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.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
That's the thing, there's a big difference between hording it up because boyz are great and hording it up because boyz are the only thing in your codex that's any good.

Yes, there is. I suspect the other stuff will improve when the codex drops, though I still wouldn't ask for Orks not to be a horde army that takes 180 boys.

Totally but you should be able to take a list that isn't boy centric without it automatically being terrible. Same way that you can take a guard list that has no russes or artillery and only minimal guardsmen (because you need screens of some sort in this edition) and it can still be good.

Hopefully GW will pull out a decent codex for Orks. (and a really good buggy model!!!)

I dunno that guy running pretty much nothing but mek gunz and big gunz seemed like he did rather well at the London GT, finished in the top 10% iirc

Gunz are basically the only other competitive unit in the codex.

jcd386 wrote:


Is there an example of an army that used to take it's only good unit 6 times and was considered good, but now it's considered bad because it can't? I've heard this argument tossed around but can't think of any actual case where the rule of three tipped an army over into garbage teir.

The deepstrike changes definitely hurt grey knights quite a bit, but that was less because they were actually good than it was the overwhelming power of first turn deepstrike propping up their garbage codex. Same goes for Kommando orks and whatever other first turn nonsense people were playing.

Removing broken elements of the game is likely to hurt certain armies is the short term, but is also slowing moving everyone towards a better gaming experience as long as GW is committed to fixing things in CA and FAQs.

I do think this CA is going to be the important one. If they don't do something to buff the Marines a lot of people are going to lose faith I think.

The FAQ killed my army. I was running 4 squads of 3 paladins, 3 apothecaries and draigo. If I drop the number of paladin units to 3x4 man they get shot much faster. At the same time the eldar players around here were already not running 6 units of reapers, but more of the jetbike dudes. So when the FAQ came they didn't even have to change a thing in their lists. Two of the local tyranid players suddenly have 1200pts army, and 3-4 models each that they can no longer use. I would say an illegal list is lower tier garbage. And from what I have been told, as I never played against tyranids, their lists were doing ok.

As the overwhelming power of deep strike goes, maybe it worked for other armies, but even when I played a few games without the FAQ GK deep strike was not overwhelming anything. Melee required above avarge rolls, and stormbolters aren't that good.

Just because GK as a whole are not too hot means not other armies can't pull off outright bs with T1 deepstrikes.

Karol wrote:

jcd386 wrote:


Is there an example of an army that used to take it's only good unit 6 times and was considered good, but now it's considered bad because it can't? I've heard this argument tossed around but can't think of any actual case where the rule of three tipped an army over into garbage teir.

The deepstrike changes definitely hurt grey knights quite a bit, but that was less because they were actually good than it was the overwhelming power of first turn deepstrike propping up their garbage codex. Same goes for Kommando orks and whatever other first turn nonsense people were playing.

Removing broken elements of the game is likely to hurt certain armies is the short term, but is also slowing moving everyone towards a better gaming experience as long as GW is committed to fixing things in CA and FAQs.

I do think this CA is going to be the important one. If they don't do something to buff the Marines a lot of people are going to lose faith I think.

The FAQ killed my army. I was running 4 squads of 3 paladins, 3 apothecaries and draigo. If I drop the number of paladin units to 3x4 man they get shot much faster. At the same time the eldar players around here were already not running 6 units of reapers, but more of the jetbike dudes. So when the FAQ came they didn't even have to change a thing in their lists. Two of the local tyranid players suddenly have 1200pts army, and 3-4 models each that they can no longer use. I would say an illegal list is lower tier garbage. And from what I have been told, as I never played against tyranids, their lists were doing ok.

As the overwhelming power of deep strike goes, maybe it worked for other armies, but even when I played a few games without the FAQ GK deep strike was not overwhelming anything. Melee required above avarge rolls, and stormbolters aren't that good.

The difference between 4x3 and 3x4 paladins is so insignificant that it may as well not exist. Paladins also were and are terrible anyway, and you shouldn't have been taking that many anyway. So they went from bad to still bad.

The deepstrike changes certainly removed what little ability GK had to be good. With the reroll charge WL trait, they got into combat pretty well. But it's less about how good that was, and more about that general strategy not being any fun to play with or against.

