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.

Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.

tneva82 wrote:
You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.

You make the wrong conclusions
killing of factions out tournament meta is the way to make money

let everyone buy 200 yellow Horros, than change something so everyone is going to buy pink Horrors
after everyone has invested into 100 Conscript, change it and let everyone get Baneblades instead

So yes GW wants more money, and with the new advertising "we learn from mistakes" the can change what is effective every quarter and people are jumping on it.

What would be the outcome of every single unit is 0-3, and soup limitations for matched play?
An increase in sales as everyone would need units have not bought before as they were not needed (so people with Tzaangor heavy armies need to buy in Thousand Sons now)


It is the change that makes GW money and not the "less restriction" because as soon as everyone has his "soup" he is not going to buy more. So replacing soup with single faction and later bringing back a different kind of soup, and going back to limitations again etc.

 Fafnir wrote:

Spoiler:

kombatwombat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Pure admech relies on Dragoons for space control. With a cap of three units, their defense is adversely effected in larger games. Dunecrawlers also operate like Squadrons but take up individual slots. Moreover, since Admech options are limited to three good units (Kastelans, Dragoons, Dunecrawlers), their pitiful unit selection gets even worse once you cap out.

Even using just those units and a cap on 3 of each unit, I get over 3500pts for just those models - no Troops, no HQs, nothing. AdMech are fine with that limit.

They have other glaring issues, but the 3-unit cap doesn’t affect them.

You'll rarely want more than 6 Kastellans in your army. More than one unit of that is not only a massive point sink that can be indefinitely tied up be even a single guardsman, but Binhinaric Overdrive can only be used on one unit at a time, meaning any other units are a waste of time. Kastelans are a huge point sink.

Multiple units of Dragoons are necessary to fortify your lines in order to block off deepstrike routes, intercept assaults, and tie up enemies. Outside of goondozer builds which are offensive in nature, this is best done with many small units of Dragoons, not maxed out ones. 6 separate units of Dragoons to insulate your guns is far more preferable to two units of 3 or one unit of 6. This is where they start to get hit.

With Cawl, one 6-man Kastelan force, 3 Dunecrawlers, and 3 one-man units of Dragoons, you cap out at 1531. Without more Dragoon units, an army like this has pitiful defense, and can easily be locked down in a single turn.

I think people are mixing “units” with “models” when referring to “vehicles” etc. A unit of Dragoons is the same as a unit of Vanguard Veterans – in the fact that 1 Vanguard Vet unit is 5-10 models. A unit of Dragoons is 1-6 models.

This would mean, that the cap on Dragoons would be 3 units of 6, not 3 units of 1.

It -might- be applied differently on units that split up into individual units after deployment, but, units that stay as a whole wouldn’t be capped… Otherwise every basic unit in the game would be illegal, due to it having more than 3 models in a single unit…

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.

You make the wrong conclusions
killing of factions out tournament meta is the way to make money

let everyone buy 200 yellow Horros, than change something so everyone is going to buy pink Horrors
after everyone has invested into 100 Conscript, change it and let everyone get Baneblades instead

Here's the issue with that; only a very minor amount of their playerbase chase the meta like that. And it's very hard to have sympathy for people who power game THAT hard. They're fully aware at this point that GW will nerf unit spam so they only have themselves to blame.

Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money

the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.

the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.

And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)

 kodos wrote:
Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money

the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.

the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.

And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)

I think you are grossly underestimating the income from what you call casual gamers (those that dont play at big tournaments). Who do you think buys all those models that are not OP?
Besides, a large portion of all models sold will never see either paint nor tabletops.

tneva82 wrote:
Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.

Your point is? I mean of course some lists are going to be invalidated by any changes in the FAQ. That is how it works. I'm sure when points changes from chapter approved hit there were a ton of lists that were no longer valid (over/under on points), codex Tau with the commander restriction invalidated a ton of lists. Any restriction or change they put in play is going to invalidate someones list. The question is does it improve the game overall of the majority of players. Now you can say "well they should get the points perfect and that way these bad lists won't exist." That is extraordinarily difficult, you can also say "Just restrict the broken stuff" The issue with that is the frequency with which they are making these changes going forward, if they only say limit Flyrants to 0-3 but not anything else, then the next broken thing rises to the top of spam, but then they won't fix it for 6 months. Further, as a customer if they are going to restrict any unit that becomes problematic I'd rather have it all done up front, that way I don't buy things I cannot use later on. IT sucks short term for those who already bought that stuff, but I'd rather get it all out of the way rather than buy a bunch of a particular unit.

