Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And more usefully? Don't tell us. Tell GW. Feed it back to them.
Because with genuine respect, I really don't care you've now got 6 Lictors you can't field in a tournament. That doesn't affect me at all, so I've no reason to give a fig.
GW though? All they'd need to do is Errata the Nid Codex to make them units of 1-3 again, yes?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 11:10:44
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
They are my favorite model in the game. Also I really liked the hit and run playstyle. I did it in WHFB with Wood Elves, I did it in 40k with Lictors. While it lasted, that is.
Also, I have been telling GW many things multiple times. for example the fact that Rubric marines currently have two different datasheets (with the same name but different rules), both of them 100% valid at the same time. And two FAQs later, this has not been addressed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 11:13:10
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
And 0-3 detachment is "suggestion" yet I have met more people who disallow pre-measuring than allow more than 3 detachments. And smite beta rules were also beta rules yet were applied on day 1 pretty much universal.
I wager more groups adopted FAQ than don't. As it is here it wasn't even discussed whether it's adopted or not. Everything went use right away.
Chikout wrote: Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?
No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I just like how the things that were somehow fine for vast majority of 40K history, like FOC having only 3 slots anyway, no charging from deep strike, or no first turn deep strikes, suddenly are colossal game ruining issues. Gee, deletion of half of enemy army from reserve strike with no interaction or possible counterplay from your opponent sure was fun and balanced, eh?
jhnbrg wrote: 3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.
It's not only flawed, it's utterly absurd. There isn't even a single game in the world with a tenth of amount of units available in 40K that is even remotely closed to being well balanced. Even if you somehow managed such a feat, and priced everything in the game to make it equally good without losing all flavour, which would require completely new far more granular points system anyway, there would be still an issue of all comers armies not being able to deal with skewed outliers. Say, all heavy tank army making most lighter enemy guns useless. Think army containing all rocks against army that has one third scissors. Or even something simpler, like slow melee army having problems catching quick motorized shooty one. Then, our local loud crew would still complaint game is garbage because their scissors can't beat rocks, something something, unbalanced gak, insert more hyperboles here. Funnily enough, GW made preemptive move to curb down all rocks armies with rules making spam slightly less common, and what they get in response? Of course, complains. GW can't win with some people, eh?
That is not to say I wouldn't like to see more balancing, but to do that, you first need solid base to do it on. You can't build balanced game on foundations including crutchy warptimed army deletions from deep strike coupled with chaff hordes and heavy gun spam being the king. You need to do away with systemic rot first, then, once you see how game plays now, comes time for fine tuned point balance. I wish I could live in fantasy world where point changes in crude, grainy points system precariously stacked like a mound of dominoes is all what we need, but alas, we do not.
Chikout wrote: Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?
No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I just like how the things that were somehow fine for vast majority of 40K history, like FOC having only 3 slots anyway, no charging from deep strike, or no first turn deep strikes, suddenly are colossal game ruining issues. Gee, deletion of half of enemy army from reserve strike with no interaction or possible counterplay from your opponent sure was fun and balanced, eh?
There's so much wrong in your post it's unreal.
And btw if you get half your army wiped out by turn 1 deep strike h2h you seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY, need to learn how to play. Even shooting deep strike is not going to wipe out stuff at will if you know how to use this concept called "screen". H2h? If opponent deep strike 1st turn assaults something worthwhile then it's because you played very badly. Seriously badly. Like somebody who hasn't even read rules before first game.
And max X limitations have been tried for TWENTY YEARS. They have failed to bring balance every single time. Actual practical empirical data has shown repeatedly that does NOT work. It's armchain experts who claim 0-3 limits bring balance. Real world examples have shown that to be false already.
Only thing that changed was that now the next rookie that brought the idea forward was Games Workshop. But same rule without changes does not make it better.
Meanwhile this now allows GW to conveniently forget to actually fix the problem. Did they fix units so they aren't broken when spammed? No? Then the problem still exists.
All GW did is limit scale and put head in sand. "naanaanaananaa. There's no problem. We don't have to fix issue".
If GW would do what they are supposed it wouldn't matter does opponent bring 7 hive tyrant or not(assuming points allow). They bring? Ok that army has it's weakness you can attack. They don't? Ok tyranids arent' screwed either.
