Well I am aware that the rule of 3 is just a suggestion, could I justify having more than 3 squads of veterans? This would be to demonstrate a more experienced detachment of AM infantry. Compared to standard infantry, they differ only slightly and with CA18 they only cost 1ppm more than a standard infantry unit. Could I justify this? Or least would this be something people would get upset over?
this really is it. if your gaming group is fine with it, or they are not fine with it, thats gonna be whats important, not what a buncha strangers on the internet say
I wouldn't care, but the people I play with would.
Ultimately you should build whatever you like to represent your dudespersons, but I would not count on being able to field four Veteran Squads if you play pick-up games against relative strangers.
You could always just run one as an extra Infantry Squad/Militia in the games where people get pissy.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I was hoping to get a general consensus on what the Dakka community thought.
I generally only play to practice for upcoming ITC events (since there are 2-3 of them per month within driving distance) so I'd want to play against a tournament legal army to test. So I'd say no.
Ok, well, if you show up to my table with 15 Custard Jet Bikes, or 3 Gmans, or 6 Whateverbrokenunits, I'd instantly mark you as "that guy". If you are pulling that in a local gaming store, the question is more "how much do I care what people think of me?"
Personally, I would be fine with this for several reasons:
A) They USED to be Troops, which are not affected by Ro3. There are lots of unit like this that I would personally be fine with an opponent fielding 4-5 or so units of. Once you get to 6+ units, however, it gets boring but I'd still play.
B) The unit in question is far from OP, so having more of them should not affect the game too much
C) Because they are not Troops, you are less likely to have 2+ Battalions and therefore much fewer CPs.
D) In general I always discuss things with my opponent anyway, so I would be fully aware that you had 4+ Vet unit and could adjust my tactics accordingly
An Actual Englishman wrote: Personally I'd prefer to play by all the rules that GW set, "optional" or otherwise.
Yeah, this is always my first assumption and therefore what I hold myself to. And because if this, it's always good to discuss any deviation from this with your opponent.
Most players are adult enough to be ok with case like the OP's
I guess it depends, there are units that got hit "unfairly" by the rule of three, units like veterans which even, as allready pointed out, were troops.
Possessed beeing another one, disciples, etc.
I personally think this is one of the issues many players have with the ro3, it hits the wrong units often times more then the ones it is meant to curb.
Also magically beeing able to switch dexes to get more of the same unit (cough Dp) gets incentiviced.
Can't see the issue. Ro3 is a good rule that should be followed by default, but OP is asking for an exception to make their army weaker. Shrug, if you like losing games go for it.
So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?
I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.
Exactly this.
And, it's my right to refuse games. I would also refuse to play a game with no terrain on the table. GW does not have a rule requiring terrain, yet we all kind of understand the game is better with it in there.
So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?
I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.
Exactly this.
And, it's my right to refuse games. I would also refuse to play a game with no terrain on the table. GW does not have a rule requiring terrain, yet we all kind of understand the game is better with it in there.
Now, I'm going to get skewered by BCB here, but let's bring up intent here.
The INTENT, as best I can tell, of the Rule of Three was to help make the game more balanced and less spammy.
Now, in a 2k game, I'd hardly consider four small Veterans squads spammy, but I will admit, that's subjective.
But is it unbalanced?
To which I would say... No. Hell no. If anything, it's making the army weaker.
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
I do agree that it's the kind of thing you should tell your opponent beforehand, but it's a simple, easy, and not unfun exception.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I was hoping to get a general consensus on what the Dakka community thought.
If your question is "will dakka get upset about something," the answer is yes.
If your intention is to participate in/practice for tournament play, or to play mostly with people who are, then you should probably stick to the Ro3. If you're more of a narrative/casual player like me, then just make your army how you want it to be and be prepared to adjust it if someone really can't face the thought of playing against a whole extra squad of underpowered infantry.
So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?
I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.
Exactly this.
And, it's my right to refuse games. I would also refuse to play a game with no terrain on the table. GW does not have a rule requiring terrain, yet we all kind of understand the game is better with it in there.
Now, I'm going to get skewered by BCB here, but let's bring up intent here.
The INTENT, as best I can tell, of the Rule of Three was to help make the game more balanced and less spammy.
Now, in a 2k game, I'd hardly consider four small Veterans squads spammy, but I will admit, that's subjective.
But is it unbalanced?
To which I would say... No. Hell no. If anything, it's making the army weaker.
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
I do agree that it's the kind of thing you should tell your opponent beforehand, but it's a simple, easy, and not unfun exception.
Again, for him 4 dp 's are somehow great, 6 even better but god forbid you bring 4 terminators squads......
JNAProductions wrote: Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.
JNAProductions wrote: Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.
That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.
Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.
Not Online!!! wrote: Again, for him 4 dp 's are somehow great, 6 even better but god forbid you bring 4 terminators squads......
Yeah. While I do agree that it breaks a commonly accepted rule, it's not breaking the reason it was implemented.
And it doesn't even fix the issue it was meant to that well to begin with!
Marmatag wrote: There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.
If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.
Ask for an open play game.
Would you then play him, if it was Open Play?
Yes.
If it was open play I could also try my own silly nonsense things. It'd be fun to have 3x Njal Stormcallers in a list, casting 6 living lightnings a turn.
Marmatag wrote: There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.
If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.
Ask for an open play game.
So there is nothing wrong with the ro3 atm?
Because that is what you literally stated here considering the INTENT behind the ro3.
I'm not going to dive into an argument with you. You aren't here to have a discussion, you're here to attack me. I would not play a matched play game without matched play rules and restrictions as published by GW.
Is there nothing wrong with the rule of 3? That's irrelevant to the conversation.
It is not literally what i stated. This is you putting words in my mouth. Argue with someone else. I'm not interested in your brand of debate.
Doesn't Njal have a rule saying you can only take one of him? Like, on his datasheet? Or somewhere, because he is unique.
And wouldn't that make you feel like a bit of a tool? Someone wants to break the Rule of Three to stay fluffy and is making their list WORSE by doing so, whereas you're taking an incredibly unfluffy and high-powered combo?
JNAProductions wrote: Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.
That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.
Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.
Why is it needlessly stubborn? The whole point is that you just play by the rules as they are, with no exceptions. If you play by a policy of "usually Ro3 but ask if you'd like to break it" then you have to consider the veterans, but then you also have the precedent that you also have to consider everyone else's request to break the rule. And how many of those are going to be as clear a case of making your army worse by "spamming" a terrible unit?
JNAProductions wrote: Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.
That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.
Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.
Why is it needlessly stubborn? The whole point is that you just play by the rules as they are, with no exceptions. If you play by a policy of "usually Ro3 but ask if you'd like to break it" then you have to consider the veterans, but then you also have the precedent that you also have to consider everyone else's request to break the rule. And how many of those are going to be as clear a case of making your army worse by "spamming" a terrible unit?
Why is it so bad to talk to an opponent before having a game with them?
If one side is "I absolutely refuse to violate the Rule of Three no matter what" I'd consider that needlessly stubborn.
Likewise, if the other side is "I will never take less than four Veteran squads in my IG list EVER!" I would ALSO consider that needlessly stubborn.
JNAProductions wrote: Doesn't Njal have a rule saying you can only take one of him? Like, on his datasheet? Or somewhere, because he is unique.
And wouldn't that make you feel like a bit of a tool? Someone wants to break the Rule of Three to stay fluffy and is making their list WORSE by doing so, whereas you're taking an incredibly unfluffy and high-powered combo?
It isn't high powered at all.
And this is the point of standardized game play. These kinds of discussions don't need to be had when setting up a game.
JNAProductions wrote: Why is it so bad to talk to an opponent before having a game with them?
Because it's a sign of a bad game and often results in needless arguing. Bring a legal army, play the game by the standard rules. Why even bring up the possibility of giving people special snowflake exceptions the to rules?
(Though, for the record, if my opponent asked in this particular case I'd allow it just like I'd allow them to play a 2000 point game with 1500 points. But I can understand entirely why people have a policy of "no exceptions, period".)
Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.
Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."
If you want to run some nonsense in an open play game I said i'd play.
Sometimes I think you guys take the militant casual at all costs attitude too far. I want to play the game with the rules and restrictions of a matched play game. Why is what I want less important than what you want?
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.
Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."
When have people said "It's totally fine to do that" without adding in something along the lines of "just let your opponent know" or "with opponent's permission, which I'd certainly give myself"?
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.
Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."
When have people said "It's totally fine to do that" without adding in something along the lines of "just let your opponent know" or "with opponent's permission, which I'd certainly give myself"?
The question was asked in general and I gave a general answer. His response to those prompts was he wanted to get a general feeling, so i gave a general answer.
People expect that they can violate the rules, and if others refuse to play with them, suddenly that's toxic? News flash. Even narrative games a larger events have these restrictions in place. There is no "fluffy" argument to be made. I think it would be fluffy if my marines had a 2+ rerollable invuln. Want to have a game?
Marmatag wrote: There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.
If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.
Ask for an open play game.
I want to play with standard matched play rules! Those rules do not include the rule of three or the detachment limit.
Why is the tournament rules, narrative or open only options? Why standard matched play rules are not a valid option?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
Marmatag wrote: There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.
If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.
Ask for an open play game.
So there is nothing wrong with the ro3 atm?
Because that is what you literally stated here considering the INTENT behind the ro3.
I'm not going to dive into an argument with you. You aren't here to have a discussion, you're here to attack me. I would not play a matched play game without matched play rules and restrictions as published by GW.
Is there nothing wrong with the rule of 3? That's irrelevant to the conversation.
It is not literally what i stated. This is you putting words in my mouth. Argue with someone else. I'm not interested in your brand of debate.
JNAProductions wrote: Why is it so bad to talk to an opponent before having a game with them?
Because it's a sign of a bad game and often results in needless arguing. Bring a legal army, play the game by the standard rules. Why even bring up the possibility of giving people special snowflake exceptions the to rules?
(Though, for the record, if my opponent asked in this particular case I'd allow it just like I'd allow them to play a 2000 point game with 1500 points. But I can understand entirely why people have a policy of "no exceptions, period".)
So you both agree that its best to play without the RO3, because they are NOT the standard matched play rules and instead SUGGESTIONS for ORGANISED EVENTS.
You cannot say you advocate for playing with standard matched play and only matched play rules and advocate for RO3 at the same time.
The kinds of people who would not let OP do this are the exact kinds of people who would also run everything they possibly could to abuse the ruleset; which ended up creating the rule of 3 anyway.
I'm not interested in playing with those people, or with a ruleset that intentionally caters to them. This is one of the many reasons why I haven't played 8th.
People are always going to try to list build their way out of playing a tactical match.
I've accepted that 40k is now a game of deck building like MTG rather than a tactical wargame dependant on positioning and strategy.
The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.
What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?
