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.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Sorry I was unclear. I've seen suggestions that they shouldn't do restrictions but instead just increase the points of units that were being spammed to make them prohibitively expensive. I don't think that's a good idea since if a unit is only worth say 180 points for what it brings relative to the rest of the game, then they shouldn't make it hugely expensive just to cut down on spam. That was all i was driving at, sorry If I was unclear.

I agree doing restrictions on an individual unit basis would have been better, however how exactly are they going to implement that at this point? It would require tons more playtesting to determine the exact right number of each unit in each book

They could have technically just started with the biggest offenders. It's not like this is the last FAQ/Codex ever. They could have set some hard limits on the biggest offenders(much like they did with the Tau Commander). Then after that they might have put some restrictions on occasional slots like Heavies and so on and so on. It's not like they playtested the current rule much considering there are factions that are hit by this in a very heavyhanded manner who didn't really deserve it.

Currently we have a blanket rule that treats armies very differently and some worse than others. You want to run a pure Kabal, but only have one HQ unit and have to add Drazhar regardless of whether he fits your force or not(95% chance he won't)? Sucks to be you. Want to run a fleet of Ravenwing bikers? Sucks to be you. You running pure Saim-hann with ton of jetbikes who are fast slot? Sucks to be you. We'll see how the Harlequin and Deathwatch turn out after this rule.

I don't mind limitations as they make it simpler and easier to collect models(rarely reason to buy more than the limit is unless you are a big fan), and the fields becomes a bit more varied, but I'd prefer it were like Warmahordes where the limitations at least take your army into account.

The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
They could have technically just started with the biggest offenders. It's not like this is the last FAQ/Codex ever. They could have set some hard limits on the biggest offenders(much like they did with the Tau Commander). Then after that they might have put some restrictions on occasional slots like Heavies and so on and so on. It's not like they playtested the current rule much considering there are factions that are hit by this in a very heavyhanded manner who didn't really deserve it.

They could equally just apply it across the board, then relax it in future as needed for allowing specific builds. It's not like this is the last FAQ/Codex ever.

I also think it's nowhere near as restrictive as you seem to. Obviously it's more restrictive than it was, but that's kind of the point? For example:

You want to run a pure Kabal, but only have one HQ unit and have to add Drazhar regardless of whether he fits your force or not(95% chance he won't)?
Try running a Brigade. You've got access to cheap Troops unit and good stuff in every other slot. Take advantage of that, and leave Drazhar out.

Want to run a fleet of Ravenwing bikers?
You can run up to 30 Black Knights, 24 Bikes, 12 Attack Bikes, 3 Ancients, 3 Apothecaries, plus some Talonmasters and/or Sammael. You can even add up to 27 Scout Bikes. How many bikes do you need?

You running pure Saim-hann with ton of jetbikes who are fast slot?
You can run 27 Windriders and 27 Shining Spears. You're spoiled for choice for jetbikes in the HQ slots, but if you just want a ton of bikes there's also the Skyrunner Conclave. You can bring a crap-ton of jetbikes before you even get into all the other thematic Saim-hann choices, like Vypers and the grav-tanks.

If you genuinely can't adapt your forces to comply with the 3-per limit, chances are you were running a really skewed list.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

In fact, it is always going to be the case that more is better.

A balanced army of ~ 3 Russes, 60 Guardsmen, a couple basilisks, a bunch of Ogryn, some commissars, maybe two chimeras, is going to be easier for a TAC list to deal with than an army of 500 guardsmen or 11 Leman Russes.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 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.

Basically this. ITC has already said they will adopt them immediately. Therefore, any ITC tournament will likely use them as well. Therefore, local metas will adopt them so people are familiar with them for their local ITC tournaments.

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Right. Note this comment from one of the NOVA playtesters:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

In fact, it is always going to be the case that more is better.

A balanced army of ~ 3 Russes, 60 Guardsmen, a couple basilisks, a bunch of Ogryn, some commissars, maybe two chimeras, is going to be easier for a TAC list to deal with than an army of 500 guardsmen or 11 Leman Russes.

