Since we are discussing this again, I wonder how the acceptance has shifted. Last time I did a similar poll more than 80% were using that rule.
Once again, I'm asking about how you handle it in games you actually play, not about hypothetical events you will probably not attend.
If the answer differs for you because you play under varying conditions, pick the one you would apply for most of your games.
Voted option 2 but I would ask them what they are running more of and why at which point I would suggest we play an anything goes narrative game instead.
I honestly think the rule has improved competitive and casul gaming for me.
Nithaniel wrote: Voted option 2 but I would ask them what they are running more of and why at which point I would suggest we play an anything goes narrative game instead.
I honestly think the rule has improved competitive and casul gaming for me.
If someone were to field 6 units of veterans in a mechanized guard army? Just curious.
The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.
Honestly these things tend to vary depending on the nature of local groups. Even rules within the formal game can be ignored such as the double turn in AoS which is, in some groups/clubs ignored as a general policy.
I find that groups which have smaller memberships where everyone knows everyone can tend to have more of these informal agreements where "everyone does/doesn't'" use something is commonly accepted in most pick up games unless otherwise stated.
Whilst larger groups where there might be a far wider variety of members and more dropping in and out and thus more chance of playing someone new; you tend to have less but the pre-game becomes more critical and setting up expectations.
Nithaniel wrote: The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.
Mostly because I f.e. started out in an edition where veterans were standard choices and i like the feel of Panzergrenadier like units?
And ofcourse i also wouldn't be nonplussed by comparable units that were at one point troop choices.
I feel like the issue really shows up though when we go into the too pts effective units like flyrants (which were the cause for this rule in the first place )
But most units don't really fall into that. Or would people be annoyied at 5-6 units of mandrakes?
Edit: and I for one would've rather seen Limits on these extreme sheets rather then the rule of three.
Nithaniel wrote: The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.
Mostly because I f.e. started out in an edition where veterans were standard choices and i like the feel of Panzergrenadier like units?
And ofcourse i also wouldn't be nonplussed by comparable units that were at one point troop choices.
I feel like the issue really shows up though when we go into the too pts effective units like flyrants (which were the cause for this rule in the first place )
But most units don't really fall into that. Or would people be annoyied at 5-6 units of mandrakes?
Edit: and I for one would've rather seen Limits on these extreme sheets rather then the rule of three.
Here I think we would agree that with your multiple veteran squads you're wanting to list build in a narrative way and with that cleared up we'd have a great fun game.
The rule of three is a clumsy knee jerk reaction to improve matched play and despite the ineptitude in the way it was implemented (9 daemon prince exception) it still cleaned up the game. It could/should be refined but that kind of granular approach to list building refinement is outside of the rules team's capability and/or desire.
I stille celebrate the rule of three as a massive step in the right direction
Am I the only person who just has a discussion with my opponent about this sort of stuff before a game? No hard and fast rules, just "what do you wanna play?" and then reach an agreement that works for both parties.
Obv if it's some sort of organised event/league thing or whatever, then it's the event organiser's call.
Ginjitzu wrote: Remind the more ignorant of us about all of the caveats of rule of three? Am I mistaken in recalling that it doesn't apply to troops and transports?
Rulebook FAQ wrote: This does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role, nor does it apply to any units that are added to your army during the battle that cost reinforcement points.
Nithaniel wrote: The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.
Mostly because I f.e. started out in an edition where veterans were standard choices and i like the feel of Panzergrenadier like units?
And ofcourse i also wouldn't be nonplussed by comparable units that were at one point troop choices.
I feel like the issue really shows up though when we go into the too pts effective units like flyrants (which were the cause for this rule in the first place )
But most units don't really fall into that. Or would people be annoyied at 5-6 units of mandrakes?
Edit: and I for one would've rather seen Limits on these extreme sheets rather then the rule of three.
Here I think we would agree that with your multiple veteran squads you're wanting to list build in a narrative way and with that cleared up we'd have a great fun game.
The rule of three is a clumsy knee jerk reaction to improve matched play and despite the ineptitude in the way it was implemented (9 daemon prince exception) it still cleaned up the game. It could/should be refined but that kind of granular approach to list building refinement is outside of the rules team's capability and/or desire.
I stille celebrate the rule of three as a massive step in the right direction
Oh I agree that it is a massive step in the right direction.
Only it just full hammered on the non issue units more often then not and could've been solved by gw taking a step back and actually thinking about limits and Implementation of it.
Ginjitzu wrote: Remind the more ignorant of us about all of the caveats of rule of three? Am I mistaken in recalling that it doesn't apply to troops and transports?
Rulebook FAQ wrote: This does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role, nor does it apply to any units that are added to your army during the battle that cost reinforcement points.
Not Online!!! wrote: Really, about killa kans, of all things about killa kans You would think they're happy if they see them
It basically goes like this: "Oh, kanz, those suck, don't they?" *use dread mob stratagem to destroy something half their points with 12 rokkit shots* *kanz get evaporated whenever they show up*
I do wonder why you would want to run more than 18 of them though...
I also know at least one player who still refuses to play against GK because they are OP.
Not Online!!! wrote: Really, about killa kans, of all things about killa kans You would think they're happy if they see them
It basically goes like this:
"Oh, kanz, those suck, don't they?"
*use dread mob stratagem to destroy something half their points with 12 rokkit shots*
*kanz get evaporated whenever they show up*
I do wonder why you would want to run more than 18 of them though...
I also know at least one player who still refuses to play against GK because they are OP.
I would have, well in my Ork days.
Then again i always tended to bigmek and flymek armies.
As for GK thing, Bah let him. It isn't like there are many GK players left
Me and my pals tend to use it, unless we're playing a "gaks and giggles" game. Like when I ran 2k of Gretchin and my opponent brought 2k of Kroot, just to prove which was the worse unit (this was back before the Ork Codex).
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I've been guilty of thinking Rule of 3 is a general rule myself, due to how prevalent it is.
Well, it was on Tabletop Simulator, so I technically have infinite Gretchin... but it was the Kroot. Morale hit harder than the Kroot did, so even with more models on the field, I couldn't make enough headway.
You gotta search the Workshop for models and maps (which can be a pain), but it's fairly intuitive. Works pretty much exactly like real-life. BCB has made some stuff for it, so he might be able to help you along if you wanna give it a go.
Not that it could ever REALLY be a problem, but I don't want to see 5 Telemons, 5 Callidus Tanks, or 5 Tank Commanders. If you come to the table expecting to use that gak, I am already at a disadvantage because I would never come to play a game expecting to face that. I come prepared to use the generally accepted rules in the community.
The fact that it's optional, is bunk. You could say the same thing about speed of play, or modeling for advantage, or knights without a base, kneeling characters etc.
The best thing about it is (for Orkz and other armies with lots of models) being able to pick up multiple models at once and move them. Of course, this may require you have an opponent who isn't as... strict about precise movement. The only real downside is finding opponents, so you'll probably want some people you already know to get into it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not that it could ever REALLY be a problem, but I don't want to see 5 Telemons, 5 Callidus Tanks, or 5 Tank Commanders. If you come to the table expecting to use that gak, I am already at a disadvantage because I would never come to play a game expecting to face that. I come prepared to use the generally accepted rules in the community.
The fact that it's optional, is bunk. You could say the same thing about speed of play, or modeling for advantage, or knights without a base, kneeling characters etc.
This is more boring then RAW v RAI arguments.
good, your entitled to your opinion.
It still is an optional rule and only reccomended by gw for tournament play.
And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?
Yes. If my opponent shows up with a spam list and tries to hide behind the technicality that it's an "optional" rule they're demonstrating too much of a WAAC attitude and I can expect them to try to bend other rules to their advantage. It's like showing up to game night and asking to use PL instead of the normal system: 99% of the time it's just someone who found a balance mistake to exploit and is asking for approval.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not that it could ever REALLY be a problem, but I don't want to see 5 Telemons, 5 Callidus Tanks, or 5 Tank Commanders. If you come to the table expecting to use that gak, I am already at a disadvantage because I would never come to play a game expecting to face that. I come prepared to use the generally accepted rules in the community.
The fact that it's optional, is bunk. You could say the same thing about speed of play, or modeling for advantage, or knights without a base, kneeling characters etc.
This is more boring then RAW v RAI arguments.
good, your entitled to your opinion.
It still is an optional rule and only reccomended by gw for tournament play.
And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?
It's optional in the sense that everything about the game is optional (outside an organised event).
It's also not optional in the sense that more often than not it'll be the default.
Peregrine wrote: Yes. If my opponent shows up with a spam list and tries to hide behind the technicality that it's an "optional" rule they're demonstrating too much of a WAAC attitude and I can expect them to try to bend other rules to their advantage. It's like showing up to game night and asking to use PL instead of the normal system: 99% of the time it's just someone who found a balance mistake to exploit and is asking for approval.
First of PL is a normal system, just one you specifically decide to crusade against. (And whilest i agree that points are better, it still leaves me with the option of cholera instead of the bubonic plague thanks to balance)
Secondly: You preety much can split up the WAAC dude hiding behind the technicallity from the regular dude that just got unlucky with his choice army by looking at the unit used more then 3 (2) times.
Not Online!!! wrote: And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?
Band aid > infected wound
We got a bandaid when we needed a whole First aid kit instead.
But better the bandaid for the scratches around the gaping chestwound then nothing i guess
Stux wrote: It's pretty effective as a safety net I'd say. Even if balance was generally better, I still think rule of 3 is healthy for the game.
That for sure.
I absolutely agree with that.
I just do not think that it is a be all end all and leave it at that. Imo it would be time to propperly solve the issue and not just rely on the safety net to carry everything.
The real solution is to have faction specific, datasheet specific restrictions but then you fall into the territory of formations and we all know how that ended up.
A blanket rule like this is probably the best we can hope for.
I think for a company that makes money from models, having any restriction on how many to take is a pretty mature and counter profiteering move on their part. After all people did buy 9 PBC's and 9 Hive tyrants and they're no longer buying in those numbers. Would people have tried 5 lord discordants if the rule wasn't around...probably
I'm sure in the long term it improves their sales but thats giving them a lot of credit I'm not sure they're due
Nithaniel wrote: The real solution is to have faction specific, datasheet specific restrictions but then you fall into the territory of formations and we all know how that ended up.
A blanket rule like this is probably the best we can hope for.
I think for a company that makes money from models, having any restriction on how many to take is a pretty mature and counter profiteering move on their part. After all people did buy 9 PBC's and 9 Hive tyrants and they're no longer buying in those numbers. Would people have tried 5 lord discordants if the rule wasn't around...probably
I'm sure in the long term it improves their sales but thats giving them a lot of credit I'm not sure they're due
Sure, but does it really stop spam or just move it around a bit.
Last i cheked Arhiman and psyker spam are still very much liked. And let's be real here, Supreme detachments and other more focussed detachments preety much invite abuse.
As for 5 Lord discordants. What people tend to forget, 90% of all daemon engines have a severe case of the succ.
And the unit that actually should enable and keep such an army in the field, is ironically the only daemon engine that actually works, for once.
And i absolutely expect him to take a pricehike. (and i own a trio turned into retro Chaosknights)
Personally, yes I do expect the Ro3, but not to the point that I'd "enforce" it outside of a ridiculous situation like someone fielding 4+ of the same objectively OP unit.
In general I think the Ro3 is a great rule and since I generally play like-minded people, the Ro3 is generally observed without either player having to mention it, That's why I expect it.
There are also so many units in 40K now, that there really is no reason to spam the same unit more than 3 times anyway (especially if you can soup). You can build a list with a dozens of similar units without having to duplicate any particular one more than 3 times.
For example, You can take 3 Hive Tyrants, 3 Flying Tyrants and the rest of your list be MCs and the troops needed for Battalions.
I'm the opposite: I assume that Ro3 is in effect at all times. A pinch of preparation saves a pound of trouble and all that. Or, in other words, it's easier to limit myself to 3 of the same unit if it isn't in effect than to have to rebuild my list because the club I walked into only plays Rule of 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It also means that if I feel like getting into a tournament one day, I don't have to build a new list and learn how to play it effectively all over again.
Not Online!!! wrote: First of PL is a normal system, just one you specifically decide to crusade against. (And whilest i agree that points are better, it still leaves me with the option of cholera instead of the bubonic plague thanks to balance)
PL is not a normal system, it's a steaming pile of that is worse than the normal point system in every way. Fans of PL are overwhelmingly one of two types:
1) WAAC players who figured out a broken list that exploits balance mistakes in PL and want to change the rules of the game so they can use it and win more games.
or
2) CAAC virtue signaling players who embrace it because of how badly flawed it is, as a weird masochistic statement of how opposed to competitive play they are.
The fact is that the majority of games use the obviously superior conventional point system, and anyone asking to use the inferior alternative should be treated with skepticism. Yeah, just like breaking RO3 there are a few players who might do it with good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that in the majority of cases there is no legitimate reason to do either.
Secondly: You preety much can split up the WAAC dude hiding behind the technicallity from the regular dude that just got unlucky with his choice army by looking at the unit used more then 3 (2) times.