Beyond that a though I had is if they do this it actually makes the Combat Squad rule somewhat useful. You were going to take 6 x 5 sternguard, well now you take 3x10 and then break them up.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.

Your point is? I mean of course some lists are going to be invalidated by any changes in the FAQ. That is how it works. I'm sure when points changes from chapter approved hit there were a ton of lists that were no longer valid (over/under on points), codex Tau with the commander restriction invalidated a ton of lists. Any restriction or change they put in play is going to invalidate someones list. The question is does it improve the game overall of the majority of players. Now you can say "well they should get the points perfect and that way these bad lists won't exist." That is extraordinarily difficult, you can also say "Just restrict the broken stuff" The issue with that is the frequency with which they are making these changes going forward, if they only say limit Flyrants to 0-3 but not anything else, then the next broken thing rises to the top of spam, but then they won't fix it for 6 months. Further, as a customer if they are going to restrict any unit that becomes problematic I'd rather have it all done up front, that way I don't buy things I cannot use later on. IT sucks short term for those who already bought that stuff, but I'd rather get it all out of the way rather than buy a bunch of a particular unit.

Beyond that a though I had is if they do this it actually makes the Combat Squad rule somewhat useful. You were going to take 6 x 5 sternguard, well now you take 3x10 and then break them up.

I agree with what you’re saying, especially from a customer point of view. If I know that going forward, there is going to be a restriction on how many units of each data slate I can take, I’d be more confident in each of my purchases.

I also agree that it makes combat squads mean something/have a place going forward.

It does, and will suck for people who have brought multiples of each unit beyond the limit (I’m guessing this will scale up with every 1000 points somehow), but, if you’re also playing casually you can always drop the limit but still follow the main “Matched Play” ruleset.

 kodos wrote:
Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money

the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.

the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.

And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)

Their HALF YEAR revenue was £108.9m. Not all of that will be kits, but easily 70%. If the average kit price is £50 (that's $70) then they sold 2.2 MILLION kits in SIX months. Even if that's an order of magnitude off it's still more kits than ALL of the models at LVO and Adepticon COMBINED - ten times over.

Kdash wrote:
I think people are mixing “units” with “models” when referring to “vehicles” etc. A unit of Dragoons is the same as a unit of Vanguard Veterans – in the fact that 1 Vanguard Vet unit is 5-10 models. A unit of Dragoons is 1-6 models.

This would mean, that the cap on Dragoons would be 3 units of 6, not 3 units of 1.

It -might- be applied differently on units that split up into individual units after deployment, but, units that stay as a whole wouldn’t be capped… Otherwise every basic unit in the game would be illegal, due to it having more than 3 models in a single unit…

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know exact wording of this supposed limit assuming the unlikely scenario it would be true. In tournaments where similar limit has been used wording has been unit of 3 vehicles is 3 for limitation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money

the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.

the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.

And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)

Their HALF YEAR revenue was £108.9m. Not all of that will be kits, but easily 70%. If the average kit price is £50 then they sold 2.2 MILLION kits in SIX months. Even if that's an order of magnitude off it's still more kits than ALL of the models at LVO and Adepticon COMBINED - ten times over.

And meta chasing obviously happens only at adepticon....riiiight. Nevermind all the lists planned for leagues and FLG games etc that are similar to what you see in tournaments.

 kodos wrote:
Of course, but this group is also the one that bring in the money

the causal gamer at home who don't care about those meta shifts is not affected by any change and just buy what he likes
there are people who still play with their 3rd Edi Space Wolves against 3rd Edi Orks, have fun and just buy new releases from time to time.
While those people are important as they keep the local scene alive, they don't bring in much money.

the competitive players are those who buy 10 Rhinos for a Formation and 3 Wraithknights 3 months later.

And judging by the change GW made, they are now aware of this group as their income source
(same like those 1-5% who heavy invest in f2p/p2w online games are the main source for profit and not the 95% that keep the game alive)

There are 2 categories of "Big spenders".