You are a new player and never had a full GK army (I've read many of your posts, you have like 10 Terminators and 2 rhinos and a few other things) in the first place, so it isn't like the FAQ effected you much. I get is frustrating to have a bad army, but the problems with the GK book have nothing to do with the rule of three or the deepstrike changes and everything to do with Marines being fundamentally flawed, and GW needs to fix that. Until that is fixed, GK will be terrible, but the solution is not to let them drop in your face with no counterplay involved.

The other armies you mentioned were bad for the game and needed a nerf, but the overall factions are still quite viable. If the only nids someone owned were 7 Hive Tyrants, then they should probably have diversified.

Also the eldar players did have to change things, since they had a number of points increases and rules interaction nerfs.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

Under old system, every vehicle had the same damage chart which was only modified by vehicle being Open-Topped, and possibly some individual unit rules (but those were very rare). Also, most vehicles were immune to all Small arms fire so most of the time those weapons were not even shot at the vehicles. Under 6th/7th edition rules, there was very limited number of Hull Points which were easy to memorize (small vehicles had 2, most had 3, big ones had 4).

In 8th edition, EVERY vehicle has its own damage table which you have to check every time a vehicle takes a wound, unless it's so small in which case it has no damage table at all. Also vehicles have varied and generally not very logical number of Wounds and Armour Saves.

Backfire wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

Under old system, every vehicle had the same damage chart which was only modified by vehicle being Open-Topped, and possibly some individual unit rules (but those were very rare). Also, most vehicles were immune to all Small arms fire so most of the time those weapons were not even shot at the vehicles. Under 6th/7th edition rules, there was very limited number of Hull Points which were easy to memorize (small vehicles had 2, most had 3, big ones had 4).

In 8th edition, EVERY vehicle has its own damage table which you have to check every time a vehicle takes a wound, unless it's so small in which case it has no damage table at all. Also vehicles have varied and generally not very logical number of Wounds and Armour Saves.

Pish posh.

Pretty much every vehicle follows the same formula of getting bracketed at about half the wounds and at about a quarter of wounds, which you really don't have to look at at all when you're taking wounds, just check your status when it's your turn to actually do something with the vehicles (or check the bracket limit to help your opponent make decisions etc. normal communication). Compared to previous editions, where you actually had to look at your armour values every time you got shot. Yes, these values were easy to memorize but the same argument goes word for word for memorizing your bracket limits, except it's easier and doesn't require any arguments about facings when your fancy alien tank looks more like a shoe than a box.

And how are the numbers generally not logical? Rhino chassis vehicles are 10-11, Russes a bit more, Land Raiders again a bit more, Knights a bit more, Titans a bit more and so forth, with almost everything getting 4+ saves for light vehicles, 3+ for tanks and 2+ for Land Raider caliber coconuts.

This system is objectively simpler, it just isn't engrained to peoples brains yet like the one we've used for decades is.

 SHUPPET wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

What your army was, was terrible game design. After it went, you are asking for a bunch of fairly designed armies to be destroyed for no other reason than "they deserve to feel this too". Assault is fine. Orks are getting a codex in due time.

And as I feel I have been following rule #1, the content of my posts will not be changing. It's not a "waaa I don't like when people disagree with me" button, I think you are whining because your spam army is no longer playable as opposed to actually trying to improve balance, so I'm going to call it.how I see it.

My army was a terrible game design because it was fluffy?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Huh? Who even implied that? Fluffy armies are fine. Hell most armies are. There wouldn't be a game if we removed every fluffy army from the game, how does this even make sense? Gameplay design wise, your army was garbage. That's not how a match of 40k should play out. An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

Let me refresh your memory, even though you yourself reposted the original comment.

"What your army was, was terrible game design"

So who implied my army was terrible, hell who said verbatim it was terrible game design? that was you. As for

An entire field of almost one unit

6 units of Kommandos = 810pts, or another way to put that is slightly more then 2/5ths of my 2,000pt army was Kommandos, for a Blood Axe themed Army that is about right. As for "Zero Tactics" yes because standing still and picking a target involves so much more tactics

SemperMortis wrote:
So every army prior to right now that took more then 3 of the same option was a terrible game design?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Did I say that.... hmmm you'll have to show me where I said that. My own army takes more than 3 of the same option, right now.
You've just gone off on a tangent with a complete strawman, arguing something we both know I didn't said. Come back and try again I guess.

