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.

 Kirasu wrote:

drbored wrote:
Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GW FAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.

The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.

If gw doesn't know that drop pods were trash prior to FAQ and are now utter trash after the FAQ then no amount of emails can help them. Even the most basic understanding of the rules leads to the conclusion that drop pods are functionally useless in 8th Ed.

Okay, I'll bite. A Dedicated Transport that gives an infantry unit, or a dreadnought (!) the ability to Deep Strike, and after doing that sits there, controls an are, and shoots with admittedly not-staggeringly frightening but still SOMETHING weapons.

How is this awful?

Being able to Deep Strike, say, a pair of 5-man Tactical squads onto a control point, laying about with flamers and a pair of Sgt chainswords, instead of trying to hotfoot it 30" across the table while absorbing enemy fire ... sounds kinda nice. I mean, the unit can't do it normally, but grab a Drop Pod and it's on. Same for a Dread! Say, a standard model with assasult cannon, storm bolter, and a dreadnought CCW ... instead of having to dodge lascannons, you can hotdrop it somewhere specificly where the firepower is more anti-infantry, where you can stomp around with relative impunity and gun stuff down.

Seems useful to *me*, but, you know, I used to play when my dreads could ride in Rhinos or walk through a teleport gate, so.

Wakshaani wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

drbored wrote:
Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GW FAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.

The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.

If gw doesn't know that drop pods were trash prior to FAQ and are now utter trash after the FAQ then no amount of emails can help them. Even the most basic understanding of the rules leads to the conclusion that drop pods are functionally useless in 8th Ed.

Okay, I'll bite. A Dedicated Transport that gives an infantry unit, or a dreadnought (!) the ability to Deep Strike, and after doing that sits there, controls an are, and shoots with admittedly not-staggeringly frightening but still SOMETHING weapons.

How is this awful?

Being able to Deep Strike, say, a pair of 5-man Tactical squads onto a control point, laying about with flamers and a pair of Sgt chainswords, instead of trying to hotfoot it 30" across the table while absorbing enemy fire ... sounds kinda nice. I mean, the unit can't do it normally, but grab a Drop Pod and it's on. Same for a Dread! Say, a standard model with assasult cannon, storm bolter, and a dreadnought CCW ... instead of having to dodge lascannons, you can hotdrop it somewhere specificly where the firepower is more anti-infantry, where you can stomp around with relative impunity and gun stuff down.

Seems useful to *me*, but, you know, I used to play when my dreads could ride in Rhinos or walk through a teleport gate, so.

Drop pods are overcosted by about 15 points, but the term "Functionally useless" is just wrong.

Wakshaani wrote:


Okay, I'll bite. A Dedicated Transport that gives an infantry unit, or a dreadnought (!) the ability to Deep Strike, and after doing that sits there, controls an are, and shoots with admittedly not-staggeringly frightening but still SOMETHING weapons.

How is this awful?

Being able to Deep Strike, say, a pair of 5-man Tactical squads onto a control point, laying about with flamers and a pair of Sgt chainswords, instead of trying to hotfoot it 30" across the table while absorbing enemy fire ... sounds kinda nice. I mean, the unit can't do it normally, but grab a Drop Pod and it's on. Same for a Dread! Say, a standard model with assasult cannon, storm bolter, and a dreadnought CCW ... instead of having to dodge lascannons, you can hotdrop it somewhere specificly where the firepower is more anti-infantry, where you can stomp around with relative impunity and gun stuff down.

Seems useful to *me*, but, you know, I used to play when my dreads could ride in Rhinos or walk through a teleport gate, so.

Paying close to 100 pts(you could almost double the amount of tacticals you field for that price and more bodies is generally more useful than bells and whistles), can't move around after coming down, can't come on T1(anywhere you would like to anyway), can't use those flamers on turn you com so flamers die before shooting.

Oh and tacticals don't even want to go that far close to the enemy.

Dreadnoughts btw can't ride drop pod.

Drop pods weren't automatic takes for ~40 pts with better rules than they have now. 8th ed stripped down most of the good things drop pods had going on for them and like more than doubled the price. And even removed ability to transport dreadnought which was one of the best uses for them. Coupled with drop pod's more accurate landings going away along with total uselessness of flamers for deep strike and near uselessness of meltas on deep strike squads...

Remember also to distinguish between 'tournament useless' and 'casual useless'. For better or worse in 40K there is a distinction between what works at a WAAC environment where every single point and model is balanced against the cruel needs of ultra efficiency gaming, versus you and a mate at the local FLGS where my Paladin heavy GK can still semi regularly score wins because folks there don't ever go to tournament.

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
.

you can still have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld etc. They just have to be from the same faction (in this case, Adeptus Astartes/Craftworld Eldar).

