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.

Breng77 wrote:

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Gee. Now you would limit my poor killa kan's from 18 to 3. Thanks a lot! Killa kan's are such an awesome broken cheese right now after all...Shudder at the sight of awesome survivability of T5 W5 4+ save! With 3 attacks that hit on 8+! Averaging less than marine dead a turn! With mediocre gun! For a steal cost of about 60 pts per model!

Don't do same stupid mistake GW did and do blanket changes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income

That's me

Be right back, guys, buying 24 more war walkers since squadrons seem to be in this month!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

Well - GW doesn't collect that data so we can only speculate. Who the heck do you think wants to buy easy to build redemptor dreads and intercessors? Seems like a move directly targeting young people to me.

Me, I'm a 33 year old and would've 100% gotten the redemptor easy to build kit if it was out when I got mine (maybe even 2 instead of just the one normal one I did). I also got the easy to build aggressors, but maybe its just because i'm broke af.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k's main target audience right now is aimed at pre-teen boys who use Mummy's credit card to buy £200 of models and then quit after 3 weeks. For some reason GW think like percentages would confuse them.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, this is not a dig at any demographic in particular, it's a dig at GW targeting the completely wrong demographic. 20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target, but it isn't since I guess we already own models so they don't care about trying to sell us more?

Supported by exactly no data. Just the kind of post Dakka needs, but not the one it deserves!

I will not agree that BCB is right, but i will point out that GWs biggest market for repeat customers, are not teens or young adults, its men in their late 20s and above who have disposable income. Teens and young adults will get impulse buys, but older people aare going to me the meat and potatos.

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Gee. Now you would limit my poor killa kan's from 18 to 3. Thanks a lot! Killa kan's are such an awesome broken cheese right now after all...Shudder at the sight of awesome survivability of T5 W5 4+ save! With 3 attacks that hit on 8+! Averaging less than marine dead a turn! With mediocre gun! For a steal cost of about 60 pts per model!

Don't do same stupid mistake GW did and do blanket changes.

Kans don't act seperately on the table, they are a single unit of 1-6 models. Unlike Deff Dreads which are bought as one selection but are individual units on the table.

SO I would limit things like Russes, but not land speeders.Maybe you should actually know your rules rather than call out problems that don't actually exist.

Every other game in existance has restrictions and rules. MTG has "blocks" where certain cards get rotated out for balance, Warmachine limits what models you can take by the warcaster you choose (for balance... and fluff), etc.

People want to complain about 40k being imbalanced and unfun... but when GW takes steps to correct that, they throw a fit they can't use everything in existence.

You need to pick what you want - a balanced game, or the ability to do what you want when you want. If your a narrative player, then ignore the restrictions and FAQ's and do whatever the hell you want, same with a casual game here and there.

Limits were put in place for the competitive minded people. You HAVE to have limits to attempt to balance stuff. Balancing all the various models and armies against one another is a huge undertaking, especially if someone can take as many of a model as their heart desires.

For people advocating a blanket change to how multiple unit datasheets are counted, have you considered that the marines combat squad rule works exactly the same, take a single datasheet, split it into multiple units during/following deployment.

In any case all this bitching about vehicle squadrons seems somewhat premature, people have had the ability to spam things like the Russ since 8th dropped and it's never seemed particularly prevalent or overly successful. The deepstrike change may change that going forward but we'll have to see. In any case I'd like to point out that all you have to do to shut a Russ down is make contact in melee, don't even need the ability to wound it. As long as you keep it locked up in melee it can't do a thing, an all Russ army is very vulnerable to that.

Like I said I don't think it is a huge issue, but if "fairness" is a concern then it matters. It remains to be seen whether squadrons will be an issue given the limitations though. I think the general complaint is that IG is powerful and largely unaffected by the data sheet restrictions as most of their vehicle options can take 9 copies in an army.

I'm not sure the 9 Xs army is any good though.

People are panicking because it "gets around the restrictions" but the actual data supporting its inevitable victory is solidly phhhrrrbbbttt.

EDIT:
Ironically the same people arguing "guard are OP because they ignore the 3 datasheet restriction" are exactly the same people who turn around and say "there should be no restrictions, units can be balanced without artificial limitations"

But for some reason the Russ and Basilisk are not those units, because *confetti*.

What does everyone keep acting like the 3 data sheet thing is a rule or even a beta rule, it's not it was only a suggestion

I don't think restrictions are necessarily a bad idea. The issue is that the current ones have been implemented with no regard individual armies or units.

I know that people say that IG doesn't care because it has squadrons, but not everything in the codex actually has squadrons.

So we're left with the curious situation wherein Leman Russ tanks are apparently three times as numerous as Heavy Weapon Teams.

