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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

Honestly it'd be a good way to keep things that are supposed to be rare, but powerful, in the lore as rare and powerful instead of needing to nerf the options just to make the spamming options less favorable.

The game already had a blanket 0-3

0-1 also already exists for all unique named characters by default.


Again many of the systems GW uses are not bad ideas nor mechanics. The issue is more how GW addresses balance and how they generally like to "shake things up" by often leaping to the extreme reactions. Troops getting too troublesome then slap them with dozens of nerfs and make elite units get loads of bonuses so that next edition elites are the problem and troops are the issue then flip back over.

I'm not buying it. Limiting 4 different buggy units to 0-1 choices is one thing since it still allows 4 different units of buggies. Limiting the iconic unit of the T'au Codex to a 0-1 choice doesn't seem likely. Not to mention the supposed limit on dedicated transports that range from Rhinos, Chimeras, and Venom's to Wave Serpents. If a specific DT is a problem, they will limit it or increase its points, not a blanket ban the slaps entire playstyles in the gut.

 kodos wrote:
the fake rulebook was not meant to be a fake book, but was a collection of house-rules a club in UK used to play 40k that was spread with "rules leak" on the web

Aw, I never heard that explanation. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I posted a thread about "hey, did we ever figure out who did that fake 5th edition rulebook?" some years ago :-D

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not buying it. Limiting 4 different buggy units to 0-1 choices is one thing since it still allows 4 different units of buggies. Limiting the iconic unit of the T'au Codex to a 0-1 choice doesn't seem likely. Not to mention the supposed limit on dedicated transports that range from Rhinos, Chimeras, and Venom's to Wave Serpents. If a specific DT is a problem, they will limit it or increase its points, not a blanket ban the slaps entire playstyles in the gut.

5 different buggies actually. And limiting them to 0-1 was just stupid. I'm lucky in that I only ever had 3 scrapjets total out of all the buggies, but I would still be a bit pissed if I was a speedfreak who was running 3x3 units of a buggy just to find out that according to a hamfisted solution to a non-existent problem, GW just said you can't have that many, so get rid of 2/3rds of your investment. In fact, points wise it falls completely in line with the concept of limiting Battlesuits to 0-1. Buggies are mostly 85-100pts with squigbuggies eating a 20pt price hike because they hurt someones feelings who helps write rules.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

Doesn't make it good method as it doesn't actually fix problem

Fix the problem. Then no need for 0-1 invalidating people's collections.

tneva82 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

Doesn't make it good method as it doesn't actually fix problem

Fix the problem. Then no need for 0-1 invalidating people's collections.

You mean to tell me someone that had painted 20 Necron Pariahs wasn't a TFG?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the fake rulebook was not meant to be a fake book, but was a collection of house-rules a club in UK used to play 40k that was spread with "rules leak" on the web

Aw, I never heard that explanation. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I posted a thread about "hey, did we ever figure out who did that fake 5th edition rulebook?" some years ago :-D

not sure were it was , but we got a statement from the people who wrote it some time after the new Edition came out, think it was on Warseer

EviscerationPlague wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

Doesn't make it good method as it doesn't actually fix problem

Fix the problem. Then no need for 0-1 invalidating people's collections.

You mean to tell me someone that had painted 20 Necron Pariahs wasn't a TFG?

Yes.
"TFG" who "plays a broken force" isn't something monstrous. It's just someone who identifies the strongest way to play an army within a game where competitive elements are present. That's not a bad thing, that's just a smart thing or a competitive thing.

I do agree taking something mass and making it much smaller suddenly isn't a good thing. Heck GW did that with AoS 3.0 rules edition. Right now you cannot field any more than 2 full infantry units at 2K points. Every other unit you field after those 2 has to be minimum models. Which in practice means they also need a full command stand so if you build your large infantry blocks without them you are suddenly left with spare troops.

That said the core concept of limiting troops isn't a bad concept - again its GW making a mess when they do stuff like that.
.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

What was the 0-8? I honestly can't remember coming across that one.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

There's a major difference between limited numbers when certain units/types are supposed to be rarer in the lore, than restricting or even banning what should be a common unit/vehicle just because GW can't write their rules worth a damn.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

What was the 0-8? I honestly can't remember coming across that one.

Steam Tanks. A dozen were built, and they lost four over years, so by the reign of Karl Franz there were only 8 left in the whole Empire, so that was the cap on how many you could field.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

There's a major difference between limited numbers when certain units/types are supposed to be rarer in the lore, than restricting or even banning what should be a common unit/vehicle just because GW can't write their rules worth a damn.

Limiting units based on lore rather then gameplay sounds even more backwards then anything else when it comes to balance.

