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.

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.