Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 18:43:10


Post by: RedGriefer


What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult. Do you think the Rule of Three will make it past the Beta phase unchanged? What are your thoughts on it?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 18:51:49


Post by: akaean


I am pretty sure you can get around the 2x battalion limit by using Lilith

Rule of 3 doesn't apply to troops or dedicated transports. You can take 3x Succubus, and Lilith to fill the HQs.



The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 19:13:25


Post by: leopard


I think they should have identified the units causing a problem, and done something about them, not put out a blanket rule

e.g. Custards on Jetbikes, you want a flying captain? you can have one for each squad of actual bikes + one additional one, so any can take one

The Tyranid Tyrant could be "one per detachment" etc


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 19:17:05


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Consider the Smite Spam change.

Blanket rule first propose, followed by army specific exclusions.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 19:19:05


Post by: EnTyme


leopard wrote:
I think they should have identified the units causing a problem, and done something about them, not put out a blanket rule

e.g. Custards on Jetbikes, you want a flying captain? you can have one for each squad of actual bikes + one additional one, so any can take one

The Tyranid Tyrant could be "one per detachment" etc


That leads to whack-a-mole. This unit is spammed because it's undercosted, so it get restricted. Now the next most undercost unit is being spammed. On to the next unit.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 19:21:37


Post by: leopard


 EnTyme wrote:
leopard wrote:
I think they should have identified the units causing a problem, and done something about them, not put out a blanket rule

e.g. Custards on Jetbikes, you want a flying captain? you can have one for each squad of actual bikes + one additional one, so any can take one

The Tyranid Tyrant could be "one per detachment" etc


That leads to whack-a-mole. This unit is spammed because it's undercosted, so it get restricted. Now the next most undercost unit is being spammed. On to the next unit.


Hence actually bothering to identify the problems, blanket bans just cause other issues - like how the "no special characters" rule in WHFB to nerf one or two also took out the much more colourful ones you hardly ever saw anyway.

At the moment you have whack-a-mole with very broad hammers smacking a lot of stuff near the targets


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 19:32:10


Post by: Ice_can


GW made the change as an event suggestion rule and as has already been proven in this thread DE can still do double witch battalion so no problem anyway.

Picking on one unit would just affect that unit, GW also got a rather rude awakening to the concept of skew lists and just how hard some of those skews can be when they went to LVO.
This is what it's about not just units the whole I give you nothing but T3 4ppm spam or here is my wall of T8 half your may aswell not bother. Its here to stay and it's good but broken by guards squadrons but hopefully they are next in line


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:18:00


Post by: AnomanderRake


It doesn't really do much. Most "spammy" army builds don't actually violate the Rule of 3 (Hellblaster spam can easily be 30 Hellblasters in 3 squads, Shield-Captains are usually taken in a detachment of 3, etc.), tying the restriction to unique datasheets means that there are quite a lot of things that you can just take a slightly different version of (no more 5 Riptides? Say hello to 3 Riptides and 2 Y'Vahra!), and the vehicle squadron mechanism means that plenty of vehicle-spam is completely unaffected.

The reason the Tau got the 1/detachment Commander fix at the same time is that there are five different non-unique XV-8 Commanders (XV-8 (Crisis), XV-85 (Enforcer), XV-86 (Coldstar), XV-81 (the one with the smart missile system), and XV-84 (the one with the Networked Markerlight)).

So in practice the Rule of 3 constrains cheap-psyker-spam, a narrow range of weird MSU builds, and a few light tanks that don't really need constraining.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:19:19


Post by: Kanluwen


It's stupid and it's also just a beta suggestion for tournaments, not an actual rule for Matched Play itself.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:22:51


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Where it is really unfair is with the squadron rule . Either all vehicles should be able to be taken in squadrons or none of them should. A SM player is limited to 3 predators but an IG player can have 13 Leman Russ tanks (not counting FW data sheets). The same with Storm Hawks (max 3) and Valkyries (9). Just to give an example that is not "fluffy".


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:24:55


Post by: Kanluwen


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where it is really unfair is with heavy vehicles. Either all heavy vehicles should be able to be taken in squadrons or none of them should. A SM player is limited to 3 predators but an IG player can have 13 Leman Russ tanks (not counting FW data sheets).

Predators aren't "heavy vehicles". They never have been, they never will be.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:26:28


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


I mean that they use the "heavy" slot and they are vehicles. Just like all the other "tanks" in the game.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:29:02


Post by: generalchaos34


I think personally that the rule of three is a great idea that will hopefully encourage some semblance of "diversity" in lists. While the Guard will clearly still be boogeyman to all of you (yet are strangely absent from the top tourney boards....Was there even a single Leman Russ in the top 20?) I think there is a real chance that people may actually try other units in their army to perform the tasks they were designed for instead of simply taking more of a cheap option and hope it fulfills that role. I would like to see tables that have Ogryns, Chaos Space Marines, and Assault marines on them in the big tournies, all those units can have a place but are pushed aside when you can simply take 30 dark reapers or 8 razorbacks and blast things off the field.

And as an aside I am a proponent of the 5ppm guardsman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where it is really unfair is with the squadron rule . Either all vehicles should be able to be taken in squadrons or none of them should. A SM player is limited to 3 predators but an IG player can have 13 Leman Russ tanks (not counting FW data sheets). The same with Storm Hawks (max 3) and Valkyries (9). Just to give an example that is not "fluffy".


To be fair squadrons was a guard exclusive rule for a very very long time up until 7th edition took that from them and started to pass it around. They were always about maximizing the slots available to them to get more men on the field, it was frankly one of the Guards core gimmicks.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:31:57


Post by: heckler


It's great. There are some strange stuff going on with some models having multiple instances of their data slates, but I'm confident that they will get addressed with the next iteration.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:48:28


Post by: AnomanderRake


 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think personally that the rule of three is a great idea that will hopefully encourage some semblance of "diversity" in lists. While the Guard will clearly still be boogeyman to all of you (yet are strangely absent from the top tourney boards....Was there even a single Leman Russ in the top 20?) I think there is a real chance that people may actually try other units in their army to perform the tasks they were designed for instead of simply taking more of a cheap option and hope it fulfills that role. I would like to see tables that have Ogryns, Chaos Space Marines, and Assault marines on them in the big tournies, all those units can have a place but are pushed aside when you can simply take 30 dark reapers or 8 razorbacks and blast things off the field.

And as an aside I am a proponent of the 5ppm guardsman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where it is really unfair is with the squadron rule . Either all vehicles should be able to be taken in squadrons or none of them should. A SM player is limited to 3 predators but an IG player can have 13 Leman Russ tanks (not counting FW data sheets). The same with Storm Hawks (max 3) and Valkyries (9). Just to give an example that is not "fluffy".


To be fair squadrons was a guard exclusive rule for a very very long time up until 7th edition took that from them and started to pass it around. They were always about maximizing the slots available to them to get more men on the field, it was frankly one of the Guards core gimmicks.


Point of order. You can still take 8 Razorbacks (Dedicated Transports not subject to the rule of 3) and thirty Dark Reapers (they do have to be in three squads of 10, though).

As for Guard and tank squadrons the only period during which Guard were allowed tank squadrons and you couldn't just take more detachments to get more tanks was 5e. There were no tank squadrons in 4e and earlier (the "vehicle squadron" rules were used by things like Land Speeders and Piranhas, not proper tanks).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:50:14


Post by: StarHunter25


I like that you can still field 10 bloodthirsters with rule of 3. Not as cool as other loopholes because 'thirsters are slightly overcosted. But hey, when life gives you lemons, blood for the blood god I guess.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:52:33


Post by: Bharring


Would the Corsair falcon be limited by Craftworlder falcons?

If not, I could fit 4 Falcons in a list! Sure, not OP, but Falcons!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 21:53:52


Post by: meleti


Who was taking three battalions of only Wyches?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 22:03:59


Post by: Galef


Considering 95% of the army lists I have ever played complies with the current Rule of 3, I have no issue with it. It makes for more variety and thus less possibility of getting stopped by "spam X unit"


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/16 22:06:40


Post by: Amishprn86


I think its good for the game, but some armies or some units should be excluded from the rule (more so for fluff reasons and better balance with some Codex's)


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 00:31:38


Post by: Blndmage


People focus one 3, but it varies by points, 1000 or less and it's Rule of 2, which can be really punishing


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 00:34:29


Post by: Peregrine


I think it's great. The only thing better would be a full return to the 5th edition FOC (one per army, no other detachments allowed), where you can't take more than three of any unit because you run out of FOC slots.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 00:44:06


Post by: Elbows


I'm all on board, but I'd have rather this was not necessary from the beginning. Codices should have gone back to the simple "0-1", "0-6" etc. before the unit entries as they have in past editions. GW is in a weird place, where they designed a wide-open game (I'm still not entirely sure why you need a book's permission to play something like Open War...) and are now having to slowly rebox it after a 5th grader tore into it on Christmas morning.

They then have to balance this with the desire to sell more models constantly (something they'll continue to do regardless).

On top of this, it's a simple suggestion and not something anyone is bound to follow. Want the rule of four? Start a 2005 point tournament. Problem solved.

As usual, 40K is pretending to exist as a game which can be both casual and competitive (something it's never pulled off). In this instance the tournament/competitive side may be hurt, but I don't really care. If the only way you can play 40K is to rely on spamming one or two units from your codex...that's on you. Find a new codex, or find a new game. If you were silly enough to buy, build and paint 10 of some silly model, you probably had it comin'.

If it, in any way, makes armies more varied or interesting, I'm all for it. It hasn't impacted anybody that I play 40K with - at all - but that should tell you the type of crowd I game with.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 00:54:31


Post by: RogueApiary


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 generalchaos34 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where it is really unfair is with the squadron rule . Either all vehicles should be able to be taken in squadrons or none of them should. A SM player is limited to 3 predators but an IG player can have 13 Leman Russ tanks (not counting FW data sheets). The same with Storm Hawks (max 3) and Valkyries (9). Just to give an example that is not "fluffy".


To be fair squadrons was a guard exclusive rule for a very very long time up until 7th edition took that from them and started to pass it around. They were always about maximizing the slots available to them to get more men on the field, it was frankly one of the Guards core gimmicks.


Point of order. You can still take 8 Razorbacks (Dedicated Transports not subject to the rule of 3) and thirty Dark Reapers (they do have to be in three squads of 10, though).

As for Guard and tank squadrons the only period during which Guard were allowed tank squadrons and you couldn't just take more detachments to get more tanks was 5e. There were no tank squadrons in 4e and earlier (the "vehicle squadron" rules were used by things like Land Speeders and Piranhas, not proper tanks).


30 Reapers in 3 squads is way more manageable because a large reason reaper spam was so obnoxious was because of the tempest launcher on the exarch letting the unit deal with both infantry and tanks. 2D6 AP -2 Str 4 is no joke when there's 6-10 of them on the field.

I'm really loving the rule of three. It shut down a lot of stupid broken lists and is a much better long-term solution than playing whack a mole with the most point efficient flavor of the month. A 3 unit limit puts an upper bound on how much an undercosted unit can be exploited. Perfect example was flying Hive Tyrants. Killing 3 is manageable, killing 7 much less so. Raising a Hive Tyrants points cost to where taking 1-3 is still effective but taking 5+ isn't would be almost impossible.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 02:57:38


Post by: Vankraken


Rule of 3 is a bit too much of a broad stroke change and ultimately just kicks the can instead of actually tackling the issue with game balance. It doesn't stop you from spamming troops or transports so if your OP units are in those slots then you still golden while it also heavily punishes anybody wanting to play more MSU. In addition to punishing MSU it also heavily punishes armies that have cheap units that you would want to spam (for example maybe you want your markerlights to be sourced from Tau Marksmen instead of drone or pathfinder squads) but does nothing for spamming super expensive units or squadrons of units. It might address some issues of armies having one unit wonders that become problematic when spammed but it does nothing to address why that unit was so powerful in the first place and if your faction has access to multiple powerful units (see soup lists) then rule of 3 only requires you to look to cherry pick the best units from your soup options while 1 source factions (Tau, Orks, Crons) don't have that luxury.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 04:42:33


Post by: DominayTrix


 Vankraken wrote:
Rule of 3 is a bit too much of a broad stroke change and ultimately just kicks the can instead of actually tackling the issue with game balance. It doesn't stop you from spamming troops or transports so if your OP units are in those slots then you still golden while it also heavily punishes anybody wanting to play more MSU. In addition to punishing MSU it also heavily punishes armies that have cheap units that you would want to spam (for example maybe you want your markerlights to be sourced from Tau Marksmen instead of drone or pathfinder squads) but does nothing for spamming super expensive units or squadrons of units. It might address some issues of armies having one unit wonders that become problematic when spammed but it does nothing to address why that unit was so powerful in the first place and if your faction has access to multiple powerful units (see soup lists) then rule of 3 only requires you to look to cherry pick the best units from your soup options while 1 source factions (Tau, Orks, Crons) don't have that luxury.

Pretty much this. Units that serve different functions depending on loadout, but have a single datasheet suffer while armies with redundant datsheets don't care. Armies with good/cheap troop choices tend to do a bit better than armies without.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 09:32:49


Post by: Spoletta


 DominayTrix wrote:
 Vankraken wrote:
Rule of 3 is a bit too much of a broad stroke change and ultimately just kicks the can instead of actually tackling the issue with game balance. It doesn't stop you from spamming troops or transports so if your OP units are in those slots then you still golden while it also heavily punishes anybody wanting to play more MSU. In addition to punishing MSU it also heavily punishes armies that have cheap units that you would want to spam (for example maybe you want your markerlights to be sourced from Tau Marksmen instead of drone or pathfinder squads) but does nothing for spamming super expensive units or squadrons of units. It might address some issues of armies having one unit wonders that become problematic when spammed but it does nothing to address why that unit was so powerful in the first place and if your faction has access to multiple powerful units (see soup lists) then rule of 3 only requires you to look to cherry pick the best units from your soup options while 1 source factions (Tau, Orks, Crons) don't have that luxury.

Pretty much this. Units that serve different functions depending on loadout, but have a single datasheet suffer while armies with redundant datsheets don't care. Armies with good/cheap troop choices tend to do a bit better than armies without.


This is true in general, does not depend on the rule of 3.

The factions that are "competitive" right now, are the ones that use a lot of troops in lists. If your codex does not work will with it's troops then your codex is not working correctly and you have limited builds to compete. CSM and CWE are clear examples of this, if it wasn't for some crutch combo and underscosted models (alpha zerkers, alaitoc hemlocks and so on), those codici would be on SM level.

Then you look at Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, Astra Militarum, Adeptus, Thousand Sons and Drukhari, which can play whatever they want and still make decent lists that win tournaments, because they have good troops that interact well with the theme of the codex.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 09:36:35


Post by: corpuschain


 Peregrine wrote:
I think it's great. The only thing better would be a full return to the 5th edition FOC (one per army, no other detachments allowed), where you can't take more than three of any unit because you run out of FOC slots.


The FOC was magnificent. I still use it to plan what to buy when starting a new army.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 09:57:50


Post by: Jidmah


 generalchaos34 wrote:
To be fair squadrons was a guard exclusive rule for a very very long time up until 7th edition took that from them and started to pass it around. They were always about maximizing the slots available to them to get more men on the field, it was frankly one of the Guards core gimmicks.


Not true, orks and eldar also had squadrons for a long time: Kanz, buggies, trakks, vypers and war walkers were available in squadrons since at least 4th edition.

As for the rule of 3: Well, it did kill PBC spam before it became a thing.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 13:06:23


Post by: Breng77


I think those saying "Rule of 3 is just not dealing with balance issues" are missing the mark. It does 3 things

1.) Future proof against the spam that happens after they fix the few units that are the current kings of the meta. Fix those the next thing steps up. Unless you think they are going to achieve perfect balance, people will always spam whatever has a slight edge, doing this makes that not possible.

2.) Makes balance easier to achieve. IT is near impossible to balance against spam and have units still be good, unless you achieve perfect balance across they system. Restrictions in army composition allow for units to be powerful but prevents those units from dominating the game by them self.

3.) Makes it possible for them not to need an FAQ after every major event/ stop people from buying stuff that will then get nerfed. Address issues 1 at a time and 2 things happen. Either you need to constantly fix problems as the next big thing arises that needs restriction, which means more FAQs, or those things dominate for the 6 months between FAQs and the game becomes a money chase of buy 10 of x, win events, sell off buy next big thing.

I do agree that the application to troops and dedicated transports is a bit wonky but you cannot really restrict troops as many armies lack options in that slot, and making them 0-3 means those armies are forced to soup if they want CP. Transports have the issue that they can be purchased for any unit in your army. So they have somewhat of a restriction, that said they should probably be a bit tougher to buy as plenty of them also serve as battle tanks in addition to transports.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 13:09:11


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 corpuschain wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
I think it's great. The only thing better would be a full return to the 5th edition FOC (one per army, no other detachments allowed), where you can't take more than three of any unit because you run out of FOC slots.


The FOC was magnificent. I still use it to plan what to buy when starting a new army.


Yeah, I miss the old FoC too. The 8th ed ones feel clunky to me.
It doesn't help that if you want a nice number of command points you have to use them. Using patrol is pointless.

Maybe I should send GW an email and suggest that they give patrols 3CP now that Battalions give 5. That should make them more appealing over those 1CP detachments.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 13:15:37


Post by: Breng77


Patrols cannot have 3 CP, maybe 1. IF they were 3 CP why take a 5 CP battalion? I mean extra detachment you aren't using spend 75 points on guard for 3 CP? Patrols don't need to be appealing over the 1 CP detachments, doing so almost negates the reason to take battalions.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 13:20:38


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 13:46:58


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


They could just have 1 FOC chart and give everyone the same amount of base CPs. That way everyone starts at the same point (barring bad codex vs good codex armies).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 14:19:16


Post by: Breng77


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.


The reason to take them is to pay the minimum points to get something into your army without paying CP. In most cases you are required to take at least 4 units for a detachment. Patrol Requires 2. SO 1 HQ, 1 Troop and whatever else you want is in most cases cheaper than 1 HQ and 3 of something else, unless you want the something else. That is why the patrol is "free". IT sees more use in lower points games where taking another battalion isn't an option, or if you want to splash in for a specific faction for just a few models, especially from different slots. I really don't see the need for the "support" vs "main" detachment thing you are advocating for. No top armies at this point are spamming 1 CP detachments. Most are running 1-2 Battalions for CP and then a single other detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They could just have 1 FOC chart and give everyone the same amount of base CPs. That way everyone starts at the same point (barring bad codex vs good codex armies).


That really isn't balanced as some armies rely on their CP to compete a lot more than others. I'm not saying how it is now is the best, but unless that same CP is a ton, it really makes some armies much better than others.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 14:44:21


Post by: Bharring


If anything, the FA/HS/etc formations should be 0CP. Whether or not you give any CP for Patrols.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 14:50:16


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Breng77 wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They could just have 1 FOC chart and give everyone the same amount of base CPs. That way everyone starts at the same point (barring bad codex vs good codex armies).


That really isn't balanced as some armies rely on their CP to compete a lot more than others. I'm not saying how it is now is the best, but unless that same CP is a ton, it really makes some armies much better than others.


As a mono GK player I am painfully aware of the differences that strategies cause. I play an army with very little CP generation and high point cost Strategies. There are always going to be imbalances whether it's point costs or strategy costs so that's not really an argument against my proposal.

However, I really feel that if everyone started with the same amount of points then at least you wouldn't be facing armies with 15+ points and recursion of said points points while you have 8 due to an expensive (point wise) army.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 15:01:34


Post by: Breng77


But those armies with 15 and recursion (outside of soup) don't need all those CP. If they were going to fix it I'd rather see the CP mechanic tied to your HQ choices. Give each HQ data slate a command value and that is how many CP they generate. This would have been a better way to represent on field LD as opposed to all the aura buffs that exist in the game. In fact you could have had HQs generate a certain ammount of CP each turn. Like your low level options or combat monsters might only generate 0-1 CP each turn, but your high level commanders generate 3 or more.