 Overread wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

WHFB had a large number of 0-1 choices (and a rather notable 0-8 choice...) without really breaking the game.

Doesn't make it good method as it doesn't actually fix problem

Fix the problem. Then no need for 0-1 invalidating people's collections.

You mean to tell me someone that had painted 20 Necron Pariahs wasn't a TFG?

Yes.
"TFG" who "plays a broken force" isn't something monstrous. It's just someone who identifies the strongest way to play an army within a game where competitive elements are present. That's not a bad thing, that's just a smart thing or a competitive thing.

Being TFG is an attitude, not a list efficiency at the end of the day. If they're rocking up with their cut throat competitive list, playing against people who have no interest in a competitive match and then being smug about it - TFG.

Turning up to a group with a good list and being a pleasant person to interact with, is a smart/competitive choice.

being TFG is simply GWs version of "it is not our rules but the players"

there were always donkey-caves around in the community and people who had only fun if they could crush a beginner with an OP army

but being TFG is now widely used since GW came up with an article "if you are exploiting our bad written rules to win the game, your are TFG"
making everyone who just used the best possible army list, no matter if intended or by accident, an donkey-cave that is plays the game wrong

 kodos wrote:
being TFG is simply GWs version of "it is not our rules but the players"

there were always donkey-caves around in the community and people who had only fun if they could crush a beginner with an OP army

but being TFG is now widely used since GW came up with an article "if you are exploiting our bad written rules to win the game, your are TFG"
making everyone who just used the best possible army list, no matter if intended or by accident, an donkey-cave that is plays the game wrong

Care to share that article with the class? Because I've never seen GW use the term, only forums.

GW used the term 'don't be "That Guy"!' and not TFG, true

 kodos wrote:
GW used the term 'don't be "That Guy"!' and not TFG, true

When though? "That Guy" is a very generic term that is not exclusive to any one thing and the context in which it is used is important. So can you provide the article so we know the context?
The difference between "TFG" and "That Guy" is a single word but it is entirely appropriate to tell someone not to be "That Guy" if they get their kicks from smashing new players into the dirt and laughing about it, GW has nothing to do with that.

I hate TFG because it's such a moving target.

One person's "normal and expected optimisation" is another's "try hard tournament play".

I've met people to whom actually trying to take the objectives instead of mutually agreeing to share them made me a try-hard TFG.

You cannot rely on player agreement to balance a game in a community as large and diverse as 40k's is. It might work with you and your buddies, but anything larger than than and it falls apart.

Don't hate the player, hate the game should absolutely apply here.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I hate TFG because it's such a moving target.

One person's "normal and expected optimisation" is another's "try hard tournament play".

I've met people to whom actually trying to take the objectives instead of mutually agreeing to share them made me a try-hard TFG.

You cannot rely on player agreement to balance a game in a community as large and diverse as 40k's is. It might work with you and your buddies, but anything larger than than and it falls apart.

Don't hate the player, hate the game should absolutely apply here.

Your example though sounds very much like a social thing not a game thing. Agreeing to share objectives is most certainly the kind of thing that player agreement has to balance into the game experience.

A LOT of TFG is either unintentional or intentional (on the part of one party) miss-match of players in terms of intention for the game and, often, skill level. It's made worse for wargames because the player pool at most clubs is limited and the time commitment means most of us get one game an evening; maybe two. So in general if you end up with a missmatch it sours the whole game evening and that might be the one time you play that week.

MTG or many other board games often mask over this with either larger player groups (not one on one) or by having such quick matches that if there is a missmatch its fine you can find someone else and play another several rounds in the same day.

Oh I absolutely agree that "mismatched expectations" is a problem for the game.

I just don't think it's fair to label either party as "that guy" unless they're being deliberately deceitful.
Such as turning up to a friendly gamey with their tournament practice list.
Or similarly turning up to a tournament with their fluffy friendly list.

So my point is the game needs to acknowledge this and be really careful about making balance as tight as possible.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You mean to tell me someone that had painted 20 Necron Pariahs wasn't a TFG?

I have maxed out Warbiker squads, 36 in 3 Mobz of 12. I have more than maxed out Stormtroops because GW randomly changed their max number from 30 to 20 So now I have 15 too many and was in the slow process of acquiring 15 more but won't be anymore. I likewise have 300+ Ork boyz in case I want to play Green Tide which was 100-300 ork boyz. I have 18 KillaKanz because I wanted 3 max sized units of 6.

Am I TFG because I want to collect the max number of models for my faction? Or only when I decide to play them? What about when they are really weak like Warbikers were last edition or Killakanz this edition, am I still TFG when I spam 3 crappy units of max size?