When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.
Marmatag wrote: The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.
What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?
When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.
Which is why we were all so happy when Rule of Three curbed abuses like 12 Leman Russes, or 9 Daemon Princes! And which is why it was made an official matched play rule and NOT a tournament suggestion! /s
Marmatag wrote: The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.
What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?
When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.
lol if it actually placed realistic limitations on list building and power gaming, then it might be good for the game, but as of now, no it's not at all.
Veterans are needlessly hampered by this rule when they should be troops whilst you have things like leman rushes which can be spammed to a ludicrious degree.
I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.
What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?
No one is doing that. I wouldn't demand you to follow it either, nor, I assume, would the OP.
When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.
I think that when playing a matched play game, which is not a part of tournament, it is perfectly reasonable assumption that standard matched play rules are followed. Tournament suggestions are not part of that. I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect others to follow your houserules (i.e. using tournament rules outside tournaments) as a default.
Marmatag wrote: The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.
What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?
When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.
Which is why we were all so happy when Rule of Three curbed abuses like 12 Leman Russes, or 9 Daemon Princes! And which is why it was made an official matched play rule and NOT a tournament suggestion! /s
Yeah, who cares though, those lists suck.
Spam basic Leman Russ tanks. Spam Veterans. Neither list is good.
Table sizing is also a tournament suggestion. There are MANY aspects of this game that are organized event suggestions that are *generally followed.* Terrain is another example. If someone wants to play on a board with no terrain, how dare you refuse that game? There is no terrain rule? How dare you place your house rules as a requirement for a game with you, unreasonable cur.
A lot of this game requires a gentleman's agreement to even function. Which is why standard rules are so important.
The real question is; if you want to play more than three squads of SM Vets, why aren't you playing Deathwatch? Not only are they troops in a DW army but they also have a better selection of wargear and special rules.
The Newman wrote: The real question is; if you want to play more than three squads of SM Vets, why aren't you playing Deathwatch? Not only are they troops in a DW army but they also have a better selection of wargear and special rules.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I didn't see my question triggering such heated debate and I apologize as such.
Not your fault, you asked a simple question and some people are incapable of letting other people answer without jumping down their throat for having a different opinion. I mean it's kind of silly. Someone says they'd refuse, someone else starts to rip into them because, "Rule of 3 isn't a rule!".... who cares. That's how my group plays, that's how I play, so I wouldn't play outside of that. If your group is different, power to you.
Not your fault, just a lot of angry argumentative people on this forum that don't deal well with people who play different variations of the game that they disagree with.
Not your fault, you asked a simple question and some people are incapable of letting other people answer without jumping down their throat for having a different opinion. I mean it's kind of silly. Someone says they'd refuse, someone else starts to rip into them because, "Rule of 3 isn't a rule!".... who cares. That's how my group plays, that's how I play, so I wouldn't play outside of that. If your group is different, power to you.
Not your fault, just a lot of angry argumentative people on this forum that don't deal well with people who play different variations of the game that they disagree with.
People can play using whatever rules they want. It just gets bizarre when the same poster champions using standard rules while at the same time expects others to conform to their houserules.
Not your fault, you asked a simple question and some people are incapable of letting other people answer without jumping down their throat for having a different opinion. I mean it's kind of silly. Someone says they'd refuse, someone else starts to rip into them because, "Rule of 3 isn't a rule!".... who cares. That's how my group plays, that's how I play, so I wouldn't play outside of that. If your group is different, power to you.
Not your fault, just a lot of angry argumentative people on this forum that don't deal well with people who play different variations of the game that they disagree with.
People can play using whatever rules they want. It just gets bizarre when the same poster champions using standard rules while at the same time expects others to conform to their houserules.
You gotta admit it comes off a bit disingenuous and dismissive to refer to a GW suggested rule for organized play as "their houserule".
If your group doesn't play with it, like I said, it's fine. Many groups do, which is why OP needs to ask to find out which group his is.
You gotta admit it comes off a bit disingenuous and dismissive to refer to a GW suggested rule for organized play as "their houserule".
Using it outside tournaments is absolutely a houserule. If people want to play that way, they of course can, but then they at the same time can't claim that they're playing using the standard rules. It becomes frustrating that the point when people who actually want to play using the standard rules are treated as unreasonable and demanding special treatment.
It's a de-facto rule that is the most common way of playing and what people expect when they show up for a pickup game. The whole "GW calls it a suggestion, not a rule" argument is a pretty weak objection to fall back on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Using terrain, is in fact, suggested for all games, not just tournaments. This is a ludicrous strawman.
No, it's a very relevant comparison. Both use of terrain and Ro3 are suggestions, not mandatory rules. And both are the standard expectation unless you have a compelling reason otherwise.
Ignoring the Ro3 suggestion in some cases can give a more realistic army makeup and create more interest while an empty field is akin to 19th century stand and shoot battles.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Ignoring the Ro3 suggestion in some cases can give a more realistic army makeup and create more interest while an empty field is akin to 19th century stand and shoot battles.
In the end, it's going to come down to "ask your group". You can see there is on consensus on this topic on Dakka. Most people I play with probably wouldn't allow it. Most people I play with though are just testing out tournament lists, where rule of 3 is not a suggestion, so you can see why they wouldn't allow non-legal lists to be played. So yea, ask your opponent, get a feel for what players by you will allow. In the end you can agree to whatever rules you want, it doesn't matter, as long as you have fun.
Marmatag wrote: There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.
If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.
Ask for an open play game.
So there is nothing wrong with the ro3 atm?
Because that is what you literally stated here considering the INTENT behind the ro3.
I'm not going to dive into an argument with you. You aren't here to have a discussion, you're here to attack me. I would not play a matched play game without matched play rules and restrictions as published by GW.
Is there nothing wrong with the rule of 3? That's irrelevant to the conversation.
It is not literally what i stated. This is you putting words in my mouth. Argue with someone else. I'm not interested in your brand of debate.
Adorable. Considering you afterwards highten yourself to this comment :
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.
Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."
If you want to run some nonsense in an open play game I said i'd play.
Sometimes I think you guys take the militant casual at all costs attitude too far. I want to play the game with the rules and restrictions of a matched play game. Why is what I want less important than what you want?
Who are you to judge form?
Also as pointed out, ro3 is not matched play and also not official yet, not to mention that as also pointed out, has massive loopholes.
In a friendly game I wouldnt have a problem but because in my FLGS we dont have pick up games, we plan our games previously. So if somebody wants to try something strange or use some aditional rules is fine.
In tournaments just for having a playing field and avoiding that can of worms I would say no.
But then we also have a 12 year old kit the store owber allowed to play a tournament with death guard+adeptus nechanicus to reoresebt dark mechanicus (And so he could play the 2k tournament) and no body had a problem. But it was an exception for that kid
JNAProductions wrote: Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?
To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.
That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.
Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.
And when you factor in that it's not even for sake of balance as example shows. 4 veterans is hardly more broken than 12 leman russ. Well actually more than 12...Was it like 20 russ you could field at once if you want and have points.
I own 9 lictor models. Old, pewter ones. Most of them are converted in different poses or mid jump. It took its sweet time to do it and I was quite proud of it. Then GW thought it would be a good idea to make them single elite slots with 1 lictor only and no chance to go bigger. They also thought it would be a good idea to limit my options to 3. So now I cannot play with 6 out of my 9 models I physically bought and painted from their stores. It's like giving my kid legos, but then forbidding them from touching the red ones.
I am not going to forbid people from playing the models they bought and painted just because GW remembered mid-way they do not like spamming. want to play a 600 termagant list? Be my guest. Want to bring 50 terminators? I'll play you. 12 flyers? I'm game. The day GW will enable returns and cashbacks for the models they do not - suddenly- allow me to play any more, then I'll back their questionable rationale. Till then, game on.
I'd have no issues with the mass veterans, go for it. In my area the rule of three is pretty strong, suggested or not. However I get why they placed it in to try and half arsed fix a problem they placed in the game with all the detachments and removing the limits of three placed into the game from way back.
If I had to ask sticking to the rule of three is easy as it had been there pretty much since I started playing already. That said, some changes to what a unit counts as I feel were done without the Rule of three in mind. Such as guard veterans, maybe even heavy weapon teams even though they were spammed heavily for mortars as those were always troops in part of platoons for the HWS and their own unit entry for vets.
It really doesn't do much to balancing things unless you were one of those who had to run into like 6 storm ravens or the like I suppose.
It's suggested for organized tournament play, which is why so many people follow it all the time. If you're going to play in a tournament, it makes sense to practice with those same rules all the time.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Well I am aware that the rule of 3 is just a suggestion, could I justify having more than 3 squads of veterans? This would be to demonstrate a more experienced detachment of AM infantry. Compared to standard infantry, they differ only slightly and with CA18 they only cost 1ppm more than a standard infantry unit. Could I justify this? Or least would this be something people would get upset over?
Depends....
Friendly local game night its probably no big deal just check
At a tournament absolutely not without a TOs ok
Competitive where RAW is important because if you win, you want to win fairly according to the rules... no other exceptions. Points are typically used for the finer scale of units costing.
Casual / Fluff / story driven play. "Rule of Cool" is a strong consideration, using power points is "simpler", pointing to various formations in Black Library books are a worthy argument/precedence. Actual crafted scenarios usually is what makes it all work and agreeable between players.
So for the OP: is it a more competitive group? Then stick with the rule of 3. If more story driven, do you have a "reason" to need more veterans? Is your army based on something you read or you just want a bunch of veterans? If you customized a bunch of guard to look very characterful as individuals that may be fine due to "rule of cool".
It all still hinges on what your gaming group says, not us bunch of strangers on the internet as has been pointed out.
I tend to find these questions are to obtain "evidence" to brow-beat your group with to get what you want, but I may bee a bit too cynical. Was a good thought process anyway.
I tend to play competitive but got my friend to go with a scenario I made (I was oddly inspired) that was brutal and we had a great deal of fun.
Win criteria was still a big consideration but army structure got thrown out the window.
Skipped most of the discussion, but wanted to offer up the House rule our group has:
"Rule of 3" is based on patrol/battalion/brigade detachments with the Troops slots allowing unlimited datasheets; in the spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider detachments, heavy support/elite/fast attack units are the "core" of the detachments, so we allow those "core" datasheets unlimited within their detachments instead of troops.
Basically even if you had a patrol with a whirlwind or 2, if you had a Spearhead detachment alongside it the spearhead could have 2 more whirlwinds without counting against the rule of 3(but a second patrol could only have 1 more whirlwind)
It's suggested for organized tournament play, which is why so many people follow it all the time. If you're going to play in a tournament, it makes sense to practice with those same rules all the time.
Thanks for confirming that, Horst - I was getting a "This site is trying to redirect you too many times" message in Chrome last night when trying to access the file.