Or, instead of having to carefully analyze their list to see if there's something I missed and the unit I think is weak is actually powerful when spammed we can just follow the normal rules. It's not like one-dimensional spam lists produce fun games anyway, even when they aren't overpowered compared to a normal list.
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
I'm not sure why this is an issue. The game is unplayable beyond 2000-2500ish points anyway, so who cares how many copies of a unit you could theoretically take at 5000 points?
Not Online!!! wrote: First of PL is a normal system, just one you specifically decide to crusade against. (And whilest i agree that points are better, it still leaves me with the option of cholera instead of the bubonic plague thanks to balance)
PL is not a normal system, it's a steaming pile of that is worse than the normal point system in every way. Fans of PL are overwhelmingly one of two types:
1) WAAC players who figured out a broken list that exploits balance mistakes in PL and want to change the rules of the game so they can use it and win more games.
or
2) CAAC virtue signaling players who embrace it because of how badly flawed it is, as a weird masochistic statement of how opposed to competitive play they are.
The fact is that the majority of games use the obviously superior conventional point system, and anyone asking to use the inferior alternative should be treated with skepticism. Yeah, just like breaking RO3 there are a few players who might do it with good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that in the majority of cases there is no legitimate reason to do either.
Secondly: You preety much can split up the WAAC dude hiding behind the technicallity from the regular dude that just got unlucky with his choice army by looking at the unit used more then 3 (2) times.
Or, instead of having to carefully analyze their list to see if there's something I missed and the unit I think is weak is actually powerful when spammed we can just follow the normal rules.
Roffle, Peregrine, mate calm down, not anyone thinks like you, or even shares your viewpoint.
And i hardly would assume the worst out of someone that fields such a RO3 offender, because turns out that most people don't tend to have gigantic collections and have maybee one army at best. AND if they have just one army that HAD units switched in slots around are you really going to be that way torwards them?
Common that is ridicoulus.
But then again you are also seemingly for minimizing social interaction in a, how to put it, social game, which seems a bit counterintuitive?
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
I'm not sure why this is an issue. The game is unplayable beyond 2000-2500ish points anyway, so who cares how many copies of a unit you could theoretically take at 5000 points?
If the game becomes unplayable beyond 2000 points, there's bigger problems than the Rule of 3 that need changed anyways.
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
I'm not sure why this is an issue. The game is unplayable beyond 2000-2500ish points anyway, so who cares how many copies of a unit you could theoretically take at 5000 points?
If the game becomes unplayable beyond 2000 points, there's bigger problems than the Rule of 3 that need changed anyways.
Don't bother, Peregrine is on one of his "2000 pts ITC only way of game" days.
I play a mixed bag, and I can't think of a single unit I'd take more than 3 of (non-troops) as I wouldn't have fun playing that way.
I accept that 40k is not great in the balance department. Probably even poor. So if someone wants to walk up with 10 of the bestest-best their faction can bring... solid. If I don't have fun, I'll let my opponent know and I won't play against that again. Solid.
Once upon a time, 3 of a unit was spamming, because that filled your optional slots from one FOC. Now, 3's ok, but 4 isn't. I don't get the *anger* about it.
In a perfect world, people would just take whatever they want, un-battleforged or whatever it's called. Want to play 7 Samurai with Space Wolves? Go for it. Want a Tank Company of Guardsmen? Go for it. Want to play all big-bugs? Hammer down. You only like Tau with Suits? Me too, let's play.
My first interest in this game is having fun with friends. From there, a tactically interesting game would be nice, and well balanced to ensure we're fighting a mostly fair match would be good... I don't play much 40k these days, but I do like Kill Team.
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
Uhhhhh… it literally *does* scale.
Between 1000 and 2000.
The table literally has three rows – Up to 1,000, 1,001-2,000 and 2,001-3,000. I think they've fairly reasonably assumed most organised events aren't going to involve 3K+ games so stopped there, but it's fairly easy to apply common sense to how this might scale up further.
Not Online!!! wrote: Don't bother, Peregrine is on one of his "2000 pts ITC only way of game" days.
Lolwut? I don't give a about ITC and their house rules (other than the obvious change that ruins block LOS), and I'm fine with games below 2000 points. But above 2000-2500 points the sheer number of models on the table (and dice to roll, buffs to keep track of, etc) turns the game into a miserable slog that's made even worse by GW clinging to the idiotic IGOUGO mechanic. And I genuinely have no idea why this is a controversial opinion.
Darsath wrote: I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.
...but it does scale, unless I'm missing your point here?
Admittedly, the table could do with a fourth row making it explicitly clear - as apparently the pattern isn't enough - that for every 1,000 points or part thereof the number of datasheets and detachments allowed goes up by 1. Not sure how the expected table size or game length would scale though - an extra 2' of width each time? Min/max game size goes up by another hour?
Equally, though, given it is an organised event guideline, how many such events are there where armies are at over 3k points?
...but it does scale, unless I'm missing your point here?
Seems like someone's in such a hurry to point out how incompetent the 40K rules team are, they've not paid very much attention to detail, which is kinda ironic.
Not Online!!! wrote: Don't bother, Peregrine is on one of his "2000 pts ITC only way of game" days.
Lolwut? I don't give a about ITC and their house rules (other than the obvious change that ruins block LOS), and I'm fine with games below 2000 points. But above 2000-2500 points the sheer number of models on the table (and dice to roll, buffs to keep track of, etc) turns the game into a miserable slog that's made even worse by GW clinging to the idiotic IGOUGO mechanic. And I genuinely have no idea why this is a controversial opinion.
usually preer rule of 3 but exceptions can be made. if we are doign somethign narrative like airbase run where my orks need to down planes or they take flight turn 3 and start shooting turn 4 then not only woudl my opponent get to have 6 say valkries, but also they would prooably not be payign the points.
alternatively if the tabels are turned and I am runnign a mek shop and the ultramarines are trying to tear down my mek shop to stop vehicles being built there then I will probably be running pure buggies and dreds/kans as that is what the mek was workign on at the time.
I'm usually in the camp of rule of cool and exceptions can be made. And I suppose there might be one here too.
But in a vacuum? No. Stick with the rule of 3. My main reasoning is that exceptions lead to other exceptions. In certain things this is ok. But more than 3 non troop/DT is spam. More spam is not really needed or healthy for the game IMO.
There are a fair number of folks who like mono-faction armies for fluff reasons. Sometimes single factions don't have enough HQ choices to field enough detachments to get CP, especially since GW jigged the CP structure so that playing without battalions or brigades is non-starter.
A brigade + rule of three breaks the mono- faction option for any army with a single HQ choice.
Most armies do have more than 1 HQ, but there are some who only have a single generic HQ. This is more likely to be a problem in armies with distinct sub-factions; if you play sisters of battle, but don't want Ecclesiarchy models contaminating the saintly faith of your holy sisterhood, the best you can do is 2 battalions or a brigade and a detachment that doesn't confer enough CP to meaningfully contribute to the army because you only have 4 HQ options. Same is true of Wyches and Haemonculi in Drukari armies, and the Kabalites have it even worse because their named character isn't really a kabalite- he's an Incubus, which makes him a mercenary.
Many of the posters in this thread are aware of the fallacy that is absolutism, and if they were playing against such an opponent they would gladly ignore the rule of 3. Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.
And finally, I don't think it's actually possible for anyone to say how how 'most people' play. I don't even think GW knows. I think it's actually unknowable- there's just no way to collect the data on such a diverse player base.
You can say you know how 'most people' in your local meta play, or how most people on dakka play, or how most people at the tournaments you have attended, watched on Warhammer TV or read about play.
But none of us, including GW themselves can claim to know how most people play. As a rhetorical strategy, I would suggest substitution of 'many' for 'most'. You can also use the "In my experience" disclaimer.
If you do this, you'll notice that a) more people are able to see your point or even agree with it b) those who don't agree with it will be less likely to respond with personal attacks based on a visceral, emotional reaction to absolutism and c) those with training in rhetoric, communication and education will feel less compelled to respond with paragraphs.
I'm sorry, but trash casuals and their trash PL aside, if you are such a jerk that you are willing to walk into a place with your 6 invictors, using power level only, and then cry about "optional", you are doing it to be a jerk. You get off on forcing everyone else to conform to your standards.
And please, enough with the hating on "those ITC" types. The game was designed for and by people who play it competitively. If you need to ditch the commonly accepted rules of the game, go play another game, because you obviously don't want to play this game.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry, but trash casuals and their trash PL aside, if you are such a jerk that you are willing to walk into a place with your 6 invictors, using power level only, and then cry about "optional", you are doing it to be a jerk. You get off on forcing everyone else to conform to your standards.
And please, enough with the hating on "those ITC" types. The game was designed for and by people who play it competitively. If you need to ditch the commonly accepted rules of the game, go play another game, because you obviously don't want to play this game.
I do, but I also expect people to understand it as well. See the YMDC thread on Daemon princes. You won’t see me roll up with 4+ DPs from the DP data sheet. You MIGHT see me roll up with Be’Lakor, Syll’Eske and three more DPs, being as those two are specific, unique data sheets.
PenitentJake wrote: Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.
What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?
"He dude, i'd like to bring my old mech IG over for a match, you got time?"
"Sure.... WAIT A MINUTE YOU FILTHY EXPLOITING GAK THAT ARMY HAS ONLY VETERANS IN IT!"
"Yeah, it's from the last 3 editi...."
"fething REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Also, looking at the voting, I'd say most people (51%) prefer Ro3, but are willing to bend in certain instances. Another 27% only play Ro3 and will never bend on it (making Ro3 players compose 78% of the voters). At this point, we probably have an answer.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.
And that rule can even prevent you from taking different datasheets together as they represent different versions of the same character - Marneus Calgar and Njal Stormcaller spring to mind straightaway.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.
And that rule can even prevent you from taking different datasheets together as they represent different versions of the same character - Marneus Calgar and Njal Stormcaller spring to mind straightaway.
Njal is Spacewolves, I thought. How are you confusing him with Calgar? The rule is there to prevent to duplicate individuals. You can't have Old Calgar and New Calgar on the same list, because they are both Calgar, the individual.
I feel like I really misunderstood your point? Are you talking about Chapter Masters? Because even that isn't the same as the Rule of 1.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.
And that rule can even prevent you from taking different datasheets together as they represent different versions of the same character - Marneus Calgar and Njal Stormcaller spring to mind straightaway.
Njal is Spacewolves, I thought. How are you confusing him with Calgar? The rule is there to prevent to duplicate individuals. You can't have Old Calgar and New Calgar on the same list, because they are both Calgar, the individual.
I feel like I really misunderstood your point? Are you talking about Chapter Masters? Because even that isn't the same as the Rule of 1.
Two different individuals, who both have multiple datasheets, only one of which you can use per character at a time. Tycho might be a third, but I'd have to check.
And, of course, any newly embiggened characters will qualify as well.
What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?
No rules are being bend.
Only by the incredibly weasely argument that RO3 is technically only a suggestion that is accepted by the majority of the community and not strict RAW.
PenitentJake wrote: Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.
What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?
"He dude, i'd like to bring my old mech IG over for a match, you got time?"
"Sure.... WAIT A MINUTE YOU FILTHY EXPLOITING GAK THAT ARMY HAS ONLY VETERANS IN IT!"
"Yeah, it's from the last 3 editi...."
"fething REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Since when did "mech IG" mean nothing but veterans? 3x veterans in Chimeras is ~450 points, add a couple of HQs and command squads for another ~2-300 points and now you're up to ~750 points for the core of your army. Add some LRBTs or artillery or infantry squads in Chimeras or storm troopers in Valkyries or whatever you want to fill up the rest of the points. You can easily make a fluffy 2000 point mechanized IG army within the RO3 limits. So yeah, of course it's totally unreasonable to expect someone to bring a legal army instead of mindlessly spamming veterans because they haven't bothered to update their collection in the past decade.
Alternatively, you'd better be willing to accept that my tanks can shoot without the -1 penalty if they move, my Tau can still JSJ, etc, because that's how it worked in past editions.
Only by the incredibly weasely argument that RO3 is technically only a suggestion that is accepted by the majority of the community and not strict RAW.
Your attempts to bully others into playing by your houserules is distasteful. This really what bugs me most about this RO3 thing. I am perfectly willing to use the tournament suggestions if politely asked beforehand, but people here are utterly obnoxious about it. They expect others to just accept their modified way of playing the game and think that people who want to play by the actual rules are somehow the problem. The tournament suggestion pushers often go so far that they actually lie to the newbies about the rules.
Also, a poll on Dakka is not indicative of how people in general play. I'd wager that people who frequent on dedicated gaming sites (and Dakka especially which is pretty competitively minded) are far less casual than the playerbase on average.
So yeah, of course it's totally unreasonable to expect someone to bring a legal army instead of mindlessly spamming veterans because they haven't bothered to update their collection in the past decade.
Alternatively, you'd better be willing to accept that my tanks can shoot without the -1 penalty if they move, my Tau can still JSJ, etc, because that's how it worked in past editions.
