40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?

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.

**jifel**

Ok, looking on the Internet, it seems like almost everyone is okay with dataslates, provided they replace the Allied detachment. So many people do, in fact, that I'm surprised when I see someone disagree with dataslates. The BAO, the LVO, and all of my local tournaments are including Dataslates. As far as I know, Crucible and BeakyCon are also going to be allowing dataslates. Everyone seems to like Dataslates = Allies.

So how come I'm not seeing this all over? Adepticon notably didn't allow dataslates. Maybe I'm biased, as a Tyranids player, but why not? Who actually doesn't like substituting Dataslates for allies? Another reason I ask is because BOLS... ahem Warga... ahem TexasGamesCon looks like they won't be allowing dataslates at all. And again, I ask... why the heck not? Who doesn't like this idea? Why is it bad?

So my question boils down to, why aren't some GTs embracing an idea that, as far as I can see, is popular among the overwhelming majority of players? If anyone does oppose the idea of dataslates, why?

**Vaktathi**

I don't mind dataslates that add new units in and of themselves, like Be'lakor, but I dislike formations where it's "take X combination of units, get free special rules, go ahead and ignore that FoC".

Unfortunately with the Militarum Tempestus book they resorted to making Formations an integral part of making the army work with any degree of success due to the otherwise very tiny number of units and short range/weak Strength on Scion guns. This creates a new dilemma.

**jifel**

Vaktathi wrote:
I don't mind dataslates that add new units in and of themselves, like Be'lakor, but I dislike formations where it's "take X combination of units, get free special rules, go ahead and ignore that FoC".

Unfortunately with the Militarum Tempestus book they resorted to making Formations an integral part of making the army work with any degree of success due to the otherwise very tiny number of units and short range/weak Strength on Scion guns. This creates a new dilemma.

I agree that throwing in data slates would be bad, but when it replaces the Allied slot it makes a lot more sense to me, as you're giving up some of your FOC slots. Plus, the worst data slate is still less cheesy than Taudar.

**slaede**

ATC has banned them as well. They all pretty much all just followed LVO's lead, though Reece and crew have recanted. Perhaps they will do so again.

**ninjafiredragon**

jifel wrote:
Another reason I ask is because BOLS... ahem Warga... ahem TexasGamesCon looks like they won't be allowing dataslates at all.

Depends on what event youll be going to. The 1500, no. The 2k is everything allowed, which includes data slates

**RiTides**

Substituting dataslates for allies is great, I think there just wasn't time before Adepticon to really implement that. I expect that, or a "source limit" (2 or 3 sources per army) to be in most events going forward.

**MVBrandt**

NOVA is allowing them with a couple basic guidelines.

**jifel**

MVBrandt wrote:
NOVA is allowing them with a couple basic guidelines.

Any ideas on what those guidelines will be?

**RiTides**

Two-source limit per army (although Reecius' idea of 2 sources plus things like Belakor is nice, too).

**muwhe**

AdeptiCon allowed Dataslates in the Exterminatus format this year.

**Hulksmash**

Fingers crossed for a primarily 3 source format with knights counting as allies if you use them (not my idea but a good one). Formations don't take allied slots, just count as a source so nids could run 2 formations, some armies could run primary+ally+formation which opens up some ideas.

I'll adjust to whatever the events I can make do though so now worries from me

**MVBrandt**

RiTides wrote:
Two-source limit per army (although Reecius' idea of 2 sources plus things like Belakor is nice, too).

Actually shifting more toward three sources, knights at least allies.

Re character datasheets, they'll never count as a source so can be freely used, regardless.

**citadel**

I play nid and thus am a bit biased, but I wish there were special allowance for our army at these events. Kinda lame that every other army gets access to ally combinations that supply all sorts of rule bending game breaking shenanigans, whereas we're stuck with one rulebook in any competitive environment.

Aside from Skyblight, which admittedly is very strong but not many people actually have 9 FMCs anyway, the nid dslates provide a few extra FOC slots and 2 max special rule (PE/split fire in bioblast, reroll scatter in living artillery, etc.), most of which are tied to a 12" T4 warrior aura.

But as I said, I'm a bit biased. As long as battlebrothers and the like are allowed, I feel entitled to something additional that makes my army stronger, but doesn't bend the game to the degree that a beaststar does.

**RiTides**

@MVBrandt- Really, so you and Reecius have switched places a bit? 3-source would still allow silliness like Tau-Eldar-Inquisition. Reecius made this post after AdeptiCon which seems to be more 2-source inclined:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html

Reecius wrote:
1. Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.

2. Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.

3. Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.

4. Missions. Missions fundamentally change the game. By using the right missions in the right ratio, you can make units like Deathstars less viable by altering win conditions.

**MVBrandt**

RiTides wrote:
@MVBrandt- Really, so you and Reecius have switched places a bit? 3-source would still allow silliness like Tau-Eldar-Inquisition. Reecius made this post after AdeptiCon which seems to be more 2-source inclined:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html

Reecius wrote:
1. Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.

2. Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.

3. Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.

4. Missions. Missions fundamentally change the game. By using the right missions in the right ratio, you can make units like Deathstars less viable by altering win conditions.

We aren't sure inquisition is what makes tau/eldar silly. Overall we want to encourage valid variety while allowing people to have realistic expectations and plans. While many people did shoehorn in servocaddies, their actual impact was very minor. Adepticon was and always is an amazing experience, but kill points as a mission are more predominant than even the fifth edition rulebook presented them, so it's hard to know how to evaluate outcomes. Generally there are also so many variables and such consistent top performer success regardless of format that it's hard to really draw meaningful outcomes from any given tournament, despite the anecdotal "proofs" the internet likes to pull. IE we went 10-0 with serpents and no wtaith knights in the team tournament despite having to play 8 of 10 games against their hard counter of riptide and broadside heavy tau with markers and buff commanders. That unexpected outcome didn't change the fact that those units are a terrible match for serpents, but any observer could draw such a conclusion.

In relation to the subject, a TO has to amalgamate opinion, tournament results, emotion, guesswork at the future of release patterns, and simple gut to try and make a call that'll be valid and fun fit the largest group of attendees. If three source with knights as allies or primary only, and character datasheets as not occupying a source count yields more fun than two source without really impacting actual results, it's an OK direction.

**RiTides**

MVBrandt wrote:
We aren't sure inquisition is what makes tau/eldar silly.

I didn't mean silly from a gameplay standpoint... I meant silly from a keeping track of rules and connection to the background standpoint.

Are you leaning towards a completely open 3-source with no restrictions?

So Eldar-Tau-Knights? The facepalm icon doesn't go far enough... not in regards to you, but in regards to that combo being in the game

**Breng77**

I think it is hard to say (without data of some kind) that caddies had little effect. Did people not bring certain armies expecting them to be a thing.

I just think that 2 detachment/sources, is cleaner than 3. For example why do knights count as an ally and not inquisition or LOTD? They essentially have the same separate detachment rules. I'm also not sure (have not really looked into it) that allowing 2 formations works well. It might (in many cases it is cost prohibitive.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
We aren't sure inquisition is what makes tau/eldar silly.

I didn't mean silly from a gameplay standpoint... I meant silly from a keeping track of rules and connection to the background standpoint.

Are you leaning towards a completely open 3-source with no restrictions?

So Eldar-Tau-Knights? The facepalm icon doesn't go far enough... not in regards to you, but in regards to that combo being in the game

Pretty clear that he seems to say Knights = Allies. So Tau/Eldar/Inquisition is OK, Tau/Eldar/Knights are not.

**RiTides**

Breng77 wrote:
Pretty clear that he seems to say Knights = Allies. So Tau/Eldar/Inquisition is OK, Tau/Eldar/Knights are not.

That is... marginally better... I apologize for mis-reading that, as I apparently missed the last line of MVBrandt's post.

But 2-source with exceptions for add-ons like Belakor is so much better, imo.

Breng77 wrote:
I just think that 2 detachment/sources, is cleaner than 3. For example why do knights count as an ally and not inquisition or LOTD? They essentially have the same separate detachment rules.

Exactly! Now you're picking and choosing. If Knights use the Allies slot, so should Inquisition... silly is exactly the word for the armies we're seeing otherwise, and that will undoubtedly be taken, because they're the best on the table.

Rather than picking and choosing which things count as allies (Knights do, but Inquisition, LOTD, etc do not?) everything takes the allies slot with the exception of single units like Belakor. It's the easiest, fairest, and cleanest solution, imo... as I said, otherwise you're picking and choosing.

**jy2**

I'm all for it...with restrictions. I like the restrictions suggested by Reece and the Frontline guys.

**Kanluwen**

I'm only not on board because I hate them being digital only.

Release a Big Book o' Dataslates and I'm fine with it.

**warboss**

jifel wrote:
Ok, looking on the Internet, it seems like almost everyone is okay with dataslates, provided they replace the Allied detachment.

*snip*

So my question boils down to, why aren't some GTs embracing an idea that, as far as I can see, is popular among the overwhelming majority of players? If anyone does oppose the idea of dataslates, why?

