They should just fix the points like these guys did:

Please explain the meaning of this

It's a satirical dig at those saying that a good rule system wouldn't use restrictions. They would instead adjust the points.

The image is of rules from Kings of War, Warmachine, and 9th Age all showcasing similarly styled restrictions.

40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

BINGO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

If you don't enjoy making your own list. I have no idea why you would play this game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

BINGO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

If you don't enjoy making your own list. I have no idea why you would play this game.

Totally true. I see few, if any guys under their 20's at the two GW stores I go to. You really need disposable income to play this game. I started in my teens too (with Dad's money) and got the minis because they were far more interesting than the Desert Storm and World War II soldiers. But they need the biggest base possible to ensure we get awesome minis and maybe a blockbuster Horus Heresy movie franchise in the future ala the path Marvel took. Mainstream Warhammer would be awesome.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Given the first thing I usually hear from the older players is a mocking of anyone who pays FLGS prices or buys anything not on the secondary market...The same generation that sunk the FLGS boom of the late 80s by avoiding paying even a dollar more than they had to on anything, I don't blame GW for that one. The 20-somethings already outnumbers us 30+ year olds by a couple factors and are much more willing to outspend us. I'll say this about the millennial generation - when they dive into something, they do so hardcore and with a much larger portion of their income than the 80s and 90s crowd ever did.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

Well - GW doesn't collect that data so we can only speculate. Who the heck do you think wants to buy easy to build redemptor dreads and intercessors? Seems like a move directly targeting young people to me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Ah yeah, and that's because they've brought back 20 year old models through made to order, and 20 year old armies with Genestealers, and 20 year old rules with All is dust and the traitor legions. And that's why they allowed those players from the 90s to still use their converted models instead of actually enforcing the model no rules policy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

Well - GW doesn't collect that data so we can only speculate. Who the heck do you think wants to buy easy to build redemptor dreads and intercessors? Seems like a move directly targeting young people to me.

Ha ha. My Dad in his 60's bought those easy-build kits too. Said it was tough with all the options and wanted to paint right away.

@ Xenomancers : I love making my own lists, that's my point - it's harder to do it on autopilot, and more interesting to do, when there are restrictions.

I just don't understand the wave of bile that has flooded up in reaction to this FAQ. People seem to want things to be exactly the same, but also totally different, and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I have seen advocates of almost every faction in the game (apart from Necrons and Drukhari) complain that they have been unfairly nerfed in the FAQ. This suggests to me that nobody has any real idea what is actually going to happen when people start throwing the bones - I certainly don't.

Since the FAQ landed, Grey Knights have been in absolutely no top-10 finishers in an ITC tournament. Obviously, the FAQ failed to balance the game.

 Voidswatchman wrote:
@ Xenomancers : I love making my own lists, that's my point - it's harder to do it on autopilot, and more interesting to do, when there are restrictions.

I just don't understand the wave of bile that has flooded up in reaction to this FAQ. People seem to want things to be exactly the same, but also totally different, and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I have seen advocates of almost every faction in the game (apart from Necrons and Drukhari) complain that they have been unfairly nerfed in the FAQ. This suggests to me that nobody has any real idea what is actually going to happen when people start throwing the bones - I certainly don't.

Think there's an IG/AM thread talking about how they didn't get nerfed...

I've seen so many straw men on Dakka today, I'm wondering if I blacked out and started driving through rural Nebraska again.

@Popsghostly : Yeah, true. I was sure I had seen some AM grumbling somewhere - due to Scions - but I might be making things up. Apologies if I have cast my generalization too widely.

Would it be too "on the nose" to start a thread to list all the factions that "have it worst"?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Ah yeah, and that's because they've brought back 20 year old models through made to order, and 20 year old armies with Genestealers, and 20 year old rules with All is dust and the traitor legions. And that's why they allowed those players from the 90s to still use their converted models instead of actually enforcing the model no rules policy.

^that

Easy to build kits are such a small percentage of the kits available. GW needs new blood. That doesn't mean they're all about catering to new blood.

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

I lol'd at this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
I've seen so many straw men on Dakka today, I'm wondering if I blacked out and started driving through rural Nebraska again.

Too many people take their plastic spacemen's seriously.

Seriously, does no one on these form play any sort of online videogame? Patches that mess up a majority of "what worked" are common. Hell, I bought models for a specific list that doesn't quite work anymore, but instead of whining and quitting, I'm just looking at my list building differently and mixing it up.

 Voidswatchman wrote:
@Popsghostly : Yeah, true. I was sure I had seen some AM grumbling somewhere - due to Scions - but I might be making things up. Apologies if I have cast my generalization too widely.

we got some nerfs but it's kinda been drowned out by the commissar buff+ screechi- i mean discussion about the deepstrike changes and how guard is now going to effortlessly destroy every army in every possible matchup.

Seriously, does no one on these form play any sort of online videogame? Patches that mess up a majority of "what worked" are common. Hell, I bought models for a specific list that doesn't quite work anymore, but instead of whining and quitting, I'm just looking at my list building differently and mixing it up.

You take your positive attitude and GTFO. Don't you know this is a place where we come together to hate the hate the hobby we love so much? (s)

Who the heck do you think wants to buy easy to build redemptor dreads and intercessors? Seems like a move directly targeting young people to me.

I'm 40ish and I do. Building the models has never been my favorite part of the hobby. I like painting and playing a lot better and as such I'd rather have more ETB-kits that I can glue together in 10 minutes including shaving the mold lines off so I can get to painting.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's a satirical dig at those saying that a good rule system wouldn't use restrictions. They would instead adjust the points.

The image is of rules from Kings of War, Warmachine, and 9th Age all showcasing similarly styled restrictions.

a) who says those are good either
b) note those have HUGE difference in them. It's restriction by unit. Not blanket 0-3.