Not always. Anything which buffs other things or gives certain army bonuses want to be taken in just the right numbers. In a DE list, for example, 1 Black Heart Archon is almost mandatory, 2 is OK, 3 is just tax. With Space Marine Lieutenants if you take so many that you have redundant reroll auras every one past enough to cover oyur army is a waste of points. Similarly if you typically need to deal with 50-150 infantry and you have an excellent unit for doing that, taking more of that unit just hurts your anti-tank potential for no real gain, this might be a heavy spam list of 7 of them, with 1-2 barely doing anything to help. At this point anything above 7 is a waste, but each one you add up to 7 is a bonus.

Yup buff units do not get better the more you take because they start to eat into the points you can use to buy things for them to buff. The same is true to a different extent with offensive ability especially with heavy weapons, they get substantially better the more you take before starting to fall off in value as they become redundant. Durability is the one thing that pretty much always gets better the more of something you take.

I like restrictions in my wargames.

I am not a big 40k gamer, still painting up my first 40k army, but I have a large number of historical armies and have played historical games for many years. (way too many years.. )

Here's the thing - I like my wargame to have some basis in a reality, virtual or otherwise - and often I mean less on the tabletop but on the metagame. I can deal with a lot of abstractions on the tabletop for the sake of the game, but I have trouble dealing with allies that would never ally in a game; or no restrictions whatsoever where an army is all elite simply because they are more cost efficient. For some reason, that destroys my immersion more than other things.

So. my Ancient Greeks have restrictions on cavalry, and what little they have sucks. Its something a real Greek general had to deal with; a resource problem. How do I deal with a cavalry heavy army? And how will I handle my advantage, good heavy infantry?

This is the area I would like to see 40k move into, personally. An army or faction should have strengths and weaknesses; it should generally be made up of troops.... I guess I just want my army to make sense in a real world, even a virtual one. In any form of reality, would a normal (not one-off) army of SOB really contain all Dominions and Rets? A rhetorical question or course.

This is just my opinion. Most will probably not agree, as it may shoehorn factions into certain types of play, but on the other hand there should be a faction for every style of play. I will happily play as is, but I would like each army/faction to have a flavor

I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Considering how there's already a move stat and a magic phase, I think you're too late for that.

No one wanted to play Warhammer 40k in Fantasy either, but we got AoS anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Right. Note this comment from one of the NOVA playtesters:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

Ha so basicly before things can get better we just need.another full codex cycle, 8th edition bestest most playtested edition ever.

I will say that I was in the camp that felt 40k could only get better with playtesting, turns out I was wrong and who is doing the playtesting is just as important.

So at this stage I honestly think 9th edition would probably be the best result for the game, just give a gift voucher for any codex/rulebook bought and pretend 8th never happened.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, that is the issue here. This shotgun balancing strategy will have a lot of collateral damage.

Piano Man wrote:

This is the area I would like to see 40k move into, personally. An army or faction should have strengths and weaknesses; it should generally be made up of troops.... I guess I just want my army to make sense in a real world, even a virtual one. In any form of reality, would a normal (not one-off) army of SOB really contain all Dominions and Rets? A rhetorical question or course.

I get that you like restrictions, but there already is in the functionality of the armies themselves to different degrees, and personally if i wanted such things through a blanket ru- i mean "suggestion", there was other games to get them. in the case of a sisters list, some Sister Orders are known for more of certain units, like Repentia, Celestians, Seraphim and dominions (my favorite order, the Argent shroud, has this for Seraphim). im not saying a list would have tons of any one in particular (although the very first thing when I saw the rule of 3 was say "welp, that clipped my firepower in my core list, because my one recourse is to degrade dominion squads into sisters for my main mono-list when it comes to bolter support"), but you'd think they could field more of their special units than the Order next door. Now the center of a sisters list under this has the same numbers no matter the subfaction because i can never have more than 3 units of non battle sisters or attached transports (and sisters don't get more special weapons for bigger size units like some others) when the variance of restricted units hits this faction much harder than factions that have, say... 3 full variants of a certain kind of unit on different datasheets or more.

As someone who sometime ago bought more seraphim than im likely able to field in my region now due to wanting as many enemies as possible to play against, I am a bit angry that a concept i was working on that was already constrained has come down to a template list with even less deviation than before, and that's not also adding how this messes with the inquisition, and what little they had on top of how they got sideswiped by the Battle Brothers rule. but then Imperial piecemeal like the inquisition didn't get noticed at all in chapter approved, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

not saying the limitations are all bad and a few units didn't need a kick to them based on the horror stories ive heard thusfar- but i thought they'd do something like they did to the Tau commanders for the deemed problem units instead of this somewhat sneaky and blanket way, what with their links the tournament community and all. call it whack-a-mole if you want, but that's what living balance is. something will always rise to the top.