You must not go many places on the internet then as your premise is completely untrue. Plenty of people can't stand dataslates/detachments/allies/lords of war/2 FOC at 2000pts. It's significantly better if you just can use one single SOMETHING (one dataslate, one ally force, etc) to the exclusion of the others as long as they fit onto your original FOC. It isn't a unanimous dislike by any means as some people want everything in and others want nothing (with the majority somewhere in between) but the lack of it you're seeing is because people don't like it when facing strangers.

**Dozer Blades**

He has a habit of making it up as he goes along.

**Sincity**

Kanluwen wrote:
I'm only not on board because I hate them being digital only.

Release a Big Book o' Dataslates and I'm fine with it.

This. I will not play with Electronic only rules in games I am in.

**dkellyj**

I'm not on with any of the digital products since I don't own an I-Anything, Kindle, etc.
As for Tournys; I sure don't care to have another (expensive/high-theft) device to drag around from table to table and consult to prove a rule (that my opponent would never know about unless he had purchased the same data-slate). Talk about a new way to slow play your match:
Sorry, gotta consult my I-thingy again. Or was this rule in my Codex? Perhaps in the BRB?
And if I don't own that data-slate, how can I be assured an unscrupulous opponent did not change any of the information digitally?

**Breng77**

You do know you can read the epub versions on your PC right?

Then you can print it out and drag the rules with you like normal

As for changing the info people cheat all the time, how do you know their list is correct? Do you ask to see their codex for every rule? Do you own every codex?

I can understand the resistance to the digital products but essentially you are saying that sisters of battle players cannot play at all.

**Red Corsair**

Breng77 wrote:
You do know you can read the epub versions on your PC right?

Then you can print it out and drag the rules with you like normal

As for changing the info people cheat all the time, how do you know their list is correct? Do you ask to see their codex for every rule? Do you own every codex?

I can understand the resistance to the digital products but essentially you are saying that sisters of battle players cannot play at all.

Except that's not true with all of them. The MT book was indeed limited print run and is available EXCLUSIVELY for Apple products now, going forward I wouldn't be shocked if this is the new status quo, which makes them potentially problematic if people are expected to have apple devices. I personally don't have an issue with it as there is a level of trust at the table no matter what with timed events or else you'll never make it past T3 and you can always ask your opponent to show you the entry in question on their device however I see how some might complain.

**oni**

I'm not a fan of Dataslates at all.

slaede wrote:ATC has banned them as well. They all pretty much all just followed LVO's lead, though Reece and crew have recanted. Perhaps they will do so again.

My understanding is that Frontline Gaming recanted because they feel that the Tyranid dataslates are the only viable way to field the army competitively and it would be unfair to only allow one factions dataslates.

**quickfuze**

3. Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.

I don't buy this at all....your trying to tell me that a Knight who can only really mess up a Seerstar in CC is going to alter that. How? The seerstar is going to out maneuver the Knights until the other guns in the army bring it down. Not to mention that only "good" guys get knights. So a bit one sided; no? If both sides don't have access to a super-heavy whatever then I say knights are out.

**slaede**

oni wrote:
I'm not a fan of Dataslates at all.

slaede wrote:ATC has banned them as well. They all pretty much all just followed LVO's lead, though Reece and crew have recanted. Perhaps they will do so again.

My understanding is that Frontline Gaming recanted because they feel that the Tyranid dataslates are the only viable way to field the army competitively and it would be unfair to only allow one factions dataslates.

I can't say exactly why, but I suspect the reason is that on their own, none of the formations is actually that big a deal compared to the death stars that are already legal, so long as you impose the two source restriction.

Skyblight and Endless swarm might be a bit much, as tons of free Hormagaunts popping out of a Trygon hole is a hell of a thing, but even those can be dealt with.

I don't buy this at all....your trying to tell me that a Knight who can only really mess up a Seerstar in CC is going to alter that. How? The seerstar is going to out maneuver the Knights until the other guns in the army bring it down. Not to mention that only "good" guys get knights. So a bit one sided; no? If both sides don't have access to a super-heavy whatever then I say knights are out.

My man, Imperial Knights simply aren't that fantastic. They're mostly just alright. There's nothing to be concerned about and their inclusion is a good thing.

**quickfuze**

My man, Imperial Knights simply aren't that fantastic. They're mostly just alright. There's nothing to be concerned about and their inclusion is a good thing.

I understand, I wasn't implying they were great. I was simply rebutting that they are going to have little to no impact on the meta choice to run Stars, especially highly mobile ones like seerstar