8th moaners too soon?

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.

**BoomWolf**

Karol wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
Just because GK as a whole are not too hot means not other armies can't pull off outright bs with T1 deepstrikes.

Well then why instead of nerfing the hive tyrants GW seemed to have a problem with, did they make a blanket rule that removed the last semi viable thing from my army. That is like carpet bombing a whole town to kill a single criminal, and considering there is no "the end is near" coming from IG or eldar players it seems like the nerfs didn't really hit the top armies. It looks to me, I maybe wrong here, that the good lists stomached the changes easily, the mid tier lists like BAs or tyranids had some builds die. And the bad armies got worse. Am not saying that losing half the tyrants isn't a big hit to a tyranid player that bought 6 of them. It is, but am sure tyranids can make a mid tier ground list with 3 tyrants, a non deep striking GK army is like footsloggint primaris without hellblasters, chapter tactics or cheap scouts for chaff.

Because it's not hive tyrants, or any other one unit.
It's a big list f units that just go Haywire if you remove their single weakness (range/squishy) by allowing them to take advantage of T1 deep strikes

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

Limitated units could be the most effective solution. If X is too powerful and keeps wreaking all kind of absurd havoc because the player would bring 10 of those in his pocket, yuo don't need to change points or profiles, which is bound to mess completly up, instead it could be a good idea to just limitate it to say 0 to 1 or 0 to 2.

**Jidmah**

Dannohawk wrote:
Wow. That's really unpleasant trolling, but funny too, you must be great at parties.. lol.

The only reason I follow this thread anymore is to read SHUPPET's posts. He probably is a lot more fun at parties than post posters here.

Ummmm... Was the idea to sell new consumers an expensive rulebook, index, miniatures, paints, modelling paraphernalia, codexes all so they have an army which is technically illegal and that they can't take to a local tournament, all before they managed to paint the miniatures. lol.

This is what you seem unable to understand. The rule of 3, and the new deep strike rules are core mechanics which you shouldn't be able to change at a whim in a game that's so money and time intensive. I'd be totally fine these rules at the start of an edition, It's too late now. Not everything is binary better or worse and you're missing my main point.

You can't even say they're objectively fair rules. They're just better In some situations because they stop some broken armies, really bad in others (I'm looking at you blaster venoms) because broken armies are left intact with less challengers.

And yeah I'm a little naive, I should've intuitively known they were going to do this because... of the plenty of people... right... and tradition... Because it's the right strategy to have a smorgasbord of every type of unit because that's what you do... And you're obviously amazing, and have apparent psychic powers.

"It's what the strategy of both playing AND list building is designed around." Then why didn't they say this in the Rule Book/index/Codex/1stChapterApproved? And I can equally say you just like the rules because you are not affected by them and it makes your lists a little stronger, it's not what's objectively better for the game. It's better for you.

But don't think I don't appreciate the incredible advice, after being cheated out of all that money I'm going to run out and spend thousands of pounds to save money and play Apocalypse games! Yay... Genius. And instead of picking up matched competitive games at the local store I have to be the dirty spam player who can "only play" pick up games. Thank you so much, I never thought about any of this!

Shouldn't you be thankful for GW nuking your spam army before you invested all the time and money into painting them?

**SHUPPET**

Jidmah wrote:
Dannohawk wrote:
Wow. That's really unpleasant trolling, but funny too, you must be great at parties.. lol.

The only reason I follow this thread anymore is to read SHUPPET's posts. He probably is a lot more fun at parties than post posters here.

well there's no sense in taking the night off just to have a quiet one in now is there

**SHUPPET**

Welp, you're not going to last long on here.

**zerosignal**

Just sell your excess models.

I bought a brand new Death Guard army when Traitor Legions dropped, around a year and a half ago. I scratch built plague marines from 30K plastic marines, bought Forgeworld Grave Wardens, two heldrakes, made autocannon havocs using FW 30K autocannons, bikers, obliterators, 3x rhinos etc etc.

It was a decent list and would have been fun to play.

Six months later and 8th drops, and my list gets 3/4 nuked. PM's are overcosted, and pretty much everything else in my DG army can't be taken as DG.

C'est la vie. On the plus side, Renegade Knights index, so my converted IK might be vaguely playable now.

When 8th dropped and vehicles changed costs, I realised I basically have around 4x the number of wave serpents I will ever run XD

**LunarSol**

The bait and switch feeling is one of the reasons Rule of 3 is important. It minimizes the damage done when they need to make changes.

**Slayer-Fan123**

SHUPPET wrote:
Dannohawk wrote:
Hey,

I really like the idea of adjusting points, but wholesale changes to the rules before a lot of us had had the chance to paint our armies was just insulting.