Tell me. How is 4 runtherds broken? Oh and how it's fair battlewagons are max 3 and leman russ you can bring like 40...Yey. You can bring more leman russ than you can bring carnifex, runtherds, ork dreadnoughts...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

That would be a really bad business model. How do you suggest that GW would get new blood into the hobby if they only focused on oldtimers? Talk about being self-centered, just because you belong to a certain demographic than GW should focus on you.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

I think you may Be right, I also think That is what 30k is aimed at, the older disposable income crowd, also think that may have been part of the reason it stayed with 7th for the time being.

The problem with unit restrictions at the moment is that they all seem to play very well into the hands of a fair few armies that already have a lot of dominant traits, and that GW's own writing feels schizophrenic when the FAQ restrictions are placed against other releases (3 units per sheet cap... right around the same time they release an army book that gets a painfully limited HQ selection on the best of terms).

Guard doesn't care about 0-3, because 0-3 usually means 0-9 for them.

Dark Eldar care about 0-3, because you get one unnamed HQ per obsession, and heaven help you if you want to run a single army built around any single cult or coven (or if you don't want to use the trash that is Drazhar). Admech Dunecrawlers care, because they function together similar to actual units, but unlike Imperial Guard tanks, require an individual datasheet for each one.

If the army with the best toys didn't also get the most of them, that would definitely help matters. The change itself isn't unreasonable. The circumstances upon which GW insists on implementing them, however, are.

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's a satirical dig at those saying that a good rule system wouldn't use restrictions. They would instead adjust the points.

The image is of rules from Kings of War, Warmachine, and 9th Age all showcasing similarly styled restrictions.

a) who says those are good either
b) note those have HUGE difference in them. It's restriction by unit. Not blanket 0-3.

Tell me. How is 4 runtherds broken? Oh and how it's fair battlewagons are max 3 and leman russ you can bring like 40...Yey. You can bring more leman russ than you can bring carnifex, runtherds, ork dreadnoughts...

a.) Well they are some of the larger wargames on the market. Malifaux also has limits on many units (tons of 0-1 stuff) but again is done individually, 40k in Pre 7th had blanket restrictions on Slots not even on units so this is less restrictive than that ever was. DZC has limits on Slots, Old Warhammer fantasy had limits on units and hard cap percentages on Slots. Infintity has individual unit restrictions. Other than AOS, and 40k the only Minis game I can think of with no restrictions is x-wing, and I wouldn't call that a balanced game either. So if not great restrictions are at least an overwhelmingly common method of balance, and so should not be balked at just because "restrictions ruin every game they are in" if that is the case why do you play miniatures games where basically everything is restricted.

b.) I agree doing restrictions on an individual unit basis would have been better, however how exactly are they going to implement that at this point? It would require tons more playtesting to determine the exact right number of each unit in each book. They should have had more restrictions from the start of the edition. They didn't fixing that is much easier to do with a blanket restriction than trying to go in and do each unit individually. So given no restriction or blanket restriction, blanket is better. But individual restriction is better than either, just harder to implement. Your attitude seems to be that if they cannot do it perfect they should not do it at all.


Points stop you from bringing 40 Leman Russ tanks, but sure in theory because they have Data Sheets in FW as well as 2 data sheets in the AM book, maybe they need another look if 10 Leman russes (which you could bring 9 with 1 data sheet) seems too broken. You can bring 9 Ork Deff Dreadsm 9 Carnifex etc. So They are not the only unit that can take more than 3 individual units "bought as a squadron"

Breng77 wrote:

Points stop you from bringing 40 Leman Russ tanks, but sure in theory because they have Data Sheets in FW as well as 2 data sheets in the AM book, maybe they need another look if 10 Leman russes (which you could bring 9 with 1 data sheet) seems too broken. You can bring 9 Ork Deff Dreadsm 9 Carnifex etc. So They are not the only unit that can take more than 3 individual units "bought as a squadron"

Well yeah points stops to a level but some 10 russ isn't impossible. While orks are stuck with 3 battlewagons, marines 3 predators etc. Balance...right.

 Fafnir wrote:
The problem with unit restrictions at the moment is that they all seem to play very well into the hands of a fair few armies that already have a lot of dominant traits, and that GW's own writing feels schizophrenic when the FAQ restrictions are placed against other releases (3 units per sheet cap... right around the same time they release an army book that gets a painfully limited HQ selection on the best of terms).

Guard doesn't care about 0-3, because 0-3 usually means 0-9 for them.

Dark Eldar care about 0-3, because you get one unnamed HQ per obsession, and heaven help you if you want to run a single army built around any single cult or coven (or if you don't want to use the trash that is Drazhar). Admech Dunecrawlers care, because they function together similar to actual units, but unlike Imperial Guard tanks, require an individual datasheet for each one.

If the army with the best toys didn't also get the most of them, that would definitely help matters. The change itself isn't unreasonable. The circumstances upon which GW insists on implementing them, however, are.

That may be true, but I'd rather see the restriction and then have any such problems addressed, than to do nothing and hope they address the other issues in the game. It seems like for DE that if they want to run a single subfaction then they will need to build out brigades which is a tough sell. But remember 0-3 is organized play only, so saying mono-cult isn't viable competitively is no different from plenty of other options being non-viable competitively. For instance out side of perhaps guard (and I'm not even sure they are great) Mono-any imperial faction is basically not great competitively. The competitive game has become essentially a game where allies are required if you want to compete at the top level.