 Mymearan wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
.

you can still have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld etc. They just have to be from the same faction (in this case, Adeptus Astartes/Craftworld Eldar).

Yeah that's not nerfed at all. And since you needed marine detachment to unlock marine strategems having mixed detachment of marine and IG doesnt' even unlock strategems...

What it does mean is bit harder to put up various Imperial characters in. Supreme commander detachment is the one that mostly gets hurt by this one I think. Most of the multi-codex detachments I have seen at least have been with that.

If you really want Celestine, now that smite has been nerfed, i dont believe a pair of cannonesses is that expensive. Dont really need a pile of Primaris Psykers anymore.

So this is a HUGE faq release, with almost every faction having gotten changed. From what I've seeing, the only complaints that pop up frequently are

1) The Tactical Reserves beta rule
2) The Eldar Farseer/Warlock point changes
3) The fact that some factions like GK didn't get much needed changes

Considering the size of the release, it would seem to me they did a pretty great job with this one on the whole? I also love that they added a ton of new datasheets for OOP FW models, no points sure but you can simply multiply the PL by 20 if you want to.

 Mymearan wrote:
So this is a HUGE faq release, with almost every faction having gotten changed. From what I've seeing, the only complaints that pop up frequently are

1) The Tactical Reserves beta rule
2) The Eldar Farseer/Warlock point changes
3) The fact that some factions like GK didn't get much needed changes

Considering the size of the release, it would seem to me they did a pretty great job with this one on the whole? I also love that they added a ton of new datasheets for OOP FW models, no points sure but you can simply multiply the PL by 20 if you want to.

Sure. Great job making game balance worse. If that is good for you guess it can be called great job.

Godeskian wrote:
Remember also to distinguish between 'tournament useless' and 'casual useless'. For better or worse in 40K there is a distinction between what works at a WAAC environment where every single point and model is balanced against the cruel needs of ultra efficiency gaming, versus you and a mate at the local FLGS where my Paladin heavy GK can still semi regularly score wins because folks there don't ever go to tournament.

1. Paladins were already considered mediocre overall so that point doesn't help you.

2. No, Drop Pods are functionally useless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Godeskian wrote:
Remember also to distinguish between 'tournament useless' and 'casual useless'. For better or worse in 40K there is a distinction between what works at a WAAC environment where every single point and model is balanced against the cruel needs of ultra efficiency gaming, versus you and a mate at the local FLGS where my Paladin heavy GK can still semi regularly score wins because folks there don't ever go to tournament.

1. Paladins were already considered mediocre overall so that point doesn't help you.

2. No, Drop Pods are functionally useless.

I think the status of Paladins actually demonstrates exactly my point. In my gaming environment, they are perfectly adequate, not optimal per se, but perfectly usable and viable. Would I take them to tournament? Probably not, but are they useless? Depends on the relative harshness of the environment.

Its not an argument regarding game balance mind you, but to automatically declare anything not tournament level tier as useless is to completely fail to take into account that a lot of people don't play in a tournament or even a particularly harsh meta.

The goal of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun in the hobby.

Can't comment on drop pods though, none of my three armies can take them

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

dbhaack wrote:


Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?

Yes, because they're different datasheets.

That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.

Any turny organizer worth his salt that is using the rule of three will consider them the same unit, just like a chaos lord and a terminator chaos lord are the same unit.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
So this is a HUGE faq release, with almost every faction having gotten changed. From what I've seeing, the only complaints that pop up frequently are

1) The Tactical Reserves beta rule
2) The Eldar Farseer/Warlock point changes
3) The fact that some factions like GK didn't get much needed changes

Considering the size of the release, it would seem to me they did a pretty great job with this one on the whole? I also love that they added a ton of new datasheets for OOP FW models, no points sure but you can simply multiply the PL by 20 if you want to.

Sure. Great job making game balance worse. If that is good for you guess it can be called great job.

Be more specific. If you're talking about ONE rule that is in beta (ie should not be used in normal play, and my group certainly won't), among hundreds of changes, I would call that a "pretty great job", yep.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

dbhaack wrote:


Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?

Yes, because they're different datasheets.

That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.

Any turny organizer worth his salt that is using the rule of three will consider them the same unit, just like a chaos lord and a terminator chaos lord are the same unit.

Are they in separate entries? If yes they are separate 0-3.

And at least in index chaos lord and chaois terminator lord are on separate entries. Assuming codex didnt' merge them one entry with profile tyou can indeed bring whopping _21_ chaos lords of various types under new rules. Think you'll run out of points and detachments before you run out of lords you can field! Albeit some might not be most optimal choices but hey ho.

And even if they were merged into one entry with options index entries would still be legal...

IG can bring 40 leman russ hulls to the battle(wonder how many points that even would be) etc etc.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.