Then you've got stuff like Dark Eldar. If I play Kabal, I have a single Heavy Support choice (FW notwithstanding) - the Ravager. Yet it has the exact same 0-3 restriction as armies with a dozen or so different HS units to choose from.

Also, the detachment system in general just seems like a real mess. I thought the whole point of having such a loose system was to make it less restrictive, but now we're just adding the restrictions back in anyway.

 Fafnir wrote:

Dark Eldar care about 0-3, because you get one unnamed HQ per obsession, and heaven help you if you want to run a single army built around any single cult or coven (or if you don't want to use the trash that is Drazhar).

Indeed. Although I maintain that this is at least partially a result of GW taking yet another massive dump on DE in the codex itself by still refusing to fix their dumpster-fire of a HQ section.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What does everyone keep acting like the 3 data sheet thing is a rule or even a beta rule, it's not it was only a suggestion

Given that both NOVA and ITC have stated how much they like the rule we can expect to restriction on both circuits. From there, non affilated tournaments will take the hint and add it. Then pretty much everyone who is in your meta will insist on it for casual games so they can prepare for those tournaments.

That being said I think it's a good change.

I still dont see why its ok for guard to have Russ spam, but crons, eldar, Tau, marines etc. are limited to 3 "battle tanks".

Could someone explain this to me.

Because the rule was a broad adjustment, not a fine-tuned fix.

Marines can have more than 3 Razorbacks - I thought troops and transports excepted? Same with Wave Serpents. Devil Fish aren't 'battle tanks', though.

Bharring wrote:
Because the rule was a broad adjustment, not a fine-tuned fix.

Marines can have more than 3 Razorbacks - I thought troops and transports excepted? Same with Wave Serpents. Devil Fish aren't 'battle tanks', though.

I am talking specifically about battle tank equivs, so Prisms, preds, Doomsday barge? hammerhead etc. that kind of thing, guard get Chimera in the same way as razors and Fish so thats still ok.

Falcons are certainly MBT that can transport. Serpents are easily considered battle tanks.

I get your point. Mine, in this post anyways, is the line between "battle tank" and "not battle tank" isn't as cut-and-dry across factions as we might like.

That each faction can chose 3 of each of their MBT option seems fine on it's face. That some units can be taken as squadrons also seems fine on it's face. The rules would have to be terribly specific to properly limit the "amount" of "battle-tankiness" each faction can field. Any broad rule they pick is going to have issues.

Might be more balanced if they FAQ it to be "more equal". I'm not sure I want Russ "brigades" out of the game entirely. From fluff, it'd make more sense to see that than a Pred or Prism brigade (prism is more like Whirlwind or Basilisk - it's an artillery piece mounted on a vehicle - CWE battletanks are superheavies or transports). From a crunch/fairness perspective, it does show how limited the targetting on the rule is that IG can still take 9 via squadroning.

The other "inequality" is what constitutes a datasheet. Why can Marines only take 3 units of Dev Cents, but CWE can take 6 units of WarWalkers (3 "War Walkers" and 3 "Wasps")? Granted, those get a lot less attention, but these things happen across many factions.

(Also, are the BA/SW/DA 'Predator' datasheets seperate datasheets?)

Bharring wrote:
That each faction can chose 3 of each of their MBT option seems fine on it's face. That some units can be taken as squadrons also seems fine on it's face. The rules would have to be terribly specific to properly limit the "amount" of "battle-tankiness" each faction can field. Any broad rule they pick is going to have issues.

Might be more balanced if they FAQ it to be "more equal". I'm not sure I want Russ "brigades" out of the game entirely. From fluff, it'd make more sense to see that than a Pred or Prism brigade (prism is more like Whirlwind or Basilisk - it's an artillery piece mounted on a vehicle - CWE battletanks are superheavies or transports). From a crunch/fairness perspective, it does show how limited the targetting on the rule is that IG can still take 9 via squadroning.

Fluff means gakk as far as balance is concerned.

If two tank stat lines are relatively equal, except one faction can take 3x as many despite an intended limitation of numbers, then that's just not balanced, or fair.

Also, unless you're an author for GW - you don't get to say what's fluffy, and what isn't. The universe is big, and it's adaptability and individualization is a key part of a players attachment to their army.

Plus, it's not like there are only THREE FirePrisms out there - why CAN'T more of them group up and move out together - hell, they've got "Linked Fire"; if nothing else, this is to say that larger groups of them should be more common, rather than less common.

But ultimately, we agree that arbitrarily determining "3 of a kind", without review to squad sizes of those similar kinds across different armies, is ineffective and hits different armies, well, differently.

Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

True, but FW is not practical for most people.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

True, but FW is not practical for most people.

*shrug* not a rules problem - it's practical for me, and I have two degrees worth of student loans to pay, live in a 1-bedroom apartment, and work just a regular starting job.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ironically the same people arguing "guard are OP because they ignore the 3 datasheet restriction" are exactly the same people who turn around and say "there should be no restrictions, units can be balanced without artificial limitations"

But for some reason the Russ and Basilisk are not those units, because *confetti*.