Now do I feel the DE issue should be addressed, probably, but if the restrictions were not put in place I doubt it ever would be to begin with because no one would complain. As for admech that is a line that needs expanding to work on its own. I don't feel like having an army work because it has 1 or 2 good options is a desirable game state. It led to nids being "ok" in past editions because flyrants were good. I'm hoping (and it is a hope) that by decreasing spam GW will have a better view of what is working and what is not, and be better able to address problems going forward. Spam covers up all kinds of problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Points stop you from bringing 40 Leman Russ tanks, but sure in theory because they have Data Sheets in FW as well as 2 data sheets in the AM book, maybe they need another look if 10 Leman russes (which you could bring 9 with 1 data sheet) seems too broken. You can bring 9 Ork Deff Dreadsm 9 Carnifex etc. So They are not the only unit that can take more than 3 individual units "bought as a squadron"

Well yeah points stops to a level but some 10 russ isn't impossible. While orks are stuck with 3 battlewagons, marines 3 predators etc. Balance...right.

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Breng77 wrote:

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Gee. Now you would limit my poor killa kan's from 18 to 3. Thanks a lot! Killa kan's are such an awesome broken cheese right now after all...Shudder at the sight of awesome survivability of T5 W5 4+ save! With 3 attacks that hit on 8+! Averaging less than marine dead a turn! With mediocre gun! For a steal cost of about 60 pts per model!

Don't do same stupid mistake GW did and do blanket changes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income

That's me

Be right back, guys, buying 24 more war walkers since squadrons seem to be in this month!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

Well - GW doesn't collect that data so we can only speculate. Who the heck do you think wants to buy easy to build redemptor dreads and intercessors? Seems like a move directly targeting young people to me.

Me, I'm a 33 year old and would've 100% gotten the redemptor easy to build kit if it was out when I got mine (maybe even 2 instead of just the one normal one I did). I also got the easy to build aggressors, but maybe its just because i'm broke af.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

I will not agree that BCB is right, but i will point out that GWs biggest market for repeat customers, are not teens or young adults, its men in their late 20s and above who have disposable income. Teens and young adults will get impulse buys, but older people aare going to me the meat and potatos.

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Gee. Now you would limit my poor killa kan's from 18 to 3. Thanks a lot! Killa kan's are such an awesome broken cheese right now after all...Shudder at the sight of awesome survivability of T5 W5 4+ save! With 3 attacks that hit on 8+! Averaging less than marine dead a turn! With mediocre gun! For a steal cost of about 60 pts per model!

Don't do same stupid mistake GW did and do blanket changes.

Kans don't act seperately on the table, they are a single unit of 1-6 models. Unlike Deff Dreads which are bought as one selection but are individual units on the table.

SO I would limit things like Russes, but not land speeders.Maybe you should actually know your rules rather than call out problems that don't actually exist.

Every other game in existance has restrictions and rules. MTG has "blocks" where certain cards get rotated out for balance, Warmachine limits what models you can take by the warcaster you choose (for balance... and fluff), etc.

People want to complain about 40k being imbalanced and unfun... but when GW takes steps to correct that, they throw a fit they can't use everything in existence.

You need to pick what you want - a balanced game, or the ability to do what you want when you want. If your a narrative player, then ignore the restrictions and FAQ's and do whatever the hell you want, same with a casual game here and there.

Limits were put in place for the competitive minded people. You HAVE to have limits to attempt to balance stuff. Balancing all the various models and armies against one another is a huge undertaking, especially if someone can take as many of a model as their heart desires.

For people advocating a blanket change to how multiple unit datasheets are counted, have you considered that the marines combat squad rule works exactly the same, take a single datasheet, split it into multiple units during/following deployment.

In any case all this bitching about vehicle squadrons seems somewhat premature, people have had the ability to spam things like the Russ since 8th dropped and it's never seemed particularly prevalent or overly successful. The deepstrike change may change that going forward but we'll have to see. In any case I'd like to point out that all you have to do to shut a Russ down is make contact in melee, don't even need the ability to wound it. As long as you keep it locked up in melee it can't do a thing, an all Russ army is very vulnerable to that.

Like I said I don't think it is a huge issue, but if "fairness" is a concern then it matters. It remains to be seen whether squadrons will be an issue given the limitations though. I think the general complaint is that IG is powerful and largely unaffected by the data sheet restrictions as most of their vehicle options can take 9 copies in an army.

I'm not sure the 9 Xs army is any good though.

People are panicking because it "gets around the restrictions" but the actual data supporting its inevitable victory is solidly phhhrrrbbbttt.

EDIT:
Ironically the same people arguing "guard are OP because they ignore the 3 datasheet restriction" are exactly the same people who turn around and say "there should be no restrictions, units can be balanced without artificial limitations"

But for some reason the Russ and Basilisk are not those units, because *confetti*.

What does everyone keep acting like the 3 data sheet thing is a rule or even a beta rule, it's not it was only a suggestion

I don't think restrictions are necessarily a bad idea. The issue is that the current ones have been implemented with no regard individual armies or units.

I know that people say that IG doesn't care because it has squadrons, but not everything in the codex actually has squadrons.

So we're left with the curious situation wherein Leman Russ tanks are apparently three times as numerous as Heavy Weapon Teams.

Then you've got stuff like Dark Eldar. If I play Kabal, I have a single Heavy Support choice (FW notwithstanding) - the Ravager. Yet it has the exact same 0-3 restriction as armies with a dozen or so different HS units to choose from.

Also, the detachment system in general just seems like a real mess. I thought the whole point of having such a loose system was to make it less restrictive, but now we're just adding the restrictions back in anyway.

 Fafnir wrote:

Dark Eldar care about 0-3, because you get one unnamed HQ per obsession, and heaven help you if you want to run a single army built around any single cult or coven (or if you don't want to use the trash that is Drazhar).

Indeed. Although I maintain that this is at least partially a result of GW taking yet another massive dump on DE in the codex itself by still refusing to fix their dumpster-fire of a HQ section.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What does everyone keep acting like the 3 data sheet thing is a rule or even a beta rule, it's not it was only a suggestion

Given that both NOVA and ITC have stated how much they like the rule we can expect to restriction on both circuits. From there, non affilated tournaments will take the hint and add it. Then pretty much everyone who is in your meta will insist on it for casual games so they can prepare for those tournaments.