Hyperbole aside that isn't even a good comparison.
One has to do with the basic rules of what a unit get's /is whilest the other literally destroyed the capacity to be run as an army coherently even though it was perfectly fine and acceptable for 10+ years.
Additionally again it would be hardly "gaming" the system for better cp considering that would be run entirely legal in vanguard detachments.
I answered no, mainly because my group doesnt play matched play games, we narrative with a few matched nits and bobs we like sprinkled in (yes, those of us that use power levels and narrative scenarios DO exist, heck, we`ve even used some of the environmental stuff they`ve put out, and i`ve Never encountered that on dakka).
Dont get me wrong, i'm not one of these "casual is better than tourney" types its just not the way we like to play round these parts.
Your attempts to bully others into playing by your houserules is distasteful. This really what bugs me most about this RO3 thing. I am perfectly willing to use the tournament suggestions if politely asked beforehand, but people here are utterly obnoxious about it. They expect others to just accept their modified way of playing the game and think that people who want to play by the actual rules are somehow the problem. The tournament suggestion pushers often go so far that they actually lie to the newbies about the rules.
Yes, how horrible of us, "bullying" people into using a good rule that has been suggested by GW and embraced by the majority of the community. Clearly we should allow every WAAC spam list anyone can think of because RO3 is just a suggestion, and how dare we limit the ability to spam a single unit as many times as possible. Every newbie needs to have the right to play their spam lists!
Also, a poll on Dakka is not indicative of how people in general play. I'd wager that people who frequent on dedicated gaming sites (and Dakka especially which is pretty competitively minded) are far less casual than the playerbase on average.
Well that's certainly a convenient excuse for why your opinion is losing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Hyperbole aside that isn't even a good comparison.
One has to do with the basic rules of what a unit get's /is whilest the other literally destroyed the capacity to be run as an army coherently even though it was perfectly fine and acceptable for 10+ years.
Rules change, the fact that something worked a certain way for a while doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. Tau/Eldar and Necron/BA allies used to be legal, now they aren't. Should we allow everyone to mix Tau and Eldar because it wouldn't be fair to make their army illegal in a new edition? Do my veteran squads get to keep taking Hades drills because that's how it worked when I bought them back in 5th edition? At what point is a player expected to update their army to match the new edition? Or are you entitled to keep playing the same army forever just because it was legal at one point?
Additionally again it would be hardly "gaming" the system for better cp considering that would be run entirely legal in vanguard detachments.
That's why it is gaming the system. You can take that SoB army just fine using other detachments, all you lack is the ability to get more CP from using a particular arrangement of detachments.
That's why it is gaming the system. You can take that SoB army just fine using other detachments, all you lack is the ability to get more CP from using a particular arrangement of detachments.
Where the feth am I talking about Sisters.
Get a grip on yourself and propperly read the argument.
And for your Information, a good rule looks completely diffrent and I am far from the only one in this thread pointing that out.
I just wanna mention that if the vote was skewed because everyone is "competitively minded" the first option would be the majority. Instead, the middle option seems to be the most popular (I prefer it, but I can work without it).
The person who complained about CP was, and my "bending the rules to get a better CP battery" comment was a direct reply to that. Was there some other question about CP that I missed? Because your hypothetical veteran army had nothing to do with it.
flandarz wrote: I just wanna mention that if the vote was skewed because everyone is "competitively minded" the first option would be the majority. Instead, the middle option seems to be the most popular (I prefer it, but I can work without it).
I didn't say that 'everyone is competitive minded' merely that people who frequent these sort of sites, discuss tactics and armylists etc are bound to be less casual than the playerbase in general.
But yes, regardless of this, the middle option is overwhelmingly the most popular. It probably indeed is true that most people are not super adamant about this and are fine playing either way as long as the matter politely discussed.
flandarz wrote: I just wanna mention that if the vote was skewed because everyone is "competitively minded" the first option would be the majority. Instead, the middle option seems to be the most popular (I prefer it, but I can work without it).
I didn't say that 'everyone is competitive minded' merely that people who frequent these sort of sites, discuss tactics and armylists etc. are bound to be less casual than the playerbase in general.
But yes, regardless of this, the middle option is overwhelmingly the most popular. It probably indeed is true that most people are not super adamant about this and are fine playing either way as long as the matter politely discussed.
"I don't care" =/= "I expect RO3 to be followed but might grant an exception". The poll does not show apathy towards RO3, it shows that most people expect it to be followed as the standard but some people might consider granting an exception in certain cases if the other player justifies it sufficiently and the army looks fun. I would not at all take that as an endorsement of showing up with a non-RO3-legal army and expecting people to be happy to allow it.
"I don't care" =/= "I expect RO3 to be followed but might grant an exception". The poll does not show apathy towards RO3, it shows that most people expect it to be followed as the standard but some people might consider granting an exception in certain cases if the other player justifies it sufficiently and the army looks fun. I would not at all take that as an endorsement of showing up with a non-RO3-legal army and expecting people to be happy to allow it.
I didn't use words 'I don't care.' Most people of course will have some preference. They're just willing to be flexible about it.
Ultimately what the default assumption is will vary from place to place. Even if these numbers were accurate (which I doubt) 20% is not insignificant percentage and would certainly mean that in many places RO3 is not routinely assumed.
I do not expect people to follow rule of 3 outside organised play but I do know that most people adhere to it in pickup games, so I'll usually build my lists following this guideline.
I have a friend who likes to be "tournament ready" in all his games, so I know he'll always follow the rule of 3. Sometimes I've played against him using a list that doesn't follow the rule of 3, but his always do. He's very familiar with my collection and knows I don't have any meta-busting combos so he's pretty relaxed about what I field, but 90% of the time we try to be consistent and both stick to the same restrictions.
I have another friend who plays power level and has about 10 different armies built off the Start Collecting boxes with a few extra things tossed in that he thinks are cool. A lot of them abide by the rule of 3, but it's largely coincidental.
I personally own 5 Foetid Bloat Drones for my Death Guard. Before the Rule of 3 was a thing my army was going to run 2 of each kind as it's heavy hitters. I would never field all 5 against someone without prior discussion, and I hope others hold themselves to the same standard but I'm not going to get upset at someone for not following the rule of 3 in a pickup game if we hadn't discussed it beforehand.
So yeah... there's my fairly self-contradictory take on it. I don't EXPECT people to follow it, but I ASSUME they are until proven otherwise.
I voted no. And outside of tournaments where we also explicitly point out that the rule of 2(our tourneys are 1000pts) is in play I really don't expect it.
But I also know that none of my opponents actually have 4 of any unit aside from troops
Stop calling it rule of 3. There is no such thing. The word rule suggests it's an actual rule, which it isn't. It's a suggestion for organized play. You don't have to follow it, if you and your opponent don't agree to use it. I fail to understand how 51% voted yes. You completely misunderstood this suggestion of 3.
I won't like the rule of 3 really until it feels like all the books were written with that rule in mind. As some units that used to be troops, were put into different slots because they were assumed to be no limits on them. It really chews my craw dads sometimes as it makes various set ups of my armies pointless and leads to many wasted models that since I made the army I could take limitless amounts of.
Like say guard heavy weapon squads, I get people spammed the hell out of them, but since 4th edition at least you could have tons of them around. Now, my totally legal units from 4th ed through 7th and decades of play are restricted by rule of 3 as their own squads because they are heavy. For me it sucks as I have a lot of various weapon squads I'd love to see the table but can't because other more bothersome choices made it bad.
Yet I can still field a 13 battle tanks with the greatest of ease if I wanted to, or all the storm troopers, yet only 3 vet squads, or even 3 commissars before I need to field lord commissars when they used to be individual squad upgrades for the last 3 edtions before this.
p5freak wrote: Stop calling it rule of 3. There is no such thing. The word rule suggests it's an actual rule, which it isn't. It's a suggestion for organized play. You don't have to follow it, if you and your opponent don't agree to use it. I fail to understand how 51% voted yes. You completely misunderstood this suggestion of 3.
Of course it's a rule. A suggested rule is still a rule. It fits the defintion of what a rule is, it's a totally valid term for it.
p5freak wrote: Stop calling it rule of 3. There is no such thing. The word rule suggests it's an actual rule, which it isn't. It's a suggestion for organized play. You don't have to follow it, if you and your opponent don't agree to use it. I fail to understand how 51% voted yes. You completely misunderstood this suggestion of 3.
Same goes for the whole rulebook. Its not a suggestion if every event uses it.
I voted No, I don't play in tournaments so don't really care about suggested rules that aren't relevant. Thankfully most of the tournament players have moved to a different FLGS so most of the people I play against also ignore it. Which makes for a more enjoyable experience
While numbers have lessened a bit, little seems to have changed since I did a similar poll about a year ago.
It's also fairly representative, as polls on other sites usually also end up with 75-85% in favor of limiting datasheets.
So it's safe to assume that people will not be ok with you bringing more than 3 of any non-troop, non-transport choice without asking first.
What's also an interesting take-away from this is that if you have a very good chance of being able to play your oddball army that has more than three of some unit for fluff/budget/nostalgic reasons if you ask first (70-75%) - which happens to be one of the main arguments against employing the rule of 3.
Voted yes, but with exceptions. I am fully on board with it not being an actual rule except in tournament play, but honestly, if your army is made up of 90% the same unit I'm probably going to think you're lacking in imagination and not going to expect a fun game from your boring army. Then again, in some cases, mainly fluffy ones, I'd be willing to overlook or even encourage it.
Blndmage wrote: Isn't it more accurately called the Organized Play Suggestion of 2/3/4?
Most of my games are 1,000 or lower, being limited to only two of thing sucks.
If you take more than two copies of a unit at 1000 points you are almost certainly making a boring spam list, exactly the sort of nonsense that the rule is intended to keep out of the game.
In a pick up game I would use it myself in any list I brought, and expect my opponent to do the same, armies and/or opponents unseen.
In a pre-arranged game where my opponent asked if he could bring 4+ of a unit, and gave me a decent explanation of what and why, I'd be fine with allowing exceptions if it was not clearly stupid OP.
Blndmage wrote: Isn't it more accurately called the Organized Play Suggestion of 2/3/4?
Most of my games are 1,000 or lower, being limited to only two of thing sucks.
If you take more than two copies of a unit at 1000 points you are almost certainly making a boring spam list, exactly the sort of nonsense that the rule is intended to keep out of the game.
I can think of a number of units one would take more than two of at 1000pts that would hardly be boring spam, stuff like Guard HWS's and SWS's for example.
Likewise, it's not like there aren't tons of goofy loopholes, I can bring 6 Hellhounds or 6 Predators in a 1000pt game under "rule of 2". Likewise, I can bring at least 8 dreadnoughts of different types in a Space Marine army under a rule of 2 (assuming I have points to spare), but only 2 Helbrutes in a CSM army
Now, I broadly am ok with the rule for matched play to curb people spamming entire armies composed of one absurdly undercosted unit, but beyond that, it's difficult to see much value or greater intent given the loopholes and other realities of army construction that GW has gone out of its way to offer.
Jidmah wrote: Since we are discussing this again, I wonder how the acceptance has shifted. Last time I did a similar poll more than 80% were using that rule.
Once again, I'm asking about how you handle it in games you actually play, not about hypothetical events you will probably not attend.
If the answer differs for you because you play under varying conditions, pick the one you would apply for most of your games.
I've gotten away from it. TBH it was a cheap excuse to fix a glaring issue with other rules by gimping certain models.
Crisis Suits were trash compared to Commander Suits, so instead of fixing Crisis Suits, they just gimped the commanders and called it good. However, doing this actually gimped ALL armies commanders as it was applied as a nice cozy blanket!
I think one person at my FLGS actually changed what lists they were running due to the Rule of 3. It banned a lot of things people weren't bothering with anyway.
I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
The worst offenders for the spam were the ones who got called out by name, but I don't see why they never limited any of the IG vehicle squadrons. Or made it possible to "squadron" other units, say Predators.
I voted option 2, with most of my exceptions being for either newer players, or players who like to use lists that tend towards high/fluff, lower/power.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
Yes. Like Command Squads for Guard, Commander Suits being better than Crisis Suits, etc.
The worst offenders for the spam were the ones who got called out by name, but I don't see why they never limited any of the IG vehicle squadrons. Or made it possible to "squadron" other units, say Predators.
Why would they limit the vehicle squadrons? They get affected by your precious Rule of 3 when it's active, it just lets them do the fluffy thing: have more tanks than you.
And frankly, the Skorpius and Onagers should get squadrons before frigging Predators.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
Yes. Like Command Squads for Guard, Commander Suits being better than Crisis Suits, etc.
The worst offenders for the spam were the ones who got called out by name, but I don't see why they never limited any of the IG vehicle squadrons. Or made it possible to "squadron" other units, say Predators.
Why would they limit the vehicle squadrons? They get affected by your precious Rule of 3 when it's active, it just lets them do the fluffy thing: have more tanks than you.
And frankly, the Skorpius and Onagers should get squadrons before frigging Predators.
