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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

 hollow one wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.

The mentality that everything is going to die within the first couple turns and it’s all about doing as much damage to the other guy as quickly as possible in order to succeed will soon subside.

This is a very important comment.
We will see smoother games now and this is how a tabletop should be.
The game should develop. The enemy forces approach slowly until they get in touch.
Its more like the normal 30k games I've played so far.

tneva82 wrote:

 hollow one wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.

Some units aren't broken UNTIL you spam them though. One or two flyrants aren't a big deal because a handful of lascannons and plasma guns will wreck them. Seven is a different story.

That's because effect of brokeness is more easily visible. But still core issue is with too good effect for the cost. Fix the core issue, fix the spam issue. Limiting is just GW style of putting head in sand they used to do with special characters. "This super awesome model is undercosted but it's allright because it's max 1 in the army!"

Some units aren't broken UNTIL you spam them though. One or two flyrants aren't a big deal because a handful of lascannons and plasma guns will wreck them. Seven is a different story.

This can be formulated more precisely by the Lanchester square law (WW II).

 hollow one wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

Under that logic, Special Characters could go significantly down in price and it would be okay, as there is already a limit on them in the first place.

Imagine Roboute at 300 points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
That's because effect of brokeness is more easily visible. But still core issue is with too good effect for the cost. Fix the core issue, fix the spam issue. Limiting is just GW style of putting head in sand they used to do with special characters. "This super awesome model is undercosted but it's allright because it's max 1 in the army!"

He made the correct response. I just used Roboute as the example to illustrate the point.

This is a game based on counters, so spam itself of any unit is in itself a problem and they correctly addressed that. There is a quality in quanitity, simply because a TAC list will have part of it's list in target saturation and part useless.

Add to this that without this change, any unbalanced model would break the game. Now unbalanced models can go unanswered for a while without a major impact. Sure, they will have to be fixed in the next CA, but at least you are not ruining the game for everyone.

Saying that this change does nothing to prevent unbalance, is like saying that bandaging a wound is useless because the wound is still there.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect here. Sure he is a better player, and he will probably understand the fundamentals of the game a lot better, but that doesn't make him automatically a person who is invested in making the game better rather than improving his chances of winning. I don't know the guy, so I would not presume to make any assumptions either way in this regard, but there are two separate things here.

Malachon wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect here. Sure he is a better player, and he will probably understand the fundamentals of the game a lot better, but that doesn't make him automatically a person who is invested in making the game better rather than improving his chances of winning. I don't know the guy, so I would not presume to make any assumptions either way in this regard, but there are two separate things here.

I have great respect from this guy.
Some time ago (ages?) I also played in the top bracket. The guys (ladies?) there may sound arrogant but they usually arent.
So I'd trust this guy.

 mokoshkana wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.

That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.

Ruins (pg 248)
Infantry are assume to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.

And therefore the assumption is that there are windows, doors, and portals. They are not moving through "brick walls."

If you want a brick wall, all you have to do is declare that this here wall is impassable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The mentality that everything is going to die within the first couple turns and it’s all about doing as much damage to the other guy as quickly as possible in order to succeed will soon subside.

This is a very important comment.
We will see smoother games now and this is how a tabletop should be.
The game should develop. The enemy forces approach slowly until they get in touch.
Its more like the normal 30k games I've played so far.

Yeah. The whole front-loading of damage completely warps the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 hollow one wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally mis-characterising my arguments or not. I'm obviously not saying have poor balance is preferred, but instead saying that limiting the amount of units you can bring adds flexibility in unit design because it limits the impact of efficient units. It's not an excuse for too good a unit, and clearly you can see examples of that being dealt with in a different manner (bobby g price increase, even though he is already limited to one unit). These rules work in tandem, and working together they add greater freedom to a design team.

So overall, its clear to me that limiting to 3 of the same unit affords some freedom in printing efficient dataslates without the worry of a spam list appearing and destroying the meta. It is an effective crutch that you can do interesting things with! For example, some units can circumvent the limitation by having grouped units (leman russ for eg) or some units might have a special rule allowing them to be spammed, but are intentionally inefficient. You add flexibility when you limit potentially broken units across the board. I think the rule is extremely useful and a massive improvement to the game, especially from a design perspective. Additionally, as other's have said, 3 flyrants at their original price may simply not be broken, but 7 or 9 almost certainly is. Your assumption that a higher number simply reveals the broken-ness to a greater degree is just an assumption.

You're then following up with the classic "by the faulty logic I just gave you, then x and y are also stupid!". So I'm not going to address the rest.

tneva82 wrote:

 hollow one wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.

