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.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.

Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.

You could still run 30 devs, sterguard, or assault Marines in those examples, and each group of 3 would cost 6-700+ points. Surely you can think of other fluffy options for the army? If your idea of a fun fluffy army is just the same unit over and over, maybe you should be more imaginative?

So if I want to run a squad of Devastators and a squad of Sternguard, that leaves me only one choice for another non-Troopa unit. So say I want to run a Vindicator. That means I can't run a Dreadnought or Terminators. Heck, if I run the classic Command Squad (Veterans, Apothecary, Ancient), I can't run any other units besides Troops in my army. Oh wait, that means no HQs. So if I run a Battalion, I have ONE choice in my army besides Troops.

It is a gakky limitation that only encourages homogeneous armies with little to no variation.

For the record, I don't spam any units in my army. The largest number of non-Troops units that I run is I run two squads of Hellblasters. Otherwise I run a lot of different units. Aggressors, Sternguard, Honour Guard, Devastators.

But really, the fact this limitation would invalidate any Battalion or Brigade army is exactly why it is an utter bs rumor.

This isn't a "only 3 units other than troops allowed in your army" restriction... This is a "you can't take more than 3 of the same unit - unless it is a troops choice" restriction.

njtrader wrote:
Matched Play ought to be limited to 1500 points, specifically for reasons related to time maintenance.

Well, tournament play with 3-hour slots probably should. But why limit everyone else? If Matched Play is the "default" as everyone argues, people should be free to play a 1 Million Point Matched Play game over the weekend if they feel like it.

njtrader wrote:
Matched Play ought to be limited to 1500 points, specifically for reasons related to time maintenance.

That seems wonderfully arbitrary.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

njtrader wrote:
Matched Play ought to be limited to 1500 points, specifically for reasons related to time maintenance.

Well, tournament play with 3-hour slots probably should. But why limit everyone else? If Matched Play is the "default" as everyone argues, people should be free to play a 1 Million Point Matched Play game over the weekend if they feel like it.

Sure, I agree. I am saying in timed events the 2,000 point standard is a little too high.

I honestly don't see how they can "fix" this issue beyond making only troops scoring models. Everything else is unable to score, possibly, and tabling an opponent is not an auto win?

Kdash wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
My biggest problem is this limitation HARMS fluffy armies instead of encouraging them. Crimson Fists run a lot of Devastators (the fresh Marine recruits out of the Scout Company) and Sternguard (the experienced Marines from the days of the Rynn's World incident). They do not have that many Tactical Squads. This runs counter to that. Or Blood Angels running a good deal of Assault Squads. Wanna run a Saim Hann or whatever Eldar army? Nope, can't because Jetbikes are now very limited. And those are just the armies that I can think of off of the top of my head.

Meanwhile, Horde armies STILL have the advantage.

You could still run 30 devs, sterguard, or assault Marines in those examples, and each group of 3 would cost 6-700+ points. Surely you can think of other fluffy options for the army? If your idea of a fun fluffy army is just the same unit over and over, maybe you should be more imaginative?

So if I want to run a squad of Devastators and a squad of Sternguard, that leaves me only one choice for another non-Troopa unit. So say I want to run a Vindicator. That means I can't run a Dreadnought or Terminators. Heck, if I run the classic Command Squad (Veterans, Apothecary, Ancient), I can't run any other units besides Troops in my army. Oh wait, that means no HQs. So if I run a Battalion, I have ONE choice in my army besides Troops.

It is a gakky limitation that only encourages homogeneous armies with little to no variation.

For the record, I don't spam any units in my army. The largest number of non-Troops units that I run is I run two squads of Hellblasters. Otherwise I run a lot of different units. Aggressors, Sternguard, Honour Guard, Devastators.

But really, the fact this limitation would invalidate any Battalion or Brigade army is exactly why it is an utter bs rumor.

This isn't a "only 3 units other than troops allowed in your army" restriction... This is a "you can't take more than 3 of the same unit - unless it is a troops choice" restriction.

Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.

Audustum wrote:


I just gotta ask, this board seems to take "no spam" and "down with soup" as gospel. Why? There's nothing I herebtly wrong with either. I can sympathize if you want mono to be equal to soup, but what I usually see if folks calling for mono to be Superior to soup which makes no sense. Same with spam. So his army is all Terminators vs. yours which isn't? Who cares? If you balance the actual units it won't matter.

With the Indomitus and Black Crusades, soup and allies are just as fluffy as mono anyway.

If it's fluffy and hard to balance it belongs in narrative play, like having your entire army deep strike for instance. I think soup falls into that definition almost perfectly, because It greatly increases the difficulty of balancing the game. Imagine if your job was to balance any combination of these 12 armies against a single army army, while keeping that single army in balance with any one of those twelve armies. If soup stays in matched play there will have to be some way to disincentivize soup, and the most logical form that takes is some sort of CP or stratagem restrictions. When GW first told us about CP and stratagems they told us in the context of rewarding mono list, but somewhere along the way it became mono detachments, that back step has caused several large balance problems.

As for limiting non-troop Spam, it was originally suggested after the very first GT (Boise Cup) when the winner ran a flyer spam list. Then there was scion spam, commander spam, dark reaper spam, now carnifex spam, and probably a few flavors of spam I missed. It is pretty obvious that if they don't put some control on spam they are going to have to keep patching the rules everytime there is a new flavor of spam. By making a blanket no more than 3 of a given non-troop unit per army they preemptively fix a hundred such problems.

Also it's fluffy is not a valid defense of crap rules, at least in matched play where the goal is to provide as balanced a play experience as possible. Movie marines are fluffy, but the rules are not appropriate for a faction that is supposed to be the poster child of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.

There are is more than one type of knight there are paladins, errants, gallants, wardens, and crusaders. That is before the armigers and forgeworld varieties, so I think they will be alright.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:


Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.

5 Chaos Knight lists of 5 Knight Crusader lists, maybe.

Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Knight Errant, etc. are all separate datasheets, so you can field 3 of each type of Knight in a list under that rule. It would only lock you out after 15 full-sized Knights and 9-18 Armigers (depending on how many datasheets the kit can make).

(And if FW is included, that allows for 30~ish Knights.)

People only really use Wardens and Crusaders, though. I've literally never seen anyone field a Paladin or Errant. There's very little reason to do so when Titanic Feet is just better than their bad weapons most of the time.

 Asmodai wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:


Well, if that is the case, then it won't really be a problem for most people, myself included. Still sucks for 5 Knight lists.

5 Chaos Knight lists of 5 Knight Crusader lists, maybe.

Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Knight Errant, etc. are all separate datasheets, so you can field 3 of each type of Knight in a list under that rule. It would only lock you out after 15 full-sized Knights and 9-18 Armigers (depending on how many datasheets the kit can make).

(And if FW is included, that allows for 30~ish Knights.)

Very true. And it doesn't look like they are combining any of the Knight data sheets, so that is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People only really use Wardens and Crusaders, though. I've literally never seen anyone field a Paladin or Errant. There's very little reason to do so when Titanic Feet is just better than their bad weapons most of the time.

Pretty much. The Avenger Gatling is just too good.

well they can run 3 wardens and 2 crusaders, or the other way around. Likely when they get their codex, the optimal build will involve some armigers, which will make it very unlikely they will be negatively affected by the 3 cap.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Amazing how I suggest rewarding fluffy lists and people act like I'm suggesting their armies are shaved to the skin.


If you don't know what a fluffy army is then you probably aren't making one.

So I'll ask again:
Did the Bone Kingdom Of Drazak, explicitly said to be almost solely Flayed Ones, cease to exist?

Did The Crimson Fists, who actually have limited resources in that regard and is mostly 1st Company with a few new recruits, just cease to exist?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Amazing how I suggest rewarding fluffy lists and people act like I'm suggesting their armies are shaved to the skin.