Command squads are self limiting. You are only allowed to have 1 per commander. So self imposed rule of 3, since the start of 8th. Did you mean SWS?
Command squads are self limiting. You are only allowed to have 1 per commander. So self imposed rule of 3, since the start of 8th. Did you mean SWS?
You stated:
I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
Guard Command Squads didn't have the 1:1 ratio until the book dropped and it was a direct result of people whining about Command Squad spam from the Index. Which could simply have been avoided by making them an HQ choice with the Commander in the first place but whatever.
That's one of the "other considerations". They directly added a Matched Play only caveat as a result of those "other considerations" rather than fix the problem(Command Squads were a dirt cheap way to get a full squad of suicide plasma gunners) in other ways.
The same thing happened with that derptastic Commissar/Conscript "change". They added the stupid "Raw Recruits" rule to make it so there's a 50/50 chance of Conscripts receiving Orders rather than simply removing the <Regiment> tag from them...and gutted the Commissar at the same time, apparently not realizing they could have added a caveat to "Raw Recruits" to make it so Conscripts lost more than 1 model at a time to Summary Execution.
Command squads are self limiting. You are only allowed to have 1 per commander. So self imposed rule of 3, since the start of 8th. Did you mean SWS?
You stated:
I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
Guard Command Squads didn't have the 1:1 ratio until the book dropped and it was a direct result of people whining about Command Squad spam from the Index. Which could simply have been avoided by making them an HQ choice with the Commander in the first place but whatever.
That's one of the "other considerations". They directly added a Matched Play only caveat as a result of those "other considerations" rather than fix the problem(Command Squads were a dirt cheap way to get a full squad of suicide plasma gunners) in other ways.
The same thing happened with that derptastic Commissar/Conscript "change". They added the stupid "Raw Recruits" rule to make it so there's a 50/50 chance of Conscripts receiving Orders rather than simply removing the <Regiment> tag from them...and gutted the Commissar at the same time, apparently not realizing they could have added a caveat to "Raw Recruits" to make it so Conscripts lost more than 1 model at a time to Summary Execution.
Man, the old Conscript spam method seems like AGES ago....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
The worst offenders for the spam were the ones who got called out by name, but I don't see why they never limited any of the IG vehicle squadrons. Or made it possible to "squadron" other units, say Predators.
No doubt, there were other offenders, I think Dark Reapers were a big part of it too. But I remember at the time, Tau were getting gak on from every corner of the meta and then when this rule suggestion hit, a lot of the suit players I knew hung up their scrubs and moved on to other games out of frustration.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not sure this was JUST a Tau issue. Because Tau/Chaos weren't dominating Meta like Guard/Eldar were/still are. So I think there were other considerations.
The worst offenders for the spam were the ones who got called out by name, but I don't see why they never limited any of the IG vehicle squadrons. Or made it possible to "squadron" other units, say Predators.
No doubt, there were other offenders, I think Dark Reapers were a big part of it too. But I remember at the time, Tau were getting gak on from every corner of the meta and then when this rule suggestion hit, a lot of the suit players I knew hung up their scrubs and moved on to other games out of frustration.
Blndmage wrote: Isn't it more accurately called the Organized Play Suggestion of 2/3/4?
Most of my games are 1,000 or lower, being limited to only two of thing sucks.
If you take more than two copies of a unit at 1000 points you are almost certainly making a boring spam list, exactly the sort of nonsense that the rule is intended to keep out of the game.
I can think of a number of units one would take more than two of at 1000pts that would hardly be boring spam, stuff like Guard HWS's and SWS's for example.
Likewise, it's not like there aren't tons of goofy loopholes, I can bring 6 Hellhounds or 6 Predators in a 1000pt game under "rule of 2". Likewise, I can bring at least 8 dreadnoughts of different types in a Space Marine army under a rule of 2 (assuming I have points to spare), but only 2 Helbrutes in a CSM army
Now, I broadly am ok with the rule for matched play to curb people spamming entire armies composed of one absurdly undercosted unit, but beyond that, it's difficult to see much value or greater intent given the loopholes and other realities of army construction that GW has gone out of its way to offer.
I agree fully on this, but I think this is a case of the guard book was before the rule of 3 was handed down from on high. So I quietly hope we see some of those choices rolled back into a platoon set up kind of structure in troops so we can use them once more freely.
Blndmage wrote: Isn't it more accurately called the Organized Play Suggestion of 2/3/4?
Most of my games are 1,000 or lower, being limited to only two of thing sucks.
If you take more than two copies of a unit at 1000 points you are almost certainly making a boring spam list, exactly the sort of nonsense that the rule is intended to keep out of the game.
I play a themed Necron list.
If you know anything about them, you'd know that Spyders and Scarabs aren't all that good.
My entire collection is based around a sleeping Tombworld that's only just awakening.
I have 4+ units of Scarabs, 6 Spyders, 59 warriors, etc, my collection isn't competitive in any way, it's purely narrative.
Are you saying that more than two copies of ANY unit is spamming at 1,000 and under? Even troops?
Blndmage wrote: Are you saying that more than two copies of ANY unit is spamming at 1,000 and under? Even troops?
No. Troops, meaning the basic infantry of an army and not any of the various "but this elite/heavy/whatever unit should really be troops in MY army" excuses, should have an exception because they should be the core of your army. But for anything else two is plenty at 1000 points and under. Let's say those units are 100-150 points each. That's now 20-30% of your points spent on copies of the same unit, and you really think you should be able to dedicate more of your list to it? Try taking something else and making an interesting list instead of just copy/pasting the same unit over and over again.
It's a short-sighted imposition from an optional rule that directly flies in the face of playing a Raiding Force that's directly called out in a core rule from the Drukhari codex. Classic baby-with-the-bathwater nonsense.
I agree fully on this, but I think this is a case of the guard book was before the rule of 3 was handed down from on high.
The guard book is literally one of the first instances of a Matched Play restriction.
"Rule of 3" is and has been an 'optional' thing in the BRB that people like to pretend is an actual hard and fast rule.
So I quietly hope we see some of those choices rolled back into a platoon set up kind of structure in troops so we can use them once more freely.
I don't. The platoon "structure" was frankly ridiculous.
"Oh look, you can take Conscripts! And Heavy Weapon Squads! And <insert item here>!"
What should happen is either:
- Splitting squad 'types' into unique setups(Fire Support Squads with HBs or Autocannons, Mortar Squads, Anti-Tank Squads with ML or LC, Sniper Squads, etc etc) that let you bypass the nonsense that is Ro3.
OR
-'Platoons' replace Squads as the various Guard based choices. Heavy Weapons Platoons, Special Weapons Platoons, etc become the order of the day--with the Platoon consisting of 15 individuals broken down into:
1x Lieutenant
1x Vox Operators
1x Sergeant
2x Corporals
4x Riflemen that can be organized into a Medic, second Vox, HW Operators(no Mortars, HBs, etc--those go into Heavy Weapons Platoons only--this is stuff like Heavy Stubbers, Missile Launchers, or a Volley Gun styled weapon), or Special Weapons Operator(current listings)
6x Riflemen that cannot be upgraded.
The Platoon gets a 'Fireteams' rule that lets everything split off. The Vox, Sergeant, and Lieutenants become characters for the remainder of the game and the Corporals each get 5 models.
Make it so that it specifically calls everything out as units after deployment though, no nonsense about "bUt ThEy dOn'T cOuNt fOr sCoRiNg!!!1!".
I'd be fine with my opponent not following it because they wanted to play a themed narrative list like say multiple devastator squads to represent the 9th company or some other faction equivalent of a fluffy list.
If your trying to spam smash captains or flyrants or some other competitive nonsense though, then no sir.
That said, it's a hammer blow rule for a scalpel problem. I would rather GW went back to hard limits on certain units. Using space marines as an example, to captains fighting on the same small battle field are such a rare occasion that something like that should be limited to either a huge game or apoc. Certain choices need a 0-1 limit for both balance and fluff reasons.
I still think the best "replacement" for the current Ro3 is just to do scaling costs. Got a unit (troop or otherwise) that costs you 100 Points and like 2 PL? Up to 3 of them will cost you just that. Between 4 and 6 will cost you 150 points and 3 PL. Every unit after 6 will cost you 200 points and 4 PL. Simple and allows for "fluffy" lists. Also puts a damper on multiple CP batteries by making them a little more expensive. Seems like a fair solution to me.
Take problem units, give them Matched Play restrictions.
It lets the goons who think that "RuLe oF tHrEe iS mAnDatOrY!!!!!" finally be right while the rest of us can just not give a crap.
I think only wanting to play games that use Ro3 isn't that "goonish". As has been said on both sides of the argument, if someone isn't playing the kind of game that you prefer, you can always just choose not to play with them. No one is forcing you to put minis on a table.
And yet if I tried to say "You have to play with the Cities of Death/Urban Conquest/Vigilus Warzone rules"--I'd be called 'difficult' or 'unreasonable'.
It's optional. End of story. It's not a case of "Well you can just choose to not play with the person!"--it's an optional rule that people mistakenly believe is a mandatory rule because a vocal minority has continually repeated that it is.
Sure is optional. And the people who only want to play with it have the "option" to choose not to play with people who don't want to use it. Or to ask them to abide by it. Neither of which is making it mandatory or forcing people to use it. You might consider it to be unreasonable or ridiculous, but if this optional rule enhances their enjoyment of the game, then it's in their rights to only want to play with it in effect. Just as it's within your own to refuse to play with it. Neither side is being any more unreasonable than the other.
There absolutely is unreasonableness on the side of "It's basically mandatory, because my group uses it".
If you want to argue that groups can make use of it as they want? Fine. That's a valid argument.
But what you're missing is that people are intractably linking Matched Play with Rule of 3.
That's not the case. Rule of 3 is an optional suggestion for tournaments/organized league play. It's not a thing that just magically comes into being playing games as Matched Play, just like Open Play or Narrative Play don't automatically mean you're required to use Power Level instead of Points.
Yep, people routinely lie about RO3 being an actual matched play rule. Or I guess some do not lie, but are just genuinely confused due other people lying to them. It is an epidemic.
Well, what I've seen is that people have said something closer to "it's basically mandatory because most groups use it". Which is a fair assertion. Judging by the poll results, 78% of players on this site use it. Unless there's other data out there to suggest otherwise, I'd say this is fairly representative of the 40k gaming scene. Doesn't seem like a vocal minority to me.
flandarz wrote: Well, what I've seen is that people have said something closer to "it's basically mandatory because most groups use it". Which is a fair assertion. Judging by the poll results, 78% of players on this site use it. Unless there's other data out there to suggest otherwise, I'd say this is fairly representative of the 40k gaming scene. Doesn't seem like a vocal minority to me.
But over 70% either do not use it or are willing to not use it sometimes, so that's hardly 'basically mandatory.' And it is not even just saying that, I have seen countless time the tournament suggestions being conflated with the matched play rules. It is almost an exception if that doesn't happen.
Putting terrain on the table is optional. Are you going to complain when someone expects a game to have terrain on the table and protest that it's only an optional rule, and all those bullies trying to treat it as mandatory are ruining the game?
Peregrine wrote: Putting terrain on the table is optional. Are you going to complain when someone expects a game to have terrain on the table and protest that it's only an optional rule, and all those bullies trying to treat it as mandatory are ruining the game?
Nice strawman you've got there. Terrain is recommended for all game types. Tournament suggestions are recommended... you guessed it, for tournaments! Also, what pictures I've seen of many American tournaments, they indeed seem to consider terrain to be pretty much optional!
Peregrine wrote: Putting terrain on the table is optional. Are you going to complain when someone expects a game to have terrain on the table and protest that it's only an optional rule, and all those bullies trying to treat it as mandatory are ruining the game?
Nice strawman you've got there. Terrain is recommended for all game types. Tournament suggestions are recommended... you guessed it, for tournaments! Also, what pictures I've seen of many American tournaments, they indeed seem to consider terrain to be pretty much optional!
What's your point? Are optional rules optional or not? You're putting all this emphasis on the fact that RO3 is merely recommended and not mandatory, and terrain is in the same situation.
Crimson wrote: For what purpose each thing is recommended for is pretty damn relevant.
Not really. That's getting into whether or not it's a good idea to use RO3, not the claim that imposing RO3 by majority vote is wrong because it's an optional rule and people shouldn't be forced to use it.
30 % of people insist on it. 70% of people range from "Good Idea Most of the Time" to "Couldn't care less"
I couldn't care less. I'd be happy to face whatever. Unbound should just be a thing. The cat's out of the bag.
Because competitive play is just the best you can make from a set of restrictions. So get rid of the restrictions. People gonna cheese is gonna cheese.
And people that want to play with the cool collection of models that they have (this guy!) would still play with the cool (and varied) collection that they have.
I'd love to see a straight unbound system. Take what you want. Want all Knights? Go for it. Want all Terminators? Go for it. Want all *best unit from your codex*? Go for it. Want all gretchin? If you've got the time, go for it.
Once upon a time, restrictions were in place to force people to take the goons from their lists... because GW wanted to sell the goons. Then they started to have characters that "unlocked" units as troops, so you could spam those. Awesome! More freedom to build!