That would better allow you to balance CP across armies and have it be something you build into your army design. Maybe a GK grandmaster gives you 3 CP every turn, where a guard company commander generates only 1. Guard might still end up with more, but not as many more as HQ slots are limited in detachments (Patrol 1, Battalion 3, Brigade 4?, Supreme Command 5) so having access to super cheap options to generate caps out by taking up slots.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 16:26:46


Post by: JmOz01


RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 16:43:26


Post by: Spoletta


JmOz01 wrote:
RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points


It's already like that, the rule of three becomes the rule of two at 1000 points and the rule of four at 2500.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 16:53:58


Post by: An Actual Englishman


I like it because I'm sick to death of spam armies.

Just a personal preference really but I much prefer it when there's a mix of units on the table.

I don't think I'd mind it if they went back to the old force org charts, but I'm probably in the minority there.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 17:23:19


Post by: the_scotsman


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.


I take patrols all the time. Their minimum investment is just one HQ one troop, rather than 3 of something. In armies that don't have hyper-cheap options in a given slot (cough cough not Tau or Guard) you might want to invest in a single unit rather than three.



The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 17:32:03


Post by: iGuy91


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I like it because I'm sick to death of spam armies.

Just a personal preference really but I much prefer it when there's a mix of units on the table.

I don't think I'd mind it if they went back to the old force org charts, but I'm probably in the minority there.



THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 17:42:08


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


the_scotsman wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But now there's no reason to take patrols over anything else. Why take a patrol when you could load up on 3 cheap FA options and get a CP? Anything you can get with patrol you can get more with outrider, vanguard or the heavy one. I do not see the point in taking an option that offers nothing when there are better alternatives.

Either they give patrols 1-2CP, or they differentiate between "main" detachments and "support" detachments. For every "support" detachment, one must first field a "main" detachment, with patrols, battalions and brigades being "main" and the current 1CP detachments being "support".

This should give patrols a reason for being taken, as well as adding a bit more depth to army building.


I take patrols all the time. Their minimum investment is just one HQ one troop, rather than 3 of something. In armies that don't have hyper-cheap options in a given slot (cough cough not Tau or Guard) you might want to invest in a single unit rather than three.



Then what do you do for CP? 3 CP doesn't seem to do much.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 18:20:22


Post by: Breng77


You take more than one detachment. Like 2 Battalions and a Patrol, or a Brigade and Patrol etc.

Patrols would need CP if you only got one Detachment. With 3 having one not produce CP is hardly a huge loss.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 18:23:37


Post by: JmOz01


Spoletta wrote:
JmOz01 wrote:
RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points


It's already like that, the rule of three becomes the rule of two at 1000 points and the rule of four at 2500.


Umm, I have not seen that, was that part of the FAQ? I don't doubt you, just something I had missed...I will agree that it is basically the same, but the minutia detail of what happens in larger games is of minor import to me.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 18:25:47


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Why spend points on a patrol if you could spend points on a detachment that gives more CP? If you have the points to field 3 detachments, you have the points to field detachments that give more than 0 CP.
Or you can just add more units to the brigade.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 18:35:44


Post by: Blackie


RedGriefer wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult. Do you think the Rule of Three will make it past the Beta phase unchanged? What are your thoughts on it?


I love the rule of three. IMHO units that are not troops or transports shouldn't be spammed, that's a good concept and I don't think drukhari are affected by that since HQs are still a tax and having 4+ of the same kind is a very huge tax. We can dispose of lots of CPs anyway, even with this limitation.

Using pure wych cult armies is possible, you can even field two battallions and a third detachment, but you must include lelith and drazhar. Of course if you want to play with only the red grief you cannot bring lelith.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 18:40:57


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


JmOz01 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
JmOz01 wrote:
RE: Rule of three, and I have only skimmed the thread but what I keep thinking is that it should be tied into the table slot for number of detachments

so in a game under 2000 points you are only allowed to use a data sheet twice, in a game in the 3000-3999 points it would be 4, etc...

I also think Patrol should add the same +2command points


It's already like that, the rule of three becomes the rule of two at 1000 points and the rule of four at 2500.


Umm, I have not seen that, was that part of the FAQ? I don't doubt you, just something I had missed...I will agree that it is basically the same, but the minutia detail of what happens in larger games is of minor import to me.


Yeah it does. It scales with game size.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 18:47:33


Post by: Breng77


@CthulusSpy No not necessarilly.

Lets just take a Marine list for example

Min battalion is ~285 points
Min patrol is ~115
Min supreme command ~180
Min outrider ~ 195
Min spearhead ~255
min Vanguard ~ 228

In every instance the patrol is significantly cheaper. Even in the case that what I want fills one of the slots in that detachment. Outrider is closest so lets look at that.

If I want one 9 man scout bike squad in my army, so I am splashing in some marines.

I can either take an outrider with 1 HQ, 3 fast. So that is 60+45+45 (2 attack bikes is cheapest) for 150 points, then my scout bikes. Or I can take a Patrol and save 35 points. If I also want scouts for screening the patrol is an even better deal. OR maybe a few scout squads is all I want.


Or what if I want Celestine? I can either take a patrol and spend 45 points on 1 battle sister squad, or I can buy 2 additional units, or I can get -1 CP, and take and Aux support.


OR what if I have points for 3 detachments but I can fit 2 Battalions and a Patrol, or 1 Battalion, a Spearhead, and an outrider. Which option is better? The answer is it depends, but the Patrol one has more 3 More CP than the other combination.

OR I want to splash in a different chapter tactic but don't want it for most of my army (Say 2 units of Black templar scouts in a Ravenguard army)

At some point you are talking about spending 100+ points to get 1 CP, and taking units you might not otherwise want.




The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 19:16:00


Post by: JmOz01


That brings up an interesting question to me, one that I have been pondering for some while...If you were able to pay for CP with points, how much would they be worth. This is for comparison sake, (ie. is it worth taking this unit I don't want to get +X CP)

My army right now is spending about 250 pts for about 150 points of want and 5 Command points


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 19:21:42


Post by: Blndmage


As someone that plays mostly 500-1,500 point games, it tents to be the Rule of 2, which can be crippling.

I love the new FOC themed detachments. They let you field armies that you've read about, fast, heavy or elite forces that patrols/battalions/brigades don't.

The whole rule of 2/3/4 thing really screws with folk that have been building their collections to fill out a Spearhead, Outrider or Vanguard detachment as the focal point of their forces.

Before folks jump in with "but it's only for organized things, like tournaments!", that's true, but many metas , including my own have a tournament mindset, and will hold to these rules at all times.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 19:31:18


Post by: Breng77


JmOz01 wrote:
That brings up an interesting question to me, one that I have been pondering for some while...If you were able to pay for CP with points, how much would they be worth. This is for comparison sake, (ie. is it worth taking this unit I don't want to get +X CP)

My army right now is spending about 250 pts for about 150 points of want and 5 Command points


If you got no units I think it would be quite low. Even throw away units contribute to the game in some manner. I think it might cap out at most at 10 points per CP.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 19:34:12


Post by: JmOz01


I am "that" soup player

3 units of guardsman (w/missile launchers, special weapons)
Company Commander
Primaris Psycher


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 19:40:41


Post by: ChargerIIC


I think it's an important rule. Many of the top lists we've seen have been spamming on model or the other, encouraging top players to just take the most one-sided thing they can and then hope they don't drop against it's opposite. The one that manages to squeak by claims the tables.

The whole point of FOC/Formations was to limit the massive spamming of non-troops and having a rule seems pretty much like what the community was asking for.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 19:42:20


Post by: Breng77


Yeah, but those 3 units of guardsman contribute to the game to some value, if as nothing other than chaff, as to some extend do the characters. SO if you got absolutely nothing but CP for points you would pay less than you do for that battalion. I'd posit a lot less.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 20:29:54


Post by: Scott-S6


 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 20:48:16


Post by: Breng77


That is good for those books though with the assumption that GW continues to address problems.

Prior to this books could skate by on 1 or 2 units in mono-builds. Now if they only have 1 or 2 good units, the results will show their issues and in theory they will get fixed.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 21:01:14


Post by: LunarSol


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.


Though its good for players to not feel forced into buy 5+ of the only good model that at some point will get toned down or otherwise fall out of favor as other things are buffed into a more prevalent role. The one model to rule the codex style armies that have always driven the competitive game are a big reason people have collections that do not survive an edition change. This is honestly a good way to minimize the damage done when changes need to be made.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 21:09:34


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.


Alternately: It's good because it might force GW's writers to pay more attention to a given Codex rather than sticking with "oh, give them one powerful crutch unit, they'll be fine".


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/17 21:12:15


Post by: vipoid


RedGriefer wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult.


The problem there is not with the rule of three.

The problem is with the DE codex having a steaming pile of manure in place of a HQ section.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 07:25:03


Post by: Scott-S6


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.


Alternately: It's good because it might force GW's writers to pay more attention to a given Codex rather than sticking with "oh, give them one powerful crutch unit, they'll be fine".


I like your optimism but I don't believe that GW is aware that some of the dataheets they have created are OP and some are garbage. I genuinely don't believe they understand the game well enough to make that determination.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 07:52:20


Post by: Jidmah


So you think that GW should not implement the rule of 3 and balance every unit properly instead because you think GW is unable to balance units?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 07:57:07


Post by: Scott-S6


The rule of three hurts the weaker codexes disproportionately.

If in some hypothetical point in the future this isn't the case because all of the codexes have good internal balance then it's fine but implementing this in the the hope that better internal balance in the weaker codexes will be implemented doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.

Balance the units and then implement the rule of three, not the other way around.

However my comment was more in response to the assertion that GW is deliberately giving codexes a crutch unit, I do not believe that is what is happening. Were they able to do that we wouldn't see the complete garbage units.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 08:02:09


Post by: BlaxicanX


I agree with the notion that the rule of three is too broad to work well in practice. One-size-fits-all does not work generally in a asymmetrically balanced system.

It's more work for the devs, but, they need to just roll up their sleeves and get into the nitty gritty of fixing the IMBA units in specific codices.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 08:19:35


Post by: Jidmah


 Scott-S6 wrote:
The rule of three hurts the weaker codexes disproportionately.

If in some hypothetical point in the future this isn't the case because all of the codexes have good internal balance then it's fine but implementing this in the the hope that better internal balance in the weaker codexes will be implemented doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.

Balance the units and then implement the rule of three, not the other way around.

However my comment was more in response to the assertion that GW is deliberately giving codexes a crutch unit, I do not believe that is what is happening. Were they able to do that we wouldn't see the complete garbage units.


Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 08:34:16


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Outside of Troops I don't have more than three of any unit. So I'm totally okay with the rule. But I'm playing Chaos and I could see the rule becoming a problem for some of the Codizes with few choices. That problem should be solved by releasing more units for those factions - instead of even more Space Marines...


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 09:33:37


Post by: tneva82


Rule of 3 is basically GW putting their head in sand shouting "there is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem" at the top of the lungs while ignoring the problem that's about to swallow them.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 10:34:34


Post by: Scott-S6


 Jidmah wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
The rule of three hurts the weaker codexes disproportionately.

If in some hypothetical point in the future this isn't the case because all of the codexes have good internal balance then it's fine but implementing this in the the hope that better internal balance in the weaker codexes will be implemented doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.

Balance the units and then implement the rule of three, not the other way around.

However my comment was more in response to the assertion that GW is deliberately giving codexes a crutch unit, I do not believe that is what is happening. Were they able to do that we wouldn't see the complete garbage units.


Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.

Absolutely but until we have that internal balance it makes more sense to address the specific problem units with duplication limits (like the tau commander) than introduce an overly broad rule which disproportionately impacts the codexes that are already struggling.

Given the lack of insight repeatedly shown by the dev team I think that a reactive but very specific approach is the one most likely to at least approach success. Sweeping changes like this have too many consequences to be properly assessed.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 20:19:58


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


I haven't been in the 40k scene for a while due to an insurance kerfufle (nothing big, but i had to call three separate government agencies to get what is essentially a glorified air pump for my face), but here's my old fuddy duddy perspective:

(insert high pitched laugh).

Ok jokes aside, I don't see this as much of a problem, at least for me. I am still more or less used to 3rd edition rules, and back then you were hard pressed to field more than 3 troop choices (as in, in total), while all other choices were hard limited to 3 due to slots. Unless you were hard cheesing something, this shouldn't be a problem.

My only real gripe is that this is a result of GW's "detachment" system that has blighted the game since late 6th/all of 7th edition. I really wish they would return to the old CAD FoC. Few people remember that the CAD was originally designed as a system of balance, specifically against spam, and deviating from it was usually considered a pretty big thing (to the point that certain FoCs they introduced at the time always came with a warning saying it is possibly OP).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 20:56:20


Post by: Skaorn


I remember how much backlash IW players got in Chaos 3.5 when they got 4 HS slots, 1 FA slot, and access to IG Basalisks. 8th ed was a real turn around from then.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/18 21:21:53


Post by: Bharring


I just thought the Rule of 3 was GW saying "We need more balance, but can't redo it all right now - here's a stopgap".


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/21 16:21:06


Post by: iGuy91


 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I haven't been in the 40k scene for a while due to an insurance kerfufle (nothing big, but i had to call three separate government agencies to get what is essentially a glorified air pump for my face), but here's my old fuddy duddy perspective:

(insert high pitched laugh).

Ok jokes aside, I don't see this as much of a problem, at least for me. I am still more or less used to 3rd edition rules, and back then you were hard pressed to field more than 3 troop choices (as in, in total), while all other choices were hard limited to 3 due to slots. Unless you were hard cheesing something, this shouldn't be a problem.

My only real gripe is that this is a result of GW's "detachment" system that has blighted the game since late 6th/all of 7th edition. I really wish they would return to the old CAD FoC. Few people remember that the CAD was originally designed as a system of balance, specifically against spam, and deviating from it was usually considered a pretty big thing (to the point that certain FoCs they introduced at the time always came with a warning saying it is possibly OP).



Yep. Me too. Most of my armies still look like they are in a CAD...it tends to make for solid, balanced lists for normal play.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/21 22:41:21


Post by: Iur_tae_mont


i prefer detachments over the “old” 5th ed system of “you’re locked to this FOC, but if you buy overpriced Commander faceroll, you get to take this elite/Fast attack/heavy support as a troop.”

Draigo apparently hated my Tau army so much that he would be pulled out of the warp to fight me 2-3 times a week.

I like the rule of three because it limits spam and I love the detachment system because outside of specific builds, your not married to a special character to build you list your way. My local meta is much more chill so you don’t really see ton of LVO or ITC top table lists, so my view is skewed, but the FOC and all of the exceptions to the rules if you took Special Characters was much more obnoxious than just giving us more tools to list build imo.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/05/22 14:13:04


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


I also hated the FoC shenanigans in 5th. I think the entire reason that was even a thing was because they tried condensing the Codex: Craftworld into the 4th edition Eldar Codex and did a crap job of that (not to mention the same attempt is also why Eldar ended up with Jetbikes as troops natively. I hate that book because it essentially messed up the entire faction for the sake of simplification).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 01:51:59


Post by: Dannohawk


 LunarSol wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.


Though its good for players to not feel forced into buy 5+ of the only good model that at some point will get toned down or otherwise fall out of favor as other things are buffed into a more prevalent role. The one model to rule the codex style armies that have always driven the competitive game are a big reason people have collections that do not survive an edition change. This is honestly a good way to minimize the damage done when changes need to be made.



I hate this rule because of the principle, GW say's you have the freedom to build an army anyway you like. A mere eight months later all those models you brought and painstaking painted go into the bin. It's too late to save gamers money. Some stability would be appreciated! Some spam builds weren't broken or overly competitive with the old freedom, some were laughably broken such is the huge variety of 40k. And what if a old troop choice becomes elite or your faction literally only has one tank equivalent? Did those players need to psychially know that they could only take three while the guard players go crazy?


It's funny that the only people who don't hate this rule in my area are the people who play factions with loads of options.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 02:52:43


Post by: BaconCatBug


Rule of 3 hurts everyone except Imperial Guard, which is the "reason" the rule of 3 was implemented, since the pre-nerfed the T'au Commanders already.

Personally I'd prefer if there were percentage limits, or some way of taxing multiples of the same unit, but that's beyond the complication level GW seem to want to take 40k to.

Alternatively, bring back Platoons for IG so Imperial armies aren't obligated to pay 180pts for 5CP


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 03:19:33


Post by: greyknight12


In the old days the rule of 3 was basically standard, since the FOC chart only had 3 of everything except for troops. The second piece needs to be a reduction of the standard game size down to a point where a single FOC will fill all the points with slots to spare.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 07:21:15


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:
[
Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.


Yeah, about the protection. It works only if your codex is not that bad, or at least has 3-4 good options. If your codex is carried by one option then the rule of 3 sucks hard, because all those top tier armies just run bigger squads or reapers, more lances fewer reapers or demon princes from other codex. While you not only end up with a 4th NDK you can't use now, but also have less power then ever before. The rule of 3 changes nothing when a bad armies plays against a top tier one. It does hurt the bad army though, when is faces a mid tier one. Because before the bad army would probablly lose, but the game could be close, because of units that were carrying the bad army, Now that this is no longer the case, the number of armies percived as tier 1, for someone with a bad army, only grew, plus the players of those bad armies got punished for people with good armies having fun for a year. That is like your sister eating all the holiday sweets ment for your confirmation, and you being punished for it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 08:20:57


Post by: An Actual Englishman


Even if the rule itself is a little ham fisted in its application across all factions equally, I love what it represents for the game in terms of GW trying to push us to play more diverse lists.

I'm all for the rule of 3, and any other rule that forces competitive players to take more fluffy lists.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 09:15:41


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


 greyknight12 wrote:
In the old days the rule of 3 was basically standard, since the FOC chart only had 3 of everything except for troops. The second piece needs to be a reduction of the standard game size down to a point where a single FOC will fill all the points with slots to spare.

The problem is that at those point levels the 'rule' becomes "the rule of 2".


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 09:53:44


Post by: MagicJuggler


Two words: Fake Balance


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 10:32:08


Post by: BaconCatBug


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Even if the rule itself is a little ham fisted in its application across all factions equally, I love what it represents for the game in terms of GW trying to push us to play more diverse lists.

I'm all for the rule of 3, and any other rule that forces competitive players to take more fluffy lists.
>Diverse Lists.

You sure we're playing the same game? Lists haven't been made more diverse. All it's done is remove the Tyrant Spam list from the meta, and made Minimum Guard Battalions even more valuable. It did literally nothing to curb the CWE lists, they had already nerfed Ynnari to the point of unviability and nerfed Tau Commanders (double so now because they can't even take 3 in one detachment). Removing lists wholesale from the meta isn't making the game more diverse, because they don't get replaced with "new" lists to compensate, people just move to whatever lists were already viable.

No-ones suddenly going to use Pyrovores or Carnifexes because you lowered the number of Hive Tyrants they can take. They are just going to move to the RipIonHead Tau, CWE Cheddar or Imperial Superfriends. Furthermore, the Rule of 3 is actually the rule of 54 for Guard due to multiple Leman Russ Variants (which can all be taken in squadrons of 3) they can take thanks to Forge World and the Index. Basilisks are now rule of 18 thanks to squadrons and forge world. The only thing that IG suffered was the loss of 33 point mortar teams... which can be circumvented again with Forge World with DKOK Heavy Weapon Teams, so Rule of 6 there.

Meanwhile, Dark Eldar are now quite literally crippled into uselessness, because their HQs are a major tax, have subpar rules, and now you can't even take more than 3 Ravagers. Space Marines now can't even take a 4th predator to provide some redundancy for the Killshot stratagem. But Guard can take 54 Leman Russes, because that's Fair and Balanced.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 10:48:02


Post by: An Actual Englishman


I disagree, I'm not saying no that spam is totally fixed but if there is a unit for which it makes sense to be spammed, troops are those units.

Either way I believe that imposing restrictions such as this on lists forces players to be more creative in their list building.

Like you said - Flyrant spam is now gone. If I only play Nids I must change my build to suit the new restrictions. Same with Shield Captains on bikes that were prevalent. Not every player can instaswitch to the flavour of the week list and I have seen first hand new lists from the change.

This rule isn't going to fix spam completely, nor is it going to fix the issues with soup lists. They require their own fixes. Also combined with other changes (no DS turn 1, changes to smite, points changes to certain units) I'd say GW have successfully shaken up the meta, assuming this was their intent.