Literally one paragraph up you talk about how taking a lot of 1 type of unit was bad and congratulated GW on removing that from the LMAO!

 Jidmah wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Yeah, you totally played that list because of the awesome fluff behind it

I have 3 passions with Orkz, Kult of Speed, Walker Lists and Kommandos. I dislike green tide, in fact I would go as far as to say I HATE green tide. Honestly, at this point, so long as GW gives us other options besides green tide to play in a competitive game I don't care.

That's kind of my point. You didn't play all those kommadoz because of their fluff, but because they were a good unit. You probably wouldn't have touched them with a pole in previous editions.

Jidmah, I play Kommandos because I like the idea behind kommandos, Ive been kitting ork boyz as kommandos for a long time, which is why I had about 30-40 when 8th dropped. I still refuse to buy them from GW because $45 for 5 models is just stupid, especially since they are just boyz with some extra guns/knives and a few wonky bitz. I said I hate green tide because I HATE having to field 180+ Boyz to be competitive. Kommandos at least gave me the opportunity to not have to field that many boyz plus stormboyz to even attempt to win a game. As for not touching them with a pole prior to 8th? only in friendly games, otherwise they were crap, just like my Kanz, Dreadz and my Morkanaut. Hell my Warbikers are utter crap right now and I still use them for fun games, just never in a tournament.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah I feel like that's exactly what you were implying.
In one breath he's acting like I'm trying to say the list is bad because "its fluffy and we hate fluffy lists, stop restricting our fluff", in the next breath he's saying "yeah I only took it because its the strongest possible army I can make for Orks".
It's the most selfcontradictory nonsense I've seen on here in a while and that's quite a feat.

.....not even slightly, but way to invent arguments and put words in my mouth you literally have done nothing but invent claims against me and attack me in this thread. Enjoy arguing against this imaginary villain you seem to have a grudge against.

Nice, you completely ruined your quote. Forum'ing is hard. Let's try to work out what you're saying here.Why did you cut out the second half of that sentence?

 SHUPPET wrote:
An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

You couldn't have missed it, it wasn't too long to quote, literally the only reason to do so is because what I actually said with context is something entirely different. Even YOU know you are wrong here, just like everyone else does. Just stop.For starters, that's not what I said, and secondly, taking an entire army of one unit, is not the same as taking 4 of one unit. You've somehow turned me saying "an entire army built around the same unit designed to lock you in combat from turn 1 onwards" is the same as "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR". I don't care what your specific conveniently-changes-to-suit-the-argument build was. It's poor game design that had to go. This is a strategy game. I want to see strategy in list design and gameplay. Sorry your army doesn't work anymore... but you probably shoulda seen it coming like everyone else did. So hold that gak lol cause it ain't changing, and we both know it. Let's see if we can let it die without you losing all dignity here.

Playing an army with 800 points of kommandos is terrible design not because of the fluff, but because of how it currently works (or did pre nerfs) on the table.

The fluff is largely irrelevant, as the game is really just a loose reflection of it. You can still play three max units of kommandos now if the fluff is that important to you, and even more in not matched play.

The thing to keep in mind in that matched play rules are intended for tournements and anywhere else a firm ruleset is needed to allow strangers to play enjoyable games with one another without having to spend hours deciding what sort of rules to play with.

If you want to play a fluffy game with someone and bring 2000 points entirely of kommandos, house rule it so they get to show up 2" away, and let them reroll charges, and fight three times in the fight phase, that's fine if your opponent agrees to it. No one is saying you can't.

But in an organized setting where you are playing strangers with the intent on having a tactical, balanced, and competitive game enjoyable for both players, some restrictions are needed.

What's needed for pugs is balanced army rules, and clear, well written overall rules. I'm waiting till 9th to see if gw is really serious about trying to implement this this time.

 SHUPPET wrote:

You couldn't have missed it, it wasn't too long to quote, literally the only reason to do so is because what I actually said with context is something entirely different. Even YOU know you are wrong here, just like everyone else does. Just stop.

