take 5 overpriced PAGK (they are PAGK, nothing more), buy a captain, put them into a stormraven and bring them all to the target.
If they had left d6 it would have been a good choice.
I dunno. I'd rather seem them be a stand off unit in cover again and make use of psilencers and psycannons. 12" is the perfect range for their storm bolters. It'd be nice if they separated the nemesis force sword from their base cost, too so that taking those weapons wasn't more expensive than it should be.
Unfortunately GK aren't a shooting army. Maybe they deeply changed psycannon and psylencer and you're right but with the information we have now this seems a nerf.
Finally some good news for Grey Knights (I think)!
Coming from 4chan.
Spoiler:
Grey Knight Paladins are now 50 points, down from like 60. (Grandmaster?) Nemesis Dreadknight is now (down to?) 210 points. Purifiers look to be 28 points each, I think they were 29 before.
Looks like there are some points changes in the FAQ, but we've seen that sort of thing before (for example, there were points changes in Index Xenos 2 FAQ):
Spoiler:
Thoughts?
There's also the Scryerskull fix, which I'm really glad about.
GK Paladins are 53 points.
Purifiers are 26 points.
Nemesis Dreadnight is 130, without weapons. Dreadfists and two heavy psycannons cost an additional 95 points.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: How the heck are we getting really, really tiny partial leaks from an unwritten FAQ?
It's coming from 4chan and various sources round the internet apparently.
GW seem to like doing smaller leaks (apart from that massive Necron beta codex leak).
I imagine they might be trying to gauge the playerbase's reaction with these small snippets before they release the full thing. If everyone complains, then they might go over it again. If everyone likes it, they might keep it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mchagen wrote: GK Paladins are 53 points.
Purifiers are 26 points.
Nemesis Dreadnight is 130, without weapons. Dreadfists and two heavy psycannons cost an additional 95 points.
I'll bet it's the Grand Masters, who are currently 190 points without gear.
So a +20 points increase. I guess they were spammed or something and GW wanted to counteract that.
who wants to bet on the release? My bet is Friday because most (but not all) FAQ releases since December were on Friday. Monday is also possible if they want to avoid disrupting tournaments this weekend.
axisofentropy wrote: who wants to bet on the release? My bet is Friday because most (but not all) FAQ releases since December were on Friday. Monday is also possible if they want to avoid disrupting tournaments this weekend.
Someone said before their GT, which is in May, but usually when we get leaks like this it's not far behind. OTOH they could be leaking on purpose to test the waters.
axisofentropy wrote: who wants to bet on the release? My bet is Friday because most (but not all) FAQ releases since December were on Friday. Monday is also possible if they want to avoid disrupting tournaments this weekend.
Sorry, but last year FAQs were released on Sundays and this year they've been released on Tuesdays.
alextroy wrote: Mostly is a funny word. It does not mean exclusively, just more of this and less of that.
Mostly can mean 95% and you know it.
2 points here.
1st flayed ones blow and you know it, and nobody is taking more then 60 of them in matched play ever
2nd if your wanting to re enact something from the fluff to this degree then your already better off playing a none matched play game.
Your reaching real hard for that branch mate.
Flayed Ones aren't terrible for the price, so no you might not take 60 ordinarily unless you're facing mostly swarming opponents. However, I should have the option to do so in a tournament setting if I felt like it.
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Why are people believing 4chan all of a sudden? They have an even worse track record than bols. The Grey Knights stuff was probably just made up to get a rise out of players and it looks like it worked.
Maybe GK players are so willing to believe this because they are so used to getting dumped on by GW. Seriously though, GK need a massive boost, or massive point drop, or both simply to be mid tier
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports. 2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored. 3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators. 4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
Why on gods green earth would you EVER run 30 dominions in 3 squads? Only 4 of them can get guns. The rest are just overpriced battle sisters. You're paying 50pts per squad to make them WORSE. That's like buying a hellblaster squad and then paying 75pts to replace their plasma weapons with bolters. This is one of the single least informed things I've EVER heard on dakka. Also SoB have Rhinos(which are worthless), and Repressors(which are 250$ on ebay). So they have 1 transport choice.