Peregrine wrote: It's a de-facto rule that is the most common way of playing and what people expect when they show up for a pickup game.
Citation needed. And even if it might be common convention in some places, it is unreasonable to assume that random newbies should have telepathically known that their lists need to conform to your houserules.
The whole "GW calls it a suggestion, not a rule" argument is a pretty weak objection to fall back on.
Crimson wrote: Using terrain, is in fact, suggested for all games, not just tournaments. This is a ludicrous strawman.
No, it's a very relevant comparison. Both use of terrain and Ro3 are suggestions, not mandatory rules. And both are the standard expectation unless you have a compelling reason otherwise.
One is suggestion for all games, whilst the other is suggestion for tournaments. A standard pick up game is not a tournament, how bloody difficult can this be to understand?
OP: I'd have no problem with it, and I'd wager most players would be fine with it too. Most players recognize the reason Rule of 3 exists, and it sure isn't to stop Veteran spam. Some players treat pick-up games as tournament practice and expect them to follow tournament rules to the letter, but they're typically a minority.
Personally, I use a Death Korps list that relies on an email from Forge World to say that Engineers should be able to take a Hades drill, which isn't RAW, and have never had a problem. Keep in mind that DakkaDakka is not representative of the general 40K population, let alone your local meta.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Skipped most of the discussion, but wanted to offer up the House rule our group has:
"Rule of 3" is based on patrol/battalion/brigade detachments with the Troops slots allowing unlimited datasheets; in the spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider detachments, heavy support/elite/fast attack units are the "core" of the detachments, so we allow those "core" datasheets unlimited within their detachments instead of troops.
Basically even if you had a patrol with a whirlwind or 2, if you had a Spearhead detachment alongside it the spearhead could have 2 more whirlwinds without counting against the rule of 3(but a second patrol could only have 1 more whirlwind)
But wouldn't that enable PBC spam, one of the reasons for GW to put the Ro3 in place?
Crimson wrote: One is suggestion for all games, whilst the other is suggestion for tournaments. A standard pick up game is not a tournament, how bloody difficult can this be to understand?
People who adhere strictly to matched play rulesets often play in order to practice for tournaments. Since tournaments tend to use the rule of three, playing a game without rule of three isn't good tournament practice.
You're engaging in philosophical hair-splitting on what does or does not counts as a rule in the face of a practical consideration.
People who adhere strictly to matched play rulesets often play in order to practice for tournaments.
A tiny minority of matched play games are tournament practice. Matched is the most commonly played game type, and only minority of people attend tournaments. It is really annoying that this tiny minority of tournament players want to claim one gametype solely for themselves, going so far that they bully others to accepting their houserules.
Since tournaments tend to use the rule of three, playing a game without rule of three isn't good tournament practice.
It should be blindingly obvious that a person who would want to field abundance of IG veteran squads is not a good opponent for practising for tournaments. They're obviously looking for a more casual sort of matched game.
It should be blindingly obvious that a person who would want to field abundance of IG veteran squads is not a good opponent for practising for tournaments. They're obviously looking for a more casual sort of matched game.
Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.
Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.
How?
Not really. It's sarcasm, I agree with you.
Doesn't work via text all that well, I guess.
Biggest practical consideration I see you both are missing is that it doesn't matter how you play, or how you want to play, it matters what OP's local group plays like. If it's like my group, rule of 3 is enforced for all games, so if he asks to break it he stands a chance of getting denied. It doesn't matter if it's a "suggested" rule if everyone uses it. If OP's group is different, then that's fine. It's not relevant if it's an "official rule" or "official suggestion" if everyone follows it, which is apparently going to be different from group to group. He asked if there is a consensus on this topic. There isn't.
People who adhere strictly to matched play rulesets often play in order to practice for tournaments.
A tiny minority of matched play games are tournament practice. Matched is the most commonly played game type, and only minority of people attend tournaments. It is really annoying that this tiny minority of tournament players want to claim one gametype solely for themselves, going so far that they bully others to accepting their houserules.
Since tournaments tend to use the rule of three, playing a game without rule of three isn't good tournament practice.
It should be blindingly obvious that a person who would want to field abundance of IG veteran squads is not a good opponent for practising for tournaments. They're obviously looking for a more casual sort of matched game.
Sure, it's annoying. Being annoying in pursuit of however-they-define-victory appears to be common in competitive communities.
What I'm saying is that splitting hairs over what's a common tournament rule vs. Game As It Is Written vs. Game As It Is Played isn't likely to be a compelling argument within a local gaming community, much less with strangers on Dakka that you don't even play with.
Edit:
Biggest practical consideration I see you both are missing is that it doesn't matter how you play, or how you want to play, it matters what OP's local group plays like. If it's like my group, rule of 3 is enforced for all games, so if he asks to break it he stands a chance of getting denied. It doesn't matter if it's a "suggested" rule if everyone uses it. If OP's group is different, then that's fine. It's not relevant if it's an "official rule" or "official suggestion" if everyone follows it, which is apparently going to be different from group to group. He asked if there is a consensus on this topic. There isn't.
So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?
It's definitely not a house rule buddy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excommunicatus wrote: And for the vast majority who do not play tournaments, it makes no sense.
And yet almost everyone uses it anyway. Oh noes, five Hellflayers!! However do you counter that?
Baah.
Actually, it makes perfect sense for pick up games.
Tournament play is supposed to be the most balanced (Don't care right now about your thoughts on whether that's true or not), which is why people use them for games against strangers. While optional, it's a widely accepted optional rule that gets used frequently. Because of that it's a defacto standard rule.
Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.
How?
Not really. It's sarcasm, I agree with you.
Doesn't work via text all that well, I guess.
Biggest practical consideration I see you both are missing is that it doesn't matter how you play, or how you want to play, it matters what OP's local group plays like.
I said the same thing in the fourth post in this thread.
It simply is not a rule, no matter how hard y'all want to pretend that tournament play is superior and somehow governing.
Its widespread use is no more than a symptom of the netlistification of 40K and the increasing inability of people to think for themselves.
*Looks at where it's written. Sees optional rule labeling it.
So yeah. It's very much a rule, and one that is apparently quite popular for it's apparent balancing effects.
Also, got to love your smug attitude towards your other players. Nothing says "I'm a jerk" more than attacking people because they don't follow your specific way of doing things.
Actually, there's a word for that...what was it...
ITs an Official Rule, part of the FAQ, that added a limit of models per certain points limit.
It isnt a house rule, it is a rule, and like most rules, it is optional.
However, adhering to this rule makes the most sense. Why?
It standardizes play across all games
hotsauceman1 wrote: ITs an Official Rule, part of the FAQ, that added a limit of models per certain points limit.
It isnt a house rule, it is a rule, and like most rules, it is optional.
However, adhering to this rule makes the most sense. Why?
It standardizes play across all games
It's an optional rule specifically for Organized Play events.
Pick up games most definetly aren't Organized Play, by definition.
hotsauceman1 wrote: ITs an Official Rule, part of the FAQ, that added a limit of models per certain points limit.
It isnt a house rule, it is a rule, and like most rules, it is optional.
However, adhering to this rule makes the most sense. Why?
It standardizes play across all games
It's an optional rule specifically for Organized Play events.
Pick up games most definetly aren't Organized Play, by definition.
Actually, they are.
"Hey, want to play a game of 40K?"
"Sure."
Congratulations. You've just organized a game.
Besides, saying that it's for organized play is why most people use it. The perception that it's there to be the most balanced. Why wouldn't you use the most balanced rules?
(Note, I'm going off of general perception, not accusing you of anything)
Personally, if someone wanted to run 2000pts of only vanguard detachments in a game with me, i couldn't give a gak, at all haha
Build what ever list you want i say. Only thing i like to mention is, if your building a proper competitive/tournament list you want to try out , let me know beforehand so i dont bring one of my fluffy lists and get wiped out by turn 2!
Anyone who isn't using the rule of 3 would quickly change their mind after playing againgst 9 demon princes or 7 calidus grav tanks+ buffer characters.
Build what ever list you want i say. Only thing i like to mention is, if your building a proper competitive/tournament list you want to try out , let me know beforehand so i dont bring one of my fluffy lists and get wiped out by turn 2!
This. If you're gonna do something outside the expected norm (and for better or worse Ro3 is an expected norm), talk to your opponent first.
A smidgeon of courtesy and respect goes a long way.
Eihnlazer wrote: Anyone who isn't using the rule of 3 would quickly change their mind after playing againgst 9 demon princes or 7 calidus grav tanks+ buffer characters.
ROT doesn't stop you taking 9 Daemon Princes. ROT doesn't stop you taking 12 Daemon Princes from a single book, another 12 from a different book plus the TS and DGDPs and the Special Character DPs all at one time, unless you believe that "same" doesn't actually mean "same".
So that's 30 DPs, plus Special Characters, all in compliance with ROT.
So not only is it an idiotic, overbroad "rule", it is also ineffective at curbing the mischief it was intended to address.
----------------------------------------------
I do so dearly appreciate being told that I am imposing my way of playing on others, by a person who wants to roll-out a suggestion for tournaments as a rule to bind everyone.
Eihnlazer wrote: Anyone who isn't using the rule of 3 would quickly change their mind after playing againgst 9 demon princes or 7 calidus grav tanks+ buffer characters.
Because 9 daemon princes is still possible with the RO3?
3 from CSM dex, 3 Thousands, 3 DG, 3 CDM
Soooooo the rule is not only ineffective but also rather stupid in effect.
Sure it is better then nothing, but there is a reason it is not in matchedplay yet.
Frankly this is also something i am going to bring up in their Community survey, mostly due to it hitting the wrong units but he.
hotsauceman1 wrote: ITs an Official Rule, part of the FAQ, that added a limit of models per certain points limit.
It isnt a house rule, it is a rule, and like most rules, it is optional.
However, adhering to this rule makes the most sense. Why?
It standardizes play across all games
It's an optional rule specifically for Organized Play events.
Pick up games most definetly aren't Organized Play, by definition.
Actually, they are.
"Hey, want to play a game of 40K?"
"Sure."
Congratulations. You've just organized a game.
Besides, saying that it's for organized play is why most people use it. The perception that it's there to be the most balanced. Why wouldn't you use the most balanced rules?
(Note, I'm going off of general perception, not accusing you of anything)
Don't play that game.
Organized Play is obviously a reference to tournaments, leagues, or other similar things. Not pick up games.
hotsauceman1 wrote: ITs an Official Rule, part of the FAQ, that added a limit of models per certain points limit.
It isnt a house rule, it is a rule, and like most rules, it is optional.
However, adhering to this rule makes the most sense. Why?
It standardizes play across all games
It's an optional rule specifically for Organized Play events.
Pick up games most definetly aren't Organized Play, by definition.
Actually, they are.