Of course it is an excuse for “too” good units, because “spam” changes the value of a unit. That doesn’t mean that the points on all units are 100% correct, but it does mean the points at which they are correct are different. The value of a flyrant in a 7 flyrant list is significantly different than one in a list with 1 or even 3. Because in the 7 flyrant list killing 1 or 2 is no big loss because 5 of 6 still beat your face. If you only have 3 and so kill 2 the one remaining tyrant is not on the same level as 5 would be as far as difficulty to deal with. The same is true with Special characters to an extent, they may or may not be properly costed, but if you could spam them they would be a larger issue and as such their points in order to be fixed would need to be much higher. Let’s put it this way they raised the flyrant point cost I think people would still take 7 if they could, but when limited to 3 I think there is more of a question because there is less certainty of them getting a return on that investment. In order to fix 7 with points I think you make 1 or 2 unplayable. That is why limits work units can still be good, but they are not broken because other players can handle them. Once you get to that state it is time to look at units that never see play and buff those to be usable. That said I doubt we will ever see a time with perfect internal balance. What I hope for is for multiple lists and units to be viable in each book and I think limits present the best road to that list end.

tneva82 wrote:

So having unbalanced unit is good?

Sure, it can be. That's an important part of creating an identity for a faction, actually. Especially for factions that don't by design just lack some capability entirely, you distinguish them by making them better at certain things. A commitment to complete balance between units across factions is a recipe for all factions fielding similar lists and pursuing similar strategies. It's actually really common in game design for a factions to be deliberately given overpowered but restricted choices that help define them. Magic does this a lot -- there are frequently cards that are basically auto-includes in decks of the appropriate color(s), because the designers want those colors to do what those cards do very, very well. Warcraft 3 gave you your first hero for free because they're so important for distinguishing the factions. In some sense the internal balance here was awful, because you'd always build a hero early on, but encouraging that was actually the point. It seems pretty plausible to me that GW intends for most Tyranid armies to field a couple of Hive Tyrants. Certainly that seems like the intention for Tau Commanders.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 hollow one wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

Under that logic, Special Characters could go significantly down in price and it would be okay, as there is already a limit on them in the first place.

Imagine Roboute at 300 points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
That's because effect of brokeness is more easily visible. But still core issue is with too good effect for the cost. Fix the core issue, fix the spam issue. Limiting is just GW style of putting head in sand they used to do with special characters. "This super awesome model is undercosted but it's allright because it's max 1 in the army!"

He made the correct response. I just used Roboute as the example to illustrate the point.

Imagine Rouboit at 400 points if you could take 2 or 3 of him. It isn’t that there is not a balance point for limited models, it is that the balance point for those models is not the same as if you can spam them because their effect on the game is different. Take Celestine at 200 points she might be slightly indercosted, if you could take 5 of her she would be wildly undercosted because it is harder to deal with her, you would be getting 5 free acts of faith, 5 respawnign models. The point you guys ar missing is that it isn’t a question of whether these models still need a points fix (we don’t know yet how they perform as limited models) it’s that the point fix is different depending on how many you can take.

I would bet money that before even writing that bollocks he had all ready come up with his next list that bends,breaks or circumvents the rules.

I reckon he is all ready playing mind games with his opponents and the FAQ will have little effect on game length and time to kill.

Chances are he has the next big spam/shooting alpha strike or other skew list ready to go.

Basicly he is the ultimate TFG He just is polite about it

SeanDrake wrote:
I would bet money that before even writing that bollocks he had all ready come up with his next list that bends,breaks or circumvents the rules.

I reckon he is all ready playing mind games with his opponents and the FAQ will have little effect on game length and time to kill.

Chances are he has the next big spam/shooting alpha strike or other skew list ready to go.

Basicly he is the ultimate TFG He just is polite about it

He may well find the next broken list. But that does not invalidate his points. In fact, personally, I find that it makes his points much more valid since he is the one that clearly understands the state of the game in a more thorough sense.

Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).

tedurur wrote:
Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).

It's putting head in the sand and pretending there's no issue. Flytyrant too cheap? Add the price rather than limitation. Limitation btw that isn't even for flytyrant but GAME WIDE. Which results in other than flytyrants being affected. Which, as btw real life experience has shown before since these kind of game wide limitations have been repeatedly tried in past 20 years, will result in further imbalance where strong armies shrug it off while other armies go from about playable to junk and weak armies go even weaker.

Many many many(including GW) has tried these sort of blanket restrictions in past 20 years(can't verify have they been tried before since I didn't play GW games before). Every time it has created more problems in balance than it solved. This attempt isn't even particularly creative or good one. There's been much better attempts before. Yet they failed. Not once it was actually succesfull.

