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.

 Irbis wrote:

It's caused by side effects of rule of 3 (which is itself cried/bashed about despite not being any different than old HOC). GW decided (for whatever reason) that SM armored companies should still be a thing but russ spam is bad. Maybe because no one was taking predators but russes were all IG lists were taking for months. Yeah, it's inconsistent but it does make some sense, at least for GW writers.

Russ spam is bad? At the moment an AM player can field 9 russes + 3 HQ russes. Up to 12 models of the very same tank.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Is “Datasheets sux” the new go-to thread derail topic? Because sheesh, it crops up more than threads whining about the Hammerhead’s gun, of which there are plenty.

I’ll admit to it being one of my hot-button issues. Mostly due to how it follows on the heels of No Model, No Rules, which is my major gripe with GW these days.

For discussions on new models, it’s not completely off topic. “How will we get the rules for it” naturally follows.

 Nevelon wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Is “Datasheets sux” the new go-to thread derail topic? Because sheesh, it crops up more than threads whining about the Hammerhead’s gun, of which there are plenty.

I’ll admit to it being one of my hot-button issues. Mostly due to how it follows on the heels of No Model, No Rules, which is my major gripe with GW these days.

For discussions on new models, it’s not completely off topic. “How will we get the rules for it” naturally follows.

Thing is though they are separate issues.

You wouldn't get no "no model no rules" even if datasheets were removed because datasheet is not causing it nor forcing it. You can have "no model yes rules" with datasheets if you want. NOTHING in datasheets prevents it.

Datasheet is just new name for essentially same thing as we had before datasheets. There's nothing there that forces no model no rules. That principle didn't come out due to datasheets but entirely different reason(to reduce 3rd party bit sales)

Back in the day they were called "army list entries"

Importantly, though, the biggest difference is there was never a drive to have ALL THE EVERYTHING in the army list entry (because frankly that would be ridiculous).

GW said that new datasheets will include ALL THE EVERYTHING (even though they don't)