"Hey, want to play a game of 40K?"
"Sure."
Congratulations. You've just organized a game.
Besides, saying that it's for organized play is why most people use it. The perception that it's there to be the most balanced. Why wouldn't you use the most balanced rules?
(Note, I'm going off of general perception, not accusing you of anything)
Don't play that game.
Organized Play is obviously a reference to tournaments, leagues, or other similar things. Not pick up games.
Why not? It's not like you're arguing in good faith on the subject.
Eihnlazer wrote: Anyone who isn't using the rule of 3 would quickly change their mind after playing againgst 9 demon princes or 7 calidus grav tanks+ buffer characters.
The issue is the units themselves.
If Daemon Princes were all the sudden 25 points for no rhyme or reason, BUT you were only allowed one, is that balanced?
Mmmpi wrote: It's an official rule, made by the game designers. Nothing about that makes it a house rule.
So are the terrain rules and stratagems in in Urban Conquest. But using them on all games instead only in Urban Conquest missions would be a houserule.
Mmmpi wrote: It's an official rule, made by the game designers. Nothing about that makes it a house rule.
So are the terrain rules and stratagems in in Urban Conquest. But using them on all games instead only in Urban Conquest missions would be a houserule.
Which is why it sucks that GW didn't make the rules officially part of matched play. Oh well.
Eihnlazer wrote: Anyone who isn't using the rule of 3 would quickly change their mind after playing againgst 9 demon princes or 7 calidus grav tanks+ buffer characters.
The issue is the units themselves.
If Daemon Princes were all the sudden 25 points for no rhyme or reason, BUT you were only allowed one, is that balanced?
Army composition plays a part, too. While there are obvious benefits to the current Detachment system in terms of flexibility (sales) and forging the narrative (sales), there are also obvious drawbacks in terms of balance.
ROT would not have been necessary, even in theory, under the old CAD.
Excommunicatus wrote: But not if you expand the term to the point of meaningless, to support an incredibly tenuous 'point'.
Any game of 40K is organized. Obvious bad faith is obvious.
This is not even unclear. The rulebook says 'organised even such as a tournament.' The intent is clear. Though I start to get the feeling that we are arguing with people who have not actually opened the rulebook and have gained all their knowledge of the game via cultural osmosis.
Crimson wrote: So are the terrain rules and stratagems in in Urban Conquest. But using them on all games instead only in Urban Conquest missions would be a houserule.
There is no pure, non-houseruled form form of 40k. Literally every game of 40k involves choosing from types of play formats, missions, army construction, etc. It's not a "house rule" to play with rule of three any more than it's a "house rule" only play power level maelstrom games.
Not all pick up games use organized play rules, but if I were to guess, I would say that the plurality of games of 40k played use Matched Play rules with all beta rules and other organized play elements. Depending on your environment, games played under organized play rule could be the overwhelming majority, or very scarce.
As for the OPs actual question, really, it comes down to the attitude and personality of the people you play with. The rule of 3 is a kludge, a jerry-rigged fix to the issues of balance in 40k. It works reasonably well, and most tournament players support it. Still, the reason it exists is that some units are so good for the points that too many of them is detrimental to the balance of the game. Sometimes it's units that are horribly cost effective (astropaths, mortar heavy weapon squads, ravagers) and others simply have too many layered abilities for their cost (flying hive tyrants, tau commanders). Veterans obviously are not an overpowered or unbalanced unit, so they don't really create a gaming problem. So, people that see rules as a way to prevent harm will allow it, because there is no harm. However, people that see rules as a way to create order will not, because rules are rules. And even then, there's a difference between pick up games (where you're really just agreeing to not play strict organized play) and tournament games.
Excommunicatus, I think you'd agree that a lot of games (not necessarily a majority, but a lot) use Matched Play rules AND the tournament suggestions. I know in my local store, we do.
But, at the same time, can I get the people who are saying "Rule of Three for days!" to agree that the intent of the rule was not to stop players fielding four Veteran squads, and instead designed to stop stuff like PBC spam or Flyrant spam?
Mmmpi wrote: It's an official rule, made by the game designers. Nothing about that makes it a house rule.
So are the terrain rules and stratagems in in Urban Conquest. But using them on all games instead only in Urban Conquest missions would be a houserule.
No, that would be using all of the
Spoiler:
optional
rules. They're still official rules, by the people who make the official rules.
Excommunicatus, I think you'd agree that a lot of games (not necessarily a majority, but a lot) use Matched Play rules AND the tournament suggestions. I know in my local store, we do.
But, at the same time, can I get the people who are saying "Rule of Three for days!" to agree that the intent of the rule was not to stop players fielding four Veteran squads, and instead designed to stop stuff like PBC spam or Flyrant spam?
As far as it goes for people who've said what they play, the majority do use Ro3, and the other suggestion rules. Can't say if it's the majority or not, but it's the vast majority of people who talk about it.
And yeah, it was set up to stop 'good unit' spam. But if it's in effect, it's still a rule. Know your meta and if you think they won't mind, ask. Don't assume?
Rather than the rule of three I wish GW would put hard caps on certain units to make people have to build things closer to the fluff rather than just spamming the most effective things in a codex. Having more than one space marine captain or demon prince on a battlefield should be saved for apoc.
Mmmpi wrote: As far as it goes for people who've said what they play, the majority do use Ro3, and the other suggestion rules. Can't say if it's the majority or not, but it's the vast majority of people who talk about it.
According to a poll I did here on dakka you can safely assume that ~80% of the games are played WITH the "rule of 3". This matches anecdotal evidence and my experience across multiple stores and gaming groups as well.
I find it odd that 3 Heavy Weapon Teams are exactly as scarce as a squadron of Leman Russ tanks.
It also doesn't seem to take into account the available options of different armies.
For example, if Dark Eldar want a Heavy Support choice that brings fire-support, they've got the Ravager... and that's it. Once they've taken 3 they immediately have to move on to other units, many of which are significantly different.
Ah, you say, but that's exactly the point of the rule of 3.
Okay. But now I look at my IG army. If want supporting firepower I can take 3 whole squadrons of Leman Russ tanks, so already I've been allowed 3 times as many Leman Russ as DE are allowed Ravagers (and if I take Command Leman Russes, I can take yet another 3). And when I finally run out of Russes, I can just move on to Basilisks, Manticores etc.
That's not to say I won't play with the Rule of 3, I just think it completely fails to address the problem it was meant to solve. If anything, it seems like a rule that only exists to further punish those armies that receive almost no support from GW.
I find it odd that 3 Heavy Weapon Teams are exactly as scarce as a squadron of Leman Russ tanks.
It also doesn't seem to take into account the available options of different armies.
For example, if Dark Eldar want a Heavy Support choice that brings fire-support, they've got the Ravager... and that's it. Once they've taken 3 they immediately have to move on to other units, many of which are significantly different.
Ah, you say, but that's exactly the point of the rule of 3.
Okay. But now I look at my IG army. If want supporting firepower I can take 3 whole squadrons of Leman Russ tanks, so already I've been allowed 3 times as many Leman Russ as DE are allowed Ravagers (and if I take Command Leman Russes, I can take yet another 3). And when I finally run out of Russes, I can just move on to Basilisks, Manticores etc.
That's not to say I won't play with the Rule of 3, I just think it completely fails to address the problem it was meant to solve. If anything, it seems like a rule that only exists to further punish those armies that receive almost no support from GW.
Yep. And considering how vehemently Dakka hates soup, I find it pretty hilarious that people fail to realise that Ro3 encourages soup and hurts monoarmies.
To the OP, it depends entirely on your group. If you and I were to play a pick up game I would be fine with it, so long as you were willing to let me do the same. I might do so, I might not.
I travel a lot (35-40 weeks a year) for work, so a lot of my week night games are against opponents I have never met before. In game stores at least the Ro3 is in my experience, without exception, the way pick up games are played by opponents that will square off against someone dropping in on a Wednesday from out of state.
My core group of opponents at home is of course a bunch of buggers who love to push all organised play rules all the while abusing all of the vehicle squadron / daemon prince etc Ro3 loopholes. Which is just proof that while the Ro3 might of had the right intent, it fails to prevent the abuse it was designed to stop. Its a bad rule.
In my opinion the offending units should be limited to one per detachment (de facto Ro3) while still allowing for the great majority of units to take advantage of the 8ed detachments. Leaving it untouched as a Beta rule isn't really helping anyone.
I find it odd that 3 Heavy Weapon Teams are exactly as scarce as a squadron of Leman Russ tanks.
It also doesn't seem to take into account the available options of different armies.
For example, if Dark Eldar want a Heavy Support choice that brings fire-support, they've got the Ravager... and that's it. Once they've taken 3 they immediately have to move on to other units, many of which are significantly different.
Ah, you say, but that's exactly the point of the rule of 3.
Okay. But now I look at my IG army. If want supporting firepower I can take 3 whole squadrons of Leman Russ tanks, so already I've been allowed 3 times as many Leman Russ as DE are allowed Ravagers (and if I take Command Leman Russes, I can take yet another 3). And when I finally run out of Russes, I can just move on to Basilisks, Manticores etc.
That's not to say I won't play with the Rule of 3, I just think it completely fails to address the problem it was meant to solve. If anything, it seems like a rule that only exists to further punish those armies that receive almost no support from GW.
Yep. And considering how vehemently Dakka hates soup, I find it pretty hilarious that people fail to realise that Ro3 encourages soup and hurts monoarmies.
I know! It's almost as though a hard cap on all units doesn't actually stop the broken units from being broken! Big think
Crimson wrote: Yep. And considering how vehemently Dakka hates soup, I find it pretty hilarious that people fail to realise that Ro3 encourages soup and hurts monoarmies.
In my opinion the offending units should be limited to one per detachment (de facto Ro3) while still allowing for the great majority of units to take advantage of the 8ed detachments. Leaving it untouched as a Beta rule isn't really helping anyone.
The thing is, the whole mix of army-building methods just feels like a complete mess.
We've got this mass of detachments that were seemingly introduced to give players more freedom to build their armies how they wanted . . . but then they also added the Rule of 3 to limit army building. Why? What's the point? Why not just have a more restrictive detachment system in the first place?
Alternatively, why not abandon detachments entirely and have something along the lines of Warmachine - where each individual unit is a limit (Unique, 2-per-army, 3-per-army, unlimited), but that's basically the only restriction?
It's the classic GW problem of tacking on more bad rules, rather than fixing whatever is causing issues in the first place.
Crimson wrote: Yep. And considering how vehemently Dakka hates soup, I find it pretty hilarious that people fail to realise that Ro3 encourages soup and hurts monoarmies.
Fortunately there's an easy solution: ban soup, keep Ro3.
Crimson wrote: Yep. And considering how vehemently Dakka hates soup, I find it pretty hilarious that people fail to realise that Ro3 encourages soup and hurts monoarmies.