As to playing the same game, I guess we must be playjng different games because Ynnari certainly aren't unviable here.

E - lol at Dark Eldar being crippled, you can't be playing the same game as me.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 11:19:23


Post by: jcd386


The problem with killshot isn't that you can't take 4+ predators anymore, it's that it requires 3+ in the first place.

There is definitely more work to be done, but I really can't think of too many units I will miss seeing more than 3 of.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 12:19:04


Post by: Galas


To be honest, with my 4 predator list (Everyone with 2 lass cannon) the rule of 3 really hurted me... normally my enemies destroyed max 1 predator in his first turn because I hide the rest... and now they do the same, but that just makes for me not possible to use my stratagem, and... yeah.
That sucks.

But nearly anythin else you have said, BaconCatBug, is just wrong. Ynnary useless? Dark Eldar Useless? Oh may god.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 12:33:20


Post by: Tyel


 Galas wrote:
To be honest, with my 4 predator list (Everyone with 2 lass cannon) the rule of 3 really hurted me... normally my enemies destroyed max 1 predator in his first turn because I hide the rest... and now they do the same, but that just makes for me not possible to use my stratagem, and... yeah.
That sucks.

But nearly anythin else you have said, BaconCatBug, is just wrong. Ynnary useless? Dark Eldar Useless? Oh may god.


You do have moments reading the forum where you wonder if you are playing the same game.

I think the rule of 3 is a good thing. I think the codexes should have been balanced with it in mind - same for deep strike changes - but there is always next edition.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 12:44:39


Post by: Karol



My expiriance with the rule of 3 was this. Played maybe my 4th or 5th game in life. Opposing player informs me that I can't take more then 3 units of the same kind. So I have to change my lists from running paladins with draigo, to termintors and draigo. I mess up the points, my opponent gets angry. Mostly because my list now had 1800pts and he wanted to get full 2000pts for tabling me. He on the other hand had 4 demon princes, and told me he could take them, because he took them from 2 different books and the 4th one is a special character, so not realy a demon prince.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:19:52


Post by: Duskweaver


I find it hilarious. My Night Lords have never fielded more than 2 squads of Raptors at a time, and for years I've had people give me stick for "not playing NL right by the lore" because they thought a 'fluffy' NL army should consist entirely of Raptors, Warp Talons and Helldrakes. Now I literally can't field a 'fluffy' NL army even if I wanted to. And people are praising this rule because it will supposedly force the evil competitive players to build "more fluffy" armies.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:37:50


Post by: Ushtarador


because it will supposedly force the evil competitive players to build "more fluffy" armies.


Tournament players don't care about fluffy armies in competitive games, but it certainly makes the game much more diverse and interesting. After the rule of three many other builds became viable that where completely overshadowed by "spam the best unit" (Tyranids are probably the best example for this). Also, the rules is recommended for competitive games, if you want to field your cool Night Lords army according to the fluff I'm sure you can agree with your opponent to not use it.

My expiriance with the rule of 3 was this. Played maybe my 4th or 5th game in life. Opposing player informs me that I can't take more then 3 units of the same kind. So I have to change my lists from running paladins with draigo, to termintors and draigo. I mess up the points, my opponent gets angry. Mostly because my list now had 1800pts and he wanted to get full 2000pts for tabling me. He on the other hand had 4 demon princes, and told me he could take them, because he took them from 2 different books and the 4th one is a special character, so not realy a demon prince.


This guy sounds like an donkey-cave. If you are that new to the game it makes no sense to play hardcore competitive matches like this, and nobody will have fun. I would pack my things and leave if someone did such a move, such people are not worth anyones time.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:44:13


Post by: vipoid


It does have some strangeness with regard to squad sizes and squadrons.

e.g. 30 Incubi in 3 10-man squads is fine. 20 Incubi in 4 5-man squads is banned.

9 Leman Russ in 3 squadrons of 3 is fine.

4 Leman Russ as separate squads is illegal... even though Leman Russ squadrons separate at the beginning of the game and work independently thereafter.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:47:08


Post by: BaconCatBug


Not to be "that guy", but taking 3 Daemon Princes and then a Special Character is perfectly fine and legal under the rule of 3. You might as well get angry for someone taking 3 Hive Tyrants and the Swarmlord. Or 3 Company Commanders and Creed.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:49:22


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


One of the big problems is that GW never said just what was a data sheet proper. Is it enough to change just a word or key word (UM vs Salamander)? If we have 2 of the same units in 2 books are they different or the same data sheets (CSM pink horrors vs chaos daemon pink horrors)? Or a little bit of both instances (BA devastators vs UM devastators)? Do variances in weapons make for different data sheets (Leman Russ Punisher vs LR Exterminators)?

Also you get into the relative unfairness of squadron rules. Why can guard take 3 Leman Russ tanks per slot but Ad Mech can only take 1 Onager?

Anyway hopefully GW will flesh out this rule more thoroughly before making it a permanent rule rather than its current Beta status.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:51:02


Post by: BaconCatBug


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
One of the big problems is that GW never said just what was a data sheet proper. Is it enough to change just a word or key word (UM vs Salamander)? If we have 2 of the same units in 2 books are they different or the same data sheets (CSM pink horrors vs chaos daemon pink horrors)? Or a little bit of both instances (BA devastators vs UM devastators)? Do variances in weapons make for different data sheets (Leman Russ Punisher vs LR Exterminators)?

Also you get into the relative unfairness of squadron rules. Why can guard take 3 Leman Russ tanks per slot but Ad Mech can only take 1 Onager?

Anyway hopefully GW will flesh out this rule more thoroughly before making it a permanent rule rather than its current Beta status.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the rule of 3 ain't a beta rule, it's a full fat errata to the suggestions for organised play. Yes, they are suggestions, yes they are for organised play, that doesn't stop 99% of people thinking they are iron clad rules to the level of "you can't re-roll a re-roll" for all matched play games, nor does it stop every single tournament circuit from using them (because independent thought is verboten along with conversions).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 13:52:00


Post by: Galas


Karol wrote:

My expiriance with the rule of 3 was this. Played maybe my 4th or 5th game in life. Opposing player informs me that I can't take more then 3 units of the same kind. So I have to change my lists from running paladins with draigo, to termintors and draigo. I mess up the points, my opponent gets angry. Mostly because my list now had 1800pts and he wanted to get full 2000pts for tabling me. He on the other hand had 4 demon princes, and told me he could take them, because he took them from 2 different books and the 4th one is a special character, so not realy a demon prince.


Your opponent was a prick, Karol, for getting angry at a new player.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 14:26:37


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
[
Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.


Yeah, about the protection. It works only if your codex is not that bad, or at least has 3-4 good options. If your codex is carried by one option then the rule of 3 sucks hard, because all those top tier armies just run bigger squads or reapers, more lances fewer reapers or demon princes from other codex. While you not only end up with a 4th NDK you can't use now, but also have less power then ever before. The rule of 3 changes nothing when a bad armies plays against a top tier one. It does hurt the bad army though, when is faces a mid tier one. Because before the bad army would probablly lose, but the game could be close, because of units that were carrying the bad army, Now that this is no longer the case, the number of armies percived as tier 1, for someone with a bad army, only grew, plus the players of those bad armies got punished for people with good armies having fun for a year. That is like your sister eating all the holiday sweets ment for your confirmation, and you being punished for it.


There is no easy way out of making good codices, rule of 3 or not. The rule of 3 will never make a good codex bad, but it prevents single units from becoming toxic.

If your codex is carried by single good unit you need to spam, you need a new codex, not the rule or 3 to go away.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 14:35:42


Post by: RedGriefer


 Jidmah wrote:
There is no easy way out of making good codices, rule of 3 or not. The rule of 3 will never make a good codex bad, but it prevents single units from becoming toxic.

If your codex is carried by single good unit you need to spam, you need a new codex, not the rule or 3 to go away.


What about codices like drukhari where you are required to take 4 succubus for two wych cult battalions? Is taking one additional 54pt model really a game changer?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 14:39:01


Post by: Jidmah


What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 14:46:35


Post by: Wulfmar


t's a wonderful number for extra-curricular activities, but as far as some thematic armies go (such as Orks, Nids and Drukhari) it's a royal pain in the carapace.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 14:47:20


Post by: RedGriefer


 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.


The point of the question is that in typical GWS fashion, they introduce blanket rule with no consideration for the nuances in each codex. Yes, things like Hive Tyrants and Demon Princes needed to be brought into line, but things like succubi really didn't. Especially in a codex where, other than special characters, there are only 3 options for HQs AND you cannot mix the HQs in a detachment without breaking obsessions!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 14:52:27


Post by: Purifying Tempest


I think this wraps around to the issue with why USRs are bad for the game. A universal rule cannot, by definition, take into consideration the nuance of every single faction. It also cannot account for things that interact with it poorly (oh, hi there vehicle squadrons not-squadrons!).

The correct fix is either 1) points (Tau Commander), or 2) specific fixes that devolve into whack-a-mole (Flying Hive Tyrant). The community is clearly too impatient for option 2, and too finicky about balance for option 1 (no one likes to see their favorites smashed).

8th feels a lot more a-la-carte than previous editions, and blanket and totalitarian-style rules just do not mix into the system very well. Maybe CA 2018 will buy them enough time for some internal analysis to fix a few of the problem units and get back to "business as normal" before this ham-handed solution?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 15:03:53


Post by: Jidmah


RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.


The point of the question is that in typical GWS fashion, they introduce blanket rule with no consideration for the nuances in each codex. Yes, things like Hive Tyrants and Demon Princes needed to be brought into line, but things like succubi really didn't. Especially in a codex where, other than special characters, there are only 3 options for HQs AND you cannot mix the HQs in a detachment without breaking obsessions!


And you'd rather trust GW to no longer create units that become overpowered when spammed than have them implement a fail-safe against that?

Guess what happens to your wych cult if succubi become the new hawt thing to spam? GW will put them in a place where they are sub-par when spammed and utterly useless when not, that's going to happen.

As long there are units which are reigned in by the rules of three, it has a reason exist.

Also note that you are constructing a corner case of you wanting to build an otherwise functional army in a very specific way. The only thing dark eldar need more HQs for is to gain more CP/a more optimal variant of your special archetype. It's pretty much on par with an eldar player complaining about having less exarchs in his jetbike army due to the rule of 3.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 15:06:05


Post by: Duskweaver


Ushtarador wrote:
if you want to field your cool Night Lords army according to the fluff I'm sure you can agree with your opponent to not use it.

I can only assume that my post was terribly unclear. The Ro3 doesn't actually affect my NL army (or any of my 40K armies). I'm not even against it. I just think it's silly (and amusing to me because of the irony I described in my previous post) to claim that it will encourage more 'fluffy' lists. It actually makes some long-established 'fluffy' armies (Ravenwing, Deathwing, most Traitor Legions, single-clan Ork armies, mono-god Daemons...) harder or impossible to build legally. Like you said, it's a (suggested) rule for tournaments, where it frankly doesn't matter whether people are playing 'fluffy' lists. So the argument that it is a good rule because it encourages 'fluffy' lists is both wrong and irrelevant.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 15:36:03


Post by: Jidmah


I don't think there is a single "fluff" ork army affected by the rule of 3.

What's affected are klan-focused armies that hat to MSU their signature unit because it sucked in big mobs. I have yet to meet anyone who owns more than 45 warbikes.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 15:47:34


Post by: MagicJuggler


Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:06:01


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.

Why should I be forced into a specific Wych Cult AND forced into using Lelith?

How is THAT anymore balanced than just allowing 4 generic Succubus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
It does have some strangeness with regard to squad sizes and squadrons.

e.g. 30 Incubi in 3 10-man squads is fine. 20 Incubi in 4 5-man squads is banned.

9 Leman Russ in 3 squadrons of 3 is fine.

4 Leman Russ as separate squads is illegal... even though Leman Russ squadrons separate at the beginning of the game and work independently thereafter.

Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:13:29


Post by: Galas


 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:19:35


Post by: MagicJuggler


 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


In the Index? Sure. In the Codex? No, Berzerkers and Noise Marines are Elites, until the FAQ added these:

[Thumb - RoleReassignment.jpg]


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:21:51


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


Citation please. AFAIK there has been no statement from GW regarding this. Since all Leman Russ tanks use the same data sheet you can only have 9 of them if you put them into 3 squads of 3. There is no mention of different weapon configurations = different data sheets.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:23:58


Post by: BaconCatBug


Now, does the fact the two datasheets have different Battlefield Roles on their datasheet mean they are the same datasheet anymore?

If you say they are, then you are saying that ULTRAMARINE Predators are the same datasheet as a BLOOD ANGELS Predator.

GW's half-arsed attempts actually causing more harm than good? I don't believe it!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:24:42


Post by: Galas


 MagicJuggler wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


In the Index? Sure. In the Codex? No, Berzerkers and Noise Marines are Elites, until the FAQ added these:


So World Eater Berzerkers are Troops instead of elites, so "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." It is pretty clear. If you try to arguee otherwise, go ahead, I'm not gonna enter in this, but this is something clear to everybody. And I admit that theres many situations where GW makes confuse rules open to interpretation, but this is not one of those cases.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:25:02


Post by: BaconCatBug


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


Citation please. AFAIK there has been no statement from GW regarding this. Since all Leman Russ tanks use the same data sheet you can only have 9 of them if you put them into 3 squads of 3. There is no mention of different weapon configurations = different data sheets.
While he is incorrect in that you can't take 4+ different turret russes, what you CAN do is take 3 squadrons of the LR Demolisher datasheet from the Index (which have the old 6 wound Plasma Vent rule, by the by), and 3 squadrons of each Leman Russ Variant in the FW index (which also have the 6 wound plasma vents), PLUS Cult Leman Russes from the GSC index entry (notice a trend here, Old 6 wound plasma vents!).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:35:52


Post by: Scott-S6


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


Citation please. AFAIK there has been no statement from GW regarding this. Since all Leman Russ tanks use the same data sheet you can only have 9 of them if you put them into 3 squads of 3. There is no mention of different weapon configurations = different data sheets.

Absolutely, that is not how it works.

Now the FW variants are all different datasheets which might be what's confusing him. So you can have regular russ, tank commander, FW Vanquisher, FW Annihilator, FW Conqueror, FW Mars Alpha, index Demolisher, etc.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:40:32


Post by: MagicJuggler


 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


In the Index? Sure. In the Codex? No, Berzerkers and Noise Marines are Elites, until the FAQ added these:


So World Eater Berzerkers are Troops instead of elites, so "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." It is pretty clear. If you try to arguee otherwise, go ahead, I'm not gonna enter in this, but this is something clear to everybody. And I admit that theres many situations where GW makes confuse rules open to interpretation, but this is not one of those cases.


Except you cannot have more than three of the same Datasheet. Even with different roles (say you allied in Alpha Legion Berzerkers in a separate detachment), they are still technically the same Datasheet, only one of the units now has the Elite role instead of the troops role.

When it says "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops role," this leaves it up for interpretation as to whether three units of World Eater Berzerkers lets you take a fourth Alpha Legion unit.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 16:42:16


Post by: Luke_Prowler


While it doesn't really effect me (dread mobs need more than just a lot of heavy support slots to be playable), my friend who play mordian iron guard likes to represent his more well-trained regiment by using veterans, and was quite upset when I told him the news. It wasn't as if he was spamming something powerful or playing an unfluffy list, he just got caught in the crossfire (which is why we're just ignoring it).

The original foc worked, but slot swapping was a common work around. I didn't like that you end up with special character that existed solely for that and/or how often that ended up being being just straight up more powerful that other options (i'm looking at you, 5th ed grey knights), but if they're going to keep this restriction taking one unit as a troop choice under the right conditions would be nice.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 19:56:07


Post by: craggy


With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/18 20:05:48


Post by: MagicJuggler


craggy wrote:
With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


"You cannot take more than three of the same Datasheet." This rule does not apply to units "with the Troops Battlefield Role", this could either mean that infinite troops can be taken but troops count against the three-unit limit for checking if Elites can be taken, or that the rule not applying means that Troops do not count against the three-datasheet limit. Feel free to roll-off.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 01:59:03


Post by: SagesStone


 MagicJuggler wrote:
craggy wrote:
With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


"You cannot take more than three of the same Datasheet." This rule does not apply to units "with the Troops Battlefield Role", this could either mean that infinite troops can be taken but troops count against the three-unit limit for checking if Elites can be taken, or that the rule not applying means that Troops do not count against the three-datasheet limit. Feel free to roll-off.


It's simple, if you have to take them as elites then you take up to 3; if you can take them as troops then you get as many as you want. It's not the potential of them being able to be either role but the current role they would be taking. By saying "this rule doesn't apply to units with the troop battlefield role" it would mean while they are troops they are not counted at all so they shouldn't effect the limit of 3.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 05:51:57


Post by: SHUPPET


It's excellent.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 08:54:48


Post by: Karol


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to be "that guy", but taking 3 Daemon Princes and then a Special Character is perfectly fine and legal under the rule of 3. You might as well get angry for someone taking 3 Hive Tyrants and the Swarmlord. Or 3 Company Commanders and Creed.

he took 2 csm ones, and 2 from the nurgle codex and a special character nurgle one.


This guy sounds like an donkey-cave. If you are that new to the game it makes no sense to play hardcore competitive matches like this, and nobody will have fun. I would pack my things and leave if someone did such a move, such people are not worth anyones time.

It was a store game, people here don't buy in to those bad armies, w40k costs too much for that. I think I got duped by the seller to buy his old army, and my friends wanted me to play with them with summer coming up etc. Plus my army did cost a lot less then theirs I think for 16 metal termintors and NDK, 5 strikes and 2 rhinos I paid less then 2 marines starter sets.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 09:00:21


Post by: Scott-S6


Daemon Prince and Daemon Prince of Nurgle are two different datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you've only got 16 terminators then what was the problem with running 3x5 palladins?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 11:51:39


Post by: BaconCatBug


Karol wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to be "that guy", but taking 3 Daemon Princes and then a Special Character is perfectly fine and legal under the rule of 3. You might as well get angry for someone taking 3 Hive Tyrants and the Swarmlord. Or 3 Company Commanders and Creed.

he took 2 csm ones, and 2 from the nurgle codex and a special character nurgle one.
Still perfectly legal and not a "dick move" as some are claiming.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 11:58:32


Post by: ERJAK


Just popping in to say that the rule of three is the single dumbest thing that's been added to 8th edition. It has managed to:

DECREASE list diversity. Pretty much every list now is, 3 of best unit 1, 3 of best unit 2, 3 of best ally units one, 3 of best ally unit 2. Before you could create archetypes based around large numbers of particular units and their support options, now it's just going down the OP checklist.

Do NOTHING to make the game more balanced. There wasn't even a small decline in the power of the top lists compared to the power of everyone else.

Push soup from common to EPIDEMIC. Since very few armies have enough viable options under the rule of 3 to be competitive in mono-faction Soup when from a powerful list building tool to being totally mandatory.

Increase the relative power of already powerful horde units, especially troops. Hordes suck to use and suck to play against but with this rule become even more powerful. It's entirely possible for someone to run a 'green tide' type list but almost impossible to scrape together enough anti-infantry to have any shot at killing it.

The rule of 3 is terrible, makes the game worse for no reason, accomplishes nothing AT BEST and the opposite of what it was meant to do at worst, and the fact that anyone thought it was a good idea is a tragedy.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:06:59


Post by: Jidmah


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Karol wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to be "that guy", but taking 3 Daemon Princes and then a Special Character is perfectly fine and legal under the rule of 3. You might as well get angry for someone taking 3 Hive Tyrants and the Swarmlord. Or 3 Company Commanders and Creed.

he took 2 csm ones, and 2 from the nurgle codex and a special character nurgle one.
Still perfectly legal and not a "dick move" as some are claiming.


Unless two of those were daemon princes of Slanesh.


... I'll show myself out.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:07:12


Post by: Karol


 Scott-S6 wrote:
Daemon Prince and Daemon Prince of Nurgle are two different datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you've only got 16 terminators then what was the problem with running 3x5 palladins?

We have to have a battalion in our list. not enough models and points.