The guys who travel to tournaments all around the world, chasing the latest cheese. This kind of players is impacted by the constant changes, but hardly represent even 1% of GW income.

The competitive guys at the stores which follow the cheese with a bit of delay and if it isn't too hard to do that (I.E. will get a cent star, but will not assemble 200 conscripts. Will take some stormraven, but hardly any fire raptors). These kind of players probably rapresent 25-30% of GW sales (mostly resellers though) but are impacted by the changes only if those changes hit the reasonable lists, and even then it's usually a minor impact.

I really hope they switch up how cover works to be honest. Like why would my infantry in a forest get the benfit of a cover save but if they're being shot at from the completely other side of the forest they do not, even though they now have 100% of the forest in between them instead of 50%?

tneva82 wrote:

And meta chasing obviously happens only at adepticon....riiiight. Nevermind all the lists planned for leagues and FLG games etc that are similar to what you see in tournaments.

You literally have no concept of the scale.

The top end is likely something like 30 kits for an army ($2,100), but let's make that an average. They sold enough kits for 73,000 armies. Adepticon and LVO are 1% of that.

And we haven't even talked about second hand.

TL;DR You're blinded by your fevered quest.

Kdash wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well I took quick check on army list forum. Found quickly 4 lists that would get illegalized by this bogus rumour by 3 cap and couple more due to imperium keyword change.

Your point is? I mean of course some lists are going to be invalidated by any changes in the FAQ. That is how it works. I'm sure when points changes from chapter approved hit there were a ton of lists that were no longer valid (over/under on points), codex Tau with the commander restriction invalidated a ton of lists. Any restriction or change they put in play is going to invalidate someones list. The question is does it improve the game overall of the majority of players. Now you can say "well they should get the points perfect and that way these bad lists won't exist." That is extraordinarily difficult, you can also say "Just restrict the broken stuff" The issue with that is the frequency with which they are making these changes going forward, if they only say limit Flyrants to 0-3 but not anything else, then the next broken thing rises to the top of spam, but then they won't fix it for 6 months. Further, as a customer if they are going to restrict any unit that becomes problematic I'd rather have it all done up front, that way I don't buy things I cannot use later on. IT sucks short term for those who already bought that stuff, but I'd rather get it all out of the way rather than buy a bunch of a particular unit.

Beyond that a though I had is if they do this it actually makes the Combat Squad rule somewhat useful. You were going to take 6 x 5 sternguard, well now you take 3x10 and then break them up.

I agree with what you’re saying, especially from a customer point of view. If I know that going forward, there is going to be a restriction on how many units of each data slate I can take, I’d be more confident in each of my purchases.

I also agree that it makes combat squads mean something/have a place going forward.

It does, and will suck for people who have brought multiples of each unit beyond the limit (I’m guessing this will scale up with every 1000 points somehow), but, if you’re also playing casually you can always drop the limit but still follow the main “Matched Play” ruleset.

I'd like to see it like the detachment limit, where it is something basically everyone uses, but is a suggestion for balance, rather than a hard fast rule, that way if someone wants to leave it out, or discuss leaving it out they can.

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.

You make the wrong conclusions
killing of factions out tournament meta is the way to make money

let everyone buy 200 yellow Horros, than change something so everyone is going to buy pink Horrors
after everyone has invested into 100 Conscript, change it and let everyone get Baneblades instead

So yes GW wants more money, and with the new advertising "we learn from mistakes" the can change what is effective every quarter and people are jumping on it.

What would be the outcome of every single unit is 0-3, and soup limitations for matched play?
An increase in sales as everyone would need units have not bought before as they were not needed (so people with Tzaangor heavy armies need to buy in Thousand Sons now)


It is the change that makes GW money and not the "less restriction" because as soon as everyone has his "soup" he is not going to buy more. So replacing soup with single faction and later bringing back a different kind of soup, and going back to limitations again etc.

The tournament scene is nowhere near that important to GWs bottomline. My FLGS supports about three times the casual players that played in the Adepticon tournament. Anecdotal, sure, but that's just one store.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And meta chasing obviously happens only at adepticon....riiiight. Nevermind all the lists planned for leagues and FLG games etc that are similar to what you see in tournaments.