Fortunately there's an easy solution: ban soup, keep Ro3.
And feth over people like Dark Eldar, while barely touching Marines or IG? (Marines because they have more options in a single slot than some armies have total, IG because of squadrons.)
JNAProductions wrote: And feth over people like Dark Eldar, while barely touching Marines or IG? (Marines because they have more options in a single slot than some armies have total, IG because of squadrons.)
I would be fine with removing squadrons now that 8th edition treats them as individual units anyway. It's an obsolete rule from an era when split fire didn't exist and overkill damage from destroying one vehicle carried over to the next vehicle in the squadron.
Crimson wrote: Yep. And considering how vehemently Dakka hates soup, I find it pretty hilarious that people fail to realise that Ro3 encourages soup and hurts monoarmies.
Fortunately there's an easy solution: ban soup, keep Ro3.
Nope. Some armies have way more unit options, thus are way less hampered by Ro3 than others. DE struggle with it, Harlequins are crippled by it, Guard or Marines barely notice it.
vipoid wrote: We've got this mass of detachments that were seemingly introduced to give players more freedom to build their armies how they wanted . . . but then they also added the Rule of 3 to limit army building. Why? What's the point? Why not just have a more restrictive detachment system in the first place?
I'm all for ditching the Ro3. Not all lists are created equally though, some armies are more dependent on specific slots than others, bringing back the FoC or something like it doesn't account for this and will punish some armies more than others just like the Ro3 does.
vipoid wrote: We've got this mass of detachments that were seemingly introduced to give players more freedom to build their armies how they wanted . . . but then they also added the Rule of 3 to limit army building. Why? What's the point? Why not just have a more restrictive detachment system in the first place?
I'm all for ditching the Ro3. Not all lists are created equally though, some armies are more dependent on specific slots than others, bringing back the FoC or something like it doesn't account for this and will punish some armies more than others just like the Ro3 does.
All Rule of Three does is, well, nothing. Broken units will continue to be broken if they're not at the appropriate cost, not if the opponent is only allowed three of them.
That's why I brought up the worst hyperbole I could. Let's say a Daemon Prince was only 50 points with weapons and all. If I slap "You can only take one in your army" on it, does that make it okay?
vipoid wrote: We've got this mass of detachments that were seemingly introduced to give players more freedom to build their armies how they wanted . . . but then they also added the Rule of 3 to limit army building. Why? What's the point? Why not just have a more restrictive detachment system in the first place?
I'm all for ditching the Ro3. Not all lists are created equally though, some armies are more dependent on specific slots than others, bringing back the FoC or something like it doesn't account for this and will punish some armies more than others just like the Ro3 does.
All Rule of Three does is, well, nothing. Broken units will continue to be broken if they're not at the appropriate cost, not if the opponent is only allowed three of them.
That's why I brought up the worst hyperbole I could. Let's say a Daemon Prince was only 50 points with weapons and all. If I slap "You can only take one in your army" on it, does that make it okay?
It does, to an extent, help. In theory.
If you're limited to three of a unit, it makes it harder to do full skew lists. If, for instance, your Codex has only one T8 option and it's 300 points, that's at most 900 points of T8 in your army before soup. So, if the rest of your force is between T3 and T5, small arms fire has a point against you.
Now, that's obviously not true IN PRACTICE. But in THEORY it helps.
vipoid wrote: We've got this mass of detachments that were seemingly introduced to give players more freedom to build their armies how they wanted . . . but then they also added the Rule of 3 to limit army building. Why? What's the point? Why not just have a more restrictive detachment system in the first place?
I'm all for ditching the Ro3. Not all lists are created equally though, some armies are more dependent on specific slots than others, bringing back the FoC or something like it doesn't account for this and will punish some armies more than others just like the Ro3 does.
All Rule of Three does is, well, nothing. Broken units will continue to be broken if they're not at the appropriate cost, not if the opponent is only allowed three of them.
That's why I brought up the worst hyperbole I could. Let's say a Daemon Prince was only 50 points with weapons and all. If I slap "You can only take one in your army" on it, does that make it okay?
It does, to an extent, help. In theory.
If you're limited to three of a unit, it makes it harder to do full skew lists. If, for instance, your Codex has only one T8 option and it's 300 points, that's at most 900 points of T8 in your army before soup. So, if the rest of your force is between T3 and T5, small arms fire has a point against you.
Now, that's obviously not true IN PRACTICE. But in THEORY it helps.
That doesn't make sense in theory either because we don't know what this T8 unit actually is. If it had like 100 wounds and 10 TL Heavy Bolters it wouldn't matter if it were a "skew" list or not. You can already make skew lists like that with most of the codices already.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That doesn't make sense in theory either because we don't know what this T8 unit actually is. If it had like 100 wounds and 10 TL Heavy Bolters it wouldn't matter if it were a "skew" list or not. You can already make skew lists like that with most of the codices already.
That's just an example of a horribly broken unit.
All I'm saying is that, despite the fact that Rule of Three does very little to stop skew lists in 40k as it stands, it does have a THEORETICAL good use.
I do agree that horribly broken units are broken whether they're limited or fully available, but that doesn't mean that limits have absolutely no place in a wargame.
Well based on a lot of feedback, I just decided to cut back on veteran squads and just take several infantry squads. To make it more fluffy, I'll garrison the veterans in the Stormlord while the normal rabble get stuffed in the chimera's.
Until the day when Ro3 is either gone or amended to exclude units like veterans, that's how it is going to have to be.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I know! It's almost as though a hard cap on all units doesn't actually stop the broken units from being broken! Big think
You do know that there is such a thing as game pieces getting more powerful the more of them you play? As soon as you allow unlimited list building you must put a hard cap on each single datasheet, otherwise playing big amounts of a single datasheet might become broken, despite the single unit not being broken. This is a hard fact and has been proven by many, many games. Almost every game with a deck-building component that tried to go without a hard cap on single cards has had the same issues as WH40k with their flyrant spam, commander spam, PBC spam.
If you think that WH40k list building is any different from building a deck out of cards because is WH40k is a unique special snowflake... let's say you should do some research on game design before talking about it.
There is such a thing as units getting too powerful when being played 6+ times which are a non-issue when played in threes. Repeating your opinion three times per page in every thread on this topic doesn't make you any less wrong.
Is the rule of 3 badly implemented because squadrons and datasheet variants(DP, carnifexes, battlewagons) can get around it? Yes.
Is balance with Ro3 worse than without? Hard no.
And this is all that matters to people. More balanced is better than less balance, even if some units get caught in the blast.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I know! It's almost as though a hard cap on all units doesn't actually stop the broken units from being broken! Big think
You do know that there is such a thing as game pieces getting more powerful the more of them you play? As soon as you allow unlimited list building you must put a hard cap on each single datasheet, otherwise playing big amounts of a single datasheet might become broken, despite the single unit not being broken. This is a hard fact and has been proven by many, many games. Almost every game with a deck-building component that tried to go without a hard cap on single cards has had the same issues as WH40k with their flyrant spam, commander spam, PBC spam.
If you think that WH40k list building is any different from building a deck out of cards because is WH40k is a unique special snowflake... let's say you should do some research on game design before talking about it.
There is such a thing as units getting too powerful when being played 6+ times which are a non-issue when played in threes. Repeating your opinion three times per page in every thread on this topic doesn't make you any less wrong.
Is the rule of 3 badly implemented because squadrons and datasheet variants(DP, carnifexes, battlewagons) can get around it? Yes.
Is balance with Ro3 worse than without? Hard no.
And this is all that matters to people. More balanced is better than less balance, even if some units get caught in the blast.
The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
AnomanderRake wrote: The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Tau commanders were limited before the Ro3, and there are more units that made the Rule Of 3 necessary. At the same tournament that made GW aware of the hive tyrand problem, there was a high-placing list with 8 PBC, as well as dark reaper and shining spear spam. There are also tons of spamable HQ units, like dawn eagle captains, GMDK or TS daemon princes. There was also scion spam and storm raven spam, each needed to be handled by their own rule to nerf them.
So saying that spam is not a problem in 8th edition is flat out wrong.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
So, if nothing is affected and at least one unit is nerfed by it, there is no reason not to use it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I know! It's almost as though a hard cap on all units doesn't actually stop the broken units from being broken! Big think
You do know that there is such a thing as game pieces getting more powerful the more of them you play? As soon as you allow unlimited list building you must put a hard cap on each single datasheet, otherwise playing big amounts of a single datasheet might become broken, despite the single unit not being broken. This is a hard fact and has been proven by many, many games. Almost every game with a deck-building component that tried to go without a hard cap on single cards has had the same issues as WH40k with their flyrant spam, commander spam, PBC spam.
If you think that WH40k list building is any different from building a deck out of cards because is WH40k is a unique special snowflake... let's say you should do some research on game design before talking about it.
There is such a thing as units getting too powerful when being played 6+ times which are a non-issue when played in threes. Repeating your opinion three times per page in every thread on this topic doesn't make you any less wrong.
Is the rule of 3 badly implemented because squadrons and datasheet variants(DP, carnifexes, battlewagons) can get around it? Yes.
Is balance with Ro3 worse than without? Hard no.
And this is all that matters to people. More balanced is better than less balance, even if some units get caught in the blast.
The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
Nah, there were other problem units. Remember that list with I think it was 7 Dark Talons that was doing rather well?
Look, it's not perfect. But it keeps a bunch of degenerate lists in check. Sure, some still slip through. Could probably do with tightening up still. But I'm very glad it's a thing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I know! It's almost as though a hard cap on all units doesn't actually stop the broken units from being broken! Big think
You do know that there is such a thing as game pieces getting more powerful the more of them you play? As soon as you allow unlimited list building you must put a hard cap on each single datasheet, otherwise playing big amounts of a single datasheet might become broken, despite the single unit not being broken. This is a hard fact and has been proven by many, many games. Almost every game with a deck-building component that tried to go without a hard cap on single cards has had the same issues as WH40k with their flyrant spam, commander spam, PBC spam.
If you think that WH40k list building is any different from building a deck out of cards because is WH40k is a unique special snowflake... let's say you should do some research on game design before talking about it.
There is such a thing as units getting too powerful when being played 6+ times which are a non-issue when played in threes. Repeating your opinion three times per page in every thread on this topic doesn't make you any less wrong.
Is the rule of 3 badly implemented because squadrons and datasheet variants(DP, carnifexes, battlewagons) can get around it? Yes.
Is balance with Ro3 worse than without? Hard no.
And this is all that matters to people. More balanced is better than less balance, even if some units get caught in the blast.
The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
Nah, there were other problem units. Remember that list with I think it was 7 Dark Talons that was doing rather well?
