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.

tneva82 wrote:

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...


[

Which would mean that any unit of more than 3 Kastallan Robots would be illegal as well, due to them being Vehicles - which then naturally on admech. Because of that, i doubt it would be limited like that, as you'd never be able to have more than 1 unit of Robots total.

 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.

There already are a few armies hanging in the breeze if you want to go to a tournament and win. A 0-3 per army restriction (beyond maybe like mono-inquisition) does not make it impossible for any particular army to field a 2k force, it just might make a few worse. But some already suck so that isn't an issue IMO. As for 3 per deatchment, honestly that makes it a non- factor at reducing spam. If I was bringing 9 PBC or 7 Hive Tyrants I still can, I just need 3 detachments to do it. But that just puts an HQ tax on some spam. That only really curtails spam in a brigade.

Hq tax on hive tyrant spam is not a tax.

Hence why I said some spam. For HT spam if it were 0-3 per detachment you literally have 0 issues.

Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues

gendoikari87 wrote:
Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues

Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.

I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.

-

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues

Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.

I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.

-

I 100% disagree, but sure. It's their game. I've always got Starcraft Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 ppm, and then see what we've got.

I hope the faq has:

Game issue solutions: Stuff like scaling weapons to more shots when the target is more than 10 models. (rein in Hordes) Detachment clarifications (Supreme Detachment change maybe?) Tournament Documentation. Soup. Stratagem repointing. Hand to Hand clarifications.

Individual model issues: Generally repointing to reflect the true value specific models bring (or don't bring) to the game.

Spamming should be allowed. If it’s pointed correct it shouldn’t be a problem

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues

Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.

I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.

-

I 100% disagree, but sure. It's their game. I've always got Starcraft Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 ppm, and then see what we've got.

PBCs still undercosted, as are cultists, pox walkers, shining spears....the list goes on, fix those something else will be. IT is really difficult to get an exact balance between all things and still have them be unique and interesting, especially with no limits on how many you can take.

There are limits 0-6 units. That is enough

gendoikari87 wrote:
Spamming should be allowed. If it’s pointed correct it shouldn’t be a problem

which it never will be and it still would be a problem if costed correctly, because the cost of value of one of something =/= 1/x the value of x of that thing in this game, and it never really can be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:
There are limits 0-6 units. That is enough

No such limit exists, I can bring 15-27 copies of units depending on the unit. HQs right now are 0-15, Elite, Heavy, Fast are 0-18 and Troops are 0-27. Dedicated transports are limited only by points.

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Limits on units are a stopgap. Just price then correctly the first time and you have no issues

Sometimes the "stopgap" is the better solution. Pricing "correctly" is never going to happen. People will always disagree and there will still ALWAYS be a "best choice" that people will spam. PERIOD.
Limiting datasheets to 0-3 per ARMY removes the option to spam AT ALL. At that point, appropriate price becomes more apparent as you have to make harder decisions.

I'm not sure if this 0-3 datasheets rumour will happen, but I certainly hope it does. Looking back at my last 10 years of list building, I can honestly say about 90% of my lists adhered to this standard. It makes for more varied lists.

-

I 100% disagree, but sure. It's their game. I've always got Starcraft Halve the damage on reapers, jack up flyrant wings 50 pts, make guardsmen 6 ppm, and then see what we've got.

And while I agree with those suggested changes, not everyone does. And that's my point. Changing points values doesn't always solve the problem by itself. It often just removes the issue entirely (as in makes the unit universally considered crap).
But limiting the number over overpowered units a play is ALLOWED to bring solves many problems at once. Those overpowered units are still good, but you are forced to supplement your list with other choices, created tactical variation that can be exploited by BOTH players. This can only make the game better.

I am not saying we don't also need to readjust points. We need that too. But by limiting the access players have (in Matched play) to overpowered units makes playing against those unit much more palatable in the inevitable timeframe prior to any actual change.
So yeah, a stop gap. But an effective one.

-

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.

gendoikari87 wrote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.

Where does that line end? Restrictions exist - whether or not you think various ones effects you more or less shouldn't be the basis for their creation.

The current ones stick to that . Frankly if you have a problem with those go play mtg commander

gendoikari87 wrote:
The current ones stick to that

Right, but even those might restrict someone from doing something they want to do. It's all irrelevant. *IF* it's good for balance then it should be done.

Balance needs to be done by point cost. Is that hard? Yes but tough gak that’s how it needs to be done

gendoikari87 wrote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.

I know it's a fairly gakky answer to a valid concern but you could still do this, just not in Matched Play. That seems to be GW's overall mindset now; not everything should be viable in Matched Play.

The point system is not the problem. The problem is that the granularity of the point system has been set rather low which means that low point units have less and less points to work with.