That‘s fine. They can serve as truffle pigs to identify the most problematic stuff. They just lack the perspective and/or mental capacity and most importantly the experience with the myriad of non-tournament formats of 40K to grasp the game in its entirety beyond their skewed little microcosm.

Things like Grey Knights or Magnus are good examples. Tournament players frequently and erroneously call them too weak or underpowered. They are clearly not and still firmly in the top 25% or 30% of all 40K, thus actually still rather too good/cheap still.

But the tournament crowd is blind too that, because these units/armies/etc are perhaps not in the top 1% or even 5% of the most egregiously broken stuff they see as „normal“ and use as „reference“.


Constant exposure to the extreme numbs you to the normal and consciously limiting yourself to one exotic variant of 40K makes you ignorant if the games‘ full variety and breadth.

So what you are saying, is that if you play poker and get a royal straight, you will just throw them and ask for five new cards.
Because a royal straight is to powerful.
When can I play against you for money?

The combination of list building and points probably exist so people can see how can build the "best" list. Otherwise it's pointless - go play chess.
If you just want to play "fluffy" lists and don't care if they are equally powerful, you don't need points.

/ Fredrik

Crazy_swede wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.

That‘s fine. They can serve as truffle pigs to identify the most problematic stuff. They just lack the perspective and/or mental capacity and most importantly the experience with the myriad of non-tournament formats of 40K to grasp the game in its entirety beyond their skewed little microcosm.

Things like Grey Knights or Magnus are good examples. Tournament players frequently and erroneously call them too weak or underpowered. They are clearly not and still firmly in the top 25% or 30% of all 40K, thus actually still rather too good/cheap still.

But the tournament crowd is blind too that, because these units/armies/etc are perhaps not in the top 1% or even 5% of the most egregiously broken stuff they see as „normal“ and use as „reference“.


Constant exposure to the extreme numbs you to the normal and consciously limiting yourself to one exotic variant of 40K makes you ignorant if the games‘ full variety and breadth.

So what you are saying, is that if you play poker and get a royal straight, you will just throw them and ask for five new cards.
Because a royal straight is to powerful.
When can I play against you for money?

The combination of list building and points probably exist so people can see how can build the "best" list. Otherwise it's pointless - go play chess.
If you just want to play "fluffy" lists and don't care if they are equally powerful, you don't need points.

/ Fredrik

That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.

 Mymearan wrote:


That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.

Thing you miss is that having balanced rules helps narrative for fun players even MORE than competive players.

Competive players don't care. They just buy new models/armies to chase the meta. That's why GW doesn't even care about balance.

It's the narrative players who should care more about balance as generally getting automatically blown out of field without chance isn't generally fun nor is it even good for narrative.

However it's the tournament players who are most adept at finding problems.

Look. GW has been doing 40k for what? 30 years? It hasn't used tournament players in it. Game is such an unbalanced mess as it is BECAUSE tournament players aren't used to balance it out. If tournament players would be used it might even be reasonably balanced which in turn WOULD HELP THE NARRATIVE PLAYERS. Actually more than tournament players who don't have particularly lot of vested interest in balance. Unit A sucks? Ok they don't buy it. They buy unit B instead.

Still. If you want the game to have semblance of balance(which works more in favour of narrative players) you want tournament players doing it. Not others. That's what GW has been doing and that's why 40k is balance wise in worse shape than in many many years.

Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?

Thing I am most annoyed about is the fact they did nothing about Necron Lychguard. Either make them cheaper or give their shields a 3+ invulnerable - otherwise they are useless.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:


That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.

Thing you miss is that having balanced rules helps narrative for fun players even MORE than competive players.

Competive players don't care. They just buy new models/armies to chase the meta. That's why GW doesn't even care about balance.

It's the narrative players who should care more about balance as generally getting automatically blown out of field without chance isn't generally fun nor is it even good for narrative.

However it's the tournament players who are most adept at finding problems.

Look. GW has been doing 40k for what? 30 years? It hasn't used tournament players in it. Game is such an unbalanced mess as it is BECAUSE tournament players aren't used to balance it out. If tournament players would be used it might even be reasonably balanced which in turn WOULD HELP THE NARRATIVE PLAYERS. Actually more than tournament players who don't have particularly lot of vested interest in balance. Unit A sucks? Ok they don't buy it. They buy unit B instead.

Still. If you want the game to have semblance of balance(which works more in favour of narrative players) you want tournament players doing it. Not others. That's what GW has been doing and that's why 40k is balance wise in worse shape than in many many years.

No, creating a game focused at tournaments will not help casual players, it will create a game focused at tournaments! 40k for tournaments is a completely different game then a normal game of 40k.

 jhnbrg wrote:

No, creating a game focused at tournaments will not help casual players, it will create a game focused at tournaments! 40k for tournaments is a completely different game then a normal game of 40k.