Still perfectly legal and not a "dick move" as some are claiming.

you know that is a bit like an eldar player saying that reapers are fine, and spaming them and mixing craftworlds and ynari was not a dick move, because it was legal.

But what I was trying to point out that it favors already good lists and hurts bad armies a lot more. Did after the rule of 3 and the deep strike nerf, and the reaper nerf eldar stop scoring high in tournaments ? how about GK being seen actually being played at any event?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:10:15


Post by: Jidmah


I really don't get the issue with those "all daemon prince" lists. In my experience they just get blasted off the board because daemon princes simply aren't that durable and aren't killy enough to handle vehicles or hordes. A friend of mine brought is old "flying circus" list to the table and was murdered by pre-codex tau.

So, what the is issue with them besides leading the rule of three ad absurdum?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:20:06


Post by: Scott-S6


Karol wrote:

We have to have a battalion in our list.

Just to make elite armies which are already struggling completely inflexible? That sucks. Basically you now HAVE to go out and get three squads of guard plus two commanders so that you can do what you want with your GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
how about GK being seen actually being played at any event?

To be fair, they weren't being seen at events before the rule of three either - it hasn't really affected GK at all.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:25:40


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


In my meta we have 3 GK players (including myself). I think that I've been the only mono-GK player with the other 2 having either a detachment of SM or IG. To be honest I'm probably going to add a detachment of IK to my army just because GK can't handle vehicles/heavy units very well (IMHO).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:36:54


Post by: blackmage


RedGriefer wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult. Do you think the Rule of Three will make it past the Beta phase unchanged? What are your thoughts on it?

rule of 3 IS NOT a beta rule, is an official rule for matched play, if after what we faced in past, 7 flyrants, 6 PBC and so on there are still players who lame about rules of 3 i guess we have a perfect clear picture of how wh40k is fethed up, rule of 3 is a rule they should enforce since start of edition, period.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:39:26


Post by: ph34r


I hate hate hate hate hate the rule of 3.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:40:57


Post by: blackmage


 ph34r wrote:
I hate hate hate hate hate the rule of 3.

play narrative and you ok, there is no rule of 3 there


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:44:48


Post by: BaconCatBug


 blackmage wrote:
 ph34r wrote:
I hate hate hate hate hate the rule of 3.

play narrative and you ok, there is no rule of 3 there
There is no rule of 3 in matched play either.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 13:45:43


Post by: blackmage


 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't get the issue with those "all daemon prince" lists. In my experience they just get blasted off the board because daemon princes simply aren't that durable and aren't killy enough to handle vehicles or hordes. A friend of mine brought is old "flying circus" list to the table and was murdered by pre-codex tau.

So, what the is issue with them besides leading the rule of three ad absurdum?

depend what is the rest of your list, 4-5 Dp's are viable and sure nothing to joke about, when you put down 90 plaguebearers 9 nurglins bases and 7-8 Nugle drones, i can grant they go where they want before you can touch them, beside some sniper fire, sure not enough to rid off all those princes, without counting Ts princes casting 2 powers each turn harrassing you with tons of mortal wounds, i play that list i know what it can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no rule of 3 in matched play either

i didn't see any tournament wont use it, is a suggested rules yes but every tournament will use.It was made after the savage spam at last big tournaments so dream on major events will not use it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 14:14:25


Post by: Scott-S6


Matched Play != Tournament.

That's specifically why matched play contains extra rules that are for "organized events".


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 14:19:44


Post by: Jidmah


Lucky are those who don't have players in their playing group/store which need to reigned in by the rule of three.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 14:34:41


Post by: vipoid


ERJAK wrote:
Hordes suck to use and suck to play against




The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 14:36:32


Post by: Jidmah


 blackmage wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't get the issue with those "all daemon prince" lists. In my experience they just get blasted off the board because daemon princes simply aren't that durable and aren't killy enough to handle vehicles or hordes. A friend of mine brought is old "flying circus" list to the table and was murdered by pre-codex tau.

So, what the is issue with them besides leading the rule of three ad absurdum?

depend what is the rest of your list, 4-5 Dp's are viable and sure nothing to joke about, when you put down 90 plaguebearers 9 nurglins bases and 7-8 Nugle drones, i can grant they go where they want before you can touch them, beside some sniper fire, sure not enough to rid off all those princes, without counting Ts princes casting 2 powers each turn harrassing you with tons of mortal wounds, i play that list i know what it can do.


4-5 isn't really spamming them. You could just have 3 DP and Ahriman in that same list without any datasheet shenanigans. If you felt silly, you could even add Be'lakor.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 14:49:25


Post by: Asmodios


Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 14:55:34


Post by: BaconCatBug


Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 15:02:50


Post by: LunarSol


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.


And... that's still dramatically more diverse than 6 of the same thing. Twice as diverse even. Rule of 3 is long long long needed. Almost every game out there has something similar and 40k has degenerated without it for far too long. The most important thing about it honestly is that its a solid promise to the players that they don't have to buy more than 3 of anything. That's actually fairly important, especially for potential new players.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 15:11:04


Post by: dracpanzer


 LunarSol wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.


And... that's still dramatically more diverse than 6 of the same thing. Twice as diverse even. Rule of 3 is long long long needed. Almost every game out there has something similar and 40k has degenerated without it for far too long. The most important thing about it honestly is that its a solid promise to the players that they don't have to buy more than 3 of anything. That's actually fairly important, especially for potential new players.


Total Bunk, now they just need to buy tons and tons of troop units? It didn't hurt the top armies or even really impact the mainstream codex's. It did blow up a ton of armies that require them to now work around the fact that they don't have the number of Dataslates available to them other armies do. DE can only make mixed armies now, Sisters can only field two detachments unless they go with the 6 of one slot detachments the rule blows up for them. Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 15:24:46


Post by: vipoid


 dracpanzer wrote:
Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.


This.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 15:36:52


Post by: Scott-S6


 vipoid wrote:
 dracpanzer wrote:
Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.


This.

Yep, a targeted point solution had the best chance of approaching success without hurting the armies that were already struggling and making soup the default.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Hordes suck to use and suck to play against




[morgan freeman]He's right, you know.[/morgan freeman]


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 15:57:43


Post by: LunarSol


Limiting players to 3 of something is important if they're going to aggressively change models to address balance. If 2000 points of the one best model is the way to play, every time you need to address that model you invalidate the entire army. Rule of 3 keeps people's collections within reasonable bounds and limits how badly necessary changes affect them.

It's really not a balance fix in and of itself. It's just something that simply should have always been there, but GW of the past was not in the business of doing anything that might prevent players from overspending on as many copies of a kit as they could.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:00:09


Post by: Crimson


 dracpanzer wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise.

Or increase the point cost! Preferably the point cost of the wing option (GW always does this, mobility options for characters such as wings, bikes and jetbikes are always undercosted, so taking them is a no-brainer choice.)


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:13:13


Post by: Asmodios


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

Ummmmm that still closes the power gap...... Instead of fighting against 9 (best unit in army) im not fighting against 3 (best unit) 3 (2nd best unit) 3 (third best unit). This has closed the power gap by reducing that army (and any army that could spam 1 broken unit) power level significantly.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:30:47


Post by: BaconCatBug


You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:37:10


Post by: Tyel


 BaconCatBug wrote:
You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.


Pretty sure this is the case before.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:42:22


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Asmodios wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

Ummmmm that still closes the power gap...... Instead of fighting against 9 (best unit in army) im not fighting against 3 (best unit) 3 (2nd best unit) 3 (third best unit). This has closed the power gap by reducing that army (and any army that could spam 1 broken unit) power level significantly.

Or you could not be lazy, look at what's making said unit broken, and adjust cost so they aren't broken.

An underpriced unit is an underpriced unit, regardless of how many you can bring. Would it still be okay for Roboute to be 350 points just because there is only one to deal with?

It's an absurd argument and you know it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:49:43


Post by: Scott-S6


Tyel wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.


Pretty sure this is the case before.

It is but the point is that weak armies are now using their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best units dropping their power level substantially while the strong armies 1st, 2nd and 3rd are all really good so their power has barely dropped.



The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 16:53:14


Post by: Ice_can


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

Ummmmm that still closes the power gap...... Instead of fighting against 9 (best unit in army) im not fighting against 3 (best unit) 3 (2nd best unit) 3 (third best unit). This has closed the power gap by reducing that army (and any army that could spam 1 broken unit) power level significantly.

Or you could not be lazy, look at what's making said unit broken, and adjust cost so they aren't broken.

An underpriced unit is an underpriced unit, regardless of how many you can bring. Would it still be okay for Roboute to be 350 points just because there is only one to deal with?

It's an absurd argument and you know it.


Guilliman is a really bad example as guilliman on his own isn't the main issue it's the reroll, reroll buff that's the issue.
Guilliman surrounded by intercessors or tac marines doesn't justify his 400 points. Surrounded by fireraptors he might be worth it but right now outside of lists built to exploit the rerolls he's not worth his points.

It stopped the extreme's of spam but spamming does still happen as many tournament lists only repeat units untill the relics or strategums are used up after that additional units don't bring the same benifit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.


Pretty sure this is the case before.

It is but the point is that weak armies are now using their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best units dropping their power level substantially while the strong armies 1st, 2nd and 3rd are all really good so their power has barely dropped.


GK are the poster boys for a lost cause, they got a turd of a codex accept it and move on. Stop trying to use a broken codex as a good example of why something doesn't work. If it works for 90% of the armies in the game the issues probably not with the rule but with those armies, like IG squadrons allowing them to straight ignore the rule, and GK well just being Grey knights of the ordo epic failures.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 17:05:05


Post by: Tyel


 Scott-S6 wrote:
It is but the point is that weak armies are now using their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best units dropping their power level substantially while the strong armies 1st, 2nd and 3rd are all really good so their power has barely dropped.


Such as?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 17:19:43


Post by: Backspacehacker


Rule of three was just a stop gap that did not fix anything, you can still spam units, hell even still can take 9 Daemon princes of a single god, not sure why you would but.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 18:00:43


Post by: jcd386


I just think it's generally a good rule for the game to have. I also think that if it had been a part of the game at launch, no one would have nearly as big a problem with it since most people are familiar with there being limits to the FoC of some kind. Compared to 5th etc, we still have way more options.

I don't think the rule has magically fixed everything, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Also most of the problems people have with it seem to actually be other issues: certain codexes being bad that are still bad, codexes not having enough HQs in them, specific units being able to make units of 3+, and allies making it too easy to just get the 3 best units from each book. None of these are reasons not to have a 3+ limit in general, they are just specific issues that need to be addressed in relation to a otherwise good rule.



The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 18:26:17


Post by: Asmodios


 BaconCatBug wrote:
You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.

Yes but it is still way worse then the best eldar unit. You are forcing books to go to 2nd, third, fourth best options. This decreases these books power and makes the game easier to balance. Previous to this rule you would get the top unit nurfed but just run to spam of the next unit up. Now they can focus on the entire power level of books not worrying as much if one unit is undercosted by 5%


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 18:29:54


Post by: vipoid


 Crimson wrote:

Or increase the point cost! Preferably the point cost of the wing option (GW always does this, mobility options for characters such as wings, bikes and jetbikes are always undercosted, so taking them is a no-brainer choice.)


Jump Packs/Wings on infantry models are usually fine - it tends to be Bikes/Jetbikes or wings on monsters that are undercosted.

Especially since Bikes/Jetbikes also grant huge increases in survivability (+1W, +1T, sometimes a better save as well).

And on monsters, the wings rarely ever cost enough (relative to the cost of the monster) to be a meaningful choice. Especially when cost is the only downside for taking them (there's no decrease in armour, toughness or offensive ability).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 18:37:16


Post by: MagicJuggler


 n0t_u wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
craggy wrote:
With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


"You cannot take more than three of the same Datasheet." This rule does not apply to units "with the Troops Battlefield Role", this could either mean that infinite troops can be taken but troops count against the three-unit limit for checking if Elites can be taken, or that the rule not applying means that Troops do not count against the three-datasheet limit. Feel free to roll-off.


It's simple, if you have to take them as elites then you take up to 3; if you can take them as troops then you get as many as you want. It's not the potential of them being able to be either role but the current role they would be taking. By saying "this rule doesn't apply to units with the troop battlefield role" it would mean while they are troops they are not counted at all so they shouldn't effect the limit of 3.


It shouldn't. However, the Troops are still the same Datasheet, which the Elite Berzerkers still have to check against.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 18:54:51


Post by: Blndmage


Rule of 3 (which is really Rule of 2/3/4 depending on game size, and hells, I love smaller games!) are Wally screws over armies who can't soup, like Necrons or Tyranids...Tau

Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar (mostly Imperium) armies have tons of Soup options, and the game is being peinalized and a whole for these specific factions.

Try playing Necrons, and keep to the lore for your army.

Imperium, be it SM (or all of the many individual chapters that get their own books), guard, mechaniccus, now Knights...some of these factions can't function effectively without Soup, and Xenos forces get squat, then get told they're limited to 2/3/4.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:02:54


Post by: blackmage


 Jidmah wrote:
Lucky are those who don't have players in their playing group/store which need to reigned in by the rule of three.

and play spamming 7 flyrants 15 oblys 9 PBC... yeah so lucky happy games dudes


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Rule of three was just a stop gap that did not fix anything, you can still spam units, hell even still can take 9 Daemon princes of a single god, not sure why you would but.

that will be fixed, btw that the only case you can still spam, the rest is cold dead, and as i said i bet (and really hope) also for princes will be rules of 3, right now i never play more than 3 princes so im ready for a probable faq.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:10:39


Post by: meleti


As a Tau player, rule of three only impacts me in a few ways. I might take 5 Firesight Marksman if I could, but taking five of the same character (who used to just accompany drone squads) is already a little silly so whatever. I might also take 5-6 Hammerheads, which to me is similar enough to taking squadrons of Leman Russes, so I find the restriction mildly annoying there. And it restricts me from spamming cheap Pathfinders with special weapons, which annoys me a lot as most other armies have their special weapons infantry as troops and are currently spamming away.

I think it’s better to have the rule than not, though. It’s noticeable but it’s more of a restriction on army building than an impediment to Tau in competitive play.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:11:44


Post by: blackmage


Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.

but in competitive IG lists you dont find LR spam but you found it in Tyr lists (go tale a look at pre faq tournaments) so they fixed like that, i prefer this than nothing, i played pre and post faq and i find now it s pretty better with no 1st turn deep strike alpha strikes with no super spam , and i was sure hurted by the change cause i play demons so for me not anymore drop 30 bl+30 pink horrors and 9 oblys first turn and wreak havocs, but anyway i prefer now and hope the beta rules will become official


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:24:50


Post by: vipoid


 Blndmage wrote:
Rule of 3 (which is really Rule of 2/3/4 depending on game size, and hells, I love smaller games!) are Wally screws over armies who can't soup, like Necrons or Tyranids...Tau

Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar (mostly Imperium) armies have tons of Soup options, and the game is being peinalized and a whole for these specific factions.


It also hurts any Imperium, Chaos or Eldar players who want to actually play a specific army - rather than a mishmash of different armies.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:42:46


Post by: Andykp


Don’t know if it’s been said yet, not read all six pages of this but my big issue with the rule of 3 is, it isn’t a rule. It’s a suggestion for a specific type of play and tournament organisers.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:48:40


Post by: blackmage


Andykp wrote:
Don’t know if it’s been said yet, not read all six pages of this but my big issue with the rule of 3 is, it isn’t a rule. It’s a suggestion for a specific type of play and tournament organisers.

again it is a suggestion for MATCHED play...but find 1 single serious event which aren't using them... really guys but you liked the time when you can spam 15 oblys? seriously? if yes that give the big picture about the state of wh40.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 21:50:22


Post by: meleti


 vipoid wrote:

It also hurts any Imperium, Chaos or Eldar players who want to actually play a specific army - rather than a mishmash of different armies.


Can you not play Eldar without taking 8 Ravagers?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 23:17:55


Post by: Andykp


I’ve said it in other threads and I’ll say it in this one. The game isn’t the problem it’s the players.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 23:39:25


Post by: Blastaar


Andykp wrote:
I’ve said it in other threads and I’ll say it in this one. The game isn’t the problem it’s the players.


If the game is written in such a way that some units are simply superior to others, and they can be taken in large numbers, the fault is the rules that are written so poorly as to allow such abuse. "It's balanced if you ignore the broken units/combos/whatever" is not a good argument to make.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 23:40:33


Post by: meleti


Blastaar wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I’ve said it in other threads and I’ll say it in this one. The game isn’t the problem it’s the players.


If the game is written in such a way that some units are simply superior to others, and they can be taken in large numbers, the fault is the rules that are written so poorly as to allow such abuse. "It's balanced if you ignore the broken units/combos/whatever" is not a good argument to make.


Well, GW has tried to change the rules so that "in large numbers" now means "3, unless your troops/transports happen to be what's broken."


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 23:50:51


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


meleti wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I’ve said it in other threads and I’ll say it in this one. The game isn’t the problem it’s the players.


If the game is written in such a way that some units are simply superior to others, and they can be taken in large numbers, the fault is the rules that are written so poorly as to allow such abuse. "It's balanced if you ignore the broken units/combos/whatever" is not a good argument to make.


Well, GW has tried to change the rules so that "in large numbers" now means "3, unless your troops/transports happen to be what's broken."

Which isn't how it is supposed to work. Broken units are broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute at his original price point literally proves that.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 23:51:13


Post by: Blastaar


meleti wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I’ve said it in other threads and I’ll say it in this one. The game isn’t the problem it’s the players.


If the game is written in such a way that some units are simply superior to others, and they can be taken in large numbers, the fault is the rules that are written so poorly as to allow such abuse. "It's balanced if you ignore the broken units/combos/whatever" is not a good argument to make.


Well, GW has tried to change the rules so that "in large numbers" now means "3, unless your troops/transports happen to be what's broken."


Yeah, GW really struggles with these things. They don't understand how to look at the game as a whole, and how the various components interact with each other, or how to make slight adjustments instead of breaking out the sledgehammer, so we get these broad changes that always have side-effects. They either don't comprehend, or don't care to put the effort into balancing units' stats, rules and costs, with rigorous testing and trial-and error. It's always sledgehammer or a band-aid with GW.

Limiting Non-troops is a good move though, moving from the FOC to such loose army construction was guaranteed to cause problems. I actually think perhaps they should go farther and stipulate that you cannot have more FA, HS, and Elites in your army than said troops/transports as well. No more two 5-man squads and all the "good stuff."


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/19 23:51:25


Post by: Timeshadow


I'm mostly a Tyranids player and I have no issue with the rule of 3. The game as far as myself and most if not all the players in my area are concerned is 100% better with it than without.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 00:46:12


Post by: SagesStone


 MagicJuggler wrote:
 n0t_u wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
craggy wrote:
With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


"You cannot take more than three of the same Datasheet." This rule does not apply to units "with the Troops Battlefield Role", this could either mean that infinite troops can be taken but troops count against the three-unit limit for checking if Elites can be taken, or that the rule not applying means that Troops do not count against the three-datasheet limit. Feel free to roll-off.


It's simple, if you have to take them as elites then you take up to 3; if you can take them as troops then you get as many as you want. It's not the potential of them being able to be either role but the current role they would be taking. By saying "this rule doesn't apply to units with the troop battlefield role" it would mean while they are troops they are not counted at all so they shouldn't effect the limit of 3.


It shouldn't. However, the Troops are still the same Datasheet, which the Elite Berzerkers still have to check against.


It's pretty silly, but the rule doesn't apply to troops so the elite beserkers would only check against elite beserkers.
The bigger problem with this is datasheets being spread out as much as they are at this point allowing some to just basically ignore the rule; if they were going to introduce this rule it should have been with the launch of 8th then they should have released the indices for free and invalidated each as its respective army came out (while also not forgetting stuff like slaanesh heralds when making the move).


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 03:14:19


Post by: LunarSol


 vipoid wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Rule of 3 (which is really Rule of 2/3/4 depending on game size, and hells, I love smaller games!) are Wally screws over armies who can't soup, like Necrons or Tyranids...Tau

Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar (mostly Imperium) armies have tons of Soup options, and the game is being peinalized and a whole for these specific factions.


It also hurts any Imperium, Chaos or Eldar players who want to actually play a specific army - rather than a mishmash of different armies.