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yes because deepstriking turn 2 is awful....

Breng77 wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yes because deepstriking turn 2 is awful....

In a game where the top armies are all designed around shooting the rest of your army off the table on turn one (and just got a lot better at it), yes, it is.

Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

I'm pretty sure 4 out of the top 5 armies at Adepticon were built exactly for the turn 1 alpha strike, hence why GW specifically delayed the FAQ to take such things into consideration.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

You are assuming that the utility of a unit scales in a linear fashion. For almost all units it does not, as such a unit can be worth more if you take 5 than if you take 3. Or can be worth fewer points if you take 8 than if you take 5. These value curves are not trivial to work out and practically impossible to point for linearly if something simply gets better the more you take.

Right. Note this comment from one of the NOVA playtesters:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

Ha so basicly before things can get better we just need.another full codex cycle, 8th edition bestest most playtested edition ever.

I will say that I was in the camp that felt 40k could only get better with playtesting, turns out I was wrong and who is doing the playtesting is just as important.

So at this stage I honestly think 9th edition would probably be the best result for the game, just give a gift voucher for any codex/rulebook bought and pretend 8th never happened.

I should start a tally in my signature of how many times I need to point out that 8th Ed hasn't been out for a year and the codexes all being pushed out within a year is very unusual. This hasn't even been a real cycle yet because the codexes are really more focussed on giving armies Stratagems, relics and psychic powers and only minor tweaks from the Index rules for balance.

When the secind codex cycle begins then you'll see bigger changes in unit rules and abilities and AGAIN we're not even a year into a massive overhaul of the game.

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

Breng77 wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 Voidswatchman wrote:
How much of the salt about this on Dakka do you think comes from the fact that people have gone out and bought 7 hive tyrants, and how much do you think comes from the fact people need to adjust to writing lists by doing more than pressing ctrl-v?

My personal salt is coming from the fact that my unit of Crisis Suits, 2 units of Blightlord Terminators and 2 units of Space Wolf Terminators all took a headshot without being overpowered or spammy in any way, shape or form.

Yes because deepstriking turn 2 is awful....

It is in the current form of 40k where so much emphasis is being put on dealing a lot of damage quickly. Let's see why it sucks unit-by-unit, shall we?

- Crisis suits: Are very expensive glass cannons. With the standard loadout of 3 CIB's each it's 3*90=270 points to field a min-sized unit of them, about 350 if you also count accompanying drones. I was planning to use 4 of them + Farsight, drop them down and then use Drop Zone Clear + the stratagem that allows you to forfeit a Commanders' shooting to grant another battlesuit unit rerolls to wound in the shooting phase. That's ~600 points and 3 CP. Expensive, but can be worthwhile if you hit the right target turn 1. With the new deepstrike rules however, I have to hold back approximately 30% of my army for an extra turn, meaning that my target gets to shoot the rest of my army to bits free of reprecussions for an extra turn while also allowing my opponent an extra turn of moving screening units in such a position that I can't hurt his valuable stuff anymore when I finally do get to deepstrike.

- Blightlords: I used these primarily as a distraction Carnifex for Mortarion, because in a pure DG army (I strongly dislike souping them because it's so unfluffy) plasma or melta equipped deepstriking Blightlords are the only thing DG has that can reliably get into the opponents face turn 1 and start causing havoc, forcing my opponent to at least divert some of his big guns to my Blightlords to deal with them, allowing Mortarion some breathing room to advance up the field (because without Warptime he gets into charging range in turn 2 at the earliest against shooty armies). Without deepstriking Blightlords in turn 1 Mortarion is now forced to facetank every single gun my opponent can point at him until my Blightlords can come in or other units have moved themselves into a threatening position and there's nothing I can do about it, especially if I get second turn.