Ummm... isn't that ideal? lol

Dannohawk wrote:
Especially as a new player I think it's ridiculous all the sneering in forums from players who didn't get ripped off by buying more than three of their favourite unit which was at the time entirely legal. That's the point. And trying to pretend it's just a tournament's suggestion. Please... Everyone wants to play the same version of 40K. I really hope it's a stopgap before they find a more elegant solution to the more ridiculous spam armies.

Because even if you're all for the rule of three (which I understand), you can't say an army that comprises of nothing but plague burst crawlers or Flyrants is the same as an Ork player who likes the freedom to run multiple small units of storm boyz or a Necron player who wants to run 4 annihilation barges for some mediocre ranged AT. For the weaker armies there was almost an art in finding the right underused and underappreciated unit to spam just to be mildly competitive. I really miss that.

4 Annihilation Barges may not be an issue, an army of 4 Tesseract Vaults however, is exactly the problem.

The rule of 3 is good for the game. You shouldn't need to go crazy with 1 unit - it's - if you do, thats a problem if the dex. Having restrictions on how many you can take of a unit has been a staple of 40k for decades. It's what the strategy of both playing AND list building is designed around. Asking for it removed because you bought too many of the one model, is not whats objectively best for the game, its you not wanting your collection invalidated.

Play larger scale games or non-matched play if you want to go back to using your spam of miniatures. Nobody's sneering at you, nobody's happy you wasted money, but plenty of people did warn that this would probably happen, so it's hard to argue that the quality of the game should have to suffer because you chose to. At this point it's about what's better for the rules of the game, and Rule of 3 is one of the best steps forward in a long time.

Nobody was even running 4 Vaults and, if they were, how is that any worse than 3 of them in the first place?

**BoomWolf**

If you have 4 vaults running, you are probably not playing 2000 points-and "rule of 3" is intended to 1500-2000 point game, 2500 tops.

**SemperMortis**

SHUPPET wrote:

What an incredible thing to say to someone who has picked up the game with Blood Angels and transitioned into Tyranids both of which have been bottom tier assault armies until recently lol.

You need a reality check mate. If you have to rewrite someones words just to convince yourself of your validation here, it's time to forget your pride for just 5 minutes, sit down, and have a long hard think about why you are doing what you are doing.

right...so just to summarize, you have taken my words out of context and attributed ideas that I never said all the while attacking me for having a different opinion then yours and attempting to say I was doing the exact same thing to you.

I like how you attributed assault armies having the same range as ranged armies to me and that my list would be able to take away all their shooting for the entirety of the game

BTW I was right, you did play a spammy shooty army, or at the very least theorized about taking it

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/687932.page

9 Riptides, and you complain about me taking 6 units of T4 6+ save infantry models that can basically deep strike. Yup, we are done here.

**SHUPPET**

SemperMortis wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:

What an incredible thing to say to someone who has picked up the game with Blood Angels and transitioned into Tyranids both of which have been bottom tier assault armies until recently lol.

You need a reality check mate. If you have to rewrite someones words just to convince yourself of your validation here, it's time to forget your pride for just 5 minutes, sit down, and have a long hard think about why you are doing what you are doing.

right...so just to summarize, you have taken my words out of context and attributed ideas that I never said all the while attacking me for having a different opinion then yours and attempting to say I was doing the exact same thing to you.

I like how you attributed assault armies having the same range as ranged armies to me and that my list would be able to take away all their shooting for the entirety of the game

BTW I was right, you did play a spammy shooty army, or at the very least theorized about taking it

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/687932.page

9 Riptides, and you complain about me taking 6 units of T4 6+ save infantry models that can basically deep strike. Yup, we are done here.

>posts a thread of me owning 9 Riptides as proof that rule of 3 hasn't affected me

Lol regardless you went digging through my post history so you saw that I literally have 1000+ posts talking about Tyranids, 10+ threads made about Tyranids. But because I have one thread ever talking about Tau, being the best way to run SPECIFICALLY an army of Riptides, in a thread where I said I'm still not that familiar with Tau, I'm suddenly not a Tyranid player? I have Space Wolves, CSM, and other CC army talk up there too why don't they count either? This is you trying to form a narrative and only succeeding in embarrassing yourself further.

I did build that list. I play more than one army, Nids are my main. The fact that I own 9 Riptides and STILL think that this rule is necessary, should give you an idea of how bad game design it is. Because it absolutely is. The fact that I COULD take 3 Riptide Wings, had to go.

**Billagio**

Not to mention that post is 2 years old....its not even relevant to this edition