These armies have a plethora of options to build an army and abide by the rule. I’m honestly confused why they couldn’t.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 04:06:34


Post by: heckler


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.
Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.


3 best units of a couple different types is better than 7-8 of the best unit. The whole detachment and ally thing is still a problem, but a separate problem to the rule of 3; the rule of 3 is a positive step.

Furthermore, the argument that with proper balance spamming would not happen is disingenuous. It will be an impossible task to perfectly balance all selections in a slot against each other in a way that choosing any one of them does not produce a notable benefit; or you are playing checkers.

There will always be a leader of the pack selection that is better than the others; granted it does not need to be so obvious a choice but there's no getting away from a unit being a percentage better than others at most roles. The rule of 3 keeps these units alone from being fielded or even from holding a codex together. If you bought 7 flying hive tyrants, 8 PBC's, or if you're sitting on 9 daemon princes right now, I really have no sympathy. I would start trying to craft lists with 80+ enlightened or several daemon princes with screens in order to cobble something together to be effective against the stupidity that was being put on the table. I stopped short of the lunacy of actually collecting such a ridiculous number of the same models realizing that I never wanted to play a game where such things became the status quo; thank goodness that degree of lunacy has subsided.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 04:40:27


Post by: SHUPPET


ERJAK wrote:Just popping in to say that the rule of three is the single dumbest thing that's been added to 8th edition. It has managed to:

DECREASE list diversity. Pretty much every list now is, 3 of best unit 1, 3 of best unit 2, 3 of best ally units one, 3 of best ally unit 2. Before you could create archetypes based around large numbers of particular units and their support options, now it's just going down the OP checklist.

Do NOTHING to make the game more balanced. There wasn't even a small decline in the power of the top lists compared to the power of everyone else.

Push soup from common to EPIDEMIC. Since very few armies have enough viable options under the rule of 3 to be competitive in mono-faction Soup when from a powerful list building tool to being totally mandatory.

Increase the relative power of already powerful horde units, especially troops. Hordes suck to use and suck to play against but with this rule become even more powerful. It's entirely possible for someone to run a 'green tide' type list but almost impossible to scrape together enough anti-infantry to have any shot at killing it.

The rule of 3 is terrible, makes the game worse for no reason, accomplishes nothing AT BEST and the opposite of what it was meant to do at worst, and the fact that anyone thought it was a good idea is a tragedy.

Yeah, because 6 different units in multiples of 3, is much less diverse than spamming an entire army of the most undercosted unit in the dex and supporting it with something to cover the one aspect of the game that your OP unit may not do already.

Great logic. Please tell me more about how not salty you are about having wasted models you can no longer spam.

These posts are unbelievably transparent.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 06:46:19


Post by: Karol


 SHUPPET wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Yeah, because 6 different units in multiples of 3, is much less diverse than spamming an entire army of the most undercosted unit in the dex and supporting it with something to cover the one aspect of the game that your OP unit may not do already.

Great logic. Please tell me more about how not salty you are about having wasted models you can no longer spam.

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

I think there is a difference some codex don't have 6 different units to take. Some don't even have 3.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 06:50:58


Post by: SHUPPET


Karol wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:

Yeah, because 6 different units in multiples of 3, is much less diverse than spamming an entire army of the most undercosted unit in the dex and supporting it with something to cover the one aspect of the game that your OP unit may not do already.

Great logic. Please tell me more about how not salty you are about having wasted models you can no longer spam.

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

I think there is a difference some codex don't have 6 different units to take. Some don't even have 3.

Even assassins, has more than 3 units, and I'm pretty sure literally every other codex has more than 6. Being forced to take something other than the strongest unit is exactly what list diversity is. What you are complaining about is balance, which is related but is also a separate issue to spam, and is being addressed as such.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 15:24:18


Post by: dracpanzer


 SHUPPET wrote:
Even assassins, has more than 3 units, and I'm pretty sure literally every other codex has more than 6. Being forced to take something other than the strongest unit is exactly what list diversity is. What you are complaining about is balance, which is related but is also a separate issue to spam, and is being addressed as such.


If an army has two units of a specific type (FA, HS whatever) how is wanting to field say four of the one and a single one of the other spamming that one unit to the point of avoiding diversity? My current list has 10 of the 12 units in my index already in it. I'm not being forced to take diversity, I am being denied the ability to field the character of the force I want.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/20 15:50:04


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 SHUPPET wrote:
Karol wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:

Yeah, because 6 different units in multiples of 3, is much less diverse than spamming an entire army of the most undercosted unit in the dex and supporting it with something to cover the one aspect of the game that your OP unit may not do already.

Great logic. Please tell me more about how not salty you are about having wasted models you can no longer spam.

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

I think there is a difference some codex don't have 6 different units to take. Some don't even have 3.

Even assassins, has more than 3 units, and I'm pretty sure literally every other codex has more than 6. Being forced to take something other than the strongest unit is exactly what list diversity is. What you are complaining about is balance, which is related but is also a separate issue to spam, and is being addressed as such.

Except Spam isn't an issue it's balance.

Nobody complained if you "spammed" Ravenors last edition of you ran 6+ squads. More freedom in list construction allows more diverse forces like you want as long as every unit has their merits.

Not every unit does and you guys aren't attacking that core issue.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 04:33:46


Post by: SHUPPET


There will always be a way to bs games by picking something with a versatile damage output, that has a niche defensive profile or requires a specialist unit to deal with, and then just spamming the gak out of that unit. Balance is something that needs to be separately addressed and Rule of 3 does not solve the games problems immediately, but it's certainly one of the necessary steps towards improving it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 09:12:48


Post by: Andykp


Blastaar wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I’ve said it in other threads and I’ll say it in this one. The game isn’t the problem it’s the players.


If the game is written in such a way that some units are simply superior to others, and they can be taken in large numbers, the fault is the rules that are written so poorly as to allow such abuse. "It's balanced if you ignore the broken units/combos/whatever" is not a good argument to make.


You’re not obliged to take them. I play in a friendly group of like minded people who simply wouldn’t spam such units. We balance the game by playing balanced armies that are fun and thematic. I understand that there is a competitive scene now and that rule helps curb bad behaviour.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 11:17:56


Post by: Jidmah


What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 11:24:42


Post by: Ushtarador


What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


If your only playgroup in a radius of 100km consists of unfriendly people who see the game completely differently than you, then yes, that's probably your best option.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 11:38:41


Post by: ValentineGames


Never heard of it and none of the posts seem to explain what it is (typical)


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 11:56:08


Post by: Tyel


ValentineGames wrote:
Never heard of it and none of the posts seem to explain what it is (typical)


The rule of 3? Its a proposal in the Beta Rules that in Matched Play you should not be allowed to take more than 3 copies of the same datasheet (aside for Troops & Transports).

GW has - imo correctly - noted that Spam seems to be a major source of imbalance throughout 8th and also creates skewed unbalanced games where the result is a formality. It is not the sole source of imbalance, but creating interesting varied codexes is a lot easier if it doesn't just result in people going "oh, X is obviously the best unit, put 75% of my points into that, plus a few supports/tactical pieces."

This is then provoking certain hostility because while it removes certain armies (7 Flying Hive Tyrants) it doesn't impact others (Most successful Eldar Soups for instance.)
You then have people turning up and saying they only play GK, and their Interceptor spam build used to work, but now they can't even use it, and they are sad.
To which other people are going "you never won a tournament with said build, you scarcely won a game, it isn't meta relevant, no one cares."

Then you have people saying "lists consisting of 3 of the best unit, 3 of the second best unit and 3 of the third best unit are as bad - or even worse - than 7 of the best unit and 2 of something else."
Which on the face of it doesn't make much sense because that is how the game has always worked when FOC or Formations was the limiting factor rather than "yeah, take whatever but include some HQs".

Then you have the "GW should actually do their job and re-write every codex in 40k to create a genuinely balanced game that results in all codexes having a viable tournament build."
Which prompts "they have very little chance of doing that without trial and error, its obviously going to be a work in progress and at least they are trying unlike in the past."
Which prompts "haha! Yeah they never managed in the past. They won't manage this time. I don't know why you idiots even play 40k. GW suck. I don't know why I have spent 5 years of my life reading and posting on a forum about their games."


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 12:53:43


Post by: ValentineGames


I don't see much issue with that.
It doesn't restrict troops and transports which are most likely to be taken in large numbers and probably the most useful choices.

And while it may impact theme lists such as a marine 1st company list or guard armoured company list or an ork dread/kan list.
The environment your in isn't for theme. So...

It's not perfect. But I can see why it's done.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 13:24:19


Post by: techsoldaten


So... circumventing the rule of three is actually not that hard. At least for Chaos and Imperial Space Marines, the rule is almost meaningless.

There are a lot of Codex units with very close cousins in the Forgeworld Index that allow you to get up to 6, and the cost of those units makes it so you would never really have a use for more than 6.

For example: 3 Predators are the limit for the Codex, but you can take 3 Hellforged Predators from the Forgeworld Index.

(That could get you 24 lascannons on tanks for around 60% of a 2,000 point list, which is just vicious behind a wall of Cultists.)

For example: 3 Helbrutes are the limit for the Codex, but then you can move into Contemptors. For Imperial Space Marines, there's all the different flavors of Dreadnoughts available.

The units that don't have a close cousin datasheet are bikes, raptors, terminators, Obliterators, possessed and daemon engines. Execpt for Daemon Engines, I'm not sure there would be a reason to spam these units. Even with HQs, you can find something in the Index that's a close approximation.

While I don't think most people would choose to abuse the rule of 3 this way, I did face a 6 Predator list a few weeks ago. It feels like Rule of 3 should be renamed Rule to Stop Spamming Xenos Units.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 13:50:16


Post by: Tyel


 techsoldaten wrote:
So... circumventing the rule of three is actually not that hard. At least for Chaos and Imperial Space Marines, the rule is almost meaningless.

While I don't think most people would choose to abuse the rule of 3 this way, I did face a 6 Predator list a few weeks ago. It feels like Rule of 3 should be renamed Rule to Stop Spamming Xenos Units.


Its a step on the road towards a better game rather than the end point though.
To some degree this is a meta choice rather than a philosophical one. If 6 predators was a top list - dominating tournaments - then something might have to be considered.
As it is you would have a very fragile list and I don't think its got anywhere. Hordes just walk over it. Even more mixed armies are going to be able to mop up cumulative objective points if you are forced to sit back and snipe with lascannons.
Not even sure Predators would prove super efficient versus knights, as while they are probably solid with killshot, the Knight likely has longer range and so will tend to get the first shooting phase even if they don't go first.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 14:03:00


Post by: RedGriefer


 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 14:16:57


Post by: Jidmah


Ushtarador wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


If your only playgroup in a radius of 100km consists of unfriendly people who see the game completely differently than you, then yes, that's probably your best option.


How about groups of friendly people who see the game different than you?

How about groups with one or two players who will spam the hell out of whatever is currently broken?

How about groups where people are invited for who they are first and what they play second?

How about friendly groups of people who all want to play competitively?

Extremes are easy, reality is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


If you had to choose between uninviting two friends from games and applying the rule of three, which one would you pick?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 14:23:52


Post by: RedGriefer


 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


If you had to choose between uninviting two friends from games and applying the rule of three, which one would you pick?


I'd tell them to cut it out or I won't play them, the rule of 3 makes no difference. I'm not going to spend time deploying just to spend the next hour picking them back up again because they couldn't be bothered to bring a list to actually enjoy the game. I don't think 40k should be played competitively, if you push the game system to the extremes like that it will break down.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 14:28:18


Post by: SHUPPET


I'd choose applying rule of three.

When I dedicate toke to play I'm interested in playing the game by the rules with like minded people, and as they've expressed they have no interest in playing if it's without house ruling, then I guess they've got an opponent in each other I guess. It's their choice not to come and play by the rules and if they don't wanna do that I'm not gonna force them. We'd still remain friends just with slightly different interests hobbywise and thats fine.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 14:32:34


Post by: techsoldaten


Tyel wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
So... circumventing the rule of three is actually not that hard. At least for Chaos and Imperial Space Marines, the rule is almost meaningless.

While I don't think most people would choose to abuse the rule of 3 this way, I did face a 6 Predator list a few weeks ago. It feels like Rule of 3 should be renamed Rule to Stop Spamming Xenos Units.


Its a step on the road towards a better game rather than the end point though.
To some degree this is a meta choice rather than a philosophical one. If 6 predators was a top list - dominating tournaments - then something might have to be considered.
As it is you would have a very fragile list and I don't think its got anywhere. Hordes just walk over it. Even more mixed armies are going to be able to mop up cumulative objective points if you are forced to sit back and snipe with lascannons.
Not even sure Predators would prove super efficient versus knights, as while they are probably solid with killshot, the Knight likely has longer range and so will tend to get the first shooting phase even if they don't go first.


I don't want to turn this into a conversation about the relative merits of lascannons, however, the list I mentioned was designed as a counter to my Black Legion gunline that also features 24 lascannons. My own skew list performs very well on the tabletop, massed lascannons don't snipe so much as level.

My point was that the Rule of Three impacts Xenos far more than Imperials due to the presence of very similar units in the FW Indexes. Tyranids, Eldar, Orks, and even Tau lack close cousins to diminish the impact. I haven't really thought through how this impacts Guard or Mechanicum, given the abundance of armor options that exist for both armies.

But it feels like this should be called the Rule of Xenos more than the Rule of Three. Flyrants, Dark Reapers, and other units do need some upper limit because otherwise these units break the game. But can you think of an Imperial unit - other than an HQ - that you could say the same thing about? And what does this mean about Xenos armies, are they purposefully designed to have units that are so powerful the rules must prevent players from spamming them?

It's interesting to consider.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 15:59:33


Post by: DominayTrix


Tyel wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
So... circumventing the rule of three is actually not that hard. At least for Chaos and Imperial Space Marines, the rule is almost meaningless.

While I don't think most people would choose to abuse the rule of 3 this way, I did face a 6 Predator list a few weeks ago. It feels like Rule of 3 should be renamed Rule to Stop Spamming Xenos Units.


Its a step on the road towards a better game rather than the end point though.
To some degree this is a meta choice rather than a philosophical one. If 6 predators was a top list - dominating tournaments - then something might have to be considered.
As it is you would have a very fragile list and I don't think its got anywhere. Hordes just walk over it. Even more mixed armies are going to be able to mop up cumulative objective points if you are forced to sit back and snipe with lascannons.
Not even sure Predators would prove super efficient versus knights, as while they are probably solid with killshot, the Knight likely has longer range and so will tend to get the first shooting phase even if they don't go first.

It is only a step in the right direction if spamming redundant, but separate datasheets results in the rule of 3 being adjusted. It is a step backward If the problem was that xenos need more than 3 of certain datasheets, but Imperium/Chaos do not. The nerf will make xenos weaker, but as long as they have at least one viable competitive build it will be hard to see that in tournament data. Orcs/Tau are a perfect examples with how at the start of 8th they had maybe 2-4 viable units in the entire index, but could still do well at tournaments because boy/weirdboy/commander spam was effective enough. GW was more than happy to give Tau a unique nerf for Commanders despite them rarely ever getting top8. It wasn't until Hive Tyrant spam was a thing that they considered limits for any other army. Even with the rule of 3 making the Commander nerf largely redundant, the limit isn't going to be lifted. Why would this be any different?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 18:17:50


Post by: Jidmah


RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


If you had to choose between uninviting two friends from games and applying the rule of three, which one would you pick?


I'd tell them to cut it out or I won't play them, the rule of 3 makes no difference. I'm not going to spend time deploying just to spend the next hour picking them back up again because they couldn't be bothered to bring a list to actually enjoy the game. I don't think 40k should be played competitively, if you push the game system to the extremes like that it will break down.


That was not an option to chose from.
There are people that think 40k should be played competitively and they will always try to push the game system to extremes, while denying that they do and claim that they are just playing fluffy lists.
If you invite all your friends to campaign day, you either tell those people not to come, or you apply the rule of 3 to force them to not spam 2k points of PBC, allowing everyone to play.
No. Easy. Way. Out.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 18:22:09


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 SHUPPET wrote:
There will always be a way to bs games by picking something with a versatile damage output, that has a niche defensive profile or requires a specialist unit to deal with, and then just spamming the gak out of that unit. Balance is something that needs to be separately addressed and Rule of 3 does not solve the games problems immediately, but it's certainly one of the necessary steps towards improving it.

No it isn't, and last edition is extreme proof of that. You were basically able to take as many of something as you wanted, and look at what was actually spammed...mostly troops, whether it be via formations or not, and very few units were spammed otherwise (Warp Spiders being the most obvious example). Do you implement rule of 3 there, or do you just hit the most obvious offenders?

Rule of 3 is lazy. Plain and simple. Units without merit aren't going to be taken and units with too much merit need a fix in the first place. If anything, that spam helps show GW units they might have missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


If you had to choose between uninviting two friends from games and applying the rule of three, which one would you pick?


I'd tell them to cut it out or I won't play them, the rule of 3 makes no difference. I'm not going to spend time deploying just to spend the next hour picking them back up again because they couldn't be bothered to bring a list to actually enjoy the game. I don't think 40k should be played competitively, if you push the game system to the extremes like that it will break down.


That was not an option to chose from.
There are people that think 40k should be played competitively and they will always try to push the game system to extremes, while denying that they do and claim that they are just playing fluffy lists.
If you invite all your friends to campaign day, you either tell those people not to come, or you apply the rule of 3 to force them to not spam 2k points of PBC, allowing everyone to play.
No. Easy. Way. Out.

Then I would choose to uninvite my friends, plain and simple. I can get games elsewhere if they're gonna be like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:

While I don't think most people would choose to abuse the rule of 3 this way, I did face a 6 Predator list a few weeks ago.

And in what way is this an issue? Are Predators suddenly broken? Is it bad that Space Marine players are allowed a small amount of leeway to want to get Killshot off at all if they go second?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 22:38:41


Post by: SHUPPET


I'm glad that overall the reception is so positive to this change that there is zero chance of it getting reverted, and all you guys are really doing is pissing into the wind.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 22:55:33


Post by: dracpanzer


It's good knowing that this isn't going to fix anything and hurts the least offending lists. Hope you enjoy your soup!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 22:56:59


Post by: SHUPPET


I don't know if you do know what you think you know.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 23:37:41


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm glad that overall the reception is so positive to this change that there is zero chance of it getting reverted, and all you guys are really doing is pissing into the wind.

Or you could address my points directly instead of just saying "It's staying get over it".

It's going to get reverted as long as enough people submit a formal complaint.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/21 23:45:44


Post by: SHUPPET


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm glad that overall the reception is so positive to this change that there is zero chance of it getting reverted, and all you guys are really doing is pissing into the wind.

Or you could address my points directly instead of just saying "It's staying get over it".

I've addressed them all, you guys keep going around in circles, I'm not interested in participating anymore, I'm on the sidelines from here on it. I'm not saying get over it, you guys can be stuck on this as long as you want. It's reassuring knowing that it's going nowhere, and its funny watching you guys flail around it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's going to get reverted as long as enough people submit a formal complaint.

Yeah, so turn that 2% of the playerbase into 55%+ and who knows, you might just make an impact.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 00:17:03


Post by: kombatwombat


 techsoldaten wrote:


But it feels like this should be called the Rule of Xenos more than the Rule of Three. Flyrants, Dark Reapers, and other units do need some upper limit because otherwise these units break the game. But can you think of an Imperial unit - other than an HQ - that you could say the same thing about? And what does this mean about Xenos armies, are they purposefully designed to have units that are so powerful the rules must prevent players from spamming them?

It's interesting to consider.


On that, is it possible that Xenos armies need the limit more than Imperial ones? It seems to me that Xenos units are often more specialised and efficient than Imperial ones. Most Imprerial units are Space Marines and hence generalist by nature, and Custodes fall in the same boat. Guard are a little more specialist in their troops, but troops are exempt from the rule anyway. The point is though that I think Xenos are more skewed in nature, and the rule of 3 puts a limit on how hard you can skew your list. If you can take a unit that puts all of its value in damage output and nothing else like Dark Reapers and spam it, you end up with a much scarier skew than a list made up of Hellblasters that put some of their points into damage output, some into defence, and some into close combat. I think the nature of Xenos armies’ hyper-specialisation makes the Rule of 3 more applicable to them.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 00:39:13


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 SHUPPET wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm glad that overall the reception is so positive to this change that there is zero chance of it getting reverted, and all you guys are really doing is pissing into the wind.