If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the problem rather than just apply blanket wide restrictions. Those provenly leads to more balance problems. If this was first time somebody would try sure give it a shot. But this is super old repeatedly tried concept. Why anybody is still naive enough it might work this time without actually changing anything about it...

Its kinda cool the no deepstrike outside deployment turn 1 might actually make the game play faster and not take 1.5 hours turn 1s anymore.

I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

tneva82 wrote:

tedurur wrote:
Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).

It's putting head in the sand and pretending there's no issue. Flytyrant too cheap? Add the price rather than limitation. Limitation btw that isn't even for flytyrant but GAME WIDE. Which results in other than flytyrants being affected. Which, as btw real life experience has shown before since these kind of game wide limitations have been repeatedly tried in past 20 years, will result in further imbalance where strong armies shrug it off while other armies go from about playable to junk and weak armies go even weaker.

Many many many(including GW) has tried these sort of blanket restrictions in past 20 years(can't verify have they been tried before since I didn't play GW games before). Every time it has created more problems in balance than it solved. This attempt isn't even particularly creative or good one. There's been much better attempts before. Yet they failed. Not once it was actually succesfull.

If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the problem rather than just apply blanket wide restrictions. Those provenly leads to more balance problems. If this was first time somebody would try sure give it a shot. But this is super old repeatedly tried concept. Why anybody is still naive enough it might work this time without actually changing anything about it...

It still works better than points only balancing, which few games do and it always leads to spam the best thing. Say this with me now there does not exist a points cost where 1 or something is good at which spamming that thing is bad. The only things that works for are support models that become redundant when spammed. You are also only right about it causing worse balance if underpowered factions are not addressed. GW is addressing balance issues, so restrictions make it much easier to balance the game, because it reveals the areas where change is needed, spam avoids this issue by only highlighting a few problem units.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

Hard to say if that part comes true, but I think he's basically saying that tougher things will be on the table. Softer things will be in deepstrike. There is less worry about certain direct counters to those tougher things, because deepstrikers won't interfere. And then we you've repositioned you can go tit for tat with deepstrikers - cover your own lines - assault theirs.

tneva82 wrote:


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

I like the cut of your jib.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

I like the cut of your jib.

tneva82 wrote:

tedurur wrote:
Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).

It's putting head in the sand and pretending there's no issue. Flytyrant too cheap? Add the price rather than limitation. Limitation btw that isn't even for flytyrant but GAME WIDE. Which results in other than flytyrants being affected. Which, as btw real life experience has shown before since these kind of game wide limitations have been repeatedly tried in past 20 years, will result in further imbalance where strong armies shrug it off while other armies go from about playable to junk and weak armies go even weaker.

Many many many(including GW) has tried these sort of blanket restrictions in past 20 years(can't verify have they been tried before since I didn't play GW games before). Every time it has created more problems in balance than it solved. This attempt isn't even particularly creative or good one. There's been much better attempts before. Yet they failed. Not once it was actually succesfull.

If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the problem rather than just apply blanket wide restrictions. Those provenly leads to more balance problems. If this was first time somebody would try sure give it a shot. But this is super old repeatedly tried concept. Why anybody is still naive enough it might work this time without actually changing anything about it...

It's not "putting your head in the sand", it's "not living in fantasy land". GW (or any other company) will never ever be able to perfectly balance each unit. Can you give an example as to how not being able to spam broken units will make the game less balanced? If you have a limited amount of computer power and want to simulate something it makes sense that you limit the effects of extreme boundary conditions.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

I like the cut of your jib.

Seconded. Arbitrary unit limitations favor the armies with the most powerful units, which - in all cases - happen to be shooty.

Well the Rule of 3 is basically the old Highlander rule from the mid 90's but updated for the size of armies in todays 40K.

Back then you had like 6 to 8 units. Now you have at least double that on average.

So I am all for that

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

I like the cut of your jib.

Seconded. Arbitrary unit limitations favor the armies with the most powerful units, which - in all cases - happen to be shooty.

The difference between now and 20 years ago is that the units that are too powerful don't have to worry that in 6 months they'll be nerfed.

I'm curious if the game really will move on to durability.

Look at the Devs vs Reapers discussion. We discussed that Devs could have 2.5x the durability compared to Reapers having 1.5x the firepower at the same-ish points, if Devs took cheap chumps and Reapers took more fully-armed members. The consensus was that that was what made Reapers OP and Devs trash.

So more than doubling durability of a firebase unit in a gunline was worth less than getting half again the firepower.

I really hope the analysis is accurate, and output ceases to be the only thing that matters in unit choices.