Then formations. *Puke!* Better off just taking what you want.
Or, pick one unit from your codex, and it becomes "troops" and move back to the old FOC. Allies get blended into your FOC. Done. Restrictions can make a game more interesting. I liked the old FOC build. But that was then, this is now.
40k really isn't a tight game. The points values are of dubious accuracy at the best of times. So trying to play it competitively (other than for bragging rights) is not going to be satisfying, in my experience.
I agree that having a more "freeform" style of game can befun. However, what I like and what I expect aren't the same thing. Which, I believe, is why most people voted for the middle option. They may or may not like Rule of 3, but they understand that the current state of the game is centered pretty heavily around it. So they "expect" that most, if not all, of the games they play will be using it. In the same way that they expect almost all of the games they play to use points instead of power level. Building with points is technically optional (and not even a recommended option at that), but just because something is optional doesn't mean it isn't "practically mandatory" because of its prevalence.
Take problem units, give them Matched Play restrictions.
It lets the goons who think that "RuLe oF tHrEe iS mAnDatOrY!!!!!" finally be right while the rest of us can just not give a crap.
Pretty much every single person in favor of this rule has stated that they prefer games with the rule of 3 in place because they are more fun and more balance. Not a single person has claimed that the rule is mandatory.
Which basically means that your line argumentation is that you want to force a less enjoyable and balanced game on people because you value the wording in a PDF higher than your opponent.
I expect them to expect to use the Rule of 3, but like any rule GW tries to make a band-aid out of, I'd be as flexible with them as they are with me. If they're getting dinked with by unintended consequences - like generic basic HQ's not having enough datasheet variety at larger point levels in a horde army, I can play along.
flandarz wrote: Well, what I've seen is that people have said something closer to "it's basically mandatory because most groups use it". Which is a fair assertion. Judging by the poll results, 78% of players on this site use it. Unless there's other data out there to suggest otherwise, I'd say this is fairly representative of the 40k gaming scene. Doesn't seem like a vocal minority to me.
Irrelevant. Even if 99.99% players use it, it's not mandatory. Only if both players agree to it. I am constantly being asked about this by new players, because other players told them they can only use the same unit three times.
What exactly are you arguing? No one said it was mandatory. There's a big difference between "basically mandatory" and "actually mandatory". For example, it's basically mandatory for adults in the U.S. to have a driver's license. Whether applying for a job, enrolling in college, opening a bank account, voting, etc., they all require some form of government picture identification. And that's quite aside from how our infrastructure is built around needing transportation. However, it isn't actually mandatory to have one. There's no actual law requiring it.
A lot of the more argumentative folks for the third option seem to be confusing people saying "basically mandatory" with "actually mandatory". Feel free to stand on your podium and scream "it's optional!", but I'll just accept the reality that 99% of the people I play against are probably using this "optional rule" and build my lists accordingly.
flandarz wrote: Well, what I've seen is that people have said something closer to "it's basically mandatory because most groups use it". Which is a fair assertion. Judging by the poll results, 78% of players on this site use it. Unless there's other data out there to suggest otherwise, I'd say this is fairly representative of the 40k gaming scene. Doesn't seem like a vocal minority to me.
Irrelevant. Even if 99.99% players use it, it's not mandatory. Only if both players agree to it. I am constantly being asked about this by new players, because other players told them they can only use the same unit three times.
RAW it's not mandatory, but roughly 80% of the players still expect you to use it.
Which basically means that "you don't need to follow the rule of 3" is about as much a technicality as assault weapons not working.
You are probably more likely to get a game with an unpainted army of proxies than one where the opponent would be fine with not applying the rule of 3.
Which means what is being told to new players is correct.
flandarz wrote: Well, what I've seen is that people have said something closer to "it's basically mandatory because most groups use it". Which is a fair assertion. Judging by the poll results, 78% of players on this site use it. Unless there's other data out there to suggest otherwise, I'd say this is fairly representative of the 40k gaming scene. Doesn't seem like a vocal minority to me.
Irrelevant. Even if 99.99% players use it, it's not mandatory. Only if both players agree to it. I am constantly being asked about this by new players, because other players told them they can only use the same unit three times.
RAW it's not mandatory, but roughly 80% of the players still expect you to use it.
Which basically means that "you don't need to follow the rule of 3" is about as much a technicality as assault weapons not working.
You are probably more likely to get a game with an unpainted army of proxies than one where the opponent would be fine with not applying the rule of 3.
Which means what is being told to new players is correct.
Expecting you to follow it doesn't make it mandatory.
Kanluwen wrote: There absolutely is unreasonableness on the side of "It's basically mandatory, because my group uses it".
If you want to argue that groups can make use of it as they want? Fine. That's a valid argument.
But what you're missing is that people are intractably linking Matched Play with Rule of 3.
That's not the case. Rule of 3 is an optional suggestion for tournaments/organized league play. It's not a thing that just magically comes into being playing games as Matched Play, just like Open Play or Narrative Play don't automatically mean you're required to use Power Level instead of Points.
Everything GW says is ultimately a suggestion. What matters is what players choose to use, and the majority of players choose to use rule of 3 as a matched play rule.
If you and your group don't, that's all fine and dandy. But what defines whether a rule is a matched play rule or not is not what GW hands us down from on high, it's what people actually play.
I think spamming units can make for very unfun games in either a competitive or narrative game, that is unless the scenario has been re-jigged or created with this in mind by people who have some idea as to what they are doing. Sure, there is some trial and error in becoming efficient at this skill so wouldn't like to discourage anyone but that's how it is as far as I see.
I wouldn't expect my opponent to follow the "rule of three" but I'd hope they'd have an idea of what might make the game unfun if they are not going to do so.
Usually there are unit restictions in GW games and this is one of the more liberal ones to be honest. I understand that people might want to take an all bike white scar or all wrath Iyanden army but even these fluffy lists can be unfun to play against (not neccesarily OP).
Dai wrote: Usually there are unit restictions in GW games and this is one of the more liberal ones to be honest. I understand that people might want to take an all bike white scar or all wrath Iyanden army but even these fluffy lists can be unfun to play against (not neccesarily OP).
People can take all biker armies in both armies though, without violating the rule of 3. They just aren't good because you get less CP and can't MSU your biker models, but they can take them if fluff if that important to them.
If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.
31. st Mechanized, formerly loyal, Khornate Mechanized Regiment, and only consisting of Veterans that are recruited out of inhabitants of a spacehulk. (Renegades and Heretics)
Spoiler:
Vanguard:
General Meinel: Lasgun, Power Sword, Inspiring leader, Covenant of Khorne. 29 pts
Elite:
Command Squad A: 11 Dsiciples, Plasma gun, Banner of hate, command vox, Missile Launcher team. 112 pts.
Heavy Support:
Leman Russ, Battlecannon, 3 Heavy Bolters 168pts
Leman Russ, Battlecannon, 3 heavy Bolters 168 pts
2 x Chimera, Multilaser, Heavy Bolter 146pts
1x Chimera, Autocannon, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Stubber. 80pts
Vanguard B
Graf: Powerfist, Lasgun. 33 pts.
Elites:
3 Ogrynberzerks, Berzerkerchamp with energy drill 100pts
Disciples: 12, Plasma gun, Heavy stubber, Vox 85pts
Disciples: 11, PLasma gun, heavy Stubber, Vox 79pts
2x Valkyrie, Rocket pods and ML 242 pts.
Heavy Support:
2x Leman Russ Punishers, Heavy Bolter 300pts
Basilisk, Heavy bolter. 108pts.
Total 1934pts.
Disciples here are the offending unit, The army was based upon IA 13 which had Renegade Veterans as a Troop choice, (think of them as Melee orientated IG veterans with ws 3+ instead of Bs 3+). For R&H these Veterans cost 6ppm,gain nothing over regular Vets
If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.
A lot of my lists were built up around formations last edition. My Tau basically can't work with Ro3, since I built them around maxxing out things like the Optimized Stealth Cadre or the Pathfinder+Broadside formations.
My Skitarii got screwed over, hard, since I used to regularly field 2 squadrons of 3 Onagers each--with a floater Onager sometimes with an Icarus Array fielded solo. Same thing goes for my Killclade.
That's not even taking into account that I can't field the army period without a TechPriest tax now which is just suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper( cause adding the Skitarii Primus that keep showing up in fluff is too difficult!).
Rule of 3 was absolutely a good decision by GW. "Take whatever you want" needs to be confined to narrative and open play and should never be done in a game you want any semblance of balance. There needed to be some hard limits on army building and 3 detachments/3 per datasheet is good.
That being said, if my opponent asked to suspend the rule of 3 for a game for fun I would probably be ok with it if they're ok with me bringing something dumb like 5 tank commanders or 100 gun drones with 6 commanders.
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
"Yes but no exception and if you game the system you deserve gulag? "
Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?
If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.
A lot of my lists were built up around formations last edition. My Tau basically can't work with Ro3, since I built them around maxxing out things like the Optimized Stealth Cadre or the Pathfinder+Broadside formations.
My Skitarii got screwed over, hard, since I used to regularly field 2 squadrons of 3 Onagers each--with a floater Onager sometimes with an Icarus Array fielded solo. Same thing goes for my Killclade.
That's not even taking into account that I can't field the army period without a TechPriest tax now which is just suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper( cause adding the Skitarii Primus that keep showing up in fluff is too difficult!).
I think that was a big misconception on my part. A lot of people might have hangover from 7th, or still want to play the army they did in the last edition. That I can understand. That is actually a great argument. I want to play 7th style.
Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.
I do feel for armies that have very limited HQ options. I really wish the bigger formations didn't require such a high HQ tax when GW seems to assume every faction has an eldar or marine level of options.
Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.
Thank you for showing that you literally are uninformed.
The army is neither CSM nor IG, the name of the index list is "Renegades and Heretics" you find them ATM in the FW index for astra militarum, (for reasons i can not name to you, thank GW for that matter)
But sure it isn't a legal army and i don't know it therefore it is ILEGAL!!!! (and was at no point ever produced by FW)
BTW: Since you also lack basic knowledge about the army: The army is considered so bad that even GK players have a field day against it.
But he, mister knows it all sure as gak has the correct assumption 95% time
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
"Yes but no exception and if you game the system you deserve gulag? "
Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?
What sensible person who cares about the health of the game isn't?
If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.
My armies usually actually conform to all tournament all suggestions by accident, but sometimes I want to field an Imperial hodgepodge soup led by an Inquisitor. Then its not RO3 that's the issue, it's the detachment limit. Such an army can have easily have units from crazy number of factions. Inq, Ministorum, Assassins, IG, could have some Ad Mech, SoS, GK or Deatwatch too etc. The old Inquisition stuff being now scattered among at least three separate factions really complicates things.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
"Yes but no exception and if you game the system you deserve gulag? "
Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?
What sensible person who cares about the health of the game isn't?
Now that is the other position that i would stand behind.
GW changing the Battalion and Brigade detachment CP's was the absolute worst thing they could have ever done.
It was a stupid choice and completely counter-productive to what their stated goal was. They wanted to give elite armies more CP... so they made cheap CP batteries even more valuable! Completely nonsensical. They should have just increased the basic battleforged CP.
GW changing the Battalion and Brigade detachment CP's was the absolute worst thing they could have ever done.
It was a stupid choice and completely counter-productive to what their stated goal was. They wanted to give elite armies more CP... so they made cheap CP batteries even more valuable! Completely nonsensical. They should have just increased the basic battleforged CP.
Stuff like the RC trait would have worked better Probably should have added as a special rule for marine like troop units.
By default yes, only because everyone already thinks it's a baseline rule.
If someone were to ask about it beforehand and we weren't playing a competitive game, then I'd probably be okay with it. But nobody asks because everyone thinks it's an actual rule.
The emotional investment in this particular rule and its application is curiously intense, particularly given the quite numerous and intended bypasses offered by GW through squadron rules and variant units (often as simple as a single weapon swap), methinks people are attaching a lot more value to this rule across the board than I think is really there. Detachment limits have an order of magnitude more relevance I think in limiting spam and enforcing balance, given the numerous ways to otherwise get around the Ro2/3/4 with many units that the game intentionally offers.
If you're willing to play against 9 Russ tanks in a 1500pt ame, but not 4 Helbrutes because of this rule in a non tournament setting, you're probably attaching far too much value to this rule as a meaningful balance mechanism and are probably more upset about percieved convention being broken.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games"*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.
Funny part - I opened the spoiler tags in his post and saw Khorne Orgryns and immediately thought to my myself "Hell yeah, I'd play that." before checking anything else in that list.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games"*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.
Funny part - I opened the spoiler tags in his post and saw Khorne Orgryns and immediately thought to my myself "Hell yeah, I'd play that." before checking anything else in that list.
Irony, khorne ogryns are with marauders the only thing worth playing
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.
When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.
When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.
it's like skewlists aren't particulary healthy for the game, isn't it
But the select few still possible are not an issue.