That being said I think it's a good change.

I still dont see why its ok for guard to have Russ spam, but crons, eldar, Tau, marines etc. are limited to 3 "battle tanks".

Could someone explain this to me.

Because the rule was a broad adjustment, not a fine-tuned fix.

Marines can have more than 3 Razorbacks - I thought troops and transports excepted? Same with Wave Serpents. Devil Fish aren't 'battle tanks', though.

Bharring wrote:
Because the rule was a broad adjustment, not a fine-tuned fix.

Marines can have more than 3 Razorbacks - I thought troops and transports excepted? Same with Wave Serpents. Devil Fish aren't 'battle tanks', though.

I am talking specifically about battle tank equivs, so Prisms, preds, Doomsday barge? hammerhead etc. that kind of thing, guard get Chimera in the same way as razors and Fish so thats still ok.

Falcons are certainly MBT that can transport. Serpents are easily considered battle tanks.

I get your point. Mine, in this post anyways, is the line between "battle tank" and "not battle tank" isn't as cut-and-dry across factions as we might like.

That each faction can chose 3 of each of their MBT option seems fine on it's face. That some units can be taken as squadrons also seems fine on it's face. The rules would have to be terribly specific to properly limit the "amount" of "battle-tankiness" each faction can field. Any broad rule they pick is going to have issues.

Might be more balanced if they FAQ it to be "more equal". I'm not sure I want Russ "brigades" out of the game entirely. From fluff, it'd make more sense to see that than a Pred or Prism brigade (prism is more like Whirlwind or Basilisk - it's an artillery piece mounted on a vehicle - CWE battletanks are superheavies or transports). From a crunch/fairness perspective, it does show how limited the targetting on the rule is that IG can still take 9 via squadroning.

The other "inequality" is what constitutes a datasheet. Why can Marines only take 3 units of Dev Cents, but CWE can take 6 units of WarWalkers (3 "War Walkers" and 3 "Wasps")? Granted, those get a lot less attention, but these things happen across many factions.

(Also, are the BA/SW/DA 'Predator' datasheets seperate datasheets?)

Bharring wrote:
That each faction can chose 3 of each of their MBT option seems fine on it's face. That some units can be taken as squadrons also seems fine on it's face. The rules would have to be terribly specific to properly limit the "amount" of "battle-tankiness" each faction can field. Any broad rule they pick is going to have issues.

Might be more balanced if they FAQ it to be "more equal". I'm not sure I want Russ "brigades" out of the game entirely. From fluff, it'd make more sense to see that than a Pred or Prism brigade (prism is more like Whirlwind or Basilisk - it's an artillery piece mounted on a vehicle - CWE battletanks are superheavies or transports). From a crunch/fairness perspective, it does show how limited the targetting on the rule is that IG can still take 9 via squadroning.

Fluff means gakk as far as balance is concerned.

If two tank stat lines are relatively equal, except one faction can take 3x as many despite an intended limitation of numbers, then that's just not balanced, or fair.

Also, unless you're an author for GW - you don't get to say what's fluffy, and what isn't. The universe is big, and it's adaptability and individualization is a key part of a players attachment to their army.

Plus, it's not like there are only THREE FirePrisms out there - why CAN'T more of them group up and move out together - hell, they've got "Linked Fire"; if nothing else, this is to say that larger groups of them should be more common, rather than less common.

But ultimately, we agree that arbitrarily determining "3 of a kind", without review to squad sizes of those similar kinds across different armies, is ineffective and hits different armies, well, differently.

Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

True, but FW is not practical for most people.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

True, but FW is not practical for most people.

*shrug* not a rules problem - it's practical for me, and I have two degrees worth of student loans to pay, live in a 1-bedroom apartment, and work just a regular starting job.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ironically the same people arguing "guard are OP because they ignore the 3 datasheet restriction" are exactly the same people who turn around and say "there should be no restrictions, units can be balanced without artificial limitations"

But for some reason the Russ and Basilisk are not those units, because *confetti*.

Guard is OP for plenty of other reasons. And yes, you can balance Russes and Basilisks in other ways (namely either nerfing them or adjusting the points), and in fact, that is exactly what should be done. It is just that the whole restriction is completely stupid, as it affect different armies so disproportionately.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Gee. Now you would limit my poor killa kan's from 18 to 3. Thanks a lot! Killa kan's are such an awesome broken cheese right now after all...Shudder at the sight of awesome survivability of T5 W5 4+ save! With 3 attacks that hit on 8+! Averaging less than marine dead a turn! With mediocre gun! For a steal cost of about 60 pts per model!

Don't do same stupid mistake GW did and do blanket changes.

Kans don't act seperately on the table, they are a single unit of 1-6 models. Unlike Deff Dreads which are bought as one selection but are individual units on the table.

SO I would limit things like Russes, but not land speeders.Maybe you should actually know your rules rather than call out problems that don't actually exist.

That actually makes it impossible to take you seriously.

Russes being able to be in a squad together is a legacy thing that has always been there and you want to remove it out of some principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

With absolutely no synergy with anything.

Are you done playing martyr for Guard players yet?

Russes used to be a squad together now they act separately once deployed which is a large difference. Is “it’s always been that way” really a good reason for doing things?

Personally I don’t care one way or another about russes unless they prove to be an issue.

Breng77 wrote:
Russes used to be a squad together now they act separately once deployed which is a large difference. Is “it’s always been that way” really a good reason for doing things?

Personally I don’t care one way or another about russes unless they prove to be an issue.