Look, it's not perfect. But it keeps a bunch of degenerate lists in check. Sure, some still slip through. Could probably do with tightening up still. But I'm very glad it's a thing.
frankly, some hard limits on certain units wouldn't hurt.
(%based, or o-1, etc.)
The rule as it stands still doesn't hurt certain lists as much as it should whilest also punishing lists that would regularly not ben an issue.
Limits like 0-1 or similiar might also make units which are outliers more easily balancable due to their more restricted availability.
AnomanderRake wrote: The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Tau commanders were limited before the Ro3, and there are more units that made the Rule Of 3 necessary. At the same tournament that made GW aware of the hive tyrand problem, there was a high-placing list with 8 PBC, as well as dark reaper and shining spear spam. There are also tons of spamable HQ units, like dawn eagle captains, GMDK or TS daemon princes. There was also scion spam and storm raven spam, each needed to be handled by their own rule to nerf them.
So saying that spam is not a problem in 8th edition is flat out wrong.
Dawneagle Captain-spam was a joke list and pretty effectively nerfed by the changes to character targeting anyway (you can't prevent the other guy from shooting the damaged one by parking the undamaged one in front anymore). And the main reason people take three Captains is because Custodian infantry are expensive and bad, which means the Supreme Command detachment is a better way of getting them into a list than spending the thousand points you'd need to take an Outrider detachment or wasting a hundred and fifty points on a pointless Guard squad.
Dark Reapers/Shining Spears are rendered powerful by Soulburst actions (now limited to one of each variety per turn) and psychic powers/stratagems (always limited to one of each per turn). The more different units you take the worse the Soulburst action/psychic power is (since you aren't taking max squads) and the worse subsequent units are (since they don't have rerolls/save bonuses/to-hit penalties/shoot-and-scoot).
Stormraven-spam was powerful in the Index, before Dawneagles, before the Knight-Castellan, before Russes and Fire Prisms got price drops and double shots...I have a sneaking suspicion if you tried to run a five-Stormravens-and-Guilliman list today you'd see one or two Stormravens crashing every turn. Not to mention the fact that they have to stop (giving up Hard to Hit and unchargeability) to score.
I don't see how the GMDK is that big of a problem given the diminishing returns on taking more psykers and given that the Rule of 3 still allows six Dreadknights. People spammed them more because there are no other playable units in that army book than anything else; similarly Thousand Sons Daemon Princes are much more of a spam threat because the rest of the book (Rubrics, vehicles) are kind of crap. Those two are more internal problems than external problems and would be fixed if you fixed their army books.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
So, if nothing is affected and at least one unit is nerfed by it, there is no reason not to use it.
The most nonsensical thing about the Rule of 3 is the arbitrary divisions between which tanks can be taken in squadrons and which can't, or which tanks are separate datasheets and which are weapon options on the same datasheet. If the Rule of 3 is necessary for game balance you're telling me that nine Russes are completely fair but four Onagers would be broken, and that it's totally okay if I take twelve Predators but if any more than three of them have flamers the game would collapse, unless I'm playing Blood Angels and then it's fine. There are also a lot of units (Guard Veterans, Servitors, Assault Marines, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Sisters of Silence...) that could allow for interesting build variety if you were allowed to take more of them.
I'd rather see instead of the Rule of 3 a generalization of the Tau Commander rule that says you can't have duplicate HQ datasheets within detachments (or in the case of Tau Commanders only one thing with the Commander keyword); it'd catch out things like Flyrants and Tau Commanders that are issues when spammed, patch gibberish soup builds with Supreme Command detachments of upper-tier SM/Custodes characters running about with armies of Guardsmen or three Thousand Sons daemon princes deciding it'd be fun to leave their own armies behind and hang out with a Death Guard army, and wouldn't interfere with people who want to do sensible things that involve having a large number of duplicate non-Troops units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: ...Nah, there were other problem units. Remember that list with I think it was 7 Dark Talons that was doing rather well?
Look, it's not perfect. But it keeps a bunch of degenerate lists in check. Sure, some still slip through. Could probably do with tightening up still. But I'm very glad it's a thing.
I'm reasonably certain that SM flyer-spam was only really a thing before the scoring nerf came down, and neither the scoring nerf nor the Rule of 3 has put a crimp in Eldar flyer-spam simply because they have three datasheets' worth of good airplanes.
Stux wrote: I'd be ok with that, works in Kill Team. Could make it all detachment based even, like the Tau Commander rule.
I guess nearly everything would be better then the band aid we got now, except for no rule at all.
There should not be any reason f.e. to not allow more then 3 termi squads beeing played , etc. At the same time the DP sheets should get a uniified keyword and then stopped there to succesfuully curb them there a bit.
AnomanderRake wrote: The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Tau commanders were limited before the Ro3, and there are more units that made the Rule Of 3 necessary. At the same tournament that made GW aware of the hive tyrand problem, there was a high-placing list with 8 PBC, as well as dark reaper and shining spear spam. There are also tons of spamable HQ units, like dawn eagle captains, GMDK or TS daemon princes. There was also scion spam and storm raven spam, each needed to be handled by their own rule to nerf them.
So saying that spam is not a problem in 8th edition is flat out wrong.
Dawneagle Captain-spam was a joke list and pretty effectively nerfed by the changes to character targeting anyway (you can't prevent the other guy from shooting the damaged one by parking the undamaged one in front anymore). And the main reason people take three Captains is because Custodian infantry are expensive and bad, which means the Supreme Command detachment is a better way of getting them into a list than spending the thousand points you'd need to take an Outrider detachment or wasting a hundred and fifty points on a pointless Guard squad.
Dark Reapers/Shining Spears are rendered powerful by Soulburst actions (now limited to one of each variety per turn) and psychic powers/stratagems (always limited to one of each per turn). The more different units you take the worse the Soulburst action/psychic power is (since you aren't taking max squads) and the worse subsequent units are (since they don't have rerolls/save bonuses/to-hit penalties/shoot-and-scoot).
Stormraven-spam was powerful in the Index, before Dawneagles, before the Knight-Castellan, before Russes and Fire Prisms got price drops and double shots...I have a sneaking suspicion if you tried to run a five-Stormravens-and-Guilliman list today you'd see one or two Stormravens crashing every turn. Not to mention the fact that they have to stop (giving up Hard to Hit and unchargeability) to score.
I don't see how the GMDK is that big of a problem given the diminishing returns on taking more psykers and given that the Rule of 3 still allows six Dreadknights. People spammed them more because there are no other playable units in that army book than anything else; similarly Thousand Sons Daemon Princes are much more of a spam threat because the rest of the book (Rubrics, vehicles) are kind of crap. Those two are more internal problems than external problems and would be fixed if you fixed their army books.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
So, if nothing is affected and at least one unit is nerfed by it, there is no reason not to use it.
The most nonsensical thing about the Rule of 3 is the arbitrary divisions between which tanks can be taken in squadrons and which can't, or which tanks are separate datasheets and which are weapon options on the same datasheet. If the Rule of 3 is necessary for game balance you're telling me that nine Russes are completely fair but four Onagers would be broken, and that it's totally okay if I take twelve Predators but if any more than three of them have flamers the game would collapse, unless I'm playing Blood Angels and then it's fine. There are also a lot of units (Guard Veterans, Servitors, Assault Marines, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Sisters of Silence...) that could allow for interesting build variety if you were allowed to take more of them.
I'd rather see instead of the Rule of 3 a generalization of the Tau Commander rule that says you can't have duplicate HQ datasheets within detachments (or in the case of Tau Commanders only one thing with the Commander keyword); it'd catch out things like Flyrants and Tau Commanders that are issues when spammed, patch gibberish soup builds with Supreme Command detachments of upper-tier SM/Custodes characters running about with armies of Guardsmen or three Thousand Sons daemon princes deciding it'd be fun to leave their own armies behind and hang out with a Death Guard army, and wouldn't interfere with people who want to do sensible things that involve having a large number of duplicate non-Troops units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: ...Nah, there were other problem units. Remember that list with I think it was 7 Dark Talons that was doing rather well?
Look, it's not perfect. But it keeps a bunch of degenerate lists in check. Sure, some still slip through. Could probably do with tightening up still. But I'm very glad it's a thing.
I'm reasonably certain that SM flyer-spam was only really a thing before the scoring nerf came down, and neither the scoring nerf nor the Rule of 3 has put a crimp in Eldar flyer-spam simply because they have three datasheets' worth of good airplanes.
Even if I ignore that you get half your facts wrong and have no clue what some units do, you just provide the same fallacy as many other posters. Just because the rule is not the perfect, sensible solution to everything, doesn't mean it makes the game worse.
WH40k with Ro3 is still better than WH40k without it because unit spam has been a problem and will continue to be one unless you put a limit on datasheets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: There should not be any reason f.e. to not allow more then 3 termi squads beeing played , etc. At the same time the DP sheets should get a uniified keyword and then stopped there to succesfuully curb them there a bit.
I have yet to see a single battle report of some one getting curb-stomped by the fabled 9 daemon prince list.
Yet, you still think that there should be a rule of three for daemon princes, but not for terminators. Which feels pretty hypocritical, considering that chaos can field 9 units of terminators for the same reasons they can field 9 daemon princes. Loyalist marines can field 12 units of terminators without even adding a second codex. Imperium can have a total of 33 Terminator squads by combining codex marines, dark angels and space wolves. I guess someone put a stop to that as well.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
Yes I know I’ll get the inevitable- “But Grimtuff, I started in 3rd and I hate the Ro3!” Yes, I know there will be exceptions but this is just a general observation both from online and IRL.
Ro3 is good IMO. Yes there are certain things that are caught in the crossfire, such as Heavy weapon teams; but that’s a symptom of the dafty rescission to do away with platoons for IG and not inherently the Ro3’s fault.
As for the OPs question- well it depends. With all my opponents I tend to vet them as I don’t get a lot of opportunities to play right now. If you’re a long term friend- yup, I’ll allow it. If you’re some rando I’ll be incredibly wary as I’ll wonder what other rules you want to bend. Now this is normally harmless, but I refer you back to the beginning of this paragraph and I’ve been burned before.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
I think the fact it is listed as a "organised play" rule suggests that GW are listening to those who want balance over fluff (ie it is not meant in any way to represent scarcity of units) but making a rather ham fisted job of it. Essentially removing list organisation slots and 1+/0-1 limits has created this mess, obviously there's a reason for that (if people didn't want it it wouldn't sell miniatures) but I think it hurts the game overall.
I've not played a huge amount of games of 8th but it's never been a necessary rule as far as i remember, that's just not how our lists have been constructed (yes peregrine I am virtue signalling at you super hard right now).