- Space Wolves: slightly less harsh, but still sucks. I'm now practically forced to put my assault Terminator squad in a Land Raider because rerolling charges is hard to get as SW (only with a squad of Wulfen nearby) so with turn 2 deepstriking at the earliest and a ~75% chance to fail the initial charge I'm looking at turn 3 at the earliest when they get a reliable chance to make themselves useful. As an added punch in the face they've basically been relegated to the few 2k games I have the chance to play (I usually play at my FLGS and we usually play 750-1250 there) because the Termie squad + LR is about 550 points. My tactical Terminators are even worse because they aren't worth putting into the LR (because that's already taken by the assault ones who have more use for it). I guess they can still be useful to grab objectives that are out of reach of the rest of my army because unlike DG I don't have a Big Bad that needs a distraction Carnifex for my Wolves but their primary function of putting the heat on priority targets ASAP has been completely gutted by the deepstrike nerfs.

Death guard really sounds like the only somewhatvalid complaint (extra threat to distract from Morty). Beyond that your Tau idea won’t really work against any good army. For instance against me you go first but so havr scouts pushing you back out of range of anything meaningful, so you don’t come in turn 1 anyway. Almost every army I see has some sort of forward screen. I guess if that isn’t your meta then yeah it hurts, but competitive games have the meta of screens that negate any meaningful turn 1 deepstrike. Sure if oh can murder some scouts or nurglings, but that doesn’t get you your value. So to me you still were better off shooting the screen then bringing down your hammer to kill big stuff turn 2. The way I view turn 1 deepstrike is as a noob stomping tactic it doesn’t beat good players because they don’t let you do it.

Pandabeer wrote:


- Crisis suits: Are very expensive glass cannons. With the standard loadout of 3 CIB's each it's 3*90=270 points to field a min-sized unit of them, about 350 if you also count accompanying drones. I was planning to use 4 of them + Farsight, drop them down and then use Drop Zone Clear + the stratagem that allows you to forfeit a Commanders' shooting to grant another battlesuit unit rerolls to wound in the shooting phase. That's ~600 points and 3 CP. Expensive, but can be worthwhile if you hit the right target turn 1. With the new deepstrike rules however, I have to hold back approximately 30% of my army for an extra turn, meaning that my target gets to shoot the rest of my army to bits free of reprecussions for an extra turn while also allowing my opponent an extra turn of moving screening units in such a position that I can't hurt his valuable stuff anymore when I finally do get to deepstrike.

And if you lost first turn you'd still be in a similar position - they got to shoot before you could nuke them. And hilariously enough a gunline army complaining about gunlines shooting them up.

- Blightlords: I used these primarily as a distraction Carnifex for Mortarion, because in a pure DG army (I strongly dislike souping them because it's so unfluffy) plasma or melta equipped deepstriking Blightlords are the only thing DG has that can reliably get into the opponents face turn 1 and start causing havoc, forcing my opponent to at least divert some of his big guns to my Blightlords to deal with them, allowing Mortarion some breathing room to advance up the field (because without Warptime he gets into charging range in turn 2 at the earliest against shooty armies). Without deepstriking Blightlords in turn 1 Mortarion is now forced to facetank every single gun my opponent can point at him until my Blightlords can come in or other units have moved themselves into a threatening position and there's nothing I can do about it, especially if I get second turn.

I have no sympathy when Mortarion gets Death Shroud to protect him. And BL wouldn't stop me from shooting LC at Morty.

- Space Wolves: slightly less harsh, but still sucks. I'm now practically forced to put my assault Terminator squad in a Land Raider because rerolling charges is hard to get as SW (only with a squad of Wulfen nearby) so with turn 2 deepstriking at the earliest and a ~75% chance to fail the initial charge I'm looking at turn 3 at the earliest when they get a reliable chance to make themselves useful. As an added punch in the face they've basically been relegated to the few 2k games I have the chance to play (I usually play at my FLGS and we usually play 750-1250 there) because the Termie squad + LR is about 550 points. My tactical Terminators are even worse because they aren't worth putting into the LR (because that's already taken by the assault ones who have more use for it). I guess they can still be useful to grab objectives that are out of reach of the rest of my army because unlike DG I don't have a Big Bad that needs a distraction Carnifex for my Wolves but their primary function of putting the heat on priority targets ASAP has been completely gutted by the deepstrike nerfs.

If you're playing smaller games there are options outside terminators and land raiders...

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

You can tweak bikes to not be an auto-include but not bad if you aren't lazy. This is pure laziness.

You could've made them 4+ armor
You could've made the Scatterlaser 15 points
You could've tweaked with the minimum squad size being 4 or 5

You don't even always have to do points! You're defending laziness.

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.