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.

IG can still bring triple manticore, triple basilisk, and many, many Russes in squadrons. Yeah, I'm gonna need it. Feth GW if they do this and Feth the IG.

Martel732 wrote:
IG can still bring triple manticore, triple basilisk, and many, many Russes in squadrons. Yeah, I'm gonna need it. Feth GW if they do this and Feth the IG.

If they did that not even four predators would save you. Let's just process the whole thing when it comes, yea?

Sure. And it's not an if, btw. That's how they roll.

Martel732 wrote:
Sure. And it's not an if, btw. That's how they roll.

In the past, yes. I have a bit more confidence that they're committed to sensible changes even if it takes them another FAQ and CA to sort it out.

Maybe the silver lining is that I won't have to read all the posts about how everything is a sales tactic. Who am I kidding - that will never stop.

Remember 5th edition? It was the best edition ever I heard. Everybody had to take 1 HQ and 2 troops, and there were only 3 slots for Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support. No spamming was possible, best edition ever I'm telling you.

oh wait

Ushtarador wrote:
Remember 5th edition? It was the best edition ever I heard. Everybody had to take 1 HQ and 2 troops, and there were only 3 slots for Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support. No spamming was possible, best edition ever I'm telling you.

oh wait

We're a good distance from that false equivalence.

Martel732 wrote:
IG can still bring triple manticore, triple basilisk, and many, many Russes in squadrons. Yeah, I'm gonna need it. Feth GW if they do this and Feth the IG.

Praise the glorious guard. I do love my triple Manticores

So, the 0-3 would have an effect on my lists for sure, inasmuch that I prefer Firesight marksmen over pathfinder squads... and take at least 4 marksmen in each army now. The change would force me into taking more pathfinders again (Which I'm not thrilled about).

But I can adapt to that. It will -Really- limit Dark Eldar by my understanding; as well as, any army with a reliance on transports... Any army with mono tank squads (Again, Tau), and any army with a limited number of available models for a slot (You don't have that many types of Elites? Well You better not take more than 3 of each).

What really bothers me is when you start getting into 3000 or 4000 point games, then the 0-3 becomes extremely problematic because it amplifies the already mentioned problems.

This just seems like a -Very- heavy handed way to try and solve the problem.

Alternatives: You could boost the cost for units if you take more than 3 of them. This would be a more complicated rule to consider when list building though. You could tie it to detachment, but that'd overtly favor some armies again (Dark eldar taking 6 patrols would be effectively immune to this rule) and it wouldn't solve anything because you'd be talking about having a hard cap of 6 units of one type per army... which is already in the Spam Territory we're worried about here. You could make it tied to characters... "Every detachment can have 1 of every type of unit, + however many of X kind of commander you have", but we run into the same problems with hard caps on amount of units you bring per detachment again.

...Any other ideas?

At 3000 or 4000 point games the lack of scaling in matched play (psychic powers and strategems) means a lot of lists become unviable.

I don't think you can fix 8th issues on a macro lvl that needs to happen on an individual codex and unit level.
I do believe Allies/soup needs limitations for that to work tough.

One thing that we're trying in our local tournament group is playing the 3 units max but without it applying to Troops or DTs. Seems to be going down well.

I, personally, would like to see Smite hardcapped in the same manner as all other psychic powers. Not sure how viable this would be however, I know a lot of armies rely on Smite to bust down big uglies but even the beta "-1 per successful cast" rule doesn't seem super effective at preventing Smite spam.

Personally I'm not keen on games which are bigger than 2000pts. I feel like when you start hitting 3-4k limits which take most of an evening to play you're probably better off just house-ruling things and not worrying about arbitrary limits intended for 1500-2000pt games.

A 0-3 cap would end DE Court of the Archon. All individual models, already capped at 4 per detachment and requiring an Archon to unlock. I have a couple of 'squads' of them (about 20 models total from back in the day) cut down to using only 8 is a pain. Only 3? I'll just shelve them. Would also make playing pure Kabal/Cult or Coven difficult as they have very limited options. 1 HQ each is a problem for starters.

Cult
1 HQ
1 Troop
1 Elite
2 Fast Attack
2 Flier

Coven
1 HQ
1 Troop
1 Elite
2 Heavy Support

Kabal
1 HQ
1 Troop
1 Heavy Support
2 Flier

Factionless (can be taken by anyone)
2 Elite
1 Fast Attack
2 Heavy Support (Forgeworld)
2 Dedicated Transport

So mono faction you are pretty much boned, even multifaction you run out of transports fast.

So... about that FAQ... only 11.5 months to go, eh?

Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:

Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.

Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.

Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.

Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.

Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
So... about that FAQ... only 11.5 months to go, eh?

Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:

Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.

Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.

Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.

Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.

Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.

There was another part to the rumor - no soup allowed. No sure how plausible that is given the design of Custodes unless they get a special exception.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
So... about that FAQ... only 11.5 months to go, eh?

Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:

Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.

Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.

Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.

Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.

Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.