If you don't know what a fluffy army is then you probably aren't making one.

So I'll ask again:
Did the Bone Kingdom Of Drazak, explicitly said to be almost solely Flayed Ones, cease to exist?

Did The Crimson Fists, who actually have limited resources in that regard and is mostly 1st Company with a few new recruits, just cease to exist?

I made mention of this above. But yeah, your point still stands with the Bone Kingdom.

Mostly is a funny word. It does not mean exclusively, just more of this and less of that.

 alextroy wrote:
Mostly is a funny word. It does not mean exclusively, just more of this and less of that.

Mostly can mean 95% and you know it.

Sorry if it's been mentioned elsewhere but just want to know: Has there been any info at all of when to expect the FAQ? I heard someone mention Tuesday but no such luck so far.

No. If there was a legit update it would be via WHC.

Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.

Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.

And the poor T'au still haven't received theirs.

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.

Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?

PiñaColada wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.

Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?

Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?

Lemondish wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.

And the poor T'au still haven't received theirs.

They'd announced weeks ago that the Tau FAQ was going to be delayed and sent out with the big FAQ, so I wouldn't consider them separate releases.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

My money was on today, as well. If they take much longer, we end up running against the Necron/Dark Eldar FAQ timelines.

And the poor T'au still haven't received theirs.

They'd announced weeks ago that the Tau FAQ was going to be delayed and sent out with the big FAQ, so I wouldn't consider them separate releases.

I meant to imply that running into the timeline of Dark Eldar/Necron FAQs doesn't matter if the T'au one was steamrolled by the big FAQ. Those could too.

Lemondish wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.

Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?

Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?

List submission final date is set for 30th April (23:59 time wise). So, 20 days and counting - but if the FAQ is as big as we're starting/hoping to believe, then i'd certainly hope it gets released well in advance of then as a lot of list changes would have to be done by people.

London GT rules are mix of eternal war and maelstrom games.

Kdash wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.

Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?

Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?

List submission final date is set for 30th April (23:59 time wise). So, 20 days and counting - but if the FAQ is as big as we're starting/hoping to believe, then i'd certainly hope it gets released well in advance of then as a lot of list changes would have to be done by people.

London GT rules are mix of eternal war and maelstrom games.

With Highlander restrictions on detachments!

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Yeah i heard whispers from event organisers that they were expecting it super soon, so i semi predicted today due to release precedent.

I guess it was as much wishful thinking and optimism from them as it is for the rest of us. Starting to get twitchy for the London GT list submission date now!

When is the London GT submission end date? I can't imagine them waiting too long so they're screwing up domestic tournaments after adepticon. It's pretty bad press in at least smaller circles if another spammy (especially if it's the same spam as either LVO or Adepticon, since those are now flagged) list win and I'm sure it's their priority to fix this before the next major tournaments.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Right because the Tau FAQ is already out....oh wait.

Bur surely that's a good sign? If the FAQ were too far out they'd release the Tau errata separately right?

Don't have the chance right now to take a look, but do the London GT rules adhere closer to Adepticon or LVO?

List submission final date is set for 30th April (23:59 time wise). So, 20 days and counting - but if the FAQ is as big as we're starting/hoping to believe, then i'd certainly hope it gets released well in advance of then as a lot of list changes would have to be done by people.

London GT rules are mix of eternal war and maelstrom games.

With Highlander restrictions on detachments!

Yeah, max of 1 of each type of detachment… I keep forgetting to mention that fact!

Dark eldars are happy about that one I'm sure! Hopefully they got exception.

Which is why that rumor is probably bogus. I really doubt GW will release a rule that negates a rule they just introduced for an army.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is why that rumor is probably bogus. I really doubt GW will release a rule that negates a rule they just introduced for an army.

If you mean the max one of any type of detachment, that's not part of the rumored changes being discussed. That's a limitation already in place at some tournaments, by tournament organizers not GW.