And if I have these units and GW comes out and changes the rules to make them really good and then I go to a tournament and use them does that make me TFG? Or what about if I am a GT player on the ITC tournament scene, and I TFG for trying to win?

The point I am making is that your definition of TFG is wrong. TFG as someone else said is an attitude rather than a model count. If I force you to measure out every base in a 30 mob of boyz I would be TFG. If I force you to show me every single rules interaction in your codex as you use them to slow the game down so I can win on points, I am TFG. If i purposely slowplay my horde army so I win on time then you are TFG. But you aren't TFG for taking the most advantageous list possible to a competitive game.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.

There's a major difference between limited numbers when certain units/types are supposed to be rarer in the lore, than restricting or even banning what should be a common unit/vehicle just because GW can't write their rules worth a damn.

Oh I agree. I was just saying 0-1 isn't inherently bad and can be applied well (and honestly I'd like for it to come back on more stuff honestly. Looking at you Stormsurge).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Oh I absolutely agree that "mismatched expectations" is a problem for the game.

I just don't think it's fair to label either party as "that guy" unless they're being deliberately deceitful.
Such as turning up to a friendly gamey with their tournament practice list.
Or similarly turning up to a tournament with their fluffy friendly list.

So my point is the game needs to acknowledge this and be really careful about making balance as tight as possible.

Yeah. TFG isn't a list, it's intention.

If you're cackling with glee as your 2k tournament list crushes a newcomer who had to stretch and take every upgrade to hit 1,950 points, you're TFG.
If you look over your opponent's list, see it's 1,950 and they're stretching to reach that, and so offer "Hey, why don't we play at 1,000 points? I see you're taking upgrades you don't really need just to fill points," and tone your list down so it's at least approaching an even match, even if you win in a stomp, you're not TFG.

Obviously these are both extremes, but the hyperbole should hopefully help make my point.

On a slightly different note: it's always seemed like GW has pushed highlander style builds in their presentation of the armies on the table, but by god they need a better incentive structure to make such things worth pursuing for players.

I think they've been trying to do it through weapon damages and making different weapon statlines better/worse against different targets to promote more varied lists, but in practice that just gets people to spam the most efficient option that works on the widest range of targets (like plasma or autocannons spent time being meta picks) over taking more varied units of weapons.

I think you're right, they are trying to make weapon choice be a reason for taking different types of units. They've been doing a better job making the different weapon types useful against specific targets but at the end of the day certain weapons on certain units are so cost efficient that its often a no-brainer to take as many of those units as you can.

 kodos wrote:
being TFG is simply GWs version of "it is not our rules but the players"

there were always donkey-caves around in the community and people who had only fun if they could crush a beginner with an OP army

but being TFG is now widely used since GW came up with an article "if you are exploiting our bad written rules to win the game, your are TFG"
making everyone who just used the best possible army list, no matter if intended or by accident, an donkey-cave that is plays the game wrong

That term is not and never has been a GW exclusive term. Even MTG and D&D players use that term.

tneva82 wrote:


Doesn't make it good method as it doesn't actually fix problem

Fix the problem. Then no need for 0-1 invalidating people's collections.

But what's the problem here?

In my opinion the problem is being able to field OP skew lists. And since pricing all things in a way that spammable OP combinations couldn't exist is much harder to achieve than putting 0-1 or 0-2 limitations here and there to get the same result, I'd take those limitations anytime even if some collections (possibly even including mine) get "screwed" in the process.

A real problem was allowing players to build skew collections by making them legal. Take ork buggies: they were a cheap supportive units in the past that was maxed out at 9 models in total but in 8th and 9th people could buy and play 9 scrapjets and 9 squigbuggies. That's a grand total of 18 kits and basically a whole 2000 points list, and there's no "but I wanted to play a themed army!!!" that can support that. Theoretically up to 45 buggies were allowed under the rule of 3, so we came from 9x30ish = 270ish points to 45x90ish = 4000+ points by maxing out the buggies in a list. People who bought all that stuff did it just for fielding an OP list. Otherwise they could have bought 2 or 3 of each buggies (10-15 kits) plus other speed freaks themed units.

Now I don't feel bad at all towards those who can't field their 9+9 buggy based list anymore.

If problem is spamming op stuff...don't make op.

Broken op stuff is still broken op even if it's 0-1. It just results in auto pick.

Don't...make...op...units.

But since balance would hurt gw sales they won't do balance

"it's okay for unit to be broken op because it's 0-1" is lame noob designer excuse. It also hits non-op stuff equally and benefits armies with bigger variety. You know army that benefits from 0-1? Marines. While armies like harlequins, gsc etc would get screwed.

It's bad game design. Noob level. Worse than noob actually...