Right - nothing should be truly sacred, but GW needs to keep a pulse on what makes an army unique.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
The 20-somethings already outnumbers us 30+ year olds by a couple factors and are much more willing to outspend us. I'll say this about the millennial generation - when they dive into something, they do so hardcore and with a much larger portion of their income than the 80s and 90s crowd ever did.

Want to feel old? There are no 20-somethings who were teens in the 90s. Most Millennials are in their thirties now.

Breng77 wrote:
Russes used to be a squad together now they act separately once deployed which is a large difference. Is “it’s always been that way” really a good reason for doing things?

Personally I don’t care one way or another about russes unless they prove to be an issue.

I have to agree. Squadrons allow you to spam, and spam is what GW is trying to get rid of - it shouldn't be kept "just cause we always did it that way" - especially when that's not true. Previously a Squadron was an actual squadron that had to stick together and shoot the same target - that's changed massively now. Consequently they should look at unit compositions. I'd take "anything that acts solo after deployment is now 1 model only instead of e.g.1-3", and be happy with it.

Well all of these are in beta, and if your casual group wants ignore the particular restriction then so be it. But I think it could well be a combination of reasons they did it. Complaints on the tournament scene, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. But also everyone has gone out and bought their spam units. Add these restrictions and now people who haven't already done so will have to buy models to diversify their army.

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

tneva82 wrote:
Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

Providing a better-than-normal package that's restricted in some other way is really common across both other games and other pricing structures. It's a really useful tool for balancing things that fall outside the norm - units that improve non-linearly when taken in multiples, for example. It's also a really effective way to make "special" units feel appropriately special.

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

Sorry I was unclear. I've seen suggestions that they shouldn't do restrictions but instead just increase the points of units that were being spammed to make them prohibitively expensive. I don't think that's a good idea since if a unit is only worth say 180 points for what it brings relative to the rest of the game, then they shouldn't make it hugely expensive just to cut down on spam. That was all i was driving at, sorry If I was unclear.

I agree doing restrictions on an individual unit basis would have been better, however how exactly are they going to implement that at this point? It would require tons more playtesting to determine the exact right number of each unit in each book

They could have technically just started with the biggest offenders. It's not like this is the last FAQ/Codex ever. They could have set some hard limits on the biggest offenders(much like they did with the Tau Commander). Then after that they might have put some restrictions on occasional slots like Heavies and so on and so on. It's not like they playtested the current rule much considering there are factions that are hit by this in a very heavyhanded manner who didn't really deserve it.

Currently we have a blanket rule that treats armies very differently and some worse than others. You want to run a pure Kabal, but only have one HQ unit and have to add Drazhar regardless of whether he fits your force or not(95% chance he won't)? Sucks to be you. Want to run a fleet of Ravenwing bikers? Sucks to be you. You running pure Saim-hann with ton of jetbikes who are fast slot? Sucks to be you. We'll see how the Harlequin and Deathwatch turn out after this rule.

I don't mind limitations as they make it simpler and easier to collect models(rarely reason to buy more than the limit is unless you are a big fan), and the fields becomes a bit more varied, but I'd prefer it were like Warmahordes where the limitations at least take your army into account.

The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
They could have technically just started with the biggest offenders. It's not like this is the last FAQ/Codex ever. They could have set some hard limits on the biggest offenders(much like they did with the Tau Commander). Then after that they might have put some restrictions on occasional slots like Heavies and so on and so on. It's not like they playtested the current rule much considering there are factions that are hit by this in a very heavyhanded manner who didn't really deserve it.

They could equally just apply it across the board, then relax it in future as needed for allowing specific builds. It's not like this is the last FAQ/Codex ever.

I also think it's nowhere near as restrictive as you seem to. Obviously it's more restrictive than it was, but that's kind of the point? For example:

You want to run a pure Kabal, but only have one HQ unit and have to add Drazhar regardless of whether he fits your force or not(95% chance he won't)?
Try running a Brigade. You've got access to cheap Troops unit and good stuff in every other slot. Take advantage of that, and leave Drazhar out.

Want to run a fleet of Ravenwing bikers?
You can run up to 30 Black Knights, 24 Bikes, 12 Attack Bikes, 3 Ancients, 3 Apothecaries, plus some Talonmasters and/or Sammael. You can even add up to 27 Scout Bikes. How many bikes do you need?

You running pure Saim-hann with ton of jetbikes who are fast slot?
You can run 27 Windriders and 27 Shining Spears. You're spoiled for choice for jetbikes in the HQ slots, but if you just want a ton of bikes there's also the Skyrunner Conclave. You can bring a crap-ton of jetbikes before you even get into all the other thematic Saim-hann choices, like Vypers and the grav-tanks.

If you genuinely can't adapt your forces to comply with the 3-per limit, chances are you were running a really skewed list.

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

In fact, it is always going to be the case that more is better.

A balanced army of ~ 3 Russes, 60 Guardsmen, a couple basilisks, a bunch of Ogryn, some commissars, maybe two chimeras, is going to be easier for a TAC list to deal with than an army of 500 guardsmen or 11 Leman Russes.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What does everyone keep acting like the 3 data sheet thing is a rule or even a beta rule, it's not it was only a suggestion

Given that both NOVA and ITC have stated how much they like the rule we can expect to restriction on both circuits. From there, non affilated tournaments will take the hint and add it. Then pretty much everyone who is in your meta will insist on it for casual games so they can prepare for those tournaments.

That being said I think it's a good change.

Basically this. ITC has already said they will adopt them immediately. Therefore, any ITC tournament will likely use them as well. Therefore, local metas will adopt them so people are familiar with them for their local ITC tournaments.

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Right. Note this comment from one of the NOVA playtesters:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

In fact, it is always going to be the case that more is better.