3 Hellbrutes in 1000 pts matches are BROKEN OP, 6 Leman russ are perfectly fine.
Kanluwen wrote: A lot of my lists were built up around formations last edition. My Tau basically can't work with Ro3, since I built them around maxxing out things like the Optimized Stealth Cadre or the Pathfinder+Broadside formations.
That's over 1200 points of stealth units without even touching anything else, plenty to have a nice fluffy stealth cadre as the core of your army. Can you honestly say that you really need to make a perfectly one-dimensional 2000 point army consisting of nothing but copies of those two units, and that this is enjoyable for your opponent? Or let's look at your gunline nonsense:
3x3 broadsides with HYMP/SMS = 1260
3x10 pathfinders = 240
That's 1500 points of just those two units, not even counting an HQ unit/drones/etc. Add a couple of token infantry squads and you easily have a 2000 point army built around that core.
So, that's two of your armies that work just fine with RO3. Why exactly do you need to get a special exception?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: 3 Hellbrutes in 1000 pts matches are BROKEN OP, 6 Leman russ are perfectly fine.
LRBTs (and similar units) should not have squadrons in an edition where squadrons just give you multiple independent units per FOC slot with zero drawbacks. I am 100% fine with RO3 and removing squadrons.
If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.
The rule of 3 really hurts my Penitent Legion, which is made up of units in the Sisters of Battle dex that aren't sisters, plus the Repentia and their mistresses.
The bulk of the force is Arcos, Repentia and Penitent Engines, with enough priests and mistresses to saturate the field with auras. Other battle conclave units would appear, but would exceed 3 units each; it is after all the penitent legion!
Also, squadron rules DO let me take up to 9 Pennies, but they'd be better fielded as 9 units- way more flexible and survivable.
I find the detachment limit more annoying. If I could get the equivalent CP's, I'd almost never use Battalions and Brigades- they bore the crap outta me. I mean, a battalion IS just two patrol detachments put together, right? So why can't you field it that way an get the same CP. Character wise, it would reflect commander A' s preference for working with squads A & B and Commander B's preference for working with squad C. It's the exact same number and distribution of models and unit types, but the realistic, story based option gets you 0 cp, while the far less interesting, everybody in the same box option nets 5 cp. Ridiculous.
Similarly, who doesn't think that a patrol, a vanguard, a spearhead and an outrider working together is a more interesting story than a brigade?
I feel really sorry for the Drukari, whose interesting and unique command structure stopped being viable as soon as GW buffed battalions and brigades-they used to be able to match the CP yield of a battalion with four patrols and a brigade with eight, but now they can't match the brigade at all since the book doesn't increase CP yield at 12 patrols (even if it did, rule of 3 would prevent us from fielding 12 patrols, because Drazar isn't an Archon. (The lack of a named Archon is a HUGE issue for other reasons as well)
Luckily, I pretty much only play narrative campaigns with friends and family, and none of us really care about either of these restrictions. We always fight battleforged and we always use points, but we play 40k when we want to tell stories. When we want to compete, we play collectible card games, video games or classics like chess and backgammon. Blackstone Fortress is actually my favourite GW product at the moment because it's cooperative.
To be fair, even without squadrons however, with Ro2/3/4 you could still run 8/12/16 Russ tanks, thanks to Tank Commanders, Annihilators, and Conqueror's all being separate datasheets from the basic Heavy Support version, and they're far from the only unit where this applies.
The Ro2/3/4 is a ham-fisted post-facto duct tape fix layered on top of a system that's fundamentally and intentionally designed to allow people to bring whatever they want in whatever quantities they want and has devised a gazillion ways to make that happen.
If it were up to me, everything would still be running a 3E-5E style FoC, but given the way GW has built 8E, it's clear that the rule of 2/3/4 is an afterthought that they pay minimal attention to in their design space.
PenitentJake wrote: Also, squadron rules DO let me take up to 9 Pennies, but they'd be better fielded as 9 units- way more flexible and survivable.
And here's what we so often come back to. It's not that the "fluffy" army is not legal, it's that removing the RO3 makes it more powerful and allows you to win more games. How exactly is it that people advocating RO3 as standard policy get labeled "WAAC ITC fanboy TFGs" while people openly saying "I want to change the rules to make my army more powerful" are not considered WAAC?
Similarly, who doesn't think that a patrol, a vanguard, a spearhead and an outrider working together is a more interesting story than a brigade?
The person who wants people to actually take a diverse mix of units and heavy use of their faction's basic troops, not a list of the most overpowered shiny toys they could find. 40k needs to go back to the 5th edition rules: one FOC, no allies at all, and only troops can score objectives.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, even without squadrons however, with Ro2/3/4 you could still run 8/12/16 Russ tanks, thanks to Tank Commanders, Annihilators, and Conqueror's all being separate datasheets from the basic Heavy Support version, and they're far from the only unit where this applies.
The Ro2/3/4 is a ham-fisted post-facto duct tape fix layered on top of a system that's fundamentally and intentionally designed to allow people to bring whatever they want in whatever quantities they want and has devised a gazillion ways to make that happen.
If it were up to me, everything would still be running a 3E-5E style FoC, but given the way GW has built 8E, it's clear that the rule of 2/3/4 is an afterthought that they pay minimal attention to in their design space.
I thought this got Errata'd, no? Now all Lehman Russ Variants, be they FW or not, count as one Data Sheet? The Tank Commander being an exception, as that is an entirely different unit.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, even without squadrons however, with Ro2/3/4 you could still run 8/12/16 Russ tanks, thanks to Tank Commanders, Annihilators, and Conqueror's all being separate datasheets from the basic Heavy Support version, and they're far from the only unit where this applies.
The Ro2/3/4 is a ham-fisted post-facto duct tape fix layered on top of a system that's fundamentally and intentionally designed to allow people to bring whatever they want in whatever quantities they want and has devised a gazillion ways to make that happen.
If it were up to me, everything would still be running a 3E-5E style FoC, but given the way GW has built 8E, it's clear that the rule of 2/3/4 is an afterthought that they pay minimal attention to in their design space.
I thought this got Errata'd, no? Now all Lehman Russ Variants, be they FW or not, count as one Data Sheet? The Tank Commander being an exception, as that is an entirely different unit.
Nope, he means regular LRBT
2 Commanders and 6 in 2 Squadrons in 1000pts.
3 and 9 and ofcourse 4 and 12.
Peregrine wrote: LRBTs (and similar units) should not have squadrons in an edition where squadrons just give you multiple independent units per FOC slot with zero drawbacks. I am 100% fine with RO3 and removing squadrons.
I agree, but keep in mind that there are some true squadrons left, like blight haulers or kanz.
Catulle wrote: Again, Drukhari using their Raiding Force rules will routinely come out with more detachments than the Ro2/3/4 permits.
Why is it that you can't take fewer and larger detachments/units instead of MSUCP farming?
Hillariously battalions jare more efficient allready, so your complaint is allready void
Yep, it's a case in point *because* it's not CP efficiency anyone doing this would be chasing, but capturing the alliance of convenience flavour of the faction and, again, directly supported by their Codex rule set (but less so by the organised play advice we're centring this discussion on).
Peregrine wrote: I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?
Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?
ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.
I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...
Peregrine wrote: I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?
Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?
ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.
I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...
Let it rest.
It's clear that some have not read really what the codex should simulate.
Peregrine wrote: I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?
Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?
ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.
I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...
Let it rest.
It's clear that some have not read really what the codex should simulate.
I think it's quite apposite to the (poor) argument being advanced, though, isn't it? Which is, ultimately, that house rules trump core rules from the *weirdest* angle.
Catulle wrote: What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity
What identity are you losing? You can take three patrol detachments and use your faction's special rule. As far as I can tell you're obsessing over one particular list that is so obscure that nobody can figure out what it is and calling your faction's identity while disregarding all of the other perfectly thematic lists that are legal.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.
When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.
Find me a marine list that doesn't get gutted first turn by non-marines.
According to the "Marines suck" players, this is all marines lists.
While I'd be fine with them going back to a more unified FOC for most (not all) factions, getting rid of them entirely and/or ending the allies system can't/won't happen. We have way to many small/ complementary factions at this point that you would be erasing a lot of units/ factions if I can't ally them in.
Catulle wrote: What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity
What identity are you losing? You can take three patrol detachments and use your faction's special rule. As far as I can tell you're obsessing over one particular list that is so obscure that nobody can'' figure out what it is and calling your faction's identity while disregarding all of the other perfectly thematic lists that are legal.
It's literally expounded in the Codex... do try to keep up.
In an attempt to break whatever argument is going on...
Expect isn't the right word. I anticipate the that my opponent will follow the rule of three, so I prepare my lists to follow that rule. I'm more than happy to let my opponent not follow the rule; just so long as they grant me the same.
Peregrine wrote: I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?
Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?
ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.
I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...
I'd like to point out that the detachment limit is NOT the rule of three. In fact, when I did a poll last year on all the optional rules, the detachment limit was the rule with the least acceptance of all. Many people aren't aware that it exists at all.
In my opinion the difference with Ro3 and the detachment limit is that the Rule of 3 actually fixes problems many people notice during their games (even if it does so with a sledgehammer and not a scalpel), while the detachment limit kind of does nothing outside reducing the CP by one in a few edge cases.
Peregrine wrote: I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?
Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?
ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.
I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...
I'd like to point out that the detachment limit is NOT the rule of three. In fact, when I did a poll last year on all the optional rules, the detachment limit was the rule with the least acceptance of all. Many people aren't aware that it exists at all.
In my opinion the difference with Ro3 and the detachment limit is that the Rule of 3 actually fixes problems many people notice during their games (even if it does so with a sledgehammer and not a scalpel), while the detachment limit kind of does nothing outside reducing the CP by one in a few edge cases.
Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.
The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.
I like playing mono-faction lists, so with my Chaos Knights I fall foul of the rule of 2 at 1000 points because I take 6 War Dogs to fill a super-heavy detachment with 3 vehicle squadrons. In my defence I'd say that not taking a TITANIC unit is better for my opponent at 1000 points, and I already get 0CP for the detachment because of it. 6 War Dogs are also perfectly allowable in 2 vehicle squadrons of course, but I want to enjoy the game too, so being battle forged and having access to stratagems (even if I only get 3CP total), warlord traits and relics is why I take 3. The exact same army would be allowed for an IK list too because Helverins and Warglaives are separate datasheets.
Dysartes wrote: Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.
The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.
Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.
Dysartes wrote: Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.
The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.
Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.
I belive enough exemples have been given to the contrary.
The propper Management would've been a limit on certain units.
Dysartes wrote: Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.
The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.
Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.
So cherry-picking part of a guideline, and claiming it is a mandatory rule seems reasonable to you?
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance. If a certain unit is badly balanced or some new detachment or combo becomes too powerful then only having 3 units in the army mitigates how unbalanced the game can get.
Like hive tyrants were or having 8 alaitoc hemlock wraith fighters. At least only having 3 is less than 600 points of your army list.
small_gods wrote: Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance. If a certain unit is badly balanced or some new detachment or combo becomes too powerful then only having 3 units in the army mitigates how unbalanced the game can get.
Like hive tyrants were or having 8 alaitoc hemlock wraith fighters. At least only having 3 is less than 600 points of your army list.
I wouldn't say 'bad game balance' as such. I'd say it's a balance safety net for an inherently unbalancable game.
small_gods wrote: Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance. If a certain unit is badly balanced or some new detachment or combo becomes too powerful then only having 3 units in the army mitigates how unbalanced the game can get.
Like hive tyrants were or having 8 alaitoc hemlock wraith fighters. At least only having 3 is less than 600 points of your army list.
I wouldn't say 'bad game balance' as such. I'd say it's a balance safety net for an inherently unbalancable game.
Yeah that's probably a fairer way to describe it. It's as balanced as is can be (apart from newer models generally being 10% too cheap).
small_gods wrote: Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.
Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.
Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.
Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!
small_gods wrote: Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.
Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.
Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.
Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!
Ok, let's see, Malefics = issue. IG psykers are not?
Secondly, Malefics are now 80 pts. Double what they were and are worth compared to their IG counterpart.
Yet nobody deems it necessary to finally admit that the balancing is hillariously loopsided between the haves and have nots or have not anymores then i don't know what is.
And preciscely showing how the Rule of three still does not curb problem units.
small_gods wrote: Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.
Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.
Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.
Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!
Ok, let's see, Malefics = issue. IG psykers are not?
Secondly, Malefics are now 80 pts. Double what they were and are worth compared to their IG counterpart.
Yet nobody deems it necessary to finally admit that the balancing is hillariously loopsided between the haves and have nots or have not anymores then i don't know what is.
And preciscely showing how the Rule of three still does not curb problem units.
So there wasn't a time when 30 point malefic lords were a problem to play against?? When top tables had 10-15 of them? Because that's exactly what I remeber.
I'm not saying it's either/or. You seem to be saying everytime I say rule of 3 is good for balance that I think everything else in the game is perfectly balanced. Which is not what I've said at any point....
Yes there are plenty of units and in some cases armies (r and h, grey knights etc) that are overcosted. But rule of 3 stops a 7 riptide lists being a thing and that is obviously good!
small_gods wrote: Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.
Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.
Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.
Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!
Ok, let's see, Malefics = issue. IG psykers are not?
Secondly, Malefics are now 80 pts. Double what they were and are worth compared to their IG counterpart.
Yet nobody deems it necessary to finally admit that the balancing is hillariously loopsided between the haves and have nots or have not anymores then i don't know what is.
And preciscely showing how the Rule of three still does not curb problem units.
So there wasn't a time when 30 point malefic lords were a problem to play against?? When top tables had 10-15 of them? Because that's exactly what I remeber.
I'm not saying it's either/or. You seem to be saying everytime I say rule of 3 is good for balance that I think everything else in the game is perfectly balanced. Which is not what I've said at any point....
Yes there are plenty of units and in some cases armies (r and h, grey knights etc) that are overcosted. But rule of 3 stops a 7 riptide lists being a thing and that is obviously good!
Firstly 40pts.
They were never 30.
Secondly, there is no need for ro3 if the units would be balanced from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Or how about just properly price the units?
Dysartes wrote: Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.
The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.
Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.
So cherry-picking part of a guideline, and claiming it is a mandatory rule seems reasonable to you?
Pull the other one - it's got bells on.
The only people claiming it to be mandatory are the ones who don't want to abide to it.
Nobody cares whether it is mandatory or not, they still expect you to follow it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Secondly, there is no need for ro3 if the units would be balanced from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Or how about just properly price the units?
Seems like that idea also is not very liked
That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.
Actually, no there haven't. He have 7th edition spam lists from players who refuse to do minimal adaptations to their lists (why would I want to play such a person?), and people who have some oddball fluff/FW list that three out of four players would allow anyways if asked before.
The propper Management would've been a limit on certain units.
Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.
That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.
Enlighten me then, I'll wait.
Or could it be that you can't?
You and Crimson have ignored the arguments before, I will not waste my time on that again. Just search for one of my old posts where I bothered to explain. Some should even have links to the relevant articles from game designers of successful games which have also implemented very similar restrictions.
Actually, no there haven't. He have 7th edition spam lists from players who refuse to do minimal adaptations to their lists (why would I want to play such a person?), and people who have some oddball fluff/FW list that three out of four players would allow anyways if asked before.
The propper Management would've been a limit on certain units.
Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.
When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.
Find me a marine list that doesn't get gutted first turn by non-marines.
According to the "Marines suck" players, this is all marines lists.
I'm not one of them. I do just fine locally even if I'm leaning a little too heavily on Aggressor tricks with UMs at the moment, right up until I run into one of a handful of lists that I flat out do not have answers to: Knights, Russ spam, and one really tough Death Guard list (and I don't know about that one, I haven't fielded against it since I figured out how to make Aggressors work). And even then, I'm not really sure Marines don't have the answer. I'm just sure I haven't found it yet.
You and Crimson have ignored the arguments before, I will not waste my time on that again. Just search for one of my old posts where I bothered to explain. Some should even have links to the relevant articles from game designers of successful games which have also implemented very similar restrictions.
Atleast in this thread you did not provide anything in that way or form, but then again you'd rather state that everyone else argues dishonest, btw, for gaks and giggles i went through all 8 pages of this thread.
Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.
Perhaps. And that's why it is... wait for it: a tournament suggestion!
That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.
No it hasn't. GW adjusts unit prices annually, sometimes more often than that. There is no reason they cannot address problem units this way. And if your argument is that Ro3 mitigates skew lists, that is hardly true. It is just changes who the winners and losers are. Under Ro3 the armies with large selection of nominally different datasheets or squadronable units are the winners, and can still build skew lists, while armies with limited unit selection can't. Whilst skew lists are non fun, allowing everyone to do it is in fact more balanced than allowing only some armies to do it.
The Newman wrote: Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?
I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.
*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.
When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.
Find me a marine list that doesn't get gutted first turn by non-marines.
According to the "Marines suck" players, this is all marines lists.
I'm not one of them. I do just fine locally even if I'm leaning a little too heavily on Aggressor tricks with UMs at the moment, right up until I run into one of a handful of lists that I flat out do not have answers to: Knights, Russ spam, and one really tough Death Guard list (and I don't know about that one, I haven't fielded against it since I figured out how to make Aggressors work). And even then, I'm not really sure Marines don't have the answer. I'm just sure I haven't found it yet.
Everything else I can at least make sweat.
Are you not one of them? And I know that how? Besides, the general view is that a all russ list is reletively easy to stop, just by tying them up.
Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.
Perhaps. And that's why it is... wait for it: a tournament suggestion!
A 'tournament solution used by most of the people who play casually.
A Shokk Attack Gun Mek costs around 80 pts. It has BS 5+, D6 shots, 2d6 Strength, AP -5, and D6 Damage. It also has a 1 in 6 chance to deal D3 Mortal Wounds per hit, and has Character Protection. Pretty fair for the pricetag, considering it will be throwing out somewhere around 2 damage a turn (on average) against it's preferred targets.
If you take 3 of them, you not only improve the average damage per turn (6), but you improve your chances of getting MWs from about once per game to once every other turn. A significant improvement, but still not too bad.
If you take 12 of them (for less than 1k pts), you now have 24 average Wounds going out every turn, with 2 of the units dealing a D3 MWs as well (and a 1 in 9 chance to deal 6d3 Mortal Wounds).
So, we've gone from seeing some MWs about once a game or so, and dealing some fairly lackluster damage, to a force that can wipe practically any vehicle list it sees, for less than half the point total of an average list.
As stated before, repricing units doesn't help because some units are ONLY OP when spammed, and are otherwise appropriately priced for what they provide.
For me, it isn't that spam is always inherently unbalanced. I like Ro3 because it promotes variety. But, since I voted for option 2, I'm always willing to work with someone if they bring a "spam" list.
A Shokk Attack Gun Mek costs around 80 pts. It has BS 5+, D6 shots, 2d6 Strength, AP -4, and D6 Damage. It also has a 1 in 6 chance to deal D3 Mortal Wounds per hit, and has Character Protection. Pretty fair for the pricetag, considering it will be throwing out somewhere around 2 damage a turn (on average) against it's preferred targets.
If you take 3 of them, you not only improve the average damage per turn (6), but you improve your chances of getting MWs from about once per game to once every other turn. A significant improvement, but still not too bad.
If you take 12 of them (for less than 1k pts), you now have 24 average Wounds going out every turn, with a 2 of the units dealing a D3 MWs as well (and a 1 in 9 chance to deal 6d3 Mortal Wounds).
So, we've gone from seeing some MWs about once a game or so, and dealing some fairly lackluster damage, to a force that can wipe practically any vehicle list it sees, for less than half the point total of an average list.
As stated before, repricing units doesn't help because some units are ONLY OP when spammed, and are otherwise appropriately priced for what they provide.
For me, it isn't that spam is always inherently unbalanced. I like Ro3 because it promotes variety. But, since I voted for option 2, I'm always willing to work with someone if they bring a "spam" list.
This is exactly the point. 3 hive tyrants isn't inherently bad because you can deal with one or two before they get into anything meaty, but 8 means you'll still have 5 or more to deal with turn 2. Same with culexus assassins, fw hellhounds and lots of other stuff mentioned.
I think they should take it further to avoid loopholes like squadrons. More than half of your points can't be spent on one datasheet. It'd also stop boring lists like triple castellan before nerf.
I would allow case-by-case exceptions to the Rule of 3, mainly because my own army (Drukhari) could really do with an exception.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but currently, the Rule of 3 is making it really hard for Drukhari to field two Kabalite battalions. You need 4 HQ's, yet there is only one Kabalite HQ choice, the Archon. Using an HQ from another subfaction, such as a [wych cult] or [haemonculus coven] HQ, makes your ENTIRE detachment lose its Obsessions. Pretty much the only way to run two Kabalite battalions while abiding by the Rule of 3 is to include Drazhar, a non-subfaction HQ who is rather overpriced for what he does.
So I would very much like to run 4 Archons, but just for force organization purposes and not for spamming. Archons are pricey anyway, and widely considered as little more than a "tax".
Another solution in my case might be to ask my opponent to make it a 2,001-point game, which brings the unit cap up to 4.
But really, I would rather GW gave Drukhari another Kabal-compatible HQ option. Like, say, a Dracon (sub-Archon), or an Archon with wings, or a non-subfaction character such as a "super-Scourge".
No it hasn't. GW adjusts unit prices annually, sometimes more often than that. There is no reason they cannot address problem units this way. And if your argument is that Ro3 mitigates skew lists, that is hardly true. It is just changes who the winners and losers are. Under Ro3 the armies with large selection of nominally different datasheets or squadronable units are the winners, and can still build skew lists, while armies with limited unit selection can't. Whilst skew lists are non fun, allowing everyone to do it is in fact more balanced than allowing only some armies to do it.
Indeed, and beyond this, GW designs entire factions as skew lists as their entire fundamental schtick, that's how we get Knights & Custodes, Green Tide and allowances for Guard tank companies. Given the extensive effort GW goes to in order to facilitate skew lists and the number we see, it's hard to see where the Rule of 3 does much in that particular regard, at best it just shapes what they look like.
Ro3 makes it so you can't run an entire army of nothing but Tank Commanders, but it doesn't prevent one from running an entire army of Russ tanks that GW otherwise went out of their way to make possible. Ro3 puts the brakes on spamming a single undercosted unit, but doesn't really do squat about skew lists.
I don't think anyone has argued that it's a perfect solution, or that it doesn't have flaws. Those who support it have pretty much all said: "It's better than nothing". Which is a fair opinion to have, considering the top armies of the past. I think GW could do a lot more to improve the balance and fun of the game, but like the others I see merit in playing by Ro3 as opposed to not. Doesn't mean I won't make exceptions (or take exception of someone is running skew while avoiding Ro3), but, generally, I'll expect to be using it.
I will always agree otherwise, however. I have more models than I can field of certain units otherwise, units I love and would love to run whole battlefields of.
-Guardsman- wrote: I would allow case-by-case exceptions to the Rule of 3, mainly because my own army (Drukhari) could really do with an exception.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but currently, the Rule of 3 is making it really hard for Drukhari to field two Kabalite battalions. You need 4 HQ's, yet there is only one Kabalite HQ choice, the Archon. Using an HQ from another subfaction, such as a [wych cult] or [haemonculus coven] HQ, makes your ENTIRE detachment lose its Obsessions. Pretty much the only way to run two Kabalite battalions while abiding by the Rule of 3 is to include Drazhar, a non-subfaction HQ who is rather overpriced for what he does.
So I would very much like to run 4 Archons, but just for force organization purposes and not for spamming. Archons are pricey anyway, and widely considered as little more than a "tax".
Another solution in my case might be to ask my opponent to make it a 2,001-point game, which brings the unit cap up to 4.
But really, I would rather GW gave Drukhari another Kabal-compatible HQ option. Like, say, a Dracon (sub-Archon), or an Archon with wings, or a non-subfaction character such as a "super-Scourge".
.
So what you're saying is that your army is perfectly legal, it's just better at winning games if you don't have to take an HQ that is less ideal at winning games or take a single brigade instead of two battalions. This just demonstrates my point that the majority of the time it isn't that the poor narrative-focused player is unable to take a thematic army, it's that they're perfectly capable of taking a thematic army if theme is the primary goal but they want to ignore the RO3 so their army can be better at winning games.
To be fair GW could through a number of factions a bone and either expand their HW sections to have more variety. I know if I played dark eldar I wouldn't want to spam 3 or 4 archons since that isn't fluffy but if I want to play a pure Kabalite force, what choice do I have. I only have one HQ to fill out my slots.
In my gaming community I fully expect my opponent on Saturday afternoon to follow the Rule of 3. Its the standard without prior arrangements (like a Narrative game or campaign). While some armies/lists are hurt by it and others have loopholes, its better than what we had without it. Nobody has ever asked for an exception to the Rule of 3 outside of that, but I suppose I would carry on and play in certain cases. If it was a brand new player who somehow worked five Whirlwinds into his first list then I would play and then gently tell him about the Rule of 3 and how pick-up games in my community are done under tournament conditions barring other arrangements.
Crimson wrote: Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.
But you aren't. You can take a single brigade (3 HQ choices, no special character required) instead of two battalions and the army will be perfectly functional. What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.
Crimson wrote: Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.
But you aren't. You can take a single brigade (3 HQ choices, no special character required) instead of two battalions and the army will be perfectly functional. What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.
To be fair the 1 to 5CP for battalions is too much of a jump, it should have stayed 1 to 3 to 9 and battleforged CP should have been increased. That would have made people feel less forced into multiple battalion army lists.
But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.
Peregrine wrote: So what you're saying is that your army is perfectly legal, it's just better at winning games if you don't have to take an HQ that is less ideal at winning games or take a single brigade instead of two battalions. This just demonstrates my point that the majority of the time it isn't that the poor narrative-focused player is unable to take a thematic army, it's that they're perfectly capable of taking a thematic army if theme is the primary goal but they want to ignore the RO3 so their army can be better at winning games.