By that sentence alone I can tell with 10000000% certainty that you simply DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE GAME for your opinion to have any significant weight.
People aren't afraid to 'try new things', people are just generally capable of math. It doesn't take a world war two vet with a degree from MIT to look at a rhino in an army where rhinos cost 7 more points than everyone elses, who also don't have any units that benefit from being transported by it, and go 'huh, that's not very good.'
And this is all compounded by the fact that this doesn't do anything to actually balance the game, all it does is make codexes like Eldar, Nids, Guard, and Chaos who either have multiple strong options or have competitive armies that revolve around troops EVEN MORE POWERFUL relative to everyone else.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
Why on gods green earth would you EVER run 30 dominions in 3 squads? Only 4 of them can get guns. The rest are just overpriced battle sisters. You're paying 50pts per squad to make them WORSE. That's like buying a hellblaster squad and then paying 75pts to replace their plasma weapons with bolters. This is one of the single least informed things I've EVER heard on dakka. Also SoB have Rhinos(which are worthless), and Repressors(which are 250$ on ebay). So they have 1 transport choice.
By that sentence alone I can tell with 10000000% certainty that you simply DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE GAME for your opinion to have any significant weight.
People aren't afraid to 'try new things', people are just generally capable of math. It doesn't take a world war two vet with a degree from MIT to look at a rhino in an army where rhinos cost 7 more points than everyone elses, who also don't have any units that benefit from being transported by it, and go 'huh, that's not very good.'
And this is all compounded by the fact that this doesn't do anything to actually balance the game, all it does is make codexes like Eldar, Nids, Guard, and Chaos who either have multiple strong options or have competitive armies that revolve around troops EVEN MORE POWERFUL relative to everyone else.
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
They cost 1 point more than a regular sister, and for that they get to scout move at the start of the game? Sure, the rest of their stats is the same, but I’d argue 10 points is a decent price to pay to move a transport halfway up no-mans-land before the game starts.
Slightly different, but some people run weapons teams, like Devestators, with extra bodies so they don’t instantly start dropping in efficiency as soon as they lose a model or 2. I’d also say, that you’re only paying 5 points more than a min troop squad for the privilege of scouting.
If this change does come in, what would you run with SoB? 3 Dominons in Repressors, 3 Seraphim squads, 3 Exorcists and Celestine? Add in 2 Cannoness’ for CP and you’re already looking at over 1700 points. Is it then wrong to then ask for some of the other units to be sprinkled into the remaining 2-300 points? Surely you’d want some troops anyway, for things like obsec and a battalion? This is just me quickly spit-balling list ideas. I guess, you could run HB Retributors instead of Exorcists if you wanted horde fire, and I’m guessing you’ll want a few Immolators as well.
We don’t know what their codex is going to bring and change. What if they get something akin to Combat Squads? You have to take into consideration that we are dealing with an Index army here, which is fast becoming a minority with the fast release of codices. GW will know the direction things are heading in, and need to make balance changes with the future in mind, and not put chains around their feet trying to match the new with the old – especially when the old is currently (and unfortunately) an un-supported line at GW. We know this is changing.
Just because a rhino is “worthless” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and there are absolutely zero ways to make it work. Just because an unsupported model costs $250 on ebay, again, isn’t an excuse. Every SoB player has known for a long time now, that if you want to take up the army, it will be expensive and time consuming – unless you knew someone that had an old collection of them. It’s like saying “Don’t nerf Astra Militarum because it costs me £44 for a single Death Krieg Infantry Squad and I will need 6+ of them!” Sure, it’s not the best of situations, and ideally GW would support every model for every army in the same way. At least we know that plastic sisters are coming in 2019 though.
Yes, math is a thing, along with averages and weight of dice. There is no getting around that – but math is still a guideline and you can always find counters for things. People always get hung up on the isolated 1 turn trade between 2 units. What would have happened to Nick Nanavanti at Adepticon if his list camp up against 3 Assault Cannon Razorbacks and 2 Stormtalons with Heavy Bolters? Sure, those 5 units alone cost 767 points with a captain tax for the RBs, but, does the fact that they will remove 37 chaff models a turn between them not count for something? Could even add in a 3rd Stormtalon to remove 90 a turn. Is the list “points efficient”, probably nowhere near. Is it tabletop efficient against that points efficient list? 100%. Just because paper says a Stormtalon sucks at efficiently killing Cultists, doesn’t mean a list with them in, is bad at killing Cultist spam.