AnomanderRake wrote: The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Tau commanders were limited before the Ro3, and there are more units that made the Rule Of 3 necessary. At the same tournament that made GW aware of the hive tyrand problem, there was a high-placing list with 8 PBC, as well as dark reaper and shining spear spam. There are also tons of spamable HQ units, like dawn eagle captains, GMDK or TS daemon princes. There was also scion spam and storm raven spam, each needed to be handled by their own rule to nerf them.
So saying that spam is not a problem in 8th edition is flat out wrong.
Dawneagle Captain-spam was a joke list and pretty effectively nerfed by the changes to character targeting anyway (you can't prevent the other guy from shooting the damaged one by parking the undamaged one in front anymore). And the main reason people take three Captains is because Custodian infantry are expensive and bad, which means the Supreme Command detachment is a better way of getting them into a list than spending the thousand points you'd need to take an Outrider detachment or wasting a hundred and fifty points on a pointless Guard squad.
Dark Reapers/Shining Spears are rendered powerful by Soulburst actions (now limited to one of each variety per turn) and psychic powers/stratagems (always limited to one of each per turn). The more different units you take the worse the Soulburst action/psychic power is (since you aren't taking max squads) and the worse subsequent units are (since they don't have rerolls/save bonuses/to-hit penalties/shoot-and-scoot).
Stormraven-spam was powerful in the Index, before Dawneagles, before the Knight-Castellan, before Russes and Fire Prisms got price drops and double shots...I have a sneaking suspicion if you tried to run a five-Stormravens-and-Guilliman list today you'd see one or two Stormravens crashing every turn. Not to mention the fact that they have to stop (giving up Hard to Hit and unchargeability) to score.
I don't see how the GMDK is that big of a problem given the diminishing returns on taking more psykers and given that the Rule of 3 still allows six Dreadknights. People spammed them more because there are no other playable units in that army book than anything else; similarly Thousand Sons Daemon Princes are much more of a spam threat because the rest of the book (Rubrics, vehicles) are kind of crap. Those two are more internal problems than external problems and would be fixed if you fixed their army books.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
So, if nothing is affected and at least one unit is nerfed by it, there is no reason not to use it.
The most nonsensical thing about the Rule of 3 is the arbitrary divisions between which tanks can be taken in squadrons and which can't, or which tanks are separate datasheets and which are weapon options on the same datasheet. If the Rule of 3 is necessary for game balance you're telling me that nine Russes are completely fair but four Onagers would be broken, and that it's totally okay if I take twelve Predators but if any more than three of them have flamers the game would collapse, unless I'm playing Blood Angels and then it's fine. There are also a lot of units (Guard Veterans, Servitors, Assault Marines, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Sisters of Silence...) that could allow for interesting build variety if you were allowed to take more of them.
I'd rather see instead of the Rule of 3 a generalization of the Tau Commander rule that says you can't have duplicate HQ datasheets within detachments (or in the case of Tau Commanders only one thing with the Commander keyword); it'd catch out things like Flyrants and Tau Commanders that are issues when spammed, patch gibberish soup builds with Supreme Command detachments of upper-tier SM/Custodes characters running about with armies of Guardsmen or three Thousand Sons daemon princes deciding it'd be fun to leave their own armies behind and hang out with a Death Guard army, and wouldn't interfere with people who want to do sensible things that involve having a large number of duplicate non-Troops units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: ...Nah, there were other problem units. Remember that list with I think it was 7 Dark Talons that was doing rather well?
Look, it's not perfect. But it keeps a bunch of degenerate lists in check. Sure, some still slip through. Could probably do with tightening up still. But I'm very glad it's a thing.
I'm reasonably certain that SM flyer-spam was only really a thing before the scoring nerf came down, and neither the scoring nerf nor the Rule of 3 has put a crimp in Eldar flyer-spam simply because they have three datasheets' worth of good airplanes.
Even if I ignore that you get half your facts wrong and have no clue what some units do, you just provide the same fallacy as many other posters. Just because the rule is not the perfect, sensible solution to everything, doesn't mean it makes the game worse.
WH40k with Ro3 is still better than WH40k without it because unit spam has been a problem and will continue to be one unless you put a limit on datasheets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: There should not be any reason f.e. to not allow more then 3 termi squads beeing played , etc. At the same time the DP sheets should get a uniified keyword and then stopped there to succesfuully curb them there a bit.
I have yet to see a single battle report of some one getting curb-stomped by the fabled 9 daemon prince list.
Yet, you still think that there should be a rule of three for daemon princes, but not for terminators. Which feels pretty hypocritical, considering that chaos can field 9 units of terminators for the same reasons they can field 9 daemon princes. Loyalist marines can field 12 units of terminators without even adding a second codex. Imperium can have a total of 33 Terminator squads by combining codex marines, dark angels and space wolves. I guess someone put a stop to that as well.
First off, hypocritical, i am not so shove your ad hominem where the Sun don't shine.
Secondly, reigning in the outliers, which are 95% HQ UNITS would've allready been a better option.
You don't use a sledgehammer on a screw now do you? Fix the problem units, and problem detachments.
Also thirdly i meant coherent terminators, but please missrepresent me more, so go take a hike.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
List them. List all of them, then, if it's so easy.
Crimson wrote: Considering that 'rule of three' isn't a real rule, I would be fine with this.
There however are a lot of rude people who want to impose their houserule of using tournament suggestions outside tournaments on others.
Its not rude to expect a uniform set of rules in matched play. Open play and Narrative play are a thing, I play every other week with my FLGS owner when its not his weekend to work and he plays Orks and of course he always wants to use looted rules and I let him because its a fun game.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
List them. List all of them, then, if it's so easy.
Jidmah wrote: ...Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
Until the Rule of 3 GW was fixing the units that were broken. The Rule of 3 allows GW to pat themselves on the back, say "yay we fixed everything", and go to the pub in the fewest words' worth of rules. It's like how they made you generate powers randomly in 7th and restrict you to one cast attempt per power per turn in 8th to limit the impact of broken psychic powers instead of fixing the broken psychic powers and render the whole system screwy and nonsensical as a result.
RO3 was unironically one of the best things to happen to matched play.
There are units that can be appropriately pointed when you take 1-3 that become absolutely unbearable when you are allowed to take unlimited numbers of them. See mortar squads as an example. Even without a price hike, they show up a lot less in lists now that you can't take18+ bases worth of them. Because even though they're still cheap in points, they can't get the volume of fire that would let them break through even targets that are traditionally inefficient to shoot them with. In addition, having them capped makes your opponent able to actually do something about it. Killing 1-3 PBC's is possible, killing 6-9 is a freaking nightmare.
Flying Hive Tyrants is the classic example. What point cost would have made taking 5+ impossible, while still make taking 1-3 not trash? They're relatively fragile, have no character protection, but can kill pretty decently. By limiting them to a cap of three, your opponent has an opportunity to reduce them before they hit their lines. Killing 1-2 on approach when they have 3 versus killing 1-2 on approach when they have 7 is a huge difference in that unit's effectiveness.
.
Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam.
Personally, I wish they had done unit by unit restrictions instead, but Ro3 solved a lot of problems in one go and I'm glad it's there.
RogueApiary wrote: ...Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam...
I don't keep bringing it up because it's a boogeyman, I keep bringing it up because I find limiting Predators/Vindicators/Onagers/most other tanks to 0-3 but not limiting Russes kind of nonsensical.
Jidmah wrote: ...Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
Until the Rule of 3 GW was fixing the units that were broken. The Rule of 3 allows GW to pat themselves on the back, say "yay we fixed everything", and go to the pub in the fewest words' worth of rules.
They basically nerfed everything that got spammed to no longer be played at all. In WH40k any highly durable or glass cannon unit gets more powerful when spammed, the only way to prevent this is to nerf all of them to oblivion so only generalist units remain.
Putting a limit on all datasheets is a proven concept across many games, and lots of those employ better rule-writers than GW does.
RogueApiary wrote: ...Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam...
I don't keep bringing it up because it's a boogeyman, I keep bringing it up because I find limiting Predators/Vindicators/Onagers/most other tanks to 0-3 but not limiting Russes kind of nonsensical.
So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
List them. List all of them, then, if it's so easy.
RogueApiary wrote: ...Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam...
I don't keep bringing it up because it's a boogeyman, I keep bringing it up because I find limiting Predators/Vindicators/Onagers/most other tanks to 0-3 but not limiting Russes kind of nonsensical.
So do you want more than three of those tanks? Or do you just want the LR to not have squadroning? Because the former ain't happening as long as Bobby G/Cawl are around and the latter is de facto not happening because LR's are frankly not worth spamming (at least not in competitive). If the Castellan Nerf somehow allows for LR spam to be a thing, I'll happily welcome the loss of squadroning on their Datasheets.
Jidmah wrote: So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
Yes, it is. It puts nonsensical and arbitrary limitations on what models you're allowed to bring, and those limitations do not apply to all factions in any logical or fair manner.
Jidmah wrote: So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
Yes, it is. It puts nonsensical and arbitrary limitations on what models you're allowed to bring, and those limitations do not apply to all factions in any logical or fair manner.
Man, it's almost like you can remove some or all of those 'nonsensical and arbitrary' limitations for your house/FLGS games at will. Hell, playing with 2000 points is an 'arbitrary' limitation. Pretty much every aspect of the game is an arbitrary limitation because none of it is based on anything resembling reality. As for the competitive side of things, I can guarantee if Predators did not have a RO3 restriction I'd take a whole heaping bunch of them surrounding Bobby G. BS 3+ to hit, rerolling all hits and wounds with +1 to wound and 4D? Yes, please! So yes, I am in favor of 'nonsensical and arbitrary' limitations as long as the upside is that stupid spammy gak isn't opposite of me at every table. 6+ PBC's was absolute cancer to fight against.
You feel the fact that guard vehicles can be taken in squadrons is unfair, yet, nobody is running mass tank Guard. So, what you're really just looking for is something to whinge about on paper rather than anything that actually happens in game. This guy can theoretically take nine tanks when I can only take three, totally unfair!
Vets should never have been moved out of the troop slot. It was a cynical swap by GW to push scions and side line a unit they don't technically sell a kit for.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
Yes I know I’ll get the inevitable- “But Grimtuff, I started in 3rd and I hate the Ro3!” Yes, I know there will be exceptions but this is just a general observation both from online and IRL.
Ro3 is good IMO. Yes there are certain things that are caught in the crossfire, such as Heavy weapon teams; but that’s a symptom of the dafty rescission to do away with platoons for IG and not inherently the Ro3’s fault.
As for the OPs question- well it depends. With all my opponents I tend to vet them as I don’t get a lot of opportunities to play right now. If you’re a long term friend- yup, I’ll allow it. If you’re some rando I’ll be incredibly wary as I’ll wonder what other rules you want to bend. Now this is normally harmless, but I refer you back to the beginning of this paragraph and I’ve been burned before.