It's not only flawed, it's utterly absurd. There isn't even a single game in the world with a tenth of amount of units available in 40K that is even remotely closed to being well balanced. Even if you somehow managed such a feat, and priced everything in the game to make it equally good without losing all flavour, which would require completely new far more granular points system anyway, there would be still an issue of all comers armies not being able to deal with skewed outliers. Say, all heavy tank army making most lighter enemy guns useless. Think army containing all rocks against army that has one third scissors. Or even something simpler, like slow melee army having problems catching quick motorized shooty one. Then, our local loud crew would still complaint game is garbage because their scissors can't beat rocks, something something, unbalanced gak, insert more hyperboles here. Funnily enough, GW made preemptive move to curb down all rocks armies with rules making spam slightly less common, and what they get in response? Of course, complains. GW can't win with some people, eh?
That is not to say I wouldn't like to see more balancing, but to do that, you first need solid base to do it on. You can't build balanced game on foundations including crutchy warptimed army deletions from deep strike coupled with chaff hordes and heavy gun spam being the king. You need to do away with systemic rot first, then, once you see how game plays now, comes time for fine tuned point balance. I wish I could live in fantasy world where point changes in crude, grainy points system precariously stacked like a mound of dominoes is all what we need, but alas, we do not.
Well gee nobody is expecting them to make it 100% perfect since it's impossible but GW isn't even trying(well no wonder seeing if they somehow would get it 100% their sales would drop).
What WOULD be nice they would at least aim to get as close as possible. Then they wouldn't even need 0-3 limitations which btw hurt weaker armies more than others while killing off entire fluffy armies. Good luck building deathwing army now.
And the limitation would be USELESS if GW did it's job. Only thing it actually archieved was give GW excuse for not fixing problem and increasing gap between powerful and weaker armies.
Question: Do you think IG is more powerful than Orks?
If you say IG why then IG benefitted from this FAQ while orks got hurt? 0-3 restriction also IG shrugs it off without sweat, orks meanwhile get hurt.
Eldar? Again while they lost power opponents lost more.
You are just theoretizing while ignoring real life experience. That or you somehow think that because it's GAMES WORKSHOP somehow that magically makes it better.
Every time you introduce blanket restriction that creates unbalance. Why? Because not all units are same. Rule that might work for unit X doesn't work for unit Y. Here's very simple kindergarden level example: Is 4 runtherds broken? Please try to show how 4 runtherds breaks the balance.
If you want to have balance you need to identify the PROBLEM units and fix THOSE rather than fire ICBM and hope it fixes issue. Collateral damage is too big. Which always results in poor armies suffering while powerful armies just shrugs it off. This is proven by actual attempts past 20 years. Blanket restrictions have been tried for 20 years and ALWAYS has resulted in worse balance than before. GW's attempt wasn't even particularly innovative. There's been much better attempts than this one and they failed too. Just like this one has failed in the past.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 11:56:34
MAX X limitations have been in different games for a long time and whilst I am not a fan of them, There is some sense in them. A single unit can be good, 3 might become straight up OP and 7 breaks the game.
I have a hearing-aid. Wich is a band aid for the actual problem I functionally can't hear through my right ear. Could they try and fix the core problem? Yes. This does not mean A) they will succeed after failing twice already and B) The improvemnt if they succeed in the operation might not be worth the discomfort and risk involved. Sometimes a band-aid is not a bad idea.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 11:57:37
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
I mean, if you don't wanna play with someone's houserules (as the rules packets and missions for tourneys usually are), you don't have to? That has literally no effect on whether or not you can play with all your toy soldiers, or only just some of them. In fact, why bother with point costs at all? Just field everything you want, like AOS on release! If it fits on the table, play it!
Earth127 wrote: IG didn't get buffed beyond not being nerfed.
MAX X limitations have been in different games for a long time and whilst I am not a fan of them, There is some sense in them.
A single unit can be good, 3 might become straight up OP and 7 breaks the game.
I have a hearing-aid. Wich is a band aid for the actual problem I functionally can't hear through my right ear. Could they try and fix the core problem? Yes. This does not mean A) they will succeed after failing twice already and B) The improvemnt if they succeed in the operation might not be worth the discomfort and risk involved.
Sometimes a band-aid is not a bad idea.
It is buff if others get hurt more.
If I lose 5% power but others lose 15% obviously my power level compared to others goes up.
Limitations have been tried and failed for 20 years. If GW had at least taken new approach for it it might have some merit but it's exact same that has been tried before(also by GW) and failed. Why anybody with half a sense would believe it would work magically NOW when it has failed before? When even GW's previous attempts has failed at it!