It’s the same as – if you want to deny Dominon table rush, all you need is 2 scout units and a dozen lascannons. If you want to beat 3 Fire Raptors take a load of T’au suits with markerlights and velocity trackers.
Does it make troop based armies better? I a way, it potentially does, but, when we look at 95% of the troops based lists out there doing well at events, their non-troop “support” elements generally already fit within this potential framework. The main outliers that won’t, are the lists containing 5+ mortal heavy weapons teams, and let’s face it, a reduction in that is welcome. The question is, does this impact on another person’s ability to deal with those current lists? Potentially. However, I do believe there are options. If we see a further shift towards more troop spam, then we’ll see an increased shift towards higher rate of fire weaponry to deal with them, alongside other troops choices to contest objectives. The days where you don’t have enough time in a tournament game to kill enough of your opponent’s troops are nearing an end, due to the introduction of chess clocks.
I do feel like I have a different mindset and approach to the game than a lot of people here, and I accept that there are concerns to overcome and resolve, but, I just don’t accept that those concerns are currently as big as people say they are, especially when you consider that all we know is this 1 rumour and nothing else at all about this FAQ release.
Other rumours have also appeared about Grey Knights overnight be the looks of it. It states they are expecting to get some points and unit special rule changes, but to what full extent/whether they are true is unknown.
Kdash wrote: [q
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
What it does mean is that pretty much universally it's the weaker armies that gets killed while tough armies simply take up almost as good alternatives.
Thus game balance goes to hell.
For sake of game pray the rumour is wrong. This will KILL balance.
Blanket limitations=help broken armies and hurt weaker armies. This has been SHOWN by real tournaments over and over again. No reason to think it's magically different just by being from GW.
I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
Kdash wrote: [q
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
What it does mean is that pretty much universally it's the weaker armies that gets killed while tough armies simply take up almost as good alternatives.
Thus game balance goes to hell.
For sake of game pray the rumour is wrong. This will KILL balance.
Blanket limitations=help broken armies and hurt weaker armies. This has been SHOWN by real tournaments over and over again. No reason to think it's magically different just by being from GW.
But what if there are a load of other balance changes within this FAQ to address the potential issues this rumour would cause? If such a thing is also included, then we have nothing to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaptainBetts wrote: I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
I'm hoping to hear more from the LGT guys soon about it, with their list deadline approaching.
With both the GT finals and the LGT in May, i can honestly see it potentially ending up in June instead of May, if it isn't released this month, as they will probably "find more things they didn't expect" coming out of those 2 big events.
CaptainBetts wrote: I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
I'm hoping to hear more from the LGT guys soon about it, with their list deadline approaching.
With both the GT finals and the LGT in May, I can honestly see it potentially ending up in June instead of May, if it isn't released this month, as they will probably "find more things they didn't expect" coming out of those 2 big events.
I can seriously imagine the 'we found some more things at GT and the LGT we didn't expect!' quote happening.
Of course, with tournaments happening again and again, they'll have to release the FAQ at some point.
Heck, they could release it now, before the GT and the LGT, and then see how their 'attempts at balance' worked out.
Kdash wrote: [q
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
What it does mean is that pretty much universally it's the weaker armies that gets killed while tough armies simply take up almost as good alternatives.
Thus game balance goes to hell.
For sake of game pray the rumour is wrong. This will KILL balance.
Blanket limitations=help broken armies and hurt weaker armies. This has been SHOWN by real tournaments over and over again. No reason to think it's magically different just by being from GW.
But what if there are a load of other balance changes within this FAQ to address the potential issues this rumour would cause? If such a thing is also included, then we have nothing to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaptainBetts wrote: I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
I'm hoping to hear more from the LGT guys soon about it, with their list deadline approaching.
With both the GT finals and the LGT in May, i can honestly see it potentially ending up in June instead of May, if it isn't released this month, as they will probably "find more things they didn't expect" coming out of those 2 big events.