Guard is OP for plenty of other reasons. And yes, you can balance Russes and Basilisks in other ways (namely either nerfing them or adjusting the points), and in fact, that is exactly what should be done. It is just that the whole restriction is completely stupid, as it affect different armies so disproportionately.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

about 10 is possible unless you go completely naked russes. And if it were on me I would have restricted Russes more heavily not the other way around. But IG players love "tank company" and so it will never happen. GW basically made the IG codex possible to play as an all russ army (even giving them OS) now I wish they would make that not for organized play because I think it creates a huge skew in the game. Given this new ruling I would be tempted to remove all "squadrons" of vehicles that act as seperate units once on the table. Or for those types of units to "count" as that number of the data sheet. So 3 russes max. I'm not saying it is perfect, it isn't I'm saying it creates an overall better game state than no restrictions. Personally I have never seen 10 russes at 2k points, I've seen 4 at most, because there are other better options. Again my hope is that if 10 russes becomes a problem GW will address it.

Gee. Now you would limit my poor killa kan's from 18 to 3. Thanks a lot! Killa kan's are such an awesome broken cheese right now after all...Shudder at the sight of awesome survivability of T5 W5 4+ save! With 3 attacks that hit on 8+! Averaging less than marine dead a turn! With mediocre gun! For a steal cost of about 60 pts per model!

Don't do same stupid mistake GW did and do blanket changes.

Kans don't act seperately on the table, they are a single unit of 1-6 models. Unlike Deff Dreads which are bought as one selection but are individual units on the table.

SO I would limit things like Russes, but not land speeders.Maybe you should actually know your rules rather than call out problems that don't actually exist.

That actually makes it impossible to take you seriously.

Russes being able to be in a squad together is a legacy thing that has always been there and you want to remove it out of some principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me see how big of a tank company I can make with Space Marines under the 0-3 restrictions:

3 Predators
3 Vindicators
1 Vindicator Laser Destroyer
1 Deimos Pattern Predator
1 Relic Sicaran battle tank
1 Relic Sicaran Venator tank
1 Relic Sicaran Punisher tank

Wow, that's like, 11 tanks, my dudes.

With absolutely no synergy with anything.

Are you done playing martyr for Guard players yet?

Russes used to be a squad together now they act separately once deployed which is a large difference. Is “it’s always been that way” really a good reason for doing things?

Personally I don’t care one way or another about russes unless they prove to be an issue.

Breng77 wrote:
Russes used to be a squad together now they act separately once deployed which is a large difference. Is “it’s always been that way” really a good reason for doing things?

Personally I don’t care one way or another about russes unless they prove to be an issue.

Right - nothing should be truly sacred, but GW needs to keep a pulse on what makes an army unique.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
20-something and above, those who started in their teens back in the 90s with disposable income should be their target.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
The 20-somethings already outnumbers us 30+ year olds by a couple factors and are much more willing to outspend us. I'll say this about the millennial generation - when they dive into something, they do so hardcore and with a much larger portion of their income than the 80s and 90s crowd ever did.

Want to feel old? There are no 20-somethings who were teens in the 90s. Most Millennials are in their thirties now.

Breng77 wrote:
Russes used to be a squad together now they act separately once deployed which is a large difference. Is “it’s always been that way” really a good reason for doing things?

Personally I don’t care one way or another about russes unless they prove to be an issue.

I have to agree. Squadrons allow you to spam, and spam is what GW is trying to get rid of - it shouldn't be kept "just cause we always did it that way" - especially when that's not true. Previously a Squadron was an actual squadron that had to stick together and shoot the same target - that's changed massively now. Consequently they should look at unit compositions. I'd take "anything that acts solo after deployment is now 1 model only instead of e.g.1-3", and be happy with it.

Well all of these are in beta, and if your casual group wants ignore the particular restriction then so be it. But I think it could well be a combination of reasons they did it. Complaints on the tournament scene, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. But also everyone has gone out and bought their spam units. Add these restrictions and now people who haven't already done so will have to buy models to diversify their army.

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
, cut down on spam without making some units too expensive for what they provide and so on. .

Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

tneva82 wrote:
Ummm...Number restriction absolutely has zero relevance to point cost of unit. Unit A should be costed same whether you can take 1, 3 or 5 in the army. If GW developers feel it's okay for unit to cost less because you can have only limited # of them there's no hope of ever game being even remotely balanced.

Providing a better-than-normal package that's restricted in some other way is really common across both other games and other pricing structures. It's a really useful tool for balancing things that fall outside the norm - units that improve non-linearly when taken in multiples, for example. It's also a really effective way to make "special" units feel appropriately special.