Ahh, so its terrible because it allowed noncompetitive units and armies to be competitive. Got it, it boils down to them being able to get into close combat without being shot off the table by your opponents using that amazingly hard tactic to master....Shooting things.

 SHUPPET wrote:
For starters, that's not what I said, and secondly, taking an entire army of one unit, is not the same as taking 4 of one unit. You've somehow turned me saying "an entire army built around the same unit designed to lock you in combat from turn 1 onwards" is the same as "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR". I don't care what your specific conveniently-changes-to-suit-the-argument build was. It's poor game design that had to go. This is a strategy game. I want to see strategy in list design and gameplay. Sorry your army doesn't work anymore... but you probably shoulda seen it coming like everyone else did. So hold that gak lol cause it ain't changing, and we both know it. Let's see if we can let it die without you losing all dignity here.

Again you don't understand the term "entire army" an entire army isn't 2/5ths of a model that is a crappier version of a boy but can basically deepstrike. And as for the "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR" No, I would never say that. Mr. Spamming a unit is bad for Kommandos but good for any other unit that doesn't get to charge turn 1. From what little I have gathered about your personality from this thread I would assume you were one of those guys in 7th playing a broken spam list, taking 1 unit from your army that was horribly OP and taking as many copies of it as you could. Most likely a ranged army as well since you seem to hate the idea of a bottom tier army being able to pin you down for several turns in close combat.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
Playing an army with 800 points of kommandos is terrible design not because of the fluff, but because of how it currently works (or did pre nerfs) on the table.

The fluff is largely irrelevant, as the game is really just a loose reflection of it. You can still play three max units of kommandos now if the fluff is that important to you, and even more in not matched play.

The thing to keep in mind in that matched play rules are intended for tournements and anywhere else a firm ruleset is needed to allow strangers to play enjoyable games with one another without having to spend hours deciding what sort of rules to play with.

If you want to play a fluffy game with someone and bring 2000 points entirely of kommandos, house rule it so they get to show up 2" away, and let them reroll charges, and fight three times in the fight phase, that's fine if your opponent agrees to it. No one is saying you can't.

But in an organized setting where you are playing strangers with the intent on having a tactical, balanced, and competitive game enjoyable for both players, some restrictions are needed.

Well I already do that with my Speed Freakz list of warbikers, Deff Koptas and Trukkz. I also do that fluffy game with my 12 Kanz, 3 Dreadz and Morkanaut, I just didn't want to have to do it with my Kommandos as well. Yup, nothing like list diversity in a competitive environment. Take nothing but boyz and Mek Gunz or lose.

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

You couldn't have missed it, it wasn't too long to quote, literally the only reason to do so is because what I actually said with context is something entirely different. Even YOU know you are wrong here, just like everyone else does. Just stop.

Ahh, so its terrible because it allowed noncompetitive units and armies to be competitive.

"what you actually said doesn't work for me, so I'm just going to rewrite it for the second time"

SemperMortis wrote:
Got it, it boils down to them being able to get into close combat without being shot off the table by your opponents using that amazingly hard tactic to master....Shooting things.

You genuinely think close combat should function in a way that completely stops a shooting army from being able to play the game LOL. If you had any understanding of how a CC army should play, it's not meant to literally match the range of a gunline in assault threat range. This is just an absurdly bad understanding of what good game design is. I don't even know where to begin an explanation of this, and I think someone who has convinced themselves of this might be beyond understanding of it.

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
For starters, that's not what I said, and secondly, taking an entire army of one unit, is not the same as taking 4 of one unit. You've somehow turned me saying "an entire army built around the same unit designed to lock you in combat from turn 1 onwards" is the same as "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR". I don't care what your specific conveniently-changes-to-suit-the-argument build was. It's poor game design that had to go. This is a strategy game. I want to see strategy in list design and gameplay. Sorry your army doesn't work anymore... but you probably shoulda seen it coming like everyone else did. So hold that gak lol cause it ain't changing, and we both know it. Let's see if we can let it die without you losing all dignity here.