You literally have no concept of the scale.

The top end is likely something like 30 kits for an army ($2,100), but let's make that an average. They sold enough kits for 73,000 armies. Adepticon and LVO are 1% of that.

And we haven't even talked about second hand.

TL;DR You're blinded by your fevered quest.

Lol. You in your blindness forget that NOT ONLY TOURNAMENT PLAYERS BUY OPTIMIZED UNITS!

Broken units are easy to spot. People like to win. People spam broken stuff outside tournaments.

But yeah keep on living in dream world where GW puts balance over profit. That is road to dissapointment but hey your loss.

tneva82 wrote:


Lol. You in your blindness forget that NOT ONLY TOURNAMENT PLAYERS BUY OPTIMIZED UNITS!

Broken units are easy to spot. People like to win. People spam broken stuff outside tournaments.

But yeah keep on living in dream world where GW puts balance over profit. That is road to dissapointment but hey your loss.

And not all tournament players optimize. Have you ever been to one? You'd see some pretty soft lists.

You have nothing but bluster and assumptions.

FAQ dropping in 5.......4.......3........

tneva82 wrote:


Lol. You in your blindness forget that NOT ONLY TOURNAMENT PLAYERS BUY OPTIMIZED UNITS!

Broken units are easy to spot. People like to win. People spam broken stuff outside tournaments.

But yeah keep on living in dream world where GW puts balance over profit. That is road to dissapointment but hey your loss.

Most people don't chase the meta. They mighthear an army is OP buy and build that and play it. Over a several month period. You need more time and money to build and paint an army than most people have. Whilst impulse buyers are probably a big factor in Gw's sales genuine flavour of the month in meta is a very small minority. And while I only have anecdotal evidence for this IMHO meta-chasers buy secondhand because they don't have the time.

gendoikari87 wrote:
FAQ dropping in 5.......4.......3........

50% of Dakka will die of heart attacks from the salt.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
FAQ dropping in 5.......4.......3........

50% of Dakka will die of heart attacks from the salt.

I genuinly cannot wait. I'm more excited for Dakkas reaction than I am for the FAQ.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
FAQ dropping in 5.......4.......3........

50% of Dakka will die of heart attacks from the salt.

salt? Who’s salty? Me? Noooooooooooooo. I’m just tired of braving the salt dunes just to play my guard

What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

What, if like Detachment limits and table size, it's just a recommendation for events, not a full-fledged matched play rule?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

What, if like Detachment limits and table size, it's just a recommendation for events, not a full-fledged matched play rule?

Well, I think you're still left with a few armies hanging out in the breeze if they want to go to a tourney, which isn't ideal.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

It makes Daemon detachments incredibly annoying. Each god only receives buffs if the detachment is mono-god, and they all only have 3 of each unit type.

You'll only ever be allowed to take min-squads of anything.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

It makes Daemon detachments incredibly annoying. Each god only receives buffs if the detachment is mono-god, and they all only have 3 of each unit type.

You'll only ever be allowed to take min-squads of anything.

Eeeeech, daemon lists are already a pain the hole to write. It wouldn't make much difference.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

What, if like Detachment limits and table size, it's just a recommendation for events, not a full-fledged matched play rule?

Well, I think you're still left with a few armies hanging out in the breeze if they want to go to a tourney, which isn't ideal.

yeah, but the whole point of restricting and simplifying things a bit more vigorously for the sake of "balance" is the very point and raison d'etre of matched play (and/or matched play+ tourney/event "recommendations"). If you're not willing to cut stuff, just go open play all the time.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if it's 3 max per detachment? Does that help enough without killing too much?

It makes Daemon detachments incredibly annoying. Each god only receives buffs if the detachment is mono-god, and they all only have 3 of each unit type.

You'll only ever be allowed to take min-squads of anything.

Eeeeech, daemon lists are already a pain the hole to write. It wouldn't make much difference.

My Codex is already an abomination of bad rules, please don't make it worse with limitations. :/

Limit detachment units *laughs in guard* vehicle squadrons mothafuckas!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How many leman russes can I fit in three slots? 11 in a spearhead. 3x3 + 2 hq