There was another part to the rumor - no soup allowed. No sure how plausible that is given the design of Custodes unless they get a special exception.

See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.

Ash87 wrote:


See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.

Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ash87 wrote:


See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.

Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.

Am I a terrible person for longing for the return of mono-book armies?

A fleeting dream I realise, but a dream nonetheless.

That won't help without points adjustments. Codex: Altioc Dark Reapers would just win.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ash87 wrote:


See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.

Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.

See, There is the old thing about "GW Leaks information to see reactions" and that does make some sense. But we also have a lot of leaks coming out that are questionable at best. Fait had screens from 4chan yesterday, where the one shown as potentially being FAQ leaks, but it was the Xenos 2 FAQ instead. I'm also, yet to see any piece of paper leaks for the Soup Restrictions and 0-3 restructions. I think the 0-3 is more possible than the soup cut, because that does solve A problem... I'd find it much more likely, that it be a Beta rule though, while they work out kinks.

The Soup though... They can't drop that before GL, as it'd invalidate what... every list? Even if they don't force the FAQ to be used during GL, that's nuts.

...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
So... about that FAQ... only 11.5 months to go, eh?

Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:

Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.

Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.

Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.

Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.

Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.

There was another part to the rumor - no soup allowed. No sure how plausible that is given the design of Custodes unless they get a special exception.

Our draconian attempt to fix the game yields more ham-handed attempts to fix our first attempt

Well: Gray Knights, Ynnari, Sisters, Custodes, Daemons, Chaos, Ultramarines, Harlequins, Imperial Knights (and maybe AdMech since they lose access to that codex)... nice knowing you guys! Enjoy your borked books and coaster models you bought over the past few years during the age of allied forces.

I mean, really, there are so many simpler solutions to these problems:

1) Fix the imbalanced models that need a little adjusting (FHT) - it won't every prevent spam, but the spam won't be so overtly overbearing that the game becomes a non-contest. Spam will exist no matter how hard you attempt to curb it. Just make the advantage marginal instead of overwhelming.

2) You only generate stratagems, CP, Warlord traits, Warlords, and relics from detachments that share more than 2-3 keywords. Codices usually share a bulk of their alignment tags and have 1 flexible tag (which can actually be referenced by that custom tag). For example:

You choose to bring an eldar detachment as your primary detachment, all Codex Craftworlds units share Asuryani and Aeldari, and many also have the <Craftworld> tag (hi Phoenix Lords)... sounds like an easy 2, even 3 tags you can target. Drukhari would only share 1 tag with them. So you cannot generate their stratagems nor gain CP from their detachments.

Soup CP batteries solved. I'd say roll them up into their own separate CP counts, but that leaves room for sleazing and cheating, so just slam the door all the way shut.

Make guardsmen 6 ppm and see if Imperial soup is still a thing.

If they kill soup, then I assume they will introduce some ally-rules for factions like Custodes, GK and SoB and the like.

Also, if there's truth to the 0-3 rumors, I also assume that's 0-3 non troop choices, not units. Otherwise it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
So a Guard Army could get 3 squadrons of Leman Russ' (well, that's still potentially 9 tanks), or 3 batteries of Basilisks, or Manticores or whatever, or any combination of those as long as the army does not have more than 3 heavy support choices in total. Almost like the old FOC.
That would mean I, as a Guard player who likes tanks, could still field a tank company of 9 tanks + tank commanders, but I wouldn't have any HS slots left for heavy weapon squads or Basilisks. An infantry-heavy Guard Army with 3 heavy weapon squads wouldn't have any HS slots left for tanks.

Not 3x3 Leman Russ, + 3x3 Basilisks + 3 Manticores, + 3 heavy weapon squads etc., at that point the "0-3 units" limitation would be irrelevant.
And not 3 squads of Devastators + 3 squads of Long Fangs, as they'd both be HS.

And if we assume they make it almost like the old FOC, then the old 3rd ed rules, before Apocalypse, stated that at 2000pts or more, you could bring several detachments (or armies as the rumor refers to - detachments are something else now), which could include super heavies.

If they do that, limit army composition at <2k points, but allow multiple armies at >2k points, then I'm 100% on board with this change.


Now if it's actually 0-3 units, then yeah, that's kinda silly.

Panzergraf wrote:
If they kill soup, then I assume they will introduce some ally-rules for factions like Custodes, GK and SoB and the like.

Also, if there's truth to the 0-3 rumors, I also assume that's 0-3 non troop choices, not units. Otherwise it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
So a Guard Army could get 3 squadrons of Leman Russ' (well, that's still potentially 9 tanks), or 3 batteries of Basilisks, or Manticores or whatever, or any combination of those as long as the army does not have more than 3 heavy support choices in total. Almost like the old FOC.
That would mean I, as a Guard player who likes tanks, could still field a tank company of 9 tanks + tank commanders, but I wouldn't have any HS slots left for heavy weapon squads or Basilisks. An infantry-heavy Guard Army with 3 heavy weapon squads wouldn't have any HS slots left for tanks.