Or you could address my points directly instead of just saying "It's staying get over it".

I've addressed them all, you guys keep going around in circles, I'm not interested in participating anymore, I'm on the sidelines from here on it. I'm not saying get over it, you guys can be stuck on this as long as you want. It's reassuring knowing that it's going nowhere, and its funny watching you guys flail around it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's going to get reverted as long as enough people submit a formal complaint.

Yeah, so turn that 2% of the playerbase into 55%+ and who knows, you might just make an impact.

It's only 2% in your mind. I get you clearly don't want change but you need to accept Rule Of Three fixes literally nothing. At all.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 00:44:32


Post by: Luke_Prowler


4 squads of 6 tankbustas = gamey and spam
3 squads of 8 tankbustas = fuffy and diverse

Uhuh, sure, right. Nor does it change that I'm still taking max KMKs if I want to be competitive.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 01:07:19


Post by: CadianGateTroll


I cant even run my army of 5 Imperial Knight Gallants in a 2k list!

What am I supposed to do with the other 2 IK?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 01:17:33


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Luke_Prowler wrote:
4 squads of 6 tankbustas = gamey and spam
3 squads of 8 tankbustas = fuffy and diverse

Uhuh, sure, right. Nor does it change that I'm still taking max KMKs if I want to be competitive.

I'll do you one better.

3 squads of 12 Tank Bustaz is more akin to fluff, but heavy forbid you have 3 squads of 10 and a squad of 6! That's soooooo unfluffy and against the spirit of the game!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 12:04:09


Post by: MagicJuggler


 SHUPPET wrote:
There will always be a way to bs games by picking something with a versatile damage output, that has a niche defensive profile or requires a specialist unit to deal with, and then just spamming the gak out of that unit. Balance is something that needs to be separately addressed and Rule of 3 does not solve the games problems immediately, but it's certainly one of the necessary steps towards improving it.


Except as a blanket measure, it fails to balance in even that aspect. As a notable example, the GW team complained at Adepticon that Hive Guard were too goor. Only, Hive Guard weren't run MSU (not that you can anyway), but at max unit size to take full advantage of the Single-Minded Annihilation Stratagem. They applied a band-aid to internal bleeding.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 16:17:23


Post by: Andykp


 Jidmah wrote:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


If you had to choose between uninviting two friends from games and applying the rule of three, which one would you pick?


I'd tell them to cut it out or I won't play them, the rule of 3 makes no difference. I'm not going to spend time deploying just to spend the next hour picking them back up again because they couldn't be bothered to bring a list to actually enjoy the game. I don't think 40k should be played competitively, if you push the game system to the extremes like that it will break down.


That was not an option to chose from.
There are people that think 40k should be played competitively and they will always try to push the game system to extremes, while denying that they do and claim that they are just playing fluffy lists.
If you invite all your friends to campaign day, you either tell those people not to come, or you apply the rule of 3 to force them to not spam 2k points of PBC, allowing everyone to play.
No. Easy. Way. Out.


Here’s an easy way out. Don’t play against idiots. Play with your friends. It’s a game.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 18:39:44


Post by: LunarSol


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Luke_Prowler wrote:
4 squads of 6 tankbustas = gamey and spam
3 squads of 8 tankbustas = fuffy and diverse

Uhuh, sure, right. Nor does it change that I'm still taking max KMKs if I want to be competitive.

I'll do you one better.

3 squads of 12 Tank Bustaz is more akin to fluff, but heavy forbid you have 3 squads of 10 and a squad of 6! That's soooooo unfluffy and against the spirit of the game!


Is anyone arguing Rule of 3 is a fluff rule? It seems pretty obviously a crunch one. As a crunch rule, in a game that in almost every way rewards min unit sizes over max, I'd say yeah, its very much worthwhile to make players take larger units if they want more of something rather than take more individual units and all the mechanical benefits that entails.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 18:57:50


Post by: Jidmah


Andykp wrote:
Here’s an easy way out. Don’t play against idiots. Play with your friends. It’s a game.


If you define friendship through nothing but war-gaming, that's and easy - though sad - way out, yes.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 19:30:33


Post by: Scott-S6


 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Here’s an easy way out. Don’t play against idiots. Play with your friends. It’s a game.


If you define friendship through nothing but war-gaming, that's and easy - though sad - way out, yes.

Saying that you should only play games with your friends is not equivalent to saying that your only friends are people you play games with.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 20:59:53


Post by: Andykp


What Scott said. I don’t wargame with the vast majority of my friends. Multiple circles is key. I could even be friends with someone who played 40k in a totally competitive spammy way. I just wouldn’t play them. Still be friends. I don’t have to sink to the lowest common denominator.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 21:01:00


Post by: Karol


Andykp wrote:


Here’s an easy way out. Don’t play against idiots. Play with your friends. It’s a game.

I don't really understand this argument, Friends or not, if they happen to have a much list you will suffer, and friends or not they are not going to buy another bad army just to play against your army. Friends got me in to the game, and now all I wait for is some leaks when my army gets updated. And I don't even play two months, no idea what people feel who are playing list that are bad for 2-3 years. It has to be horrible. You never win, no one wants to play against you, because it is not fun. You can go to events or tournaments, and you end up at the very bottom,but you have zero chance for any sort of prize. So your practiclly paying for other people to get prizes and have even more fun with their lists.


If you define friendship through nothing but war-gaming, that's and easy - though sad - way out, yes.

And what if someone doesn't have friends?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 21:03:58


Post by: ValentineGames


Andykp wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What if you don't have a friendly group of like minded people available?

Drop 40k ,sell all your minis?


Now I still play 40k but I actually prefer the 30k community since I've found that their community is generally driven towards more friendly and narrative games as well as highly encouraging fully painted armies. See if there's a 30k community around you. I know on the East Coast of the US and in the Texas area there's a good amount of 30k players.

But in general, it's not the game system that is at fault, it's the community, if the community was better the rule of three should never need to exist. Playing a game of Warhammer, or any tabletop game for that matter, is an unspoken social contract where I spend a couple hours of my valuable time to play an opponent in which the goal should be to have fun. Expanding on that topic though is a discussion for a different thread.

If the 40k community around you isn't friendly and like minded, try your best to create one.


If you had to choose between uninviting two friends from games and applying the rule of three, which one would you pick?


I'd tell them to cut it out or I won't play them, the rule of 3 makes no difference. I'm not going to spend time deploying just to spend the next hour picking them back up again because they couldn't be bothered to bring a list to actually enjoy the game. I don't think 40k should be played competitively, if you push the game system to the extremes like that it will break down.


That was not an option to chose from.
There are people that think 40k should be played competitively and they will always try to push the game system to extremes, while denying that they do and claim that they are just playing fluffy lists.
If you invite all your friends to campaign day, you either tell those people not to come, or you apply the rule of 3 to force them to not spam 2k points of PBC, allowing everyone to play.
No. Easy. Way. Out.


Here’s an easy way out. Don’t play against idiots. Play with your friends. It’s a game.

Don't play against idiots?...damn...that's 90% of the GW fanbase


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 21:19:40


Post by: blackmage


cant believe there is still guys who likes to play with 7 flyrants or 9 PBC... oh well maybe those are the ones who played those lists and now upset cause they cant... well you have ebay, sell 4 flyrant and buy something different for your tyr and stop ranting.
The rule of 3 will never be reverted so peace for your great fun spamming lists, enjoy or change game, no one will miss heavy spammers


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/22 21:42:04


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 LunarSol wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Luke_Prowler wrote:
4 squads of 6 tankbustas = gamey and spam
3 squads of 8 tankbustas = fuffy and diverse

Uhuh, sure, right. Nor does it change that I'm still taking max KMKs if I want to be competitive.

I'll do you one better.

3 squads of 12 Tank Bustaz is more akin to fluff, but heavy forbid you have 3 squads of 10 and a squad of 6! That's soooooo unfluffy and against the spirit of the game!


Is anyone arguing Rule of 3 is a fluff rule? It seems pretty obviously a crunch one. As a crunch rule, in a game that in almost every way rewards min unit sizes over max, I'd say yeah, its very much worthwhile to make players take larger units if they want more of something rather than take more individual units and all the mechanical benefits that entails.

Uh yeah there were peoaple arguing that actually in this very thread.

Also the difference between the squad of 10 and the squad of 12 is pretty negligible so...


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 09:07:43


Post by: Andykp


Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 09:52:40


Post by: ValentineGames


 blackmage wrote:
cant believe there is still guys who likes to play with 7 flyrants or 9 PBC... oh well maybe those are the ones who played those lists and now upset cause they cant... well you have ebay, sell 4 flyrant and buy something different for your tyr and stop ranting.
The rule of 3 will never be reverted so peace for your great fun spamming lists, enjoy or change game, no one will miss heavy spammers

But...that means they might have to actually use more that 2 braincells for list building...


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 09:55:27


Post by: Jidmah


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Here’s an easy way out. Don’t play against idiots. Play with your friends. It’s a game.


If you define friendship through nothing but war-gaming, that's and easy - though sad - way out, yes.

Saying that you should only play games with your friends is not equivalent to saying that your only friends are people you play games with.


That's a gross misinterpretation of my post.

I said that friends have other qualities besides playing WH40k the same way you do. If you don't consider people who play war games in a different way you do friends, that is sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
And what if someone doesn't have friends?


Go to a GW store and bother the staff until someone shows up? Seems like a proven concept


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 10:21:17


Post by: Peregrine


Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 10:24:09


Post by: Jidmah


Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


To paint you a picture who playing WH40k in my group works:

The host declares that there will be a WH40k day at a certain date, usually a sunday. It's posted to our forum and multiple What's App groups which contain people who are interested.
Everyone who wants to come can come, depending on time to prepare and number of people involved we play one huge, multiple large games or a campaign someone prepared.
People who show up range from former school mates, people we went to college with, family members, (former) co-workers to decent people we met when playing 40k/MtG/P&P/LARP at stores or events. So a mixed bag of people, who all have different views on the game, because very few of them actually are connected by the way they play WH40k.
And now the kicker: People change. The guy who bought an eldar army in 5th because he liked the look of their hover tanks and was really fun to play at that time turned into a WAAC TFG when he started getting two digit win streaks in 6th and 7th now is salty every game because he no longer has any I-WIN buttons to press and actually is regularly losing games again.

Either you enforce the rule of 3 or people will get matched up against people who simply have a different perception of what's ok to field in a friendly game.
The other option is to tell two or three actual friends that they are not invited, while everyone else is.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 11:52:29


Post by: Tyel


 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


To paint you a picture who playing WH40k in my group works:

The host declares that there will be a WH40k day at a certain date, usually a sunday. It's posted to our forum and multiple What's App groups which contain people who are interested.
Everyone who wants to come can come, depending on time to prepare and number of people involved we play one huge, multiple large games or a campaign someone prepared.
People who show up range from former school mates, people we went to college with, family members, (former) co-workers to decent people we met when playing 40k/MtG/P&P/LARP at stores or events. So a mixed bag of people, who all have different views on the game, because very few of them actually are connected by the way they play WH40k.
And now the kicker: People change. The guy who bought an eldar army in 5th because he liked the look of their hover tanks and was really fun to play at that time turned into a WAAC TFG when he started getting two digit win streaks in 6th and 7th now is salty every game because he no longer has any I-WIN buttons to press and actually is regularly losing games again.

Either you enforce the rule of 3 or people will get matched up against people who simply have a different perception of what's ok to field in a friendly game.
The other option is to tell two or three actual friends that they are not invited, while everyone else is.


"Hey, I know the rule of 3 exists, but I'd like to take 4 units of Tankbustas rather than 3. Is that okay?"
Answer 1: "Sure, knock yourself out."
Answer 2: "I'd rather you didn't."
=Play the game with or without 4 units.

This is a rule for tournaments. The idea that it breaks flufflists in garagehammer is just weird.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 12:03:51


Post by: Scott-S6


 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


To paint you a picture who playing WH40k in my group works:

The host declares that there will be a WH40k day at a certain date, usually a sunday. It's posted to our forum and multiple What's App groups which contain people who are interested.
Everyone who wants to come can come, depending on time to prepare and number of people involved we play one huge, multiple large games or a campaign someone prepared.
People who show up range from former school mates, people we went to college with, family members, (former) co-workers to decent people we met when playing 40k/MtG/P&P/LARP at stores or events. So a mixed bag of people, who all have different views on the game, because very few of them actually are connected by the way they play WH40k.
And now the kicker: People change. The guy who bought an eldar army in 5th because he liked the look of their hover tanks and was really fun to play at that time turned into a WAAC TFG when he started getting two digit win streaks in 6th and 7th now is salty every game because he no longer has any I-WIN buttons to press and actually is regularly losing games again.

Either you enforce the rule of 3 or people will get matched up against people who simply have a different perception of what's ok to field in a friendly game.
The other option is to tell two or three actual friends that they are not invited, while everyone else is.

Why not just tell the problem players to knock it off and let everyone else do whatever they want?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 12:50:17


Post by: Jidmah


Because that's not how real life works.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 13:42:22


Post by: Scott-S6


 Jidmah wrote:
Because that's not how real life works.

It really is. Just talk to them and tell them that they're doing something that the rest of the group doesn't like.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 14:22:53


Post by: blackmage


ValentineGames wrote:
 blackmage wrote:
cant believe there is still guys who likes to play with 7 flyrants or 9 PBC... oh well maybe those are the ones who played those lists and now upset cause they cant... well you have ebay, sell 4 flyrant and buy something different for your tyr and stop ranting.
The rule of 3 will never be reverted so peace for your great fun spamming lists, enjoy or change game, no one will miss heavy spammers

But...that means they might have to actually use more that 2 braincells for list building...

well if they dont have more than 2 braincells working i suppose they have other urgent priorities than play wh40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


To paint you a picture who playing WH40k in my group works:

The host declares that there will be a WH40k day at a certain date, usually a sunday. It's posted to our forum and multiple What's App groups which contain people who are interested.
Everyone who wants to come can come, depending on time to prepare and number of people involved we play one huge, multiple large games or a campaign someone prepared.
People who show up range from former school mates, people we went to college with, family members, (former) co-workers to decent people we met when playing 40k/MtG/P&P/LARP at stores or events. So a mixed bag of people, who all have different views on the game, because very few of them actually are connected by the way they play WH40k.
And now the kicker: People change. The guy who bought an eldar army in 5th because he liked the look of their hover tanks and was really fun to play at that time turned into a WAAC TFG when he started getting two digit win streaks in 6th and 7th now is salty every game because he no longer has any I-WIN buttons to press and actually is regularly losing games again.

Either you enforce the rule of 3 or people will get matched up against people who simply have a different perception of what's ok to field in a friendly game.
The other option is to tell two or three actual friends that they are not invited, while everyone else is.


"Hey, I know the rule of 3 exists, but I'd like to take 4 units of Tankbustas rather than 3. Is that okay?"
Answer 1: "Sure, knock yourself out."
Answer 2: "I'd rather you didn't."
=Play the game with or without 4 units.

This is a rule for tournaments. The idea that it breaks flufflists in garagehammer is just weird.

in garagehammer i dont think someone bother about rule of 3, if they do change your play group, the rule of 3 is clearly for tournament only, for casual games why bother about rule of 3?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 15:23:31


Post by: ValentineGames


I'd love to know what happens to these extremely talented gamers who take 4 units of 6 tankbustas "in a super themed list" if they don't fight any tanks.....


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 15:36:54


Post by: Scott-S6


ValentineGames wrote:
I'd love to know what happens to these extremely talented gamers who take 4 units of 6 tankbustas "in a super themed list" if they don't fight any tanks.....

High toughness skew lists are just something you have to be prepared for, same as horde armies.

24 tankbustas isn't exactly a massive points investment.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 15:48:49


Post by: ValentineGames


Seems rather daft in your average 1500pts game...


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 15:51:09


Post by: Scott-S6


Daft compared to what? You have to be prepared for lists that are mostly chaff and for lists that are mostly high toughness and/or high save.

Rule of three hasn't done anything to remove skew lists from the game.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 16:03:57


Post by: blackmage


well they removed 7 flyrants 15 oblys and 9 pbc for example that's enough for me.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 16:15:49


Post by: Peregrine


 blackmage wrote:
for casual games why bother about rule of 3?


Because it's the standard game now, and it's a good rule.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 16:38:11


Post by: Andykp


 Peregrine wrote:
 blackmage wrote:
for casual games why bother about rule of 3?


Because it's the standard game now, and it's a good rule.


Maybe for you but for everyone. Trying to think and don’t think any army I’ve built and painted recently has 3 let alone more than 3 of the same units in them. Maybe my guard who have 3 commissars and 3 units of Russ tanks. No other army’s. Think it’s a bit boring to have too many of the same thing.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 18:56:38


Post by: blackmage


yes i was answering to someone talking about "garagehammer", im absolutely fine with rule of 3 is the best rule fix they did.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 19:37:14


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 21:49:56


Post by: Andykp


 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.


Why isn’t it fun for u? What are the flaws that are stopping us having fun?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 22:15:14


Post by: ERJAK


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


Thanks to soup, sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blackmage wrote:
yes i was answering to someone talking about "garagehammer", im absolutely fine with rule of 3 is the best rule fix they did.


It wasn't a rule fix. It was a rule implementation. Rules fixes have to fix things, which it didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


To paint you a picture who playing WH40k in my group works:

The host declares that there will be a WH40k day at a certain date, usually a sunday. It's posted to our forum and multiple What's App groups which contain people who are interested.
Everyone who wants to come can come, depending on time to prepare and number of people involved we play one huge, multiple large games or a campaign someone prepared.
People who show up range from former school mates, people we went to college with, family members, (former) co-workers to decent people we met when playing 40k/MtG/P&P/LARP at stores or events. So a mixed bag of people, who all have different views on the game, because very few of them actually are connected by the way they play WH40k.
And now the kicker: People change. The guy who bought an eldar army in 5th because he liked the look of their hover tanks and was really fun to play at that time turned into a WAAC TFG when he started getting two digit win streaks in 6th and 7th now is salty every game because he no longer has any I-WIN buttons to press and actually is regularly losing games again.

Either you enforce the rule of 3 or people will get matched up against people who simply have a different perception of what's ok to field in a friendly game.
The other option is to tell two or three actual friends that they are not invited, while everyone else is.


"Hey, I know the rule of 3 exists, but I'd like to take 4 units of Tankbustas rather than 3. Is that okay?"
Answer 1: "Sure, knock yourself out."
Answer 2: "I'd rather you didn't."
=Play the game with or without 4 units.

This is a rule for tournaments. The idea that it breaks flufflists in garagehammer is just weird.


For the record, it's an awful tournament rule that manages to do more harm than good.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 22:43:34


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:


Go to a GW store and bother the staff until someone shows up? Seems like a proven concept

there is one GW store in Poland and its 360km+ away from where I live. Am not going to do a 8hour trip and then another 8hour back to get there. Plus from what people been saying around the polish forums, you can't play normal games at GW stores, only demo games.

Why isn’t it fun for u? What are the flaws that are stopping us having fun?

When I run my 15 termintors as paladins run as 5 units of 3, I still had units around to do something on turn 3-4. When I run a 5 or 10 man paladin squads, I have no units doing anything serious by the end of turn 2. Makes the game really unfun, because if I don't go first or my opponent deploys really far away, I do nothing on turn one, not much on turn two, and if I lose all my paladins at the end of that round, I more or less did nothing the whole game, and wasted 30-40 min of my and my opponents time.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 22:50:44


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


ERJAK wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


Thanks to soup, sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blackmage wrote:
yes i was answering to someone talking about "garagehammer", im absolutely fine with rule of 3 is the best rule fix they did.


It wasn't a rule fix. It was a rule implementation. Rules fixes have to fix things, which it didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh. Lots of meiserable sounding folks on here. Sad really.