A balanced army of ~ 3 Russes, 60 Guardsmen, a couple basilisks, a bunch of Ogryn, some commissars, maybe two chimeras, is going to be easier for a TAC list to deal with than an army of 500 guardsmen or 11 Leman Russes.

Not always. Anything which buffs other things or gives certain army bonuses want to be taken in just the right numbers. In a DE list, for example, 1 Black Heart Archon is almost mandatory, 2 is OK, 3 is just tax. With Space Marine Lieutenants if you take so many that you have redundant reroll auras every one past enough to cover oyur army is a waste of points. Similarly if you typically need to deal with 50-150 infantry and you have an excellent unit for doing that, taking more of that unit just hurts your anti-tank potential for no real gain, this might be a heavy spam list of 7 of them, with 1-2 barely doing anything to help. At this point anything above 7 is a waste, but each one you add up to 7 is a bonus.

Yup buff units do not get better the more you take because they start to eat into the points you can use to buy things for them to buff. The same is true to a different extent with offensive ability especially with heavy weapons, they get substantially better the more you take before starting to fall off in value as they become redundant. Durability is the one thing that pretty much always gets better the more of something you take.

I like restrictions in my wargames.

I am not a big 40k gamer, still painting up my first 40k army, but I have a large number of historical armies and have played historical games for many years. (way too many years.. )

Here's the thing - I like my wargame to have some basis in a reality, virtual or otherwise - and often I mean less on the tabletop but on the metagame. I can deal with a lot of abstractions on the tabletop for the sake of the game, but I have trouble dealing with allies that would never ally in a game; or no restrictions whatsoever where an army is all elite simply because they are more cost efficient. For some reason, that destroys my immersion more than other things.

So. my Ancient Greeks have restrictions on cavalry, and what little they have sucks. Its something a real Greek general had to deal with; a resource problem. How do I deal with a cavalry heavy army? And how will I handle my advantage, good heavy infantry?

This is the area I would like to see 40k move into, personally. An army or faction should have strengths and weaknesses; it should generally be made up of troops.... I guess I just want my army to make sense in a real world, even a virtual one. In any form of reality, would a normal (not one-off) army of SOB really contain all Dominions and Rets? A rhetorical question or course.

This is just my opinion. Most will probably not agree, as it may shoehorn factions into certain types of play, but on the other hand there should be a faction for every style of play. I will happily play as is, but I would like each army/faction to have a flavor

I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Considering how there's already a move stat and a magic phase, I think you're too late for that.

No one wanted to play Warhammer 40k in Fantasy either, but we got AoS anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Right. Note this comment from one of the NOVA playtesters:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

Ha so basicly before things can get better we just need.another full codex cycle, 8th edition bestest most playtested edition ever.

I will say that I was in the camp that felt 40k could only get better with playtesting, turns out I was wrong and who is doing the playtesting is just as important.

So at this stage I honestly think 9th edition would probably be the best result for the game, just give a gift voucher for any codex/rulebook bought and pretend 8th never happened.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, that is the issue here. This shotgun balancing strategy will have a lot of collateral damage.

Piano Man wrote:

This is the area I would like to see 40k move into, personally. An army or faction should have strengths and weaknesses; it should generally be made up of troops.... I guess I just want my army to make sense in a real world, even a virtual one. In any form of reality, would a normal (not one-off) army of SOB really contain all Dominions and Rets? A rhetorical question or course.

I get that you like restrictions, but there already is in the functionality of the armies themselves to different degrees, and personally if i wanted such things through a blanket ru- i mean "suggestion", there was other games to get them. in the case of a sisters list, some Sister Orders are known for more of certain units, like Repentia, Celestians, Seraphim and dominions (my favorite order, the Argent shroud, has this for Seraphim). im not saying a list would have tons of any one in particular (although the very first thing when I saw the rule of 3 was say "welp, that clipped my firepower in my core list, because my one recourse is to degrade dominion squads into sisters for my main mono-list when it comes to bolter support"), but you'd think they could field more of their special units than the Order next door. Now the center of a sisters list under this has the same numbers no matter the subfaction because i can never have more than 3 units of non battle sisters or attached transports (and sisters don't get more special weapons for bigger size units like some others) when the variance of restricted units hits this faction much harder than factions that have, say... 3 full variants of a certain kind of unit on different datasheets or more.

As someone who sometime ago bought more seraphim than im likely able to field in my region now due to wanting as many enemies as possible to play against, I am a bit angry that a concept i was working on that was already constrained has come down to a template list with even less deviation than before, and that's not also adding how this messes with the inquisition, and what little they had on top of how they got sideswiped by the Battle Brothers rule. but then Imperial piecemeal like the inquisition didn't get noticed at all in chapter approved, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

not saying the limitations are all bad and a few units didn't need a kick to them based on the horror stories ive heard thusfar- but i thought they'd do something like they did to the Tau commanders for the deemed problem units instead of this somewhat sneaky and blanket way, what with their links the tournament community and all. call it whack-a-mole if you want, but that's what living balance is. something will always rise to the top.

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yes because deepstriking turn 2 is awful....

Breng77 wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yes because deepstriking turn 2 is awful....

In a game where the top armies are all designed around shooting the rest of your army off the table on turn one (and just got a lot better at it), yes, it is.

Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

I'm pretty sure 4 out of the top 5 armies at Adepticon were built exactly for the turn 1 alpha strike, hence why GW specifically delayed the FAQ to take such things into consideration.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Right. Note this comment from one of the NOVA playtesters:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

Ha so basicly before things can get better we just need.another full codex cycle, 8th edition bestest most playtested edition ever.

I will say that I was in the camp that felt 40k could only get better with playtesting, turns out I was wrong and who is doing the playtesting is just as important.

So at this stage I honestly think 9th edition would probably be the best result for the game, just give a gift voucher for any codex/rulebook bought and pretend 8th never happened.