Again you don't understand the term "entire army" an entire army isn't 2/5ths of a model that is a crappier version of a boy but can basically deepstrike. And as for the "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR" No, I would never say that. Mr. Spamming a unit is bad for Kommandos but good for any other unit that doesn't get to charge turn 1. From what little I have gathered about your personality from this thread I would assume you were one of those guys in 7th playing a broken spam list, taking 1 unit from your army that was horribly OP and taking as many copies of it as you could. Most likely a ranged army as well since you seem to hate the idea of a bottom tier army being able to pin you down for several turns in close combat.

What an incredible thing to say to someone who has picked up the game with Blood Angels and transitioned into Tyranids both of which have been bottom tier assault armies until recently lol.

You need a reality check mate. If you have to rewrite someones words just to convince yourself of your validation here, it's time to forget your pride for just 5 minutes, sit down, and have a long hard think about why you are doing what you are doing.

Slightly off-topic, but could GK be fixed by just not having to apply the FAQ? ie able to turn1 DS, no unit cap? plus some points drops?

Or does that just mean we get armies of all GMDK? :/

zerosignal wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but could GK be fixed by just not having to apply the FAQ? ie able to turn1 DS, no unit cap? plus some points drops?

Or does that just mean we get armies of all GMDK? :/

It doesn't fix them, no. It just gives them one build that doesn't auto loose because of the blatant overpoweredness of being able to first turn deepstrike half their army, shoot, and charge with re-rolls. If any other army had that, it would be obviously overpowered. For GK it still isn't fun to play against because it is such a shallow strategy, and wasn't getting to the top tables because after your initial deepstrike your still stuck using GK units and they cost too much.

GK need to be fixed by lowering points and changing some special rules to match the way the edition works and play like a real army, not be allowed to exploit deepstrike and create bad games for people. It's really unfortunate that there is such a lag time between the FAQ and whatever buffs they will be eventually getting, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

You couldn't have missed it, it wasn't too long to quote, literally the only reason to do so is because what I actually said with context is something entirely different. Even YOU know you are wrong here, just like everyone else does. Just stop.

Ahh, so its terrible because it allowed noncompetitive units and armies to be competitive. Got it, it boils down to them being able to get into close combat without being shot off the table by your opponents using that amazingly hard tactic to master....Shooting things.

 SHUPPET wrote:
For starters, that's not what I said, and secondly, taking an entire army of one unit, is not the same as taking 4 of one unit. You've somehow turned me saying "an entire army built around the same unit designed to lock you in combat from turn 1 onwards" is the same as "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR". I don't care what your specific conveniently-changes-to-suit-the-argument build was. It's poor game design that had to go. This is a strategy game. I want to see strategy in list design and gameplay. Sorry your army doesn't work anymore... but you probably shoulda seen it coming like everyone else did. So hold that gak lol cause it ain't changing, and we both know it. Let's see if we can let it die without you losing all dignity here.

Again you don't understand the term "entire army" an entire army isn't 2/5ths of a model that is a crappier version of a boy but can basically deepstrike. And as for the "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR" No, I would never say that. Mr. Spamming a unit is bad for Kommandos but good for any other unit that doesn't get to charge turn 1. From what little I have gathered about your personality from this thread I would assume you were one of those guys in 7th playing a broken spam list, taking 1 unit from your army that was horribly OP and taking as many copies of it as you could. Most likely a ranged army as well since you seem to hate the idea of a bottom tier army being able to pin you down for several turns in close combat.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
Playing an army with 800 points of kommandos is terrible design not because of the fluff, but because of how it currently works (or did pre nerfs) on the table.

The fluff is largely irrelevant, as the game is really just a loose reflection of it. You can still play three max units of kommandos now if the fluff is that important to you, and even more in not matched play.

The thing to keep in mind in that matched play rules are intended for tournements and anywhere else a firm ruleset is needed to allow strangers to play enjoyable games with one another without having to spend hours deciding what sort of rules to play with.

If you want to play a fluffy game with someone and bring 2000 points entirely of kommandos, house rule it so they get to show up 2" away, and let them reroll charges, and fight three times in the fight phase, that's fine if your opponent agrees to it. No one is saying you can't.