To paint you a picture who playing WH40k in my group works:

The host declares that there will be a WH40k day at a certain date, usually a sunday. It's posted to our forum and multiple What's App groups which contain people who are interested.
Everyone who wants to come can come, depending on time to prepare and number of people involved we play one huge, multiple large games or a campaign someone prepared.
People who show up range from former school mates, people we went to college with, family members, (former) co-workers to decent people we met when playing 40k/MtG/P&P/LARP at stores or events. So a mixed bag of people, who all have different views on the game, because very few of them actually are connected by the way they play WH40k.
And now the kicker: People change. The guy who bought an eldar army in 5th because he liked the look of their hover tanks and was really fun to play at that time turned into a WAAC TFG when he started getting two digit win streaks in 6th and 7th now is salty every game because he no longer has any I-WIN buttons to press and actually is regularly losing games again.

Either you enforce the rule of 3 or people will get matched up against people who simply have a different perception of what's ok to field in a friendly game.
The other option is to tell two or three actual friends that they are not invited, while everyone else is.


"Hey, I know the rule of 3 exists, but I'd like to take 4 units of Tankbustas rather than 3. Is that okay?"
Answer 1: "Sure, knock yourself out."
Answer 2: "I'd rather you didn't."
=Play the game with or without 4 units.

This is a rule for tournaments. The idea that it breaks flufflists in garagehammer is just weird.


For the record, it's an awful tournament rule that manages to do more harm than good.

No, not "thanks to soup".

Limiting me to three Predators doesn't suddenly make me want to take Devastators for Lascannons, and limiting me to three squads of Assault Terminators doesn't make me bring Tactical Terminators.

Bad units are bad units regardless of how many you can bring, and good units are good units regardless of how many you can bring.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:06:31


Post by: Peregrine


Andykp wrote:
Why isn’t it fun for u? What are the flaws that are stopping us having fun?


Over-homogenization, rules that are still a bloated mess despite having the tactical depth of a puddle, complete destruction of the idea of faction identity in favor of spam and soup, continued poor balance (as demonstrated by the existence of this thread).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


No, but it will make you take a second-tier unit instead of just spamming the single most broken thing you can find. And it will add some variety to your army since it limits your ability to identify the most broken thing available and spam as many copies as you can fit within the point limit. The only problem with the rule is that it doesn't go far enough. The change we need is a return to the 5th edition FOC and single-codex armies, but this is a small step in the right direction.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:11:31


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Why isn’t it fun for u? What are the flaws that are stopping us having fun?


Over-homogenization, rules that are still a bloated mess despite having the tactical depth of a puddle, complete destruction of the idea of faction identity in favor of spam and soup, continued poor balance (as demonstrated by the existence of this thread).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


No, but it will make you take a second-tier unit instead of just spamming the single most broken thing you can find. And it will add some variety to your army since it limits your ability to identify the most broken thing available and spam as many copies as you can fit within the point limit. The only problem with the rule is that it doesn't go far enough. The change we need is a return to the 5th edition FOC and single-codex armies, but this is a small step in the right direction.

At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.

So, how again, is limiting me to three Whirlwinds or Thunderfire Cannons make me take the other? It doesn't. It doesnt create variety at all. If anything, it makes it harder for Gw to identify the problem units.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:30:09


Post by: Peregrine


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.


So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:31:22


Post by: Andykp


I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom. The more and more I read on here the more I think a different rule set akin to epic 40000 with strict build rules would suit competitive players. Bringing in restrictions across the board that limit players who want freedom for funs sake not winning isn’t a fair answer. The rule of the isn’t used by me and mates and doesn’t need to be. We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem. I think we are looking for a different game from u.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:33:35


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.


So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

No, what I'm saying is I spend the points on the 3 Predators and none of the other Lascannon platforms because those platforms are bad. It isn't difficult to grasp. Here's another one:

How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:38:33


Post by: Peregrine


Andykp wrote:
I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom.


Sure you can. People made plenty of fluff-accurate and fun lists in 5th edition, when the rules were far more restrictive. In fact, spam lists that are restricted by the rule of three tend to be less fluffy. A "real" 40k army would have a pretty diverse mix of units, even if the focus is on a particular thing. For example, an IG armored unit might have a tank commander and three LRBTs (~750-1000 points) but also have supporting infantry, Hellhounds, etc, to make up the rest of the points. An army that is just 1750 points worth of tank commanders and a cheap CP battery is much less fluffy.

We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem.


I'm not sure why you're mentioning 5e games as a reply to 8th being over-homogenized and shallow, but if you're house ruling 8th to the point that it is no longer over-homogenized and shallow you've created an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.


It doesn't force you to take that one particular unit, but that's not the point. It makes you take something else, whatever that other thing might be. And in the case of MSU spam where you could take the same models in a different configuration it at least forces you to group them up into larger units and lose the benefits of MSU.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:41:47


Post by: jcd386


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.


So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

No, what I'm saying is I spend the points on the 3 Predators and none of the other Lascannon platforms because those platforms are bad. It isn't difficult to grasp. Here's another one:

How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.


But if you want more than 3 preds worth of lascannons you'd have to take something else instead of another predator, which is the whole point.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:52:18


Post by: SHUPPET


The problem with spam is that spam combined with some units, pushes these units into an OP position, and always will, and at zero benefit to the game - these armies of the opposite of what makes tabletop gaming good. Flyrants for example now are not at all OP, you can only take 3 and it's not hard for most armies to deal with. Turn that back into 9 Flyrants with support and all of a sudden that's a narrow profile to need an entire army's worth of units to deal with, and each one of them has full mobility, survivability, utility, damage application, and such a broad offensive profile and now it's a problem. Then from a gameplay perspective we have the most boring list, you haven't out thought your opponent in the list building stage you've just maxed out on a single unit you recognise as strong, and you haven't outplayed him you've just banked on powering through the number of weapons he could possibly have taken that deal well with such a strat.

The pseudo intellectualism I see from some people in here, and the mental gymnastics I'm seeing used here to actually argue that this change was a bad thing for the game, has done more to support gw's decision here than counter it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:55:47


Post by: ValentineGames


What kind of 2 dimensional bs games do you play where you need to spend 600-800+ points on 1 greaking tank being spammed?
Jesus learn to play properly


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/23 23:58:35


Post by: admironheart


I like the rule of 3.

It reminds me of the highlander rule from 2nd ed. {there can only be one}

With the armies 2 to 3 times as large as a game back then....it fits.

The Problem I still have with them trying to limit spam abuse is the reliance on the FoC.

They made about every army legal....but every army is different. Some will always have cheaper troops to fill out or just plain better units to spend points on.

As an elder player in 2nd ed....I would spam Exarchs like the rest of them. The inherent rules made sure you had to pay a 'tax' in an aspect unit for each exarch.

I think that idea of 'unlocking' units with other units is a very viable possibility to addressing some of the challenges they are trying to address.

The other idea is that one army could 'pay' a certain tax because they have a very cheap unit option. That leads to unfairness ....But they already had that 'fixed' in 2nd edition.

Instead of the FoC inherent and flawed idea of units....the older game REQUIRED you spend 25% of your points on troops...or a tax.

So if we are still going to go with all the new fancy detachments and such to make a 'themey' spearhead or 'themey' battalion...WHY NOT just build a certain point percentage in each detachment AND to keep it 'themey' Make a 'tax' unit.

That fixes the differences in cheap tax units in one army vs another and still cuts down on spam while letting players pick and choose the formation/units they want while keeping it in character/theme ...all the while limiting spamming of broken units to an extent.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 00:12:09


Post by: SHUPPET


 admironheart wrote:
I like the rule of 3.

It reminds me of the highlander rule from 2nd ed. {there can only be one}

With the armies 2 to 3 times as large as a game back then....it fits.

The Problem I still have with them trying to limit spam abuse is the reliance on the FoC.

They made about every army legal....but every army is different. Some will always have cheaper troops to fill out or just plain better units to spend points on.

As an elder player in 2nd ed....I would spam Exarchs like the rest of them. The inherent rules made sure you had to pay a 'tax' in an aspect unit for each exarch.

I think that idea of 'unlocking' units with other units is a very viable possibility to addressing some of the challenges they are trying to address.

The other idea is that one army could 'pay' a certain tax because they have a very cheap unit option. That leads to unfairness ....But they already had that 'fixed' in 2nd edition.

Instead of the FoC inherent and flawed idea of units....the older game REQUIRED you spend 25% of your points on troops...or a tax.

So if we are still going to go with all the new fancy detachments and such to make a 'themey' spearhead or 'themey' battalion...WHY NOT just build a certain point percentage in each detachment AND to keep it 'themey' Make a 'tax' unit.

That fixes the differences in cheap tax units in one army vs another and still cuts down on spam while letting players pick and choose the formation/units they want while keeping it in character/theme ...all the while limiting spamming of broken units to an extent.

I get what your going for, but I think that would just compound the issues you mention... 25% in troops is not a symmetrical restriction... E.G. Orks will be like "hell yeah I was taking that anyway" while Space Marines are like "goddamn I have to take 500 pts of Tacs?"


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 00:15:09


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


jcd386 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.


So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

No, what I'm saying is I spend the points on the 3 Predators and none of the other Lascannon platforms because those platforms are bad. It isn't difficult to grasp. Here's another one:

How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.


But if you want more than 3 preds worth of lascannons you'd have to take something else instead of another predator, which is the whole point.

You just end up not taking anything at all, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom.


Sure you can. People made plenty of fluff-accurate and fun lists in 5th edition, when the rules were far more restrictive. In fact, spam lists that are restricted by the rule of three tend to be less fluffy. A "real" 40k army would have a pretty diverse mix of units, even if the focus is on a particular thing. For example, an IG armored unit might have a tank commander and three LRBTs (~750-1000 points) but also have supporting infantry, Hellhounds, etc, to make up the rest of the points. An army that is just 1750 points worth of tank commanders and a cheap CP battery is much less fluffy.

We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem.


I'm not sure why you're mentioning 5e games as a reply to 8th being over-homogenized and shallow, but if you're house ruling 8th to the point that it is no longer over-homogenized and shallow you've created an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.


It doesn't force you to take that one particular unit, but that's not the point. It makes you take something else, whatever that other thing might be. And in the case of MSU spam where you could take the same models in a different configuration it at least forces you to group them up into larger units and lose the benefits of MSU.

I'm not losing THAT much a footprint with the Sentry Turrets so that's clearly not a good argument.

I'm not gonna bring anything else is the point. Marines aren't the only one that suffer this issue either


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 00:44:05


Post by: Peregrine


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You just end up not taking anything at all, actually.


Nonsense. You are not bringing 1500 points to a 2000 point game and leaving the other 500 points unspent because you can't spam another copy of your best unit, you're taking something else with the remaining 500 points.

I'm not losing THAT much a footprint with the Sentry Turrets so that's clearly not a good argument.


Ok, now ignore this one example where you can combine a "cheapest possible FOC slot filler" unit into a single unit because you were only ever MSUing them and look at units in general. One exception does not mean the rule has no purpose.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 00:55:40


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You just end up not taking anything at all, actually.


Nonsense. You are not bringing 1500 points to a 2000 point game and leaving the other 500 points unspent because you can't spam another copy of your best unit, you're taking something else with the remaining 500 points.

I'm not losing THAT much a footprint with the Sentry Turrets so that's clearly not a good argument.


Ok, now ignore this one example where you can combine a "cheapest possible FOC slot filler" unit into a single unit because you were only ever MSUing them and look at units in general. One exception does not mean the rule has no purpose.

That 500 points isn't going to Lascannon platforms. You aren't listening.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 01:02:09


Post by: Peregrine


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That 500 points isn't going to Lascannon platforms. You aren't listening.


You're making a straw man argument. It doesn't have to be going to other lascannon platforms (though if you spammed so many lascannon platforms some of it probably will, since you clearly needed that many) as long as it's going to something other than the spammed unit. Replace your spammed lascannon unit with tactical marines, I don't care. It's still less spam.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 01:19:15


Post by: SHUPPET


people literally saying they take 1000 pts armies to 2000 pt games because their entire collection was two models repeated, and wondering why 8th feels so difficult


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 01:35:16


Post by: Blastaar


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


The root of the problem is that GW doesn't know how, or doesn't care, to make all units viable. That being said, restricting non-troops unit in some way is healthy for the game.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 01:38:39


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Blastaar wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.


You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.


The root of the problem is that GW doesn't know how, or doesn't care, to make all units viable. That being said, restricting non-troops unit in some way is healthy for the game.

What counts as troops though? The Necron Bone Kingdom would've been primarily Flayed Ones as their troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That 500 points isn't going to Lascannon platforms. You aren't listening.


You're making a straw man argument. It doesn't have to be going to other lascannon platforms (though if you spammed so many lascannon platforms some of it probably will, since you clearly needed that many) as long as it's going to something other than the spammed unit. Replace your spammed lascannon unit with tactical marines, I don't care. It's still less spam.

So you want us to build less effective armies for our area because 4 Predators is just too much for you.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 02:13:50


Post by: Blndmage


What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I really enjoy the smaller games for the speed, being able to get a w games in one night is awesome. They also allow me to really focus on the themes of the lists, but I find that 2 is simply too few.

Same for bigger games, where it's Rule of 4.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 02:44:49


Post by: jcd386


I tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to these things, so I think the rule of two is fine at 1000. I think the concept of redundancy is one of the most powerful in this game, and the easiest way to do that is to pick a good unit and spam it. I understand people do it because it's easy and they can, but I also think it's boring, and that boring is bad for the game.

Id much prefer moderate limitations on what units are allowed, and having the list building process be much more like a deck building/tools in my tool box type process. If a codex doesn't have enough good tools, that doesn't mean we need to throw out the rule of three, it means the codex needs a buff.

Buuuuut I'd also be okay with severely limiting/nerfing allies, bringing back the FoC from 5th, and balancing the game as tightly as possible from there, which I get everyone wouldn't enjoy.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 02:52:10


Post by: SHUPPET


 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I really enjoy the smaller games for the speed, being able to get a w games in one night is awesome. They also allow me to really focus on the themes of the lists, but I find that 2 is simply too few.

Same for bigger games, where it's Rule of 4.

Is it rule of 4 all the way up to like 4000 pts? Because that might be a bit soft. But I guess that points level unlocks a lot more options, I supposed they expect you to put LoW's in. I don't think that's a good thing though. Rule of 2 works at below 1000, I think it should be rule of 3 per 2000 pt detachment going upwards though.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 04:01:51


Post by: Blndmage


All limits are for the entire army:

0 to 1,000: 2 Detachments, Datasheets can be used 2 times.
1,001 to 2,000: 3 Detachments, Datasheets can be used 3 times.
2,001 to 3,000: 4 Detachments, Datasheets can be used 4 times.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 06:28:17


Post by: ValentineGames


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So you want us to build less effective armies for our area because 4 Predators is just too much for you.

Maybe you should learn to play the game properly?
 SHUPPET wrote:
people literally saying they take 1000 pts armies to 2000 pt games because their entire collection was two models repeated, and wondering why 8th feels so difficult

It really is a sad state of affairs.
"WAAAA MY 1000PTS OF PREDATORS CAN'T WIN AGAINST 2000PTS. GW SUCKS WAAAA!!!"
 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 06:54:08


Post by: Blndmage


What if I'm trying to base my list around a Spearhead, Vanguard or Outrider detachment? In a 1,000 and lower, that's totally viable, but the Rule of 2 can totally shaft thematic lists.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.


I miss the old 40k in 40min games!
Even 500 points takes a while now!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 07:10:51


Post by: ValentineGames


 Blndmage wrote:
What if I'm trying to base my list around a Spearhead, Vanguard or Outrider detachment? In a 1,000 and lower, that's totally viable, but the Rule of 2 can totally shaft thematic lists.

But these rules of 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc are for matched play with battle forged armies. Which is competitive gaming basically.
Themed lists are better for Narrative or Open play.
I'd certainly not want to fight a guy who spams Lascannon predators for WAAC advantages in narrative or open play.
Sure you might find a space marine armoured company. But I doubt that players attitude will be quite as toxic and childish as a certain someone else.
ValentineGames wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.

I miss the old 40k in 40min games!
Even 500 points takes a while now!

Those were good times.
It wouldn't work in 8th though. Not because of the rules but because of the attitudes nowadays of players.
Shame really.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 07:25:22


Post by: Blndmage


ValentineGames wrote:

But these rules of 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc are for matched play with battle forged armies. Which is competitive gaming basically.
Themed lists are better for Narrative or Open play.


At least for my local meta, everyone runs games via matched play and with a trend toward competitive lists or mindsets. I'm a narrative player. I totally get the math and such, the logic behind what's good or bad, but I really just wanna play the game, I don't care if I lose, at least I get to use my models!

You can at Battle Forged armies in Narrative Play as well I think. I'm still adjusting from 3rd-early 5th, I'm in love with the new Detachment style, finally allowing the lists I always wanted!


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 07:38:12


Post by: ValentineGames


 Blndmage wrote:
ValentineGames wrote:

But these rules of 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc are for matched play with battle forged armies. Which is competitive gaming basically.
Themed lists are better for Narrative or Open play.


At least for my local meta, everyone runs games via matched play and with a trend toward competitive lists or mindsets. I'm a narrative player. I totally get the math and such, the logic behind what's good or bad, but I really just wanna play the game, I don't care if I lose, at least I get to use my models!

Unfortunately that's the trend now.
"Forging a narrative" has become a joke term and those of us who just want to play a game with toys are regarded as chaff.
We aren't welcome in 8th. And I see it all the time on forums like this and social media.
We are the butt of the joke now.
 Blndmage wrote:

You can have Battle Forged armies in Narrative Play as well I think. I'm still adjusting from 3rd-early 5th, I'm in love with the new Detachment style, finally allowing the lists I always wanted!

I believe so yeah. But then the 2/3/4 rule doesn't...or shouldn't, really apply. It's not needed as that's the turf for fun.
But if you've got a bad gaming environment of competition players...You're screwed.
But hey you can always play yourself. I find that's the only option available now.
It's not like you can discuss anything fun around here


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 08:32:01


Post by: SHUPPET


Most armies are more than capable of creating a competitive build that fits the fluff. Just not every model is going to be competitive, that's all there is to it. You can do both at once quite handily, I think.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 11:40:50


Post by: Mmmpi


 SHUPPET wrote:
Most armies are more than capable of creating a competitive build that fits the fluff. Just not every model is going to be competitive, that's all there is to it. You can do both at once quite handily, I think.


I fully agree. It's possible to make an army at the FLGS level, that is both fluffy, either to it's armies fluff, or what the player works out, and still has a reasonable expectation of winning.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 13:32:14


Post by: Karol


I don't think that it is true for all armies. From what others have told me on this forum, there is nothing a GK army can build that can rival an imperial soup list or an Inari list.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 14:45:57


Post by: Blacksails


I've always supported a return to more 5th style army building, so rule of 3 works for me. Three of a unit is more than enough for games up to 2k, and restrictions are good for games as they force the players to make tougher decisions. I've always disliked the more free form, do as you please style list construction we've had from 6th onwards, as it really has boiled down to finding the most overpowered things and finding out ways to bring the most of it. Sensible restrictions are good. We've had this rule before for a few editions, and it wasn't an issue then, I don't think it'll be an issue now, just that players are used to doing whatever they want.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 14:47:58


Post by: MagicJuggler


5th-style army building doesn't scale. If anything, 2nd-style army-building with percentages.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 14:50:00


Post by: Blacksails


 MagicJuggler wrote:
5th-style army building doesn't scale. If anything, 2nd-style army-building with percentages.


Sure, percentages work too.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 16:43:43


Post by: Andykp


 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom.


Sure you can. People made plenty of fluff-accurate and fun lists in 5th edition, when the rules were far more restrictive. In fact, spam lists that are restricted by the rule of three tend to be less fluffy. A "real" 40k army would have a pretty diverse mix of units, even if the focus is on a particular thing. For example, an IG armored unit might have a tank commander and three LRBTs (~750-1000 points) but also have supporting infantry, Hellhounds, etc, to make up the rest of the points. An army that is just 1750 points worth of tank commanders and a cheap CP battery is much less fluffy.

We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem.


I'm not sure why you're mentioning 5e games as a reply to 8th being over-homogenized and shallow, but if you're house ruling 8th to the point that it is no longer over-homogenized and shallow you've created an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.