They have managed to address it somewhat with keeping weapons separate(which is why we can have a 5 point unit, but a 27 point weapon), but the units themselves when the Index came out should have at least been doubled. This would have allowed for better parity between units and allowed more fine tuning of similar, yet disparate, units.

My guess is that they wanted to keep some point parity with existing editions and allow people to play with similar amount of units in 1500 points between editions.

I'd love to see free fall back removed

gendoikari87 wrote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but mine is that such restrictions are stupid and suck the fun out of the game. If I want to play tank company I should be able to make play tank company.

And you cannot do this with a 0-3 Data slate limit? I don't see why not. Tank company makes me assume Astra Millitarum. If your answer is "well I want to run 10+ of a single type of tank balance be damned." Then you don't want to play a balanced game and there is no point to the discussion. You say fix it with points. Ok lets say Leman Russ spam was a problem and I made them 300 points each. well now you still cannot play tank company and it hurts the guy who wants to run a single leman russ as well.


The following are units of 1-3 so you could take 9
Basilisks
Helhounds
Hydras
Leman Russ Battle Tanks
Leman Russ Demolishers

Your 0-3 limits for "tanks"
Mantacores
Deathstrike missiles
Tank Commanders
Chimeras
Taurox
Super Heavy tanks (which most people don't run more than total)


So literally I cannot see a basis for your complaint. Are you taking 10 Helhounds? 10 Leman Russ battle tanks (or if they are 1 data sheet not 2, 10 total, if they are 2 seperate units you can run 18, which is more points that are in the game)

Literally most complaints seem to be "Raaaah restrictions...I can't do x." But most are not founded in any kind of reality. Are there lists you cannot build sure, but no matter the balance method that will be true.

 Brutallica wrote:
I'd love to see free fall back removed

You would also need to remove all the T1 and reserve charge stuff. or assault armies will run rampant.

Oh and if not guard, and you want to do this. You still can, you just cannot spam the same tank over and over, but need to run different tanks. So unless your faction has less than say 3 varieties of tanks (which would seem strange for "tank company") it really does not effect you. Unless your answer is I want to run 9 Plague burst crawlers cause "Tank Company!" To which I say. Too bad, it is bad for the game, so either they get recosted and you cannot do it, or they get restricted and you cannot do it.

Conspiracy theory time.

What if GW "Leaked" this just to have us dissect this through and through FOR them?

So obviously if we discuss this more the sooner the FAQ will come out!

(I am being fascetious by the way )

I think that the detachment restrictions coupled with the point limit should be all that is needed. If GW feels the need to limit the amount of a certain model in a single army then they should either have a specific rule for that model that limits it or increase the point cost to the point that it can't be taken in large numbers.

If GW does go back to specific limitations then they should just do away with detachments and find some other way of determining CPs.

My suggestion for CP would be a player gets X CPs per #of points played with a bonus for battle forged armies.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that the detachment restrictions coupled with the point limit should be all that is needed. If GW feels the need to limit the amount of a certain model in a single army then they should either have a specific rule for that model that limits it or increase the point cost to the point that it can't be taken in large numbers.

If GW does go back to specific limitations then they should just do away with detachments and find some other way of determining CPs.

My suggestion for CP would be a player gets X CPs per #of points played with a bonus for battle forged armies.

That could work. Malign Portents for AOS had a CP-like system (it was every round though) and had an addendum for Matched Play where instead of randomly determining it, you got a specific amount each turn based on the points size, with a bonus for the Harbinger if you fielded one.

Breng77 wrote:
Oh and if not guard, and you want to do this. You still can, you just cannot spam the same tank over and over, but need to run different tanks. So unless your faction has less than say 3 varieties of tanks (which would seem strange for "tank company") it really does not effect you. Unless your answer is I want to run 9 Plague burst crawlers cause "Tank Company!" To which I say. Too bad, it is bad for the game, so either they get recosted and you cannot do it, or they get restricted and you cannot do it.

So what do you suggest what I do with my battlewagon #4 (part of my army since 4th edition) and battlewagon #5 (5 were mandatory to field a blitz brigade)?

I never said there wouldn't be lists that were no longer possible to create, or that there would not be models not getting used. The guy with 7 flyrants does what with #s 4-7? It was more a statement of fluff lists that could not be built. You can still run mech orks, though you likely need FW to do so. If you are intent on running those specific models than either you need to convert them or some such.

My issue generally is that people say "well if the points were right we wouldn't need restrictions" without thinking that at some level points are the same as restrictions just that they effect all uses of those units. So are you any better off with your 5 battlewagons if "balance" dictates they are 300 points each? Sure you can still run them at 2000 points, but not with any real success. But raising them to that cost also makes 3 of them worse, or 2 or 1. Whereas saying. Sorry you cannot run 5 but the 3 you can run are really good is a better choice.

Yeah well that’s just like ... your opinion man.