Kdash wrote: [q
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
What it does mean is that pretty much universally it's the weaker armies that gets killed while tough armies simply take up almost as good alternatives.
Thus game balance goes to hell.
For sake of game pray the rumour is wrong. This will KILL balance.
Blanket limitations=help broken armies and hurt weaker armies. This has been SHOWN by real tournaments over and over again. No reason to think it's magically different just by being from GW.
But what if there are a load of other balance changes within this FAQ to address the potential issues this rumour would cause? If such a thing is also included, then we have nothing to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaptainBetts wrote: I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
I'm hoping to hear more from the LGT guys soon about it, with their list deadline approaching.
With both the GT finals and the LGT in May, i can honestly see it potentially ending up in June instead of May, if it isn't released this month, as they will probably "find more things they didn't expect" coming out of those 2 big events.
And by that logic, it'll never be released.
Well, there is always the September one! But i agree. It'll need to drop eventually, but the longer we go without the FAQ, and with 2 100 person+ events happening within a week of each other, i can see them thinking "well, we waiting for Adepticon, we prob should do the same for these as well".
Kdash wrote: [q
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
What it does mean is that pretty much universally it's the weaker armies that gets killed while tough armies simply take up almost as good alternatives.
Thus game balance goes to hell.
For sake of game pray the rumour is wrong. This will KILL balance.
Blanket limitations=help broken armies and hurt weaker armies. This has been SHOWN by real tournaments over and over again. No reason to think it's magically different just by being from GW.
But what if there are a load of other balance changes within this FAQ to address the potential issues this rumour would cause? If such a thing is also included, then we have nothing to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaptainBetts wrote: I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
I'm hoping to hear more from the LGT guys soon about it, with their list deadline approaching.
With both the GT finals and the LGT in May, i can honestly see it potentially ending up in June instead of May, if it isn't released this month, as they will probably "find more things they didn't expect" coming out of those 2 big events.
And by that logic, it'll never be released.
Well, there is always the September one! But i agree. It'll need to drop eventually, but the longer we go without the FAQ, and with 2 100 person+ events happening within a week of each other, i can see them thinking "well, we waiting for Adepticon, we prob should do the same for these as well".
Kdash wrote: [q
That’s the point I’m making though. You CAN run 30 Dominons in 3 squads – just because it’s not -currently- “optimal” or “good” because they only get 4 weapons, doesn’t mean it is a reason to invalidate this potential change. A 10 man team in a Rhino with 4 Melta costs 243 points, which is 15 points more expensive than a 5 man team in a Repressor. Overall, the difference between 6 squads of 5 with Melta and 3 squads of 10 with melta is a massive 639 points. Sure, you drop 12 melta shots, but, I guess spending 459 of the 639 gained points on 12 Retributor multi-meltas is also a “bad idea”. You could also argue, that, because melta dominon squads are spammed so much, they are one of the “outlying OP” units in that codex and due a nerf to bring them into line. You could also argue that they are fine, and the rest is just bad, so the rest is due a buff instead. Either way, things will get changed to bring more units into the “viable” line. A lot of people are focusing on things in isolation, where instead, you need to go in with the mindset of “well, if this is changing, what else is changing alongside it?”
What it does mean is that pretty much universally it's the weaker armies that gets killed while tough armies simply take up almost as good alternatives.
Thus game balance goes to hell.
For sake of game pray the rumour is wrong. This will KILL balance.
Blanket limitations=help broken armies and hurt weaker armies. This has been SHOWN by real tournaments over and over again. No reason to think it's magically different just by being from GW.
But what if there are a load of other balance changes within this FAQ to address the potential issues this rumour would cause? If such a thing is also included, then we have nothing to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaptainBetts wrote: I'm fairly sure we won't see the Spring FAQ until early-mid May. I reckon GW would have alluded to 'a release in a few weeks' if it were going to be released in April.
I'm hoping to hear more from the LGT guys soon about it, with their list deadline approaching.
With both the GT finals and the LGT in May, i can honestly see it potentially ending up in June instead of May, if it isn't released this month, as they will probably "find more things they didn't expect" coming out of those 2 big events.
And by that logic, it'll never be released.