Would agree with you. I started around 3rd and was actually surprised the Ro3 wasn't around at the start of 8th. I do feel as well that most of the issues with the Ro3 hurting certain undeserving units is caused by the fact that the Ro3 wasn't a thing when the units were placed in the codex as they were. Like the argued of Vets, no one would fear mass units of guard veterans but because they aren't troops anymore they are caught in that net all the same. I could see the heavy weapon squads being an undeserving casualty but also maybe a bit desering with how abused mortars were. Just sucks for me as I have a ton of heavy weapons and very few now see the light of the day.
Crimson wrote: Considering that 'rule of three' isn't a real rule, I would be fine with this.
There however are a lot of rude people who want to impose their houserule of using tournament suggestions outside tournaments on others.
Its not rude to expect a uniform set of rules in matched play. Open play and Narrative play are a thing, I play every other week with my FLGS owner when its not his weekend to work and he plays Orks and of course he always wants to use looted rules and I let him because its a fun game.
There are a uniform set of rules for Matched Play - they're called the rules for Matched Play.
What Crimson is referring to is people implementing the additional set of rules listed as "Matched Play rules for organised events" (I'm paraphrasing the title as I still can't get the damned Rulebook errata file to open, regardless of browser or device...) on games which are not organised events...
Jidmah wrote: So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
Yes, it is. It puts nonsensical and arbitrary limitations on what models you're allowed to bring, and those limitations do not apply to all factions in any logical or fair manner.
Theoretical and moral problems have no impact on the quality of the game.
In all threads on these topics, the naysayers have failed to provide even a single battle report where these missing limitation on LRBT, daemon princes or other similar units have actually caused problems, while there a plenty of samples of real problems that have been reigned in by the rule of 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: What Crimson is referring to is people implementing the additional set of rules listed as "Matched Play rules for organised events" (I'm paraphrasing the title as I still can't get the damned Rulebook errata file to open, regardless of browser or device...) on games which are not organised events...
As already established, when playing matched play anywhere outside of your home, you can assume that you are expected to follow the rule of 3. It really doesn't matter in what category GW puts a rule when more than 80% of the community uses it in their default games.
Theoretical and moral problems have no impact on the quality of the game.
Of course they do.
In all threads on these topics, the naysayers have failed to provide even a single battle report where these missing limitation on LRBT, daemon princes or other similar units have actually caused problems, while there a plenty of samples of real problems that have been reigned in by the rule of 3.
Nor would four Onagers cause any problem. Or indeed four IG veteran squads, which started this whole thread!
As already established, when playing matched play anywhere outside of your home, you can assume that you are expected to follow the rule of 3. It really doesn't matter in what category GW puts a rule when more than 80% of the community uses it in their default games.
It has not been established. Dakka polls are not indicative of the playerbase as a whole. Dakka has far higher concentration on wannabe tournament tryhards than the gaming population as a whole. Also, the whole 'most people used so so should you' argument is completely circular anyway. There is a loud contingent on Dakka who tell everybody they should use this rule, going so far as lying that it is a normal matched play rule. They're literally spreading misinformation of the game rules to ensure the prevalence of their preferred houserule.
In all threads on these topics, the naysayers have failed to provide even a single battle report where these missing limitation on LRBT, daemon princes or other similar units have actually caused problems, while there a plenty of samples of real problems that have been reigned in by the rule of 3.
Nor would four Onagers cause any problem. Or indeed four IG veteran squads, [i]which started this whole thread!
I asked you to provide proof of there being a problem. Failing that you must admit that the loop holes through squadrons and datasheets variants are not a problem and that you were wrong about this.
The problem is the limit itself. Many units being able to circumvent the rule merely shows how poorly conceived it is.
Also, pointing out an obvious things is not 'conspiracy theory'. In this very thread a lot of people kept using words 'standard matched play rules' when they meant 'standard tournament rules'. So either they are seriously confused or intentionally spreading misinformation.
Crimson wrote: The problem is the limit itself. Many units being able to circumvent the rule merely shows how poorly conceived it is.
Since your arguments have come to a full circle now, and you failed to provide any reason why this would be a problem for the game while other, real problems are fixed by the rule, I'll just consider this point void. Not being able to play four veteran squads is fine if it keeps PBC and flyrant spam out of the game.
Also, pointing out an obvious things is not 'conspiracy theory'. In this very thread a lot of people kept using words 'standard matched play rules' when they meant 'standard tournament rules'. So either they are seriously confused or intentionally spreading misinformation.
Claiming those people are intentionally spreading misinformation to further their hidden agenda is very much a conspiracy theory.
Since your arguments have come to a full circle now, and you failed to provide any reason why this would be a problem for the game while other, real problems are fixed by the rule, I'll just consider this point void. Not being able to play four veteran squads is fine if it keeps PBC and flyrant spam out of the game.
I have repeatedly said what the harm is, you just keep ignoring it. The harm is the collateral damage caused by such blanket restrictions and the unfairness in the manner it is applied. Banning all units whose name starts with the letter 'H' would solve the Hive Tyrant spam issue too, but it doesn't mean it would be a good or fair rule. If the Hive Tyrants are an issue, then address that. Tau got a bespoke rule to limit the Commanders, same could have been done for other problem units.
Claiming those people are intentionally spreading misinformation to further their hidden agenda is very much a conspiracy theory.
So why do you think they're spreading misinformation then?
Since your arguments have come to a full circle now, and you failed to provide any reason why this would be a problem for the game while other, real problems are fixed by the rule, I'll just consider this point void. Not being able to play four veteran squads is fine if it keeps PBC and flyrant spam out of the game.
I have repeatedly said what the harm is, you just keep ignoring it. The harm is the collateral damage caused by such blanket restrictions and the unfairness in the manner it is applied.
And yet, the collateral damage is doing less harm to the game than the damage done by such a rule missing. That's what you keep ignoring.
I also fail to see how putting bespoke rules to limit units is "fair" while putting bespoke rule on units to ignore a blanket limit(squadrons) is not. One is blacklisting while the other one is whitelisting, two attempts at the very same problem. If anything, GW should whitelist more units (like veterans), as I do not trust them to maintain a blacklist in a timely manner.
Claiming those people are intentionally spreading misinformation to further their hidden agenda is very much a conspiracy theory.
So why do you think they're spreading misinformation then?
And yet, the collateral damage is doing less harm to the game than the damage done by such a rule missing. That's what you keep ignoring.
I am not ignoring it, I am disagreeing. It may be true for tournaments that killing some fluffy casual builds to gain a bit more balance is worth it, but it is not worth it for casual pick up games. This is what I've been saying the whole time: the tournament rule shouldn't be used for casual pick up games!
I also fail to see how putting bespoke rules to limit units is "fair" while putting bespoke rule on units to ignore a blanket limit(squadrons) is not. One is blacklisting while the other one is whitelisting, two attempts at the very same problem. If anything, GW should whitelist more units (like veterans), as I do not trust them to maintain a blacklist in a timely manner.
The squadron rule is not put there to circumvent this rule, it is just an accident that it does. Squadron rule was there before, for completely different reasons. Now if all the harmless units hurt by this rule would be given a bespoke rule that allowed them to circumvent it, it indeed would have the same end result than having Ro3 (or similar) as a bespoke rule only on the problem units. But I wager that there are way less of the actual problem units than there are harmless units, thus it easier to limit them.
Crimson wrote: The squadron rule is not put there to circumvent this rule, it is just an accident that it does. Squadron rule was there before, for completely different reasons. Now if all the harmless units hurt by this rule would be given a bespoke rule that allowed them to circumvent it, it indeed would have the same end result than having Ro3 (or similar) as a bespoke rule only on the problem units. But I wager that there are way less of the actual problem units than there are harmless units, thus it easier to limit them.
Tell me, does your add-block use a blacklist or a whitelist?
Having broken lists because units can be spammed is a major problem to the game. Entire events can be dominated by spam lists that GW failed to catch, and it takes at least two weeks for them to fix the problem, if not until the next big FAQ or CA. Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best.
You use blacklists when undesired things getting through is not a problem, you use white lists when you want to make sure that nothing gets in that's not desired. Therefore, a pub hosting a wedding will have a whitelist (guest list), a pub that just wants as many paying customers as possible will have a blacklist.
Having broken lists because units can be spammed is a major problem to the game. Entire events can be dominated by spam lists that GW failed to catch, and it takes at least two weeks for them to fix the problem, if not until the next big FAQ or CA.
Event? Like a tournament?
Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best.
To you.
You use blacklists when undesired things getting through is not a problem, you use white lists when you want to make sure that nothing gets in that's not desired.
Therefore, a pub hosting a wedding will have a whitelist (guest list),
So this is an organised event, similar to a tournament.
a pub that just wants as many paying customers as possible will have a blacklist.
Like a store wanting to attract customer to play pick up games.
It is almost like GW recognised that tournaments and random pick up games had different requirements, and wrote rules that should be applied to the former but not to the latter.
"Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best"
"To you."
That argument can be turned back around. For people who report in what they play, they don't seem to have enough of a problem with the rule to stop using it.
While I haven't been in the majority of game stores, I have been to them on two continents since Ro3 came out. One doesn't use it. But most of the players still do for their games outside the club.
So it seems that Ro3 isn't really a detriment to pick up games in most cases.
Having broken lists because units can be spammed is a major problem to the game. Entire events can be dominated by spam lists that GW failed to catch, and it takes at least two weeks for them to fix the problem, if not until the next big FAQ or CA.
Event? Like a tournament?
Tournaments, campaigns, leagues, battle days, conventions, you call it.
Weeks, if not months go into organizing such events, people block times, spend money on traveling, hotels and whatnot. Just to find out half their games will be against spam-the-new-hot-stuff.
Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best.
To you.
Preventing toxic elements from a game always takes priority over enabling fun things. When people hate parts of your game, it shrinks and disappears, while fun option don't necessarily make your game grow - 7th and 8th edition are a testament to that. Basic game design knowledge, really.
You use blacklists when undesired things getting through is not a problem, you use white lists when you want to make sure that nothing gets in that's not desired.
Therefore, a pub hosting a wedding will have a whitelist (guest list),
So this is an organised event, similar to a tournament.
No, this is you grasping straws to twist a metaphor into having an argument at all.
a pub that just wants as many paying customers as possible will have a blacklist.
Like a store wanting to attract customer to play pick up games.
Wow, you are moving goal posts so fast, weapons that target them get -1 to hit and can't be assaulted by units without FLY.
If you don't want to understand the advantages of opt-in over opt-out, that's fine with me. Denying facts has become and accepted part of society anyways.
That makes you unqualified to criticize GW's rule decisions though.
It is almost like GW recognised that tournaments and random pick up games had different requirements, and wrote rules that should be applied to the former but not to the latter.
It's almost like the players recognized that a rule intended for tournaments makes all their other games better as and this applied it to all their game.
