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.

It feels too close to something that GW would do for it to be a fake.

The cap on dedicated transports is hilarious. Guess those Rhinos and Razorbacks were just too powerful after all.

We all know GW isn't gonna rebalance the points any better if they release it now or 6 months from now.

So why even pretend waiting gets us anywhere?

 stonehorse wrote:
It feels too close to something that GW would do for it to be a fake.

The cap on dedicated transports is hilarious. Guess those Rhinos and Razorbacks were just too powerful after all.

Aimed at Raiders and Devilfish, hits everyone. Yup, sounds like gw. So does the bad joke about people taking more Baneblades.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
We all know GW isn't gonna rebalance the points any better if they release it now or 6 months from now.

So why even pretend waiting gets us anywhere?

Well, that's a rock and a hard place and exactly why limits are probably better, right?

They either screw it up now or screw it up then. At least the latter gives them a little more time to think about it in the wake of Eldar and CSM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
It feels too close to something that GW would do for it to be a fake.

The cap on dedicated transports is hilarious. Guess those Rhinos and Razorbacks were just too powerful after all.

Aimed at Raiders and Devilfish, hits everyone. Yup, sounds like gw. So does the bad joke about people taking more Baneblades.

Let's be honest...It'd be incredibly rare if anyone was taking more than 3 dedicated transports outside DE and Tau.

If anything that's the most useless part of the whole thing, really.

Right. I lol'ed pretty hard when I read that.

Need to squash any concern that Rhino Rush armies would make a resurgence. Especially with those amazingly cheap 80 point Rhinos.

John Lennon / Art of War says this is a fake spread from a Discord channel

https://youtu.be/hjL2W_k7QXM?t=3561

 xttz wrote:
John Lennon / Art of War says this is a fake spread from a Discord channel

https://youtu.be/hjL2W_k7QXM?t=3561

Well, I guess I'll have to eat my hat.

I love how he pops his head in to just shoot it down.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
It feels too close to something that GW would do for it to be a fake.

The cap on dedicated transports is hilarious. Guess those Rhinos and Razorbacks were just too powerful after all.

Aimed at Raiders and Devilfish, hits everyone. Yup, sounds like gw. So does the bad joke about people taking more Baneblades.

Let's be honest...It'd be incredibly rare if anyone was taking more than 3 dedicated transports outside DE and Tau.

If anything that's the most useless part of the whole thing, really.

Well, yes, all the more reason to only impose the limit on Raiders and Devilfish, instead of everyone.

Ohhhh.....just had a thought. Maybe now that you can't "spam" them, maybe gw could move Dreadclaws to Dedicated Transports where they belong, instead of keeping them stuck in FA. Just looking for a silver lining.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
John Lennon / Art of War says this is a fake spread from a Discord channel

https://youtu.be/hjL2W_k7QXM?t=3561

Well, I guess I'll have to eat my hat.

To be fair they've put some effort into it

So... 0-1 and 0-2 limitations?

I must be dreaming, that's basically the only thing I wanted in 40k. IMHO 0-3 should be reserved to the basic stuff, 0-2 to the uncommon and 0-1 to the rare or to units with multiple similar datasheets, assuming the 0-1 limitation affects the datasheet not the unit's type (0-1 land raider of each type instead of 0-1 land raiders).

Honestly 0-2 praetor bikes doesn't hurt anyone. Custodes are so damn expensive and players can still field a ton of points of them. They're also a faction that does deserve some nerfs, assuming this is a nerf.

But I still think I'm dreaming. I don't believe 0-1 and 0-2 limitations would become a thing, unfortunately.

 xttz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
John Lennon / Art of War says this is a fake spread from a Discord channel

https://youtu.be/hjL2W_k7QXM?t=3561

Well, I guess I'll have to eat my hat.

To be fair they've put some effort into it

Yea some people have waaaay to much time ( said as I post constantly on Dakka ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
John Lennon / Art of War says this is a fake spread from a Discord channel

https://youtu.be/hjL2W_k7QXM?t=3561

Well, I guess I'll have to eat my hat.

To be fair they've put some effort into it

Yea some people have waaaay to much time ( said as I post constantly on Dakka ).

And said originally by a guy with enough free time to know about weird fake leaks made on obscure discord channels.

 Blackie wrote:
So... 0-1 and 0-2 limitations?

I must be dreaming, that's basically the only thing I wanted in 40k. IMHO 0-3 should be reserved to the basic stuff, 0-2 to the uncommon and 0-1 to the rare or to units with multiple similar datasheets, assuming the 0-1 limitation affects the datasheet not the unit's type (0-1 land raider of each type instead of 0-1 land raiders).

Honestly 0-2 praetor bikes doesn't hurt anyone. Custodes are so damn expensive and players can still field a ton of points of them. They're also a faction that does deserve some nerfs, assuming this is a nerf.

But I still think I'm dreaming. I don't believe 0-1 and 0-2 limitations would become a thing, unfortunately.

I like this idea as well, but I've always preferred the look of armies on display with countless troops front and center and a scant few Elites mixed in with Heavy support in the back and Fast attack on the flanks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
John Lennon / Art of War says this is a fake spread from a Discord channel

https://youtu.be/hjL2W_k7QXM?t=3561

Well, I guess I'll have to eat my hat.