All it does is screw the external balance of armies more. Powerful armies get better, some armies goes to junk, weak armies go weaker. Just like before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quentra wrote: I mean, if you don't wanna play with someone's houserules (as the rules packets and missions for tourneys usually are), you don't have to? That has literally no effect on whether or not you can play with all your toy soldiers, or only just some of them. In fact, why bother with point costs at all? Just field everything you want, like AOS on release! If it fits on the table, play it!
Sure. I'm sure he enjoys having his models sit on shelf with nobody to play with.
Face it. When GW puts out matched play/tournament rules those become de facto standard and getting game without those is bloody hard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 12:20:35
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
And 0-3 detachment is "suggestion" yet I have met more people who disallow pre-measuring than allow more than 3 detachments. And smite beta rules were also beta rules yet were applied on day 1 pretty much universal.
I wager more groups adopted FAQ than don't. As it is here it wasn't even discussed whether it's adopted or not. Everything went use right away.
That's on the community though, not GW. They couldn't have been more clear that these are experimental rules that you can try if you want. If you think it's a horrible rule you're supposed to tell them so they can change it, and then stop using it. Since my community doesn't use these rules I couldn't tell you why those you have encountered do.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 13:39:26
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
You reaaaaally haven't been paying attention to the meta if you think people were rolling a 9 on 2d6 to charge from deep strike. Basically every army that was pulling that trick had some way to make the charge near-guaranteed, whether it be Descent of Angels, Warptime, or whatever the Khorne Daemons stratagem is called. I think the only army that was just relying on getting lucky was orks and even they have 'Ere We Go.
Except Grey Knights. We had a re-roll and that was it and that required our warlord trait, and chargers to be right next to our warlord.
There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty. - Lord Inquisitor Fyodor Karamazov
In an Imperium of a million worlds, what is the death of one world in the cause of purity?~Inquisition credo
He who allows the alien to live, shares its crime of existence. ~Inquisitor Apollyon
Irbis wrote: No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I'm bringing out this great article from Nick Nanavati (one of the absolute top 40k players in the US) so it doesn't get buried in the rest of your post. Great article with opinions from an actual top tournament player.
Nick Nanavati wrote: Due to the 0-3 limitations on “spammable” units like Flyrants, plagueburst crawlers, hammerheads etc… armies will naturally go extinct. With the removal of such extremes more balanced armies will be able to come back into the meta since they don’t have to worry about dealing with such harsh extremes on opposite ends of the meta spectrum. I mean, how could you expect a battle force, picturesque, Space Marine army to be taken seriously in a world of 7 flyrants on one hand and 300 pox walkers on the other? By design, the pseudo-force org that the Rule of Three creates will be really beneficial to the game.
I hadn't thought about it that way, but yes, not having to worry about extreme outlier spam armies will make TAC lists more viable in tournaments. Really looking forward to part 2 of this article tomorrow where he's going to adress the gunline problem now that turn 1 deepstrike melee is dead. It's something I think most of us are worried about and why so many people are critical of Tactical Reserves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 13:58:23
Earth127 wrote: IMAX X limitations have been in different games for a long time and whilst I am not a fan of them, There is some sense in them.
There is sense to a properly thought out system of restrictions, but I don't think 3 datasheets max is anywhere close to that.
As an example, if your Knight army doesn't live past turn 2 because your opponent brings ten Predator Annihilators, all a maximum of three of the same thing is going to do is that the Marine player is just going to get his lascannons elsewhere.
40k has too much variety inside some armies and, unfortunately, too much variance between armies to make a blanket rule like that effective. Mostly because it's the only restriction of its kind. Detachments are about as open as you can get without just picking units without any underlying, ordering system.
This (beta) change is a patch that doesn't address the fundamental flaws of 8th ed. But hey, at least our crumbling, rusty foundation now has a fashionable smiley sticker on it.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
.
you can still have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld etc. They just have to be from the same faction (in this case, Adeptus Astartes/Craftworld Eldar).
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
Yeah but they would lose their "chapter tactic". All marines in a detachment have to be the same CHAPTER to get the tactic.
You can mix and match but you get no bonuses.
Assume its the same with Aeldari, although I don't have the book.
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
Spending money on models only gets you the model, not some unspoken right to be able to use it wherever whenever and however you want. I could go buy a tank tomorow, but I'd in no way be alowed to crush traffic on the highway or fire shells at abandoned buildings because 'you sold it to me!"
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
This just sums up perfectly the amount of hyperbolic salt the thread is stuffed with.
I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
Can I get a source on that?
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
Can I get a source on that?