I should start a tally in my signature of how many times I need to point out that 8th Ed hasn't been out for a year and the codexes all being pushed out within a year is very unusual. This hasn't even been a real cycle yet because the codexes are really more focussed on giving armies Stratagems, relics and psychic powers and only minor tweaks from the Index rules for balance.

When the secind codex cycle begins then you'll see bigger changes in unit rules and abilities and AGAIN we're not even a year into a massive overhaul of the game.

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

Breng77 wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yes because deepstriking turn 2 is awful....

It is in the current form of 40k where so much emphasis is being put on dealing a lot of damage quickly. Let's see why it sucks unit-by-unit, shall we?

- Crisis suits: Are very expensive glass cannons. With the standard loadout of 3 CIB's each it's 3*90=270 points to field a min-sized unit of them, about 350 if you also count accompanying drones. I was planning to use 4 of them + Farsight, drop them down and then use Drop Zone Clear + the stratagem that allows you to forfeit a Commanders' shooting to grant another battlesuit unit rerolls to wound in the shooting phase. That's ~600 points and 3 CP. Expensive, but can be worthwhile if you hit the right target turn 1. With the new deepstrike rules however, I have to hold back approximately 30% of my army for an extra turn, meaning that my target gets to shoot the rest of my army to bits free of reprecussions for an extra turn while also allowing my opponent an extra turn of moving screening units in such a position that I can't hurt his valuable stuff anymore when I finally do get to deepstrike.

- Blightlords: I used these primarily as a distraction Carnifex for Mortarion, because in a pure DG army (I strongly dislike souping them because it's so unfluffy) plasma or melta equipped deepstriking Blightlords are the only thing DG has that can reliably get into the opponents face turn 1 and start causing havoc, forcing my opponent to at least divert some of his big guns to my Blightlords to deal with them, allowing Mortarion some breathing room to advance up the field (because without Warptime he gets into charging range in turn 2 at the earliest against shooty armies). Without deepstriking Blightlords in turn 1 Mortarion is now forced to facetank every single gun my opponent can point at him until my Blightlords can come in or other units have moved themselves into a threatening position and there's nothing I can do about it, especially if I get second turn.

- Space Wolves: slightly less harsh, but still sucks. I'm now practically forced to put my assault Terminator squad in a Land Raider because rerolling charges is hard to get as SW (only with a squad of Wulfen nearby) so with turn 2 deepstriking at the earliest and a ~75% chance to fail the initial charge I'm looking at turn 3 at the earliest when they get a reliable chance to make themselves useful. As an added punch in the face they've basically been relegated to the few 2k games I have the chance to play (I usually play at my FLGS and we usually play 750-1250 there) because the Termie squad + LR is about 550 points. My tactical Terminators are even worse because they aren't worth putting into the LR (because that's already taken by the assault ones who have more use for it). I guess they can still be useful to grab objectives that are out of reach of the rest of my army because unlike DG I don't have a Big Bad that needs a distraction Carnifex for my Wolves but their primary function of putting the heat on priority targets ASAP has been completely gutted by the deepstrike nerfs.

Death guard really sounds like the only somewhatvalid complaint (extra threat to distract from Morty). Beyond that your Tau idea won’t really work against any good army. For instance against me you go first but so havr scouts pushing you back out of range of anything meaningful, so you don’t come in turn 1 anyway. Almost every army I see has some sort of forward screen. I guess if that isn’t your meta then yeah it hurts, but competitive games have the meta of screens that negate any meaningful turn 1 deepstrike. Sure if oh can murder some scouts or nurglings, but that doesn’t get you your value. So to me you still were better off shooting the screen then bringing down your hammer to kill big stuff turn 2. The way I view turn 1 deepstrike is as a noob stomping tactic it doesn’t beat good players because they don’t let you do it.

Pandabeer wrote:


- Crisis suits: Are very expensive glass cannons. With the standard loadout of 3 CIB's each it's 3*90=270 points to field a min-sized unit of them, about 350 if you also count accompanying drones. I was planning to use 4 of them + Farsight, drop them down and then use Drop Zone Clear + the stratagem that allows you to forfeit a Commanders' shooting to grant another battlesuit unit rerolls to wound in the shooting phase. That's ~600 points and 3 CP. Expensive, but can be worthwhile if you hit the right target turn 1. With the new deepstrike rules however, I have to hold back approximately 30% of my army for an extra turn, meaning that my target gets to shoot the rest of my army to bits free of reprecussions for an extra turn while also allowing my opponent an extra turn of moving screening units in such a position that I can't hurt his valuable stuff anymore when I finally do get to deepstrike.

And if you lost first turn you'd still be in a similar position - they got to shoot before you could nuke them. And hilariously enough a gunline army complaining about gunlines shooting them up.

- Blightlords: I used these primarily as a distraction Carnifex for Mortarion, because in a pure DG army (I strongly dislike souping them because it's so unfluffy) plasma or melta equipped deepstriking Blightlords are the only thing DG has that can reliably get into the opponents face turn 1 and start causing havoc, forcing my opponent to at least divert some of his big guns to my Blightlords to deal with them, allowing Mortarion some breathing room to advance up the field (because without Warptime he gets into charging range in turn 2 at the earliest against shooty armies). Without deepstriking Blightlords in turn 1 Mortarion is now forced to facetank every single gun my opponent can point at him until my Blightlords can come in or other units have moved themselves into a threatening position and there's nothing I can do about it, especially if I get second turn.

I have no sympathy when Mortarion gets Death Shroud to protect him. And BL wouldn't stop me from shooting LC at Morty.