But in an organized setting where you are playing strangers with the intent on having a tactical, balanced, and competitive game enjoyable for both players, some restrictions are needed.

Well I already do that with my Speed Freakz list of warbikers, Deff Koptas and Trukkz. I also do that fluffy game with my 12 Kanz, 3 Dreadz and Morkanaut, I just didn't want to have to do it with my Kommandos as well. Yup, nothing like list diversity in a competitive environment. Take nothing but boyz and Mek Gunz or lose.

I think the disconnect here is that I see both spammy coin flip armies and specific codexes not having a lot of options as two different but equally important problems and try to keep the state of the game as a whole in mind, while you seem to only be concerned with the way your army plays right now at this moment.

Ideally in my mind, GW removes toxic elements from the game AND makes it so when the ork codex comes out it has 3+ viable builds, all of which are fun to play against, meaning they allow for some counter play while also being mean as hell.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Just because GK as a whole are not too hot means not other armies can't pull off outright bs with T1 deepstrikes.

Well then why instead of nerfing the hive tyrants GW seemed to have a problem with, did they make a blanket rule that removed the last semi viable thing from my army. That is like carpet bombing a whole town to kill a single criminal, and considering there is no "the end is near" coming from IG or eldar players it seems like the nerfs didn't really hit the top armies. It looks to me, I maybe wrong here, that the good lists stomached the changes easily, the mid tier lists like BAs or tyranids had some builds die. And the bad armies got worse. Am not saying that losing half the tyrants isn't a big hit to a tyranid player that bought 6 of them. It is, but am sure tyranids can make a mid tier ground list with 3 tyrants, a non deep striking GK army is like footsloggint primaris without hellblasters, chapter tactics or cheap scouts for chaff.

- edited -


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nice, you completely ruined your quote. Forum'ing is hard. Let's try to work out what you're saying here.




Why did you cut out the second half of that sentence?

 SHUPPET wrote:
An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

You couldn't have missed it, it wasn't too long to quote, literally the only reason to do so is because what I actually said with context is something entirely different. Even YOU know you are wrong here, just like everyone else does. Just stop.




For starters, that's not what I said, and secondly, taking an entire army of one unit, is not the same as taking 4 of one unit. You've somehow turned me saying "an entire army built around the same unit designed to lock you in combat from turn 1 onwards" is the same as "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR". I don't care what your specific conveniently-changes-to-suit-the-argument build was. It's poor game design that had to go. This is a strategy game. I want to see strategy in list design and gameplay. Sorry your army doesn't work anymore... but you probably shoulda seen it coming like everyone else did. So hold that gak lol cause it ain't changing, and we both know it. Let's see if we can let it die without you losing all dignity here.

You really need to crop images you post here.

Karol wrote:

Well then why instead of nerfing the hive tyrants GW seemed to have a problem with, did they make a blanket rule that removed the last semi viable thing from my army. That is like carpet bombing a whole town to kill a single criminal,

I see your point but is more complicated than that.
Nerfing the tyrant could result in the number of viable tyrants being zero.
When people say "increase the points" I laugh because it defeats the purpose of the point system if one model is balanced and it's the spam the issue. You end up, like we often did, with non-comparable armies that use only apparently the same quantification system.
GW opened a can of worms with the formations and superheavies in 6th-7th *th made some step back but is not enough.
Back in my day (*coughs*, *limps*) there were units that were 0-1 for a reason. But that does not sell models.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Karol wrote:

Well then why instead of nerfing the hive tyrants GW seemed to have a problem with, did they make a blanket rule that removed the last semi viable thing from my army. That is like carpet bombing a whole town to kill a single criminal,

I see your point but is more complicated than that.
Nerfing the tyrant could result in the number of viable tyrants being zero.
When people say "increase the points" I laugh because it defeats the purpose of the point system if one model is balanced and it's the spam the issue. You end up, like we often did, with non-comparable armies that use only apparently the same quantification system.
GW opened a can of worms with the formations and superheavies in 6th-7th *th made some step back but is not enough.
Back in my day (*coughs*, *limps*) there were units that were 0-1 for a reason. But that does not sell models.

Yeah because Pariahs were so broken they needed to be 0-1, lest they be spammed!