Read the FAQs. There lieth the source.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
This just sums up perfectly the amount of hyperbolic salt the thread is stuffed with.
Hypersalting!
Actually he put it mildly. GW just made sure that plenty of people are sitting on models they can\t anymore use since GW prevents from fielding more than 3.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
This just sums up perfectly the amount of hyperbolic salt the thread is stuffed with.
Hypersalting!
Actually he put it mildly. GW just made sure that plenty of people are sitting on models they can\t anymore use since GW prevents from fielding more than 3.
That isn't true, so I stand by what I said.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 19:31:37
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
Can I get a source on that?
Rulebook FAQ, page 5;
Spoiler:
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit make a charge move? Can it pile in
and consolidate?
A: Yes to both questions – the unit can declare a charge
and make a charge move, and if it is chosen to fight, it
can pile in and consolidate.
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 19:16:09
Jeeze...I've played a lot of table top games and each and every one of them gets the same "Sky is falling" players as soon as they release modified/new rules.
So if you're ingnorant enough to think GW is the only company to work this way.......Hahahahhaaa!
This is nothing new.....adapt and move on like you're going to anyway or quit and play a game that makes you happy....until of course they change something and you explode again.
70% of all statistics are made up on the spot by 64% of the people that produce false statistics 54% of the time that they produce them.
If your favorite model is a Lictor, and you have 9? That's awesome, but not a reason to deform the game.
Says the guy who also has 9 Lictors. And several Tyranid armed with weapons that don't exist anymore. And some Zoats who haven't been around for nearly two decades.
Models phasing out now and then? It happens. Enjoy the coolness that you created, enjoy playing with what you can, don't sweat the things that you can't anymore. From my Imperial Guard landspeeders to my Marines on Jetbikes to my two Power Fist Marine Dread with a jump pack to many, many, MANY other rmodels: It happens. Be upset for a bit, but in time, you gotta let it go and move on.
Wakshaani wrote: If your favorite model is a Lictor, and you have 9? That's awesome, but not a reason to deform the game.
Says the guy who also has 9 Lictors. And several Tyranid armed with weapons that don't exist anymore. And some Zoats who haven't been around for nearly two decades.
Models phasing out now and then? It happens. Enjoy the coolness that you created, enjoy playing with what you can, don't sweat the things that you can't anymore. From my Imperial Guard landspeeders to my Marines on Jetbikes to my two Power Fist Marine Dread with a jump pack to many, many, MANY other rmodels: It happens. Be upset for a bit, but in time, you gotta let it go and move on.
(Seriously, my garage is a morgue at this point.)
Hey friend.
I've got some great news for you!
INTRODUCING NARRATIVE PLAY.
Recently I've had this great idea whereby Games Workshop games could be played in other ways than using the offical, experimental, and tournament matched play suggestions. We could have other game types, lets say, Narrative and Open, which didn't include these restrictions. Heck, we could introduce whole other rules for them as well. You can pratically play whatever you like!
I've secretly included these rules, without gamesworkshops or DakkaDakka's knowledge, into every offical copy of the Games Workshop Rulebook. Quick go get a copy before everyone else notices!
Wakshaani wrote: If your favorite model is a Lictor, and you have 9? That's awesome, but not a reason to deform the game.
Says the guy who also has 9 Lictors. And several Tyranid armed with weapons that don't exist anymore. And some Zoats who haven't been around for nearly two decades.
Models phasing out now and then? It happens. Enjoy the coolness that you created, enjoy playing with what you can, don't sweat the things that you can't anymore. From my Imperial Guard landspeeders to my Marines on Jetbikes to my two Power Fist Marine Dread with a jump pack to many, many, MANY other rmodels: It happens. Be upset for a bit, but in time, you gotta let it go and move on.
(Seriously, my garage is a morgue at this point.)
Hey friend.
I've got some great news for you!
INTRODUCING NARRATIVE PLAY.
Recently I've had this great idea whereby Games Workshop games could be played in other ways than using the offical, experimental, and tournament matched play suggestions. We could have other game types, lets say, Narrative and Open, which didn't include these restrictions. Heck, we could introduce whole other rules for them as well. You can pratically play whatever you like!
I've secretly included these rules, without gamesworkshops or DakkaDakka's knowledge, into every offical copy of the Games Workshop Rulebook. Quick go get a copy before everyone else notices!
14000
15000
4000 
from what I saw.
70% of all statistics are made up on the spot by 64% of the people that produce false statistics 54% of the time that they produce them. 