It doesn't force you to take that one particular unit, but that's not the point. It makes you take something else, whatever that other thing might be. And in the case of MSU spam where you could take the same models in a different configuration it at least forces you to group them up into larger units and lose the benefits of MSU.


Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

My stance is , the rule of 3 has no effect on me because we don’t use and don’t need to.

I don’t think it’ll stop terrible power lists just alter them slightly, tournament play will still be an unholy mess that has no relation to the 40k universe at all.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 16:51:19


Post by: MagicJuggler


"FoC" limitations also only work in the context of the armies available. For example Chaos Marines last edition didn't truly gain a pretense of viability until Traitor's Hate/Legions gave alternate detachments letting them circumvent their own FOC.

With Chaos Marines:
-All their long-range shooting was Heavy Support.
-All their fast units were Fast Attack (barring Heldrakes).
-All their infantry and elites were "short-range infantry-speed" units.

By contrast, Loyalists could:
-Take Bike Troops and Razorbacks, letting their Troops support either fast or ranged builds.
-Take Vanguard/Sternguard/Bike Command/Dreads Squads in Elites.
-Speeders and Attack Bikes in Fast Attack (or more Razorbacks if you were feeling cheeky).
-Dreads in Elites if doing an Iron Hands build.

Either way, they had a far easier time diffusing their threats across the entire FOC rather than being siloed.

And this is not even discussing Scatbike Troops.

The point is, limiting stuff to a 5th-style FOC only works if the armies can be reliably designed around it, and many...can't.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 16:57:35


Post by: AnomanderRake


 MagicJuggler wrote:
...The point is, limiting stuff to a 5th-style FOC only works if the armies can be reliably designed around it, and many...can't.


They could. Many of them were before GW started throwing "(unit X) in Troops!" around like candy.

Most of these "fast armies with bikes in Troops!" are just as fluffy running infantry in transports for their actual Troops and leaving the bikes in Fast Attack. The Farsight Enclaves haven't forgotten how infantry works to run all-battlesuit lists, no matter what people building armies off the 7e supplement want you to think.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 17:24:06


Post by: Blastaar


Andykp wrote:

Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

My stance is , the rule of 3 has no effect on me because we don’t use and don’t need to.

I don’t think it’ll stop terrible power lists just alter them slightly, tournament play will still be an unholy mess that has no relation to the 40k universe at all.


Except it is the rules which allow players to make "stupid power lists." Players will always try their hardest to break the game, therefore it is GW's responsibility to write the rules to account for that.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 17:27:59


Post by: jcd386


It's almost like the rule of three and the current detachment set up is a good compromise between the limitations of 5th and the flexibility of 7th. Go figure.

Things are still definitely not perfect,but but I think if they do something to de-incentivise allies down from a "the only way to be competitive" option and roll through a few layers of unit balances via CA and FAQs to bring the earlier codexes to a modern power level, things will be pretty good.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 17:28:06


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
...The point is, limiting stuff to a 5th-style FOC only works if the armies can be reliably designed around it, and many...can't.


They could. Many of them were before GW started throwing "(unit X) in Troops!" around like candy.

Most of these "fast armies with bikes in Troops!" are just as fluffy running infantry in transports for their actual Troops and leaving the bikes in Fast Attack. The Farsight Enclaves haven't forgotten how infantry works to run all-battlesuit lists, no matter what people building armies off the 7e supplement want you to think.

"Just as fluffy"
So why is one set of fluffy more equal than the other? Just because you hate seeing Bikers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ValentineGames wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So you want us to build less effective armies for our area because 4 Predators is just too much for you.

Maybe you should learn to play the game properly?
 SHUPPET wrote:
people literally saying they take 1000 pts armies to 2000 pt games because their entire collection was two models repeated, and wondering why 8th feels so difficult

It really is a sad state of affairs.
"WAAAA MY 1000PTS OF PREDATORS CAN'T WIN AGAINST 2000PTS. GW SUCKS WAAAA!!!"
 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.

I started early 4th, so I know how "to play properly" in your eyes.

You're also purposely missing the point again.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 18:25:06


Post by: ValentineGames


You were making a point?...must of been subtle


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 19:53:39


Post by: Andykp


Blastaar wrote:
Andykp wrote:

Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

My stance is , the rule of 3 has no effect on me because we don’t use and don’t need to.

I don’t think it’ll stop terrible power lists just alter them slightly, tournament play will still be an unholy mess that has no relation to the 40k universe at all.


Except it is the rules which allow players to make "stupid power lists." Players will always try their hardest to break the game, therefore it is GW's responsibility to write the rules to account for that.


I play in a group with no one who wants to break the game. It’s a fallacy that players will always try to break the game. SOME players will. Should we change the rules and handicap all of those who don’t or just not tolerate the few that are causing the problems. At the minute the competing scene in 40k celebrate the idiots that are breaking the game. GW is just trying to reign them in. As I said, it’s not an issue for my group and we don’t use it. Most faqs don’t change how we play the GAME. We play for fun, not trying to prove how good we are with our toy soldiers. Won’t tolerate the d@cks and they might change their behaviour.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 20:37:41


Post by: Karol


The reign in part doesn't really work, if for the top army it means taking one less unit or taking other good units they have, while the weaker armies get hit in the nuts, and people whose whole codex was designed around stuff like deep strike wonder if they were duped in to buying a product that doesn't work.

We have a guy at our store that had a BA army, that went from being a thing, to him not being able to field 500pts of his stuff, and his army was build around a GW article list taken twice. And I don't think you can get any more fluffy then a list made, by the dudes that make the game.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 22:04:31


Post by: SHUPPET


Karol wrote:I don't think that it is true for all armies. From what others have told me on this forum, there is nothing a GK army can build that can rival an imperial soup list or an Inari list.

Youve completely missed the point. GK are hampered by a bunch of uncompetitive units, not by needing to build contrary to the fluff. Even if you're taking the strongest GK detachment you can, chances are its perfectly fluffy.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 22:09:04


Post by: alextroy


The Rule of Three is not about fluffy list building. It is about preventing unfun and uninteresting list from Competitive Events. That's why it is an Organized Event Rule for Match Play and not a Matched Play rule.

The idea is that they don't want anyone to spend lots of time and money traveling to an event just to encounter the latest cheesy spam list. Doesn't matter if its Flyrant Spam, Hellhound Spam, or PBC Spam. Any of those will leave a bad taste in the mouth when you find yourself "forced" to play the list or accept a 0 on a tournament score.

Conversely, in other Matched Play environments, such as your basement or FLGS, you can very easily just say "no thank you" when your opponent rocks up with 7 Flyrants and you aren't in the mood for that sort of game.

This in no way means this rule is a panacea to GW successfully balancing the rules and points. However, that is impossible to do to a certain extent without serious limitations to list building. There in no point level for a unit, such as a Flyrant, that will make 1 or 2 acceptable while 7 to 9 unacceptable. Many models just get better when you take more. I'm sure you've heard the maxim that one is OK, two is good, and three is better?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/24 22:15:57


Post by: Ice_can


 alextroy wrote:
The Rule of Three is not about fluffy list building. It is about preventing unfun and uninteresting list from Competitive Events. That's why it is an Organized Event Rule for Match Play and not a Matched Play rule.

The idea is that they don't want anyone to spend lots of time and money traveling to an event just to encounter the latest cheesy spam list. Doesn't matter if its Flyrant Spam, Hellhound Spam, or PBC Spam. Any of those will leave a bad taste in the mouth when you find yourself "forced" to play the list or accept a 0 on a tournament score.

Conversely, in other Matched Play environments, such as your basement or FLGS, you can very easily just say "no thank you" when your opponent rocks up with 7 Flyrants and you aren't in the mood for that sort of game.

This in no way means this rule is a panacea to GW successfully balancing the rules and points. However, that is impossible to do to a certain extent without serious limitations to list building. There in no point level for a unit, such as a Flyrant, that will make 1 or 2 acceptable while 7 to 9 unacceptable. Many models just get better when you take more. I'm sure you've heard the maxim that one is OK, two is good, and three is better?


Also converse units do exsist, usually ones that depend upon strategums or relics but yes at a certain point some units reach a break point where they're going to be over powered.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 00:04:49


Post by: Mmmpi


Not sure that Hellhound spam is gone, considering you can still field 18 of them.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 02:57:23


Post by: kombatwombat


 alextroy wrote:

This in no way means this rule is a panacea to GW successfully balancing the rules and points. However, that is impossible to do to a certain extent without serious limitations to list building. There in no point level for a unit, such as a Flyrant, that will make 1 or 2 acceptable while 7 to 9 unacceptable. Many models just get better when you take more. I'm sure you've heard the maxim that one is OK, two is good, and three is better?


This is the point that people who say ‘if GW would just do their job and balance every point cost properly you wouldn’t need restrictions’ fail to understand.

Another, somewhat older example. 30 totally Fearless Conscripts are not a problem. 200 of them are. So do you make them 3pts each assuming they won’t be spammed, or 6pts each assuming they will be? The best answer is to have a table of escalating costs so the first 60 cost 3pts each, the next 30 4pts, the next 30 5pts etc, but that’s counter to GW’s new direction of a simplified 40k. So limiting units is the next best thing.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 05:35:41


Post by: tneva82


Andykp wrote:
Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.


Ah yes good old victim building. Shift the blame from the ones designing rules and blame the players instead. Good old community. Never seizes to amaze me how people still religiously defend GW rules writers.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 05:57:20


Post by: SHUPPET


i guess you meant "victim blaming"? Lol at the complex here, you're not a victim of gak.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 06:01:23


Post by: Karol


kombatwombat wrote:


This is the point that people who say ‘if GW would just do their job and balance every point cost properly you wouldn’t need restrictions’ fail to understand.

Another, somewhat older example. 30 totally Fearless Conscripts are not a problem. 200 of them are. So do you make them 3pts each assuming they won’t be spammed, or 6pts each assuming they will be? The best answer is to have a table of escalating costs so the first 60 cost 3pts each, the next 30 4pts, the next 30 5pts etc, but that’s counter to GW’s new direction of a simplified 40k. So limiting units is the next best thing.

I don't see where the problem is.Why does the GW have a fixed cost for a unit and then have a progressive up or down cost depending on how spamy a unit is. So lets say 3 knights in a knight army would cost 3x times the cost of a single knight, but 120 conscripts would cost twice or even more then 4 units of 30 conscripts. If a unit would still be a problem, because of soup lists, they could make it so that, if your taking an outside of your warlord detachment unit then even the first unit you take has the rised points cost. Soup rules would still be there, people would be able to mix and match the way they do now, but it would have a cost. Take could be flexible with points cost of elite vs horde, and play around with mono armies to make them working too. So lets say a tyranid or an orc army would have a different point scaling then an IG.

Later they could add multi faction units and multi faction characters, to give people stuff like human auxilary units for tau or orc merc for imperial guard armies.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 06:55:21


Post by: kombatwombat


Karol wrote:
[
I don't see where the problem is.Why does the GW have a fixed cost for a unit and then have a progressive up or down cost depending on how spamy a unit is. So lets say 3 knights in a knight army would cost 3x times the cost of a single knight, but 120 conscripts would cost twice or even more then 4 units of 30 conscripts. If a unit would still be a problem, because of soup lists, they could make it so that, if your taking an outside of your warlord detachment unit then even the first unit you take has the rised points cost. Soup rules would still be there, people would be able to mix and match the way they do now, but it would have a cost. Take could be flexible with points cost of elite vs horde, and play around with mono armies to make them working too. So lets say a tyranid or an orc army would have a different point scaling then an IG.

Later they could add multi faction units and multi faction characters, to give people stuff like human auxilary units for tau or orc merc for imperial guard armies.


I’m not sure GW has the manpower to balance 4 or 5 points values for every single unit, given the difficulties in balancing a single cost for each unit.

My point also wasn’t referring to Soup armies or Elites vs Hordes or anything. It was simply to point out that some units get more valuable the more you take. I think you’re new to 8th so you might not have been around for the early part of the Edition where Guard could take 200 Conscripts for 600pts plus a hundred points’ worth of Commissars and simply flood the entire board with 50-model units that could only lose 1 model per turn to Morale. It was such a huge problem that GW nerfed the Conscript/Commissar combo three(!) times in about a month.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 08:04:38


Post by: Peregrine


Andykp wrote:
I play in a group with no one who wants to break the game. It’s a fallacy that players will always try to break the game. SOME players will. Should we change the rules and handicap all of those who don’t or just not tolerate the few that are causing the problems. At the minute the competing scene in 40k celebrate the idiots that are breaking the game. GW is just trying to reign them in. As I said, it’s not an issue for my group and we don’t use it. Most faqs don’t change how we play the GAME. We play for fun, not trying to prove how good we are with our toy soldiers. Won’t tolerate the d@cks and they might change their behaviour.


Ah yes, the classic "UR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY STOP DOING IT " argument. Too bad rule #1 doesn't seem to apply to calling competitive players "idiots" and "dicks" and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.


No, the problem is 100% the rules. In a game with well-designed and balanced rules making game-wrecking power lists is not possible. Don't blame the players for GW's utter incompetence.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:02:40


Post by: Andykp


 Peregrine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
I play in a group with no one who wants to break the game. It’s a fallacy that players will always try to break the game. SOME players will. Should we change the rules and handicap all of those who don’t or just not tolerate the few that are causing the problems. At the minute the competing scene in 40k celebrate the idiots that are breaking the game. GW is just trying to reign them in. As I said, it’s not an issue for my group and we don’t use it. Most faqs don’t change how we play the GAME. We play for fun, not trying to prove how good we are with our toy soldiers. Won’t tolerate the d@cks and they might change their behaviour.


Ah yes, the classic "UR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY STOP DOING IT " argument. Too bad rule #1 doesn't seem to apply to calling competitive players "idiots" and "dicks" and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.


No, the problem is 100% the rules. In a game with well-designed and balanced rules making game-wrecking power lists is not possible. Don't blame the players for GW's utter incompetence.


Games workshop is trying to make a game that is good for everyone who plays it not just u. If they had really restrictive army selection rules like in 5th then it wouldn’t be as good a game for me. I really like how they have opened out things in 8th. It’s one of the best features. To change that would ruin the game for me. No one is obliged to take 10 of the best units and no one is obliged to play anyone who does.

I’m not saying you’re having fun the wrong way, I’m saying you are not having fun at all. I am. I’m enjoying a loose rule set with flexibility and plenty of options. U are demanding GW make changed that would make it less fun for me and lots of other people who enjoy 8th to make you happy. As I said the game is balanced, I know this because I play it and we have no balance issues because our group has internal balance. We are all like minded folks who play for the same reason. Fun. The rules work fine. They are abusable. It’s like tax avoidance, it’s legal buts it doesn’t make it right. Google and amazon are still d@cks for doing it.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:15:16


Post by: Peregrine


Andykp wrote:
Games workshop is trying to make a game that is good for everyone who plays it not just u.


Making a well-designed and well-balanced game benefits everyone.

If they had really restrictive army selection rules like in 5th then it wouldn’t be as good a game for me.


Why not? It forced you to take fluffy armies instead of spamming the most efficient thing and/or making absurd soup lists. And it coincidentally made it easier to balance the game, making it more likely that a fluff player would have a fun game against a random opponent instead of requiring unwritten "you can't spam that too much" rules and shunning anyone who has fun in a way that you don't approve of.

And of course even in 5th edition if you had a really cool army idea that didn't fit the FOC you could always ask your opponent to allow it. And if it was a genuinely interesting and fluff-driven list most people would probably allow it outside of a tournament. The problem is that most people who talk about their "fluff" lists that they need to remove the FOC to accommodate don't actually have a very compelling fluff idea and nobody really wants to see it. The only way to get to play their "fluff" armies is to change the army construction rules to "take whatever you want" and be able to fall back on "THIS IS A 100% LEGAL LIST YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT" when people point out that no, it isn't a very fluffy or interesting idea.

I’m not saying you’re having fun the wrong way, I’m saying you are not having fun at all.


That's a rather arrogant thing to say, accusing people of lying about having fun. What makes you think you know better than everyone else about what they enjoy?

As I said the game is balanced


No it isn't. In fact you admit that it isn't every time you mention having to refuse to play against someone who spams too much overpowered stuff or complain about tournament players making optimized tournament lists. You can't have it both ways, if those things are happening then it's because the game isn't balanced.

I know this because I play it and we have no balance issues because our group has internal balance.


"We voluntarily agree not to exploit any of the unbalanced things" and "the game is balanced" are not at all the same thing.

It’s like tax avoidance, it’s legal buts it doesn’t make it right. Google and amazon are still d@cks for doing it.


Nice moral high ground there. I could say the same thing about you, playing competitive and optimized lists is the right way to play the game and your "fluff" games are abuse of the rules. It's legal to play with your "fluff" lists but that doesn't make it right.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:41:51


Post by: ValentineGames


Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:44:06


Post by: BaconCatBug


ValentineGames wrote:
Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.
Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:45:15


Post by: Peregrine


ValentineGames wrote:
While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.


So, we're in agreement. Players who bring weak lists should stop expecting everyone else to match their level, stop insulting anyone who brings a stronger list, and improve their lists (and skill) to the point that they can win against stronger players/lists?


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:50:14


Post by: ValentineGames


 BaconCatBug wrote:
ValentineGames wrote:
Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.
Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.

Then you've missed the point.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:55:48


Post by: BaconCatBug


ValentineGames wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
ValentineGames wrote:
Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.
Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.

Then you've missed the point.
No, I really haven't. If I play a game of Tennis, do I deliberately use a racket with no strings because using strings is for tryhards who want to win?

If I play a game of Chess, do I just move my king out into the open because using your queen is for tryhards.

Spoiler:


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 09:57:36


Post by: Karol


kombatwombat wrote:


I’m not sure GW has the manpower to balance 4 or 5 points values for every single unit, given the difficulties in balancing a single cost for each unit.

My point also wasn’t referring to Soup armies or Elites vs Hordes or anything. It was simply to point out that some units get more valuable the more you take. I think you’re new to 8th so you might not have been around for the early part of the Edition where Guard could take 200 Conscripts for 600pts plus a hundred points’ worth of Commissars and simply flood the entire board with 50-model units that could only lose 1 model per turn to Morale. It was such a huge problem that GW nerfed the Conscript/Commissar combo three(!) times in about a month.


But they do have people that get salaries for writing rules right? If they can't then either hire new ones, or hire more people. People work for 8 hours a day, and have time to work at home too, if what they come up is bad, you let them go and hire people who will either work more and/or for cheaper.
I don't get the problem is other then time.
Unit costs X points. If you take Y of it, it costs Z more or less or same, depending what the vision for an army is. So something like a deathwing army would have cheaper terminators, while someone trying to squeez in a 7th hive tyrant would be paying 200% or more for it. Then they could have big faction or multi faction lists, have special rules. So some sort of DW/RW army would be easier on points, then someone puting 5 custodes cpts in an IG list.
And the best way to do it, is first build armies the design team without looking at points, and then when the core and mixed lists are done, assign points to them, so that they cost the same. Then check how the options work and use the points modification method, that people can play more wild stuff.

A team of 20-30 people should be able to do the rules in a two-three months, and most of those would be freelance testers.

When I look at w40k armies, outside of eldar it seems as if GW didn't really knew what they want people to play and how the armies are suppose to look like. OR they want people to just buy all models for all faction times 4, and then build something out of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
ValentineGames wrote:
While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.


So, we're in agreement. Players who bring weak lists should stop expecting everyone else to match their level, stop insulting anyone who brings a stronger list, and improve their lists (and skill) to the point that they can win against stronger players/lists?

I agree with this that expecting to have fun with bad lists should not be done. But I think the majority of the responsibility on making the list good should not be put on the players, but GW should make it that their products can be assembled in a such a way that a player who buys it can make a valid army.


The Rule of Three @ 2018/06/25 11:37:39


Post by: the_scotsman


If you consider the only point of 40k to be "get dat W" then wouldn't you enjoy the challenge that constantly changing balance rules provides? Doesn't that allow you to prove your towering intellectual superiority over the subhuman plebian scrubs across the table from you in a variety of different ways, thus enhancing the natural thrill of the winning experience?

Surely winning with the very same list over and over would get hollow.