So you don't think ability to field any unit you want without having to worry about being automatically wiped out because of army is bad?

Unbelievable how people have this misconception that balance is somehow bad for casual and that indeed casual players require unbalanced game to have fun...When there actually wouldn't be rule differences. Just point cost differences for like 99% cases.

Yeah it's a quandary alright, personally I'm all in favour of every unit having a place on the board.

tneva82 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

No, creating a game focused at tournaments will not help casual players, it will create a game focused at tournaments! 40k for tournaments is a completely different game then a normal game of 40k.

So you don't think ability to field any unit you want without having to worry about being automatically wiped out because of army is bad?

Unbelievable how people have this misconception that balance is somehow bad for casual and that indeed casual players require unbalanced game to have fun...When there actually wouldn't be rule differences. Just point cost differences for like 99% cases.

I think its you that have some misconceptions.

1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.

40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.

 jhnbrg wrote:

I think its you that have some misconceptions.

1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.

40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.

Ah yes upping/lowering point costs is oh so obviously removing rules and armies from the game

Uh no. It's reverse. As it is flavourful rules and armies are removed because GW can't be bothered to balance. Deathwing was basically removed due to the 0-3 restriction. If game was balanced that wouldn't be problem. So because GW can't be bothered to make balance making deathwing army became very hard.

Sigh. Well enjoy the unbalanced junk rather than having balanced flavourful game that could be had if tournament players would balance it out.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:


That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.

Thing you miss is that having balanced rules helps narrative for fun players even MORE than competive players.

Competive players don't care. They just buy new models/armies to chase the meta. That's why GW doesn't even care about balance.

It's the narrative players who should care more about balance as generally getting automatically blown out of field without chance isn't generally fun nor is it even good for narrative.

However it's the tournament players who are most adept at finding problems.

Look. GW has been doing 40k for what? 30 years? It hasn't used tournament players in it. Game is such an unbalanced mess as it is BECAUSE tournament players aren't used to balance it out. If tournament players would be used it might even be reasonably balanced which in turn WOULD HELP THE NARRATIVE PLAYERS. Actually more than tournament players who don't have particularly lot of vested interest in balance. Unit A sucks? Ok they don't buy it. They buy unit B instead.

Still. If you want the game to have semblance of balance(which works more in favour of narrative players) you want tournament players doing it. Not others. That's what GW has been doing and that's why 40k is balance wise in worse shape than in many many years.

Nothing I wrote contradicts what you wrote... I agree with you that tournaments can be used to balance the game. I was replying to the guy saying that it's "pointless" to play with points unless you're trying to write the best possible list and you might as well go play chess.

The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.

Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.

Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.

Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.

tneva82 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

I think its you that have some misconceptions.

1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.

40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.

Ah yes upping/lowering point costs is oh so obviously removing rules and armies from the game

Uh no. It's reverse. As it is flavourful rules and armies are removed because GW can't be bothered to balance. Deathwing was basically removed due to the 0-3 restriction. If game was balanced that wouldn't be problem. So because GW can't be bothered to make balance making deathwing army became very hard.

Sigh. Well enjoy the unbalanced junk rather than having balanced flavourful game that could be had if tournament players would balance it out.

In order to make a meanigfull balance with points you HAVE to remove a lot of things.
There are a lot of things in 40k right now that cant be balanced with only points (how many points is -1 to hit worth? How many points are a lascannon worth against a horde? How many points are going first worth?)
The fact that you think that points will solve anything just shows that you need to think a bit harder about balance in 40k.

Flavourful rules and armies are being removed because WAAC tournament players are puking all over every scrap of fluff and lore in order to create thing that has nothing to do with 40k. Why cant you just play games that are ment for tournaments instead?

tneva82 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

I think its you that have some misconceptions.

1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.

40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.

Ah yes upping/lowering point costs is oh so obviously removing rules and armies from the game

Uh no. It's reverse. As it is flavourful rules and armies are removed because GW can't be bothered to balance. Deathwing was basically removed due to the 0-3 restriction. If game was balanced that wouldn't be problem. So because GW can't be bothered to make balance making deathwing army became very hard.

Sigh. Well enjoy the unbalanced junk rather than having balanced flavourful game that could be had if tournament players would balance it out.

Weird - I've played Deathwing since 3rd edition and my list wasn't overly affected by the 0-3 restriction. I already ran 3 squads of Terminators, Belial, a Terminator Master or Librarian or two, 2-3 Venerable Dreads, a Mortis Dread, a Land Raider Crusader, a squad of DWK and the Champion/Ancient/Apothecary that used to be a Command Squad. That's somewhere around 2500 points if I field it all at once without needing to worry about the 0-3 rule.

Even if some adjustments are needed in smaller games, that's hardly removed.

 Mymearan wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.

Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.

Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.

Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!

eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.