To be fair they've put some effort into it

Yea some people have waaaay to much time ( said as I post constantly on Dakka ).

Faking website page isn't that hard nor does it require more than webbrowser if you use existing photos.

Compared to faking rulebooks that has been done not too hard.

tneva82 wrote:

Faking website page isn't that hard nor does it require more than webbrowser if you use existing photos.

This. Most browsers allow you to view the underlying HTML which can be copied and saved locally for editing.

For example, here's a spoof article I just threw together for demonstration purposes.



All I did was copy the underlying HTML from an existing article, paste it in a text editor (Visual Studios Code for me, but even notepad works) and then scrolled through the code until I found the section containing the article. I left the header in place but changed the title and cleared out the rest to put in the spoof content. All of the graphical elements still work because they are being requested from the GW servers even though the page in question is not being hosted there, it still has the right paths to access those resources.

Since this was just for demonstration purposes I went with short and farcical content, but it took at most 5 minutes to do. If I wanted to be malicious, I could probably put together something more believable and it wouldn't take that much more effort (biggest hurdle is matching the writing style really).

I hope it's a fake.

Telling me my 6 fluffy steel legion chimeras can never field together again (even though they don't currently because they virtually instapop) and taunt me that this would make my baneblade worth fielding is beyond slowed and offensive.

Just enough so to make me wonder if its real at this point

We believed this because GW almost always makes blanket changes that impact all factions rather than fixing specific problems.

Messed about in photoshop.

This is fake. Someone got sloppy with the erase tool. Amateurish at best.

I don't want a parade, but a medal would be nice, you're all very welcome.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We believed this because GW almost always makes blanket changes that impact all factions rather than fixing specific problems.

Yeah, honestly GW should be a bit concerned that this was so believable. It says a lot about what customers think of their practices and ability to write rules.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We believed this because GW almost always makes blanket changes that impact all factions rather than fixing specific problems.

Yeah, honestly GW should be a bit concerned that this was so believable. It says a lot about what customers think of their practices and ability to write rules.

GW's defenders should be just as concerned

It's a bit of a cut and paste of the blanket flyers limit, so It struck an already tender nerve

What a silly thing to fake.

Just shows how weird some elements of the community are now... The reasons for this you can blame on many reasons/directions.

I guess this is what happens as something becomes more popular, the toxic members of society get wind and jump on board.

So strange and pointless. Who's giving you high fives for this? The two mates you concocted it all with?

 Gert wrote:
I love how they put in that being forced to take fewer transports means you can take a Baneblade like that evens out the nonsense of it all.

I rarely agree with you, but I had to quote this, yes that is silly of them to say. As if to imply " Mechanized infantry are gross, how about we take away your transports and add in a baneblade ? There, that's much better isn't it ? Very good. " Quite funny.

For those thinking its a lark, it makes perfect sense to me. They are now selling yearly planned to die content, why not ban and restrict things they released broken to push other sales ? Then bring them back into rotation and ban whatever the current hotness was ? It's a cynical view of it but really the game is trending ever more towards the over the top why not ?

Remember the old school players have seen this before, harsh restrictions of certain units to 0-1 type of choices, or outright couldn't be played without opponents permission. Now they just will be giving it proper placement to implement it.

So to keep track what they currently do is retire whole units, models into Legends. Already have Ro3 but can alter it as is, like with flyers and certain HQs. Rotating seasonal rules and army set ups.

Why not also add a ban and restricted list ? It's only time and money and once you buy the model they could care less if you get to play with it or not.

Edit: I still think something like this will come about, and wait and see the proof in the pudding. They have done things like this editions back, just the current customer base may be too young to remember it, but Pepperidge farms remembers.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Just shows how weird some elements of the community are now... The reasons for this you can blame on many reasons/directions.

Do you not remember the fake [4th or 5th] edition rulebook? And many, many years of fake rumors? This isn't a 'now' thing. Or a 'community' thing.
Some people just do this crap, and always have (and do in many fandoms).

the fake rulebook was not meant to be a fake book, but was a collection of house-rules a club in UK used to play 40k that was spread with "rules leak" on the web

the more strange thing is that a medicare fake of stupid rules just looks official enough that people are coming "best rules change ever" around simple because it looks legit no matter how stupid it is

and in addition, we are at a point were no rules change can be stupid enough that you would not believe this is really from GW

 Dendarien wrote:
It’s supposedly fake. Some people know the specific discord is came from.

April 1 is still 3 weeks away

The worst part of all of this is that we might still have to wait until May for fixes. The game is in the worst state it’s been in all of 9th.

The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

Tyel wrote:
The Transports bit reads very fake now I've seen it.

I kind of just saw the picture with the 0-1 limiations - and yes, I could fully imagine GW going "thy shalt have 0-1 units of Crisis Suits the end because we can't balance".

And I don't think its a good way to balance the game - because if something is undercosted, it just means every army will run that unit. As we saw every time GW adopted a 0-1 choice before.

3rd started with a bunch of 0-1 choices in the game, going back to that isn't automatically a bad thing.