- Space Wolves: slightly less harsh, but still sucks. I'm now practically forced to put my assault Terminator squad in a Land Raider because rerolling charges is hard to get as SW (only with a squad of Wulfen nearby) so with turn 2 deepstriking at the earliest and a ~75% chance to fail the initial charge I'm looking at turn 3 at the earliest when they get a reliable chance to make themselves useful. As an added punch in the face they've basically been relegated to the few 2k games I have the chance to play (I usually play at my FLGS and we usually play 750-1250 there) because the Termie squad + LR is about 550 points. My tactical Terminators are even worse because they aren't worth putting into the LR (because that's already taken by the assault ones who have more use for it). I guess they can still be useful to grab objectives that are out of reach of the rest of my army because unlike DG I don't have a Big Bad that needs a distraction Carnifex for my Wolves but their primary function of putting the heat on priority targets ASAP has been completely gutted by the deepstrike nerfs.

If you're playing smaller games there are options outside terminators and land raiders...

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

You can tweak bikes to not be an auto-include but not bad if you aren't lazy. This is pure laziness.

You could've made them 4+ armor
You could've made the Scatterlaser 15 points
You could've tweaked with the minimum squad size being 4 or 5

You don't even always have to do points! You're defending laziness.

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

 Galas wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

Critical thinking is impossible, unless you're GW, or a tournament player (which btw anyone who entered a tournament at least once in their life qualifies as a "tournament player" ).

No, it's not hard to realize that giving a shooting army what amounts go essential a free round of movement AND shooting WILL shift the game in that direction.

Consider two 2000 point armies - one goes 2000 points of shooting and screens, and the other goes for 1000/1000 Shooting/Deepstrike; the first list will be able to bring all its 2000 points of guns to bear on the first 1000 points of the enemy during the first round, whereas the second list has to play with half its army (hoping they don't get wiped out entirely) for the first 1/2 turns [dependent on who won the first turn, the full army, or the half/half]. And then when the second 1000 points DO arrive, the enemies screens will have had an opportunity to advance forward, denying space and meaning that the opponent has to get THAT much further before they can do anything.

But, again - it's impossible to evaluate a game, unless you're GW, or a tournament player. Speaking of Galas, what tournaments have you played in again, and what place did you come in? Per your own rules, are you allowed to have any input on the state of the game, and the effects of these changes, if the answer to those questions are - "I haven't played/placed in any tournaments."?

fe40k wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

Critical thinking is impossible, unless you're GW, or a tournament player (which btw anyone who entered a tournament at least once in their life qualifies as a "tournament player" ).

No, it's not hard to realize that giving a shooting army what amounts go essential a free round of movement AND shooting WILL shift the game in that direction.
[...]
But, again - it's impossible to evaluate a game, unless you're GW, or a tournament player. Speaking of Galas, what tournaments have you played in again, and what place did you come in? Per your own rules, are you allowed to have any input on the state of the game, and the effects of these changes, if the answer to those questions are - "I haven't played/placed in any tournaments."?

Nice strawman you have here. Thats exactly what I said, yeah. Nobody can analise the game unless they are GW or tournament players.

And no, I don't play in big tournaments, thats exactly the reason I avoid to make such statements as the one Fafnir did.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

You can tweak bikes to not be an auto-include but not bad if you aren't lazy. This is pure laziness.

You could've made them 4+ armor
You could've made the Scatterlaser 15 points
You could've tweaked with the minimum squad size being 4 or 5



You don't even always have to do points! You're defending laziness.

And maybe all of those together would have worked to make them something people don’t take. Any one still makes them an auto take in the old Eldar. Preventative measures aren’t inherently lazy. The game cannot really function well with what you call not lazy fixes. Because if they don’t work then spam still occurs. Or say those fixes work but the next thing down the efficiency line gets taken instead. What you view as lazy I view as more stable. You can much more easily back off in areas where needed, or tweak units in a limited environment.

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

You can tweak bikes to not be an auto-include but not bad if you aren't lazy. This is pure laziness.

You could've made them 4+ armor
You could've made the Scatterlaser 15 points
You could've tweaked with the minimum squad size being 4 or 5



You don't even always have to do points! You're defending laziness.

And maybe all of those together would have worked to make them something people don’t take. Any one still makes them an auto take in the old Eldar. Preventative measures aren’t inherently lazy. The game cannot really function well with what you call not lazy fixes. Because if they don’t work then spam still occurs. Or say those fixes work but the next thing down the efficiency line gets taken instead. What you view as lazy I view as more stable. You can much more easily back off in areas where needed, or tweak units in a limited environment.

You'd only have needed two of those for a unit that would be taken or not depending on what the player wanted.

That said they were in the TROOP slot! Look at that!

So let's assume they kept basically every goodie they got from 7th. They would have remained untouched as the king troop choice.

So either you actually fix the issues with the unit, or you can be lazy with a blanket limit. Blanket limits won't stop people from taking the minimum troop choices or make them suddenly use bad units for "variety".

 Galas wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

Army is significantly powerful.

Its checks and counters get significantly nerfed.

This isn't rocket science.

There are definitely a lot of times where issues are very complex and nuanced, and require a lot of time to consider. This is likely not going to be one of those (although based on GW's track record dealing with the obvious, it's not surprising either).

Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.

Breng77 wrote:
Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.

Your a smart man.

Eldar still have plenty of -1 to hit, Alpha Legion CSM has plenty of -1 to hit... theres a lot of -hit shenanigans in this game. It forces people to take more than one approach to the battle.

Yup, there is a bunch of -1 to hit (Eldar, Tau, Marines, Dark angels with dark shroud, Tau ghost keels, stealth suits, all flyers.). FNP mechanics also help especially on hordes. Turn 1 assaults also still exist (GSC, Kracken Nids, alpha legion berserkers, Ravenguard; White scars or raven wing bikers among others, Ork bikes, Celestine, Eldar shining spears ).

The thing that first turn deepstrike had that these don’t is little to no way to damage those units regardless of who goes first, which does have value, but I still feel it is generally better after the screen is dead.