Well, there is always the September one! But i agree. It'll need to drop eventually, but the longer we go without the FAQ, and with 2 100 person+ events happening within a week of each other, i can see them thinking "well, we waiting for Adepticon, we prob should do the same for these as well".
Looks like it's a Summer FAQ!
I can see the rage inducing salty reactions already, of the people that will only see that picture and go into meltdown
synthaside wrote: I really hope its on the way, I really need to submit my list, for LGT.
@Bett's maybe they will take our rumoured upcoming heat wave as summer right ;-)
Same - i emailed Zach earlier asking if people submit lists before the FAQ, what is the ruling on then submitting an updated list after the FAQ should it alter the points/make the list illegal. Will post the reply when i get one.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
I think the complaint is mostly that this restriction is going to do absolutely nothing to harm "the usual suspects" - Nids, Eldar, Guard, Chaos - who all have incredibly deep pools of good units and strong combinations, so you'd pretty much just swap one for the other, while the lists that it would really hurt are the occasional minor factions that you only see every once in a while, like Sisters, Harlequins, and Orks.
That's why it's such a pointless restriction. It'll just narrow the pool of viable armies.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
LOL. Banned from matched play not the game.
Which at least in my area is the ONLY mode of play for 40k now.
I have never played Open or Narrative play. It looks like it'd be a broken mess. Armies that have access to expensive upgrades that would be taken in moderation in matched play destroy armies without access to similar now-free upgrades.
In fact, I've not yet come across anyone who has played non-Matched play.
It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.
Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.
Earth127 wrote: It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.
Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.
Obviously its not the only way, or else they'd drop support for it. But in my area I'm unable to get a game of non-matched play in unless we play apocalypse. We do have monthly multiplayer apocalypse games and those are fun, but otherwise it is all matched. We used to use PL but it got abused so we moved to points strictly, even in our apocalypse games. My FLGS is a mtg shop and most of the players are hardcore mtg players so it is a very very competitive lot. So they don't mind dropping fluff for balance.
Earth127 wrote: It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.
Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.
Makes sense and the open play being easy to abuse only happens if you're the sort of person trying to be competitive or force easy wins, which is against the spirit of those matches.
Which at least in my area is the ONLY mode of play for 40k now.
Sure, for lots of people. How is a restriction different from raising points on a unit, which knocks that unit or others out of a list?
Because I can make room in my army if I want to run something more expensive. I can't for something that's banned. Maybe it isn't super competitive but I play Grey Knights and nerfed Ynnari with no Dark reapers no stratagems. I'm already not playing the most competitive. I'd like to at least be able to take the units I want even if it means I have to give up units elsewhere
Cephalobeard wrote: It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.
If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.
This isn't particularly difficult.
But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.
I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.
Cephalobeard wrote: It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.
If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.
This isn't particularly difficult.
But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.
I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.
I'm not blaming GW. It's their rules.
I'm just illustrating that some necks of the woods are different than others.
Cephalobeard wrote: It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.
If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.
This isn't particularly difficult.
But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.
I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.
Of course not. I'm not saying they should just write rules for me. But I should be able to complain when they make a rule that invalidates models I have paid money for. And saying "Its only matched, just play open or narrative" doesn't fly in my area.
Cephalobeard wrote: It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.
If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.
This isn't particularly difficult.
But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.
I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.
Of course not. I'm not saying they should just write rules for me. But I should be able to complain when they make a rule that invalidates models I have paid money for. And saying "Its only matched, just play open or narrative" doesn't fly in my area.
There are virtually no models invalid for matched play, with some rare exceptions like the Chapter Approved Land Raiders. If you consider „not-horrifically-broken-and-an-obvious-rules-writer-error-of-the-kind-you-see-at-Adepticon/LVO-finals“ as „invalid“, you‘re by definition only willing to play with models that need fixing.
That base assumption is by definition bound to cause you to be frustrated with what GW does with the rules.
Cephalobeard wrote: It doesn't. They're saying they only play matched play, that was their point.
If no one in their area plays anything else, then that's the only option they have.
This isn't particularly difficult.
But not GW‘s fault. They are not writing rules just for your neck of the woods.
