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.

The FAQ was great IMO. I like the direction GW are moving 40k towards and I like the fact that the meta is evolving.

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ was great IMO. I like the direction GW are moving 40k towards and I like the fact that the meta is evolving.

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

I think Leman Russes might need to lose squadding and FW datasheets need tackling, but I overall agree.

To that end, the limit-3-of-a-datasheet can't be more than a patch, without substantial reworks. So I can only take 3 Warlocks. On foot anyways - I can take 3 on foot and 3 on jetbikes. The difference between datasheets isn't as consistent between books as you might think. One book might have a couple options each with tons of customization, and another might have minor alterations be seperate units/datasheets. Weren't the Predator Annialator and Destructor 2 different "units" at one point?

A worthwhile stopgap, sure. But I'm sure it can be done better in the long run.

It isn't perfect but I liked it, it shows that GW are willing to make big, bold changes that are going to change the way people play and keep things interesting.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ was great IMO. I like the direction GW are moving 40k towards and I like the fact that the meta is evolving.

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

I think Leman Russes might need to lose squadding and FW datasheets need tackling, but I overall agree.

Perhaps All leman Russ tanks gain the (leman Russ) keyword and you cannot take anymore than 3 tanks with the (leman Russ) keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

MY deathwing , when I brought this up on another forum their solution was “don’t play deathwing then”

 Formosa wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ was great IMO. I like the direction GW are moving 40k towards and I like the fact that the meta is evolving.

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

I think Leman Russes might need to lose squadding and FW datasheets need tackling, but I overall agree.

Perhaps All leman Russ tanks gain the (leman Russ) keyword and you cannot take anymore than 3 tanks with the (leman Russ) keyword.

But its not keywrods its dataslates/sheets so every LR with a datasheet is 0-3 at 2k points, I'm not sure the squadron allows you past that actually

Ice_can wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ was great IMO. I like the direction GW are moving 40k towards and I like the fact that the meta is evolving.

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

I think Leman Russes might need to lose squadding and FW datasheets need tackling, but I overall agree.

Perhaps All leman Russ tanks gain the (leman Russ) keyword and you cannot take anymore than 3 tanks with the (leman Russ) keyword.

But its not keywrods its dataslates/sheets so every LR with a datasheet is 0-3 at 2k points, I'm not sure the squadron allows you past that actually

I know, my suggestion fixes that, 0-3 leman Russ regardless of type, it’s something I will house rule for our tourney packs, test it out and send feedback, will of course test it out vanilla too, as currently everyone else can only take 3 “battle tanks” and guard can spam the crap out of them, that’s a clear issue for trying to deal with them.

I like the FAQ. It was good, didn't fix everything, but did change a lot of bad things for the better

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.

Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.

Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.

If all codexs had good internal and external balance maybe.
Not if one army has only one or two good/competative choices in a given slot as your now maxed out at 3 and then on to taking sub par choices. If you have a depth of competative choices your in a much better position.

I thought it was pretty good. My Admech Infiltrators lose some bite since I can't deepstrike behind my enemy, but at the same time, my Styies VII stratagem still works, so that's fine with me. It also shows they're aware of how devastating first turn can be.

Both my main lists got CP buffs. My Admech list is now at 15 CP and my ork list is at 13. Kinda sad orks didn't get any point decreases, which we desperately need for about 70% of our codex, but I think it was pretty decent.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.

Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.

It would be fair if everyone had the same baseline to begin with. In this game however we do not.
Would you call it fair if everyone had to pay 5000$ every day in a world where half the people get a daily 10000$ and others get nothing?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

No, it really isn't.

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.

Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.

If all codexs had good internal and external balance maybe.
Not if one army has only one or two good/competative choices in a given slot as your now maxed out at 3 and then on to taking sub par choices. If you have a depth of competative choices your in a much better position.

This is like saying that a worse football team should start with more goals when playing a better team.

There are no handicaps in a competitive environment. Its equal or nothing.

If only one or two units are competitive in a slot you take bigger squads of them. Its pretty simple.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.

Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.

If all codexs had good internal and external balance maybe.
Not if one army has only one or two good/competative choices in a given slot as your now maxed out at 3 and then on to taking sub par choices. If you have a depth of competative choices your in a much better position.

This is like saying that a worse football team should start with more goals when playing a better team.

There are no handicaps in a competitive environment. Its equal or nothing.

If only one or two units are competitive in a slot you take bigger squads of them. Its pretty simple.

Great idea I'll tell GW I need to be able to take a bigger squad of single model datasheets.

It's decent. I'm a little salty that the boosted the CP on Battalions, but didn't boost the CP for DE Raiding Party. I'll have to re-jigger my army again.

Ice_can wrote:

Great idea I'll tell GW I need to be able to take a bigger squad of single model datasheets.

Good luck! You've probably got more chance than telling them you want to go back to spam city

I really dont understand the bump in CPs for battalions and brigades when the developers said the reason they did it was to help elite armies.
Yeah, that makes sense.

 bullyboy wrote:
I really dont understand the bump in CPs for battalions and brigades when the developers said the reason they did it was to help elite armies.
Yeah, that makes sense.

Because technically IG can't use all those CP and elite armies taking battlions get a boost.

...Why can't IG use all those CP? By the same extension how does a elite army fill those slots in the first place?

 Quickjager wrote:
...Why can't IG use all those CP? By the same extension how does a elite army fill those slots in the first place?

They just usually don't have units in place to use them often enough and the regenerate so much anyway. Every time I play against IG they have 10+ remaining.

Just curious if anyone noticed that 3 battalions now give more CP than a Brigade?

JmOz01 wrote:
Just curious if anyone noticed that 3 battalions now give more CP than a Brigade?

Yea, but that's a bunch more units and all of your detachments. Remember rule of 3 as well.

Yeah, IG don't use all of his CP in a game. The difference between having 12 CP and 20 CP when you are regenerating them is irrelevant.

But for Adeptus Custodes the difference between having 7 CP ( 3 batallion+1 vanguard/etc...+3 base) vs having 9 CP (5 batallion+1 vanguard/etc...+3 base) is huge.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

JmOz01 wrote:
Just curious if anyone noticed that 3 battalions now give more CP than a Brigade?

Yea, but that's a bunch more units and all of your detachments. Remember rule of 3 as well.

Actually less units (-3), but more core/HQ's (+3 each)

9 troops and 6 HQ vs 6 troops, 3 HQ, 3 Elite, 3 Fast Attack, & 3 Heavy Weapons

True about all your detachments however

I like this as it will make people actually have to have some variation in their army instead of taking 5+ of that really good unit and hope it goes well. Now we can really do things like tactical movement, denial, claiming objectives instead of just shooting each other off the table.

Also I keep hearing IG gunline this and that but I have yet to see any IG gunline armies win the bog tournaments. All I see is people poaching Infantry squads and mortars to increase their CPs.

Positive direction for the game. Still not in a state I'd play it but moving closer to where I'd try again.

 Formosa wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

MY deathwing , when I brought this up on another forum their solution was “don’t play deathwing then”

Yeah, poor Deathwing, such limited unit choice. Between Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Cataphractii Terminators, Deathwing Tartaros Terminators, Deathwing Knights, Deathwing Champion, Deathwing Apothecary, Deathwing Ancient, Deathwing Termie Master, Deathwing Master in Cataphractii Armour, Deathwing Librarian, Deathwing Chaplain, Deathwing Chaplain Dreadnought, Belial, Deathwing Dreadnought, Deathwing Venerable Dreadnought, Deathwing Contemptor Dreadnought, Deathwing Land Raider, you totally have zero choice that is totally not larger than what most armies in the game get, and that's without even considering Forge World units

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.

It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.

Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.

If all or even most of the codexes had a similar number of things to choose from across multiple roles, I’d agree. But they don’t, not even remotely. Sometimes treating everyone the same means actually being unfair to those that don’t fit the mold you’re trying to make.