Please dont kid yourself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Karol wrote:

Well then why instead of nerfing the hive tyrants GW seemed to have a problem with, did they make a blanket rule that removed the last semi viable thing from my army. That is like carpet bombing a whole town to kill a single criminal,

I see your point but is more complicated than that.
Nerfing the tyrant could result in the number of viable tyrants being zero.
When people say "increase the points" I laugh because it defeats the purpose of the point system if one model is balanced and it's the spam the issue. You end up, like we often did, with non-comparable armies that use only apparently the same quantification system.
GW opened a can of worms with the formations and superheavies in 6th-7th *th made some step back but is not enough.
Back in my day (*coughs*, *limps*) there were units that were 0-1 for a reason. But that does not sell models.

Yeah because Pariahs were so broken they needed to be 0-1, lest they be spammed!

Please dont kid yourself.

There were fluff choices and that is nothing wrong either. GW did the most horrible of things giving us what we asked for.

 Torga_DW wrote:
What's needed for pugs is balanced army rules, and clear, well written overall rules. I'm waiting till 9th to see if gw is really serious about trying to implement this this time.

I have waited for that since 3rd and I don't expect I'll see it within the next 20 editions, don't get your hopes up.

Also there are still plenty of 0-1 units aka named characters.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with having limitations like that, and its perfectly possible to balance a unit with quantity limitations in addition to points costs.

 Primark G wrote:
- edited -


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nice, you completely ruined your quote. Forum'ing is hard. Let's try to work out what you're saying here.




Why did you cut out the second half of that sentence?

 SHUPPET wrote:
An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

You couldn't have missed it, it wasn't too long to quote, literally the only reason to do so is because what I actually said with context is something entirely different. Even YOU know you are wrong here, just like everyone else does. Just stop.




For starters, that's not what I said, and secondly, taking an entire army of one unit, is not the same as taking 4 of one unit. You've somehow turned me saying "an entire army built around the same unit designed to lock you in combat from turn 1 onwards" is the same as "4 or more of ANY possible unit is UNFAIR". I don't care what your specific conveniently-changes-to-suit-the-argument build was. It's poor game design that had to go. This is a strategy game. I want to see strategy in list design and gameplay. Sorry your army doesn't work anymore... but you probably shoulda seen it coming like everyone else did. So hold that gak lol cause it ain't changing, and we both know it. Let's see if we can let it die without you losing all dignity here.

You really need to crop images you post here.

One screenshot had slightly too much length on one side near the border. Sue me, the guy completely obliterated the quote chain, so I quickly used Gyazo to continue.

I used to think you are a cool person - oh well.

 Primark G wrote:
I used to think you are a cool person - oh well.

Me? Ah I'm sorry. I will crop better in future :(

Hey,

I really like the idea of adjusting points, but wholesale changes to the rules before a lot of us had had the chance to paint our armies was just insulting.

The old deep strike rules were for better or for worse the ones I expected to encounter with my list building for at least another couple years. If you were shooting army you had to invest in some screening, if you're a deep striking army then close combat could be competitive and you could mess up some gun lines. And the game didn't seem especially broken in regards to deep striking, shooting armies always still seemed the more competitive option. There was the issue of having a large chunk of your army Alpha struck, but you could totally negate this with enough terrain and intelligent positioning before the game started.

Changing it up after only eight months really annoyed me. I'd fallen back in love with 40k in a big way. I feel any rule change can have passionate advocates for or against, but they should have worked this out from the start and stuck to the rules they sold us for very large amounts of money.

And don't even get me started on the rule of three!

Especially as a new player I think it's ridiculous all the sneering in forums from players who didn't get ripped off by buying more than three of their favourite unit which was at the time entirely legal. That's the point. And trying to pretend it's just a tournament's suggestion. Please... Everyone wants to play the same version of 40K. I really hope it's a stopgap before they find a more elegant solution to the more ridiculous spam armies.

Because even if you're all for the rule of three (which I understand), you can't say an army that comprises of nothing but plague burst crawlers or Flyrants is the same as an Ork player who likes the freedom to run multiple small units of storm boyz or a Necron player who wants to run 4 annihilation barges for some mediocre ranged AT. For the weaker armies there was almost an art in finding the right underused and underappreciated unit to spam just to be mildly competitive. I really miss that.