Not 3x3 Leman Russ, + 3x3 Basilisks + 3 Manticores, + 3 heavy weapon squads etc., at that point the "0-3 units" limitation would be irrelevant.
And not 3 squads of Devastators + 3 squads of Long Fangs, as they'd both be HS.

And if we assume they make it almost like the old FOC, then the old 3rd ed rules, before Apocalypse, stated that at 2000pts or more, you could bring several detachments (or armies as the rumor refers to - detachments are something else now), which could include super heavies.

If they do that, limit army composition at <2k points, but allow multiple armies at >2k points, then I'm 100% on board with this change.


Now if it's actually 0-3 units, then yeah, that's kinda silly.

I rather wondered if it'd be tied to Infantry Keyword myself. Limit monsters and whatnot, but don't touch guys on the ground that die due to a strong breeze.

Ash87 wrote:


...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.

Anger over incomplete and potentially incorrect information based on the assumption that GW leaked us the rule.

If GW wanted to gauge a proper reaction wouldn't they leak the whole rule with some clarity like the purifier screenshot? Occam's Razor my friend.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ash87 wrote:


...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.

Anger over incomplete and potentially incorrect information based on the assumption that GW leaked us the rule.

If GW wanted to gauge a proper reaction wouldn't they leak the whole rule with some clarity like the purifier screenshot? Occam's Razor my friend.

Assuming the Purifier screenshot is real...

But honestly, I'd say Yes still. Lets say it's -Not- something they are considering. It's sensible to assume that GW's FAQ team reviews forums to get people's opinions on balance, that's a Huge well of personal opinion data to draw form. So true or false, expressing an opinion pro or con puts information out there for them.

Ash87 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ash87 wrote:


See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.

Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.

See, There is the old thing about "GW Leaks information to see reactions" and that does make some sense. But we also have a lot of leaks coming out that are questionable at best. Fait had screens from 4chan yesterday, where the one shown as potentially being FAQ leaks, but it was the Xenos 2 FAQ instead. I'm also, yet to see any piece of paper leaks for the Soup Restrictions and 0-3 restructions. I think the 0-3 is more possible than the soup cut, because that does solve A problem... I'd find it much more likely, that it be a Beta rule though, while they work out kinks.

The Soup though... They can't drop that before GL, as it'd invalidate what... every list? Even if they don't force the FAQ to be used during GL, that's nuts.

...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.

Fait did post a rumoured leak about the FAQ with the Purifier change. The Xenos 2 FAQ he posted was in response to people saying GW wouldn't change points in an FAQ.

Ash87 wrote:

Assuming the Purifier screenshot is real...

Of course - just an example.

But honestly, I'd say Yes still. Lets say it's -Not- something they are considering. It's sensible to assume that GW's FAQ team reviews forums to get people's opinions on balance, that's a Huge well of personal opinion data to draw form. So true or false, expressing an opinion pro or con puts information out there for them.

There's a whole range from ""that would be terrible" to "this is bad, but what if..." to "lol GW is stupid and I have all the perfect fixes with no unintended consequences".

Panzergraf wrote:

Not 3x3 Leman Russ, + 3x3 Basilisks + 3 Manticores, + 3 heavy weapon squads etc., at that point the "0-3 units" limitation would be irrelevant.

Even if its not super relevant, rules like that can make for good safety nets.

Killing soup would in one move make sisters of silence unplayable literally as they’d have no hq


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And assassins

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Invalidate? No. I just disagree. I was in the top 5-10 of Daemons for the faction the last two years in the ITC, and for the love of Tzeentch I simply cannot approve of the ability. It's bad. It's so bad that the exact same rule that exists in AOS is being or has been changed, or so I had heard.

It varies depending on the faction, but the new summoning methods are pretty great. Nurgle gets contagion points over the course of the game based on areas of the board that they control that can be exchanged for summons. No rolling, no denial, you just plop the model down within range of a hero and you're good to go. Thematic too. Khorne gets something similar.

Ushtarador wrote:
Remember 5th edition? It was the best edition ever I heard. Everybody had to take 1 HQ and 2 troops, and there were only 3 slots for Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support. No spamming was possible, best edition ever I'm telling you.

oh wait

5th edition also allowed you to heavily modify your FoC based on your HQ choices, turning plenty of non-troop unit choices into troops. Spam was very possible, and very potent, even back then. Less models usually made their way to the table in 5th, meaning the restrictions themselves also mattered less.

5th (pre-flyers) was the best edition, but it also had a lot of problems as well, and it is also essentially an entirely different game at this point.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killing soup would in one move make sisters of silence unplayable literally as they’d have no hq


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And assassins

They do. Primaris Pskyers are HQs and share the "Astra Telepathica" faction keyword with Sisters of Silence, so you can still take Vanguard detachments of them if the rumored restriction on not being able to use "Imperium" as a common keyword is true.

Assassins is trickier though.