I dont know of any places where matched play is tbe default outside formal events AND local events using matched play often are a lot less competitive than club-games, because by their very nature it‘s the place where people play who don’t have regular games with pals and only get their toys out once or twice a year.
Of course not. I'm not saying they should just write rules for me. But I should be able to complain when they make a rule that invalidates models I have paid money for. And saying "Its only matched, just play open or narrative" doesn't fly in my area.
There are virtually no models invalid for matched play, with some rare exceptions like the Chapter Approved Land Raiders. If you consider „not-horrifically-broken-and-an-obvious-rules-writer-error-of-the-kind-you-see-at-Adepticon/LVO-finals“ as „invalid“, you‘re by definition only willing to play with models that need fixing.
That base assumption is by definition bound to cause you to be frustrated with what GW does with the rules.
But this restriction WILL cause me to have to drop 3 of my interceptor squads. Now I know that I'm but one person. And yeah I'll survive, but it still sucks.
Earth127 wrote: It does, they( or a lof of dakkanuats) pretend matched is the only way to go everywhere and thus the only worthy of time and interest. Both theirs and GW's.
Matched play is where fluff goes to die for competitive "balance" at a specific points lvl. GW did not include proper scaling so it doesn't. Arguing the fluff for armies in matched is moot. This has been an pet peeve of mine since the first previews of 8th were being discussed.
I think it is reasonable to assume most people will use matched play against opponents they don't know. I agree though arguing fluff for balance is some of the worst stuff I have seen.Instead almost any fluff can be accounted for by some story telling even the dumbest of lists. Even the most basic Star Trek plot of "________" crashed on a planet and now have to survive against ________________ can explain most lists. Although don't get me wrong as a Tau player I am loving how much the tune changed about hard limits once every army was potentially going to get effected.
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
Orkz could be buffed by replacing all their rules with exact copies of Eldar rules. So der da boyz! Dey gunna krump! By moving fast, with high-quality low-quantity guys. Who can't take a punch, and get by by evading/running away. They don't feel much like Orkz anymore.
So it's more than just fluff. I certainly wouldn't want to see the above change (the extreme case).
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.
Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.
My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.
Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.
My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option
The biggest issue with Interceptors, Grey Knights and this potential restriction, isn't so much the "loss of units" cos, you can still take 30, in 6 squads via combat squads, it is the loss of the 1CP from the detachment bonus, while only saving you the cost of 1 HQ points wise (and maybe 3 hammers if you run all Justicars with hammers).
The question then becomes - can a list be built containing 30 Interceptors whilst maintaining the same amount of CP as before. Possibly, but, that choice is then up to the Grey Knights player to decide how they want to run things. If the rumours of Grey Knights getting points changes is also true, then, it might be easier to do that it is currently, pre-faq.
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.
Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.
My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option
Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.
Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.
My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option
Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...
I'd love bigger squads if I could keep my cp. 10 man squads work great for the psybolt stratagem. I do run a 10 man squad of strikes for that.. The entire stratagem thing will always promote msu. Until they fix cpmsu will be a problem.
Where did you find that image? It's not on the Warhammer 40,000 page that I can readily find and your image link is via Imgur.
Also, the post is from June 26. GW are clearly time travelers.
this picture is almost certainly a fake. Just the inconsistencies in the date alone is enough to invalidate it. Not to mention that whomever made the image just changed S"pring" to S"ummer". You can see the change in blurring around the letters for the 'ummer' part.
Kanluwen wrote: Hah. Yeah...it makes me think it's from last year.
Well, that would be with 8th came out and I don't think they would tease those nurgle models that early.
GW revealed/teased Death Guard models at Adepticon 2017, late March.
BoLS & Co. at the time were running "rumours" for a month or two that Death Guard would be the last 7th Ed. Codex, because they clearly misinterpreted the teasers.
Kanluwen wrote: Hah. Yeah...it makes me think it's from last year.
Well, that would be with 8th came out and I don't think they would tease those nurgle models that early.
GW revealed/teased Death Guard models at Adepticon 2017, late March.
BoLS & Co. at the time were running "rumours" for a month or two that Death Guard would be the last 7th Ed. Codex, because they clearly misinterpreted the teasers.
Yes, but that is out in the open view of the model. I would have remembered the posts that a picture like that would have prompted.
)