Dannohawk wrote:
Hey,

I really like the idea of adjusting points, but wholesale changes to the rules before a lot of us had had the chance to paint our armies was just insulting.

Ummm... isn't that ideal? lol

Dannohawk wrote:
Especially as a new player I think it's ridiculous all the sneering in forums from players who didn't get ripped off by buying more than three of their favourite unit which was at the time entirely legal. That's the point. And trying to pretend it's just a tournament's suggestion. Please... Everyone wants to play the same version of 40K. I really hope it's a stopgap before they find a more elegant solution to the more ridiculous spam armies.

Because even if you're all for the rule of three (which I understand), you can't say an army that comprises of nothing but plague burst crawlers or Flyrants is the same as an Ork player who likes the freedom to run multiple small units of storm boyz or a Necron player who wants to run 4 annihilation barges for some mediocre ranged AT. For the weaker armies there was almost an art in finding the right underused and underappreciated unit to spam just to be mildly competitive. I really miss that.

4 Annihilation Barges may not be an issue, an army of 4 Tesseract Vaults however, is exactly the problem.

The rule of 3 is good for the game. You shouldn't need to go crazy with 1 unit - it's - if you do, thats a problem if the dex. Having restrictions on how many you can take of a unit has been a staple of 40k for decades. It's what the strategy of both playing AND list building is designed around. Asking for it removed because you bought too many of the one model, is not whats objectively best for the game, its you not wanting your collection invalidated.

Play larger scale games or non-matched play if you want to go back to using your spam of miniatures. Nobody's sneering at you, nobody's happy you wasted money, but plenty of people did warn that this would probably happen, so it's hard to argue that the quality of the game should have to suffer because you chose to. At this point it's about what's better for the rules of the game, and Rule of 3 is one of the best steps forward in a long time.

Wow. That's really unpleasant trolling, but funny too, you must be great at parties.. lol.

Ummmm... Was the idea to sell new consumers an expensive rulebook, index, miniatures, paints, modelling paraphernalia, codexes all so they have an army which is technically illegal and that they can't take to a local tournament, all before they managed to paint the miniatures. lol.

This is what you seem unable to understand. The rule of 3, and the new deep strike rules are core mechanics which you shouldn't be able to change at a whim in a game that's so money and time intensive. I'd be totally fine these rules at the start of an edition, It's too late now. Not everything is binary better or worse and you're missing my main point.

You can't even say they're objectively fair rules. They're just better In some situations because they stop some broken armies, really bad in others (I'm looking at you blaster venoms) because broken armies are left intact with less challengers.

And yeah I'm a little naive, I should've intuitively known they were going to do this because... of the plenty of people... right... and tradition... Because it's the right strategy to have a smorgasbord of every type of unit because that's what you do... And you're obviously amazing, and have apparent psychic powers.

"It's what the strategy of both playing AND list building is designed around." Then why didn't they say this in the Rule Book/index/Codex/1stChapterApproved? And I can equally say you just like the rules because you are not affected by them and it makes your lists a little stronger, it's not what's objectively better for the game. It's better for you.

But don't think I don't appreciate the incredible advice, after being cheated out of all that money I'm going to run out and spend thousands of pounds to save money and play Apocalypse games! Yay... Genius. And instead of picking up matched competitive games at the local store I have to be the dirty spam player who can "only play" pick up games. Thank you so much, I never thought about any of this!

I agree that if you started 40k at the beginning of 8th this could seem like a bit of a bait and switch.

I wish GW had seen ahead to these issues and launched 8th with the deepstrike nonsense and the rule of three already in place as it would have made things easier to put up with.

Solution for the people whose lives have been ruined by the rule of three. Play 2001 points. You're allowed 4 of each. Stop whining.

Dannohawk wrote:
Wow. That's really unpleasant trolling, but funny too, you must be great at parties.. lol.

I got this far. Who is trolling you? Everything I said was completely candid, and seemed pretty rational. Is this just your response for when someone disagrees with you? You're opinion is objective the most levelheaded one, and anyone who disagrees is either trolling, or taking it all too seriously?