You're being unfair. Other armies, like Space Marines and Craftworlds, have a crapload of HQ datasheets to choose from, including minor variations on wargear such as "captain in terminator armor" and "farseer on a jetbike". If they need to abide by the RO3, they may indeed have to take an HQ that is, in your words, "less ideal at winning games". But the thing is, they have many such options, not just one.
It's not the RO3 itself that's the problem, but the way it conflicts with both the Drukhari's lack of different HQ datasheets and their faction's fragmentation into non-compatible subfactions. It's not "so my army can be better at winning games"; it's so I can field a legal and competitive army at all without being forced to take a special character who might clash with my army's fluff, theme or tactics; something that other factions have no trouble doing.
I don't want the RO3 to go away. I'm not even asking for a new model. All I want is
One.
More.
HQ.
Datasheet.
Peregrine wrote: What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.
What makes, say, Craftworlds good at "maximizing their CP generation and winning games" is purely the fact that they get more support from GW. That's it. The Drukhari problem is not a flaw inherent to the way their army was designed (such as very elite armies like Custodes finding it hard to field more than one battalion in 2000 pts), but purely a "meta" problem that is exacerbated by an in-game rule.
The in-game rule can stay. Just fix the meta problem.
Like I said: one more datasheet in the next Chapter Approved. That's it.
Ice_can wrote: But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.
-Guardsman- wrote: I don't want the RO3 to go away. I'm not even asking for a new model. All I want is
One.
More.
HQ.
Datasheet.
Is it just the Kabal branch of DE that's missing a second generic HQ character, or is it true for all three branches?
And would I be right in thinking you'd be after a Lt./Junior Officer sort of HQ, which could be represented with the same kit as the top tier version, so no new release required?
All three only have one HQ type and then one special character that works for army building purposes to give them a fourth unique choice. This is obviously very limiting in larger games if you wanted to run a pure army of one of the three branches.
Crimson wrote: Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.
But you aren't. You can take a single brigade (3 HQ choices, no special character required) instead of two battalions and the army will be perfectly functional. What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.
Quelle horreur! People want their armies to be able to even somewehat fairly compete, at least in the casual setting. Double battalion at 2000 points is hardly getting into WAAC territory.
And of course you as well are arguing in favour of a format which gives your preferred army a better chance of winning. The Guard is one of the armies which is least affected competitively by Ro3, thus having that limitation in place makes your army relatively better.
HoundsofDemos wrote: All three only have one HQ type and then one special character that works for army building purposes to give them a fourth unique choice. This is obviously very limiting in larger games if you wanted to run a pure army of one of the three branches.
But if you didn't have to force yourself into double battalions would it be such an issue? If it was 5 CP battle forged 3Cp for a battalion and 1 per special detachment would you still have such and issue with the limitations on multiples?
I'm interested as I really do wonder if GW has actually understood just what their CP system changes force people to play now?
The above is why I'd rather them either do something like kill team where you get so many Cp a turn or just peg it to point level.
Basing it entirely on how many cheap troops / HQ options a faction can spam creates a real disparity between various factions and give the game wonky balance issues.
Ice_can wrote: To be fair the 1 to 5CP for battalions is too much of a jump, it should have stayed 1 to 3 to 9 and battleforged CP should have been increased. That would have made people feel less forced into multiple battalion army lists.
But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.
Sure, I will agree that the CP system is a broken mess (and should be removed from the game entirely IMO), but that's not the point. The point is that people claim that they need exceptions to the RO3 or that the RO3 is a bad rule because it prevents them from playing thematic armies, often while claiming that the RO3 advocates are WAAC ITC fanboys trying to bully everyone into playing nothing but ITC. But in reality virtually all of these complaints fall into one of two categories:
1) There's nothing preventing them from using that theme and building a RO3-legal list, but the list wouldn't be as powerful as they want and they demand an exception to the RO3 so they can have a better chance of winning. It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
or
2) The general theme is perfectly viable, but they insist on using a single specific army list with no possible modifications allowed. Trade a veteran squad for an infantry squad to make the army RO3-legal? Unacceptable, it is absolute law that every army from their headcanon regiment has exactly four veteran squads at all times and asking them to take anything else is like demanding that a space marine player sell their army and buy orks. Who cares if this matches the fluff published by GW, their special snowflake is sacred and everything else about the game must adapt to make room for it.
Neither case deserves any sympathy whatsoever, and neither justifies the hysterical complaints that "RO3 makes it impossible to play my army".
Ice_can wrote: To be fair the 1 to 5CP for battalions is too much of a jump, it should have stayed 1 to 3 to 9 and battleforged CP should have been increased. That would have made people feel less forced into multiple battalion army lists.
But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.
Sure, I will agree that the CP system is a broken mess (and should be removed from the game entirely IMO), but that's not the point. The point is that people claim that they need exceptions to the RO3 or that the RO3 is a bad rule because it prevents them from playing thematic armies, often while claiming that the RO3 advocates are WAAC ITC fanboys trying to bully everyone into playing nothing but ITC. But in reality virtually all of these complaints fall into one of two categories:
1) There's nothing preventing them from using that theme and building a RO3-legal list, but the list wouldn't be as powerful as they want and they demand an exception to the RO3 so they can have a better chance of winning. It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
or
2) The general theme is perfectly viable, but they insist on using a single specific army list with no possible modifications allowed. Trade a veteran squad for an infantry squad to make the army RO3-legal? Unacceptable, it is absolute law that every army from their headcanon regiment has exactly four veteran squads at all times and asking them to take anything else is like demanding that a space marine player sell their army and buy orks. Who cares if this matches the fluff published by GW, their special snowflake is sacred and everything else about the game must adapt to make room for it.
Neither case deserves any sympathy whatsoever, and neither justifies the hysterical complaints that "RO3 makes it impossible to play my army".
And completely ignoring that not everyone has models that he just can switch out?
Not Online!!! wrote: And completely ignoring that not everyone has models that he just can switch out?
If you have exactly the models to play a 2000 point game by ignoring RO3 and no other models at all, an incredibly unlikely situation given the fact that most newbies end up with a random mix of stuff and it's veteran players who have enough copies of the same unit to spam it 4+ times, you can play a 1500 point game following the RO3.
Ice_can wrote: To be fair the 1 to 5CP for battalions is too much of a jump, it should have stayed 1 to 3 to 9 and battleforged CP should have been increased. That would have made people feel less forced into multiple battalion army lists.
But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.
Sure, I will agree that the CP system is a broken mess (and should be removed from the game entirely IMO), but that's not the point. The point is that people claim that they need exceptions to the RO3 or that the RO3 is a bad rule because it prevents them from playing thematic armies, often while claiming that the RO3 advocates are WAAC ITC fanboys trying to bully everyone into playing nothing but ITC. But in reality virtually all of these complaints fall into one of two categories:
1) There's nothing preventing them from using that theme and building a RO3-legal list, but the list wouldn't be as powerful as they want and they demand an exception to the RO3 so they can have a better chance of winning. It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
or
2) The general theme is perfectly viable, but they insist on using a single specific army list with no possible modifications allowed. Trade a veteran squad for an infantry squad to make the army RO3-legal? Unacceptable, it is absolute law that every army from their headcanon regiment has exactly four veteran squads at all times and asking them to take anything else is like demanding that a space marine player sell their army and buy orks. Who cares if this matches the fluff published by GW, their special snowflake is sacred and everything else about the game must adapt to make room for it.
Neither case deserves any sympathy whatsoever, and neither justifies the hysterical complaints that "RO3 makes it impossible to play my army".
See now your jumping the shark.
Your jumping from it's a problem because of CP being generated in a busted manor vrs it actually being a RO3 problem.
To removing CP which only helps Guard.
And saying just bring another unit. We don't all have interchangeable models between troops and other slots.
While it's not the game breaking issue some claim, I do think your being too dismissive about people complaints that it bars them form fielding a "competitive list" ie having enough acess to CP and hence strategums to have a balanced game.
I've seen a lot of people say they hate the rule and it's unfair and they can't play X fluffy list thats not a power list which is 90% of the time not true they can play it just in a super sub optimal way like 3 10 dude units instead of 6 5 man units.
Or I can't play pure fast attack army, you can most of the time it's just super trash because its maximum CP is 6 while taking a single battalion would jump that to 10 and double battalions take you to 14.
Most of the time it's not that they can't actually legally play the model's it's just a really bad army.
Also while I wouldn't want to play it if it's truly an issue narrative and open play is a thing, maybe extremely fringe but some people do play it.
All Factions have good builds and bad builds, Rule of 3 or no. I'm sure there's plenty of folks out there who would LOVE to field a Stompa Mob, or Tau Allies, or any kind of GK list. Removing Ro3 helps a few, niche armies out, sure, but it doesn't fix the inherent balance issues with the game that GW can't seem to figure out a solution for. So, really that rule isn't the problem at all. If you really care about people fielding the armies they want to field, we (as a community) should either learn to accommodate the other players, or (alternatively) pressure GW in some way to fix the actual issues with the game.
Most of the time it's not that they can't actually legally play the model's it's just a really bad army.
Yes. Sometimes it indeed is that. People want to just play the sort of army they like and it not to be utterly crap. Completely understandable.
Also while I wouldn't want to play it if it's truly an issue narrative and open play is a thing, maybe extremely fringe but some people do play it.
Yes. And playing by the normal matched play rules is also a thing. You know, the ones which do not include the tournament suggestions.
You remove the expectation of that rule from pick up games and someone will bring back the 9DP list and etc.
If you want to bring a sub optimal narative army just tell people so they can play down to it do not bring it along to a pick up game, much like don't bring the latest tournament winning net list.
You can complain about people refusing game that arn't compliant with the rule of 3 when people stop saying it's ok to blanket reject a game against any list with FW or knights etc.
Ice_can wrote: Your jumping from it's a problem because of CP being generated in a busted manor vrs it actually being a RO3 problem.
Uh, no. In fact I specifically said that CP being broken (and a bad mechanic) is unrelated to the argument I'm making. I simply agreed with you that yes, the CP system is broken so that you wouldn't think that I'm defending it.
To removing CP which only helps Guard.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
And saying just bring another unit. We don't all have interchangeable models between troops and other slots.
So interchange troops and elites, or fast attack and heavy support, or whatever you want. I sincerely doubt there are many people who have only the exact models required to make a single non-RO3-legal list and nothing else. Newbies don't go out and buy 4+ copies of a single unit, and veterans have extra models in their collections. And, as I said, you can always play at a lower point level.
While it's not the game breaking issue some claim, I do think your being too dismissive about people complaints that it bars them form fielding a "competitive list" ie having enough acess to CP and hence strategums to have a balanced game.
IOW, "I want my army to be better at winning games, can we change the rules so it wins more". If that's the issue then at least admit it and stop hiding behind this idea that the RO3 makes it impossible to play thematic lists.
Peregrine wrote: It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
Just like you are doing.
Hardly. I play IG, it would be great for my chances of winning if I could spam an unlimited number of mortar HWS, tank commanders, etc. RO3 is good for the game as a whole and I want it to be enforced no matter whose list it helps. Contrast this with many of the RO3 opponents who openly admit that they want to get rid of it because it would make their army more powerful.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Well hopefully they keep adding in things to incentive mono army builds, straighten out this CP mess and mabe then it'll feel a bit better. I'd love for soup to be more of a rarely seen novelty than the coin of the realm.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Well hopefully they keep adding in things to incentive mono army builds, straighten out this CP mess and mabe then it'll feel a bit better. I'd love for soup to be more of a rarely seen novelty than the coin of the realm.
Well, I think the Doctrines are the Dekurions of 8th. Every codex that gets made from now on will have a similar rule, except CSM because they were the first codex to get a 8.1 version.
Jidmah wrote: Well, I think the Doctrines are the Dekurions of 8th. Every codex that gets made from now on will have a similar rule, except CSM because they were the first codex to get a 8.1 version.
And consequently can go feth themselves, because coordination within the rules writers is for the weak, as is sanity
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one. The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
No, the stratagems , even compared to the underwhelming ones in the CSM dex (nt cacophony or Votwl,) are just bad. Add to that that Guard literally drowns in CP and well, you get the picture why everyone in the IoM likes guardsmen suddenly whilest guardsmen themselves wonder about their leaders capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW , if we 'd remove stratagems and CP, then a lot of the issues with allies would drop, aswell as alot of units could finally be priced propperly and not in their best case scenario.
Which would help certain subfactions a lot. I mean A LOT.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
No, the stratagems , even compared to the underwhelming ones in the CSM dex (nt cacophony or Votwl,) are just bad.
Add to that that Guard literally drowns in CP and well, you get the picture why everyone in the IoM likes guardsmen suddenly whilest guardsmen themselves wonder about their leaders capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW , if we 'd remove stratagems and CP, then a lot of the issues with allies would drop, aswell as alot of units could finally be priced propperly and not in their best case scenario.
Which would help certain subfactions alot.
I mean ALOT.
At the end of the day, GW propose the organised play rules to improve fairness, so it's no surprise that people expect to use them in all matched play games by default.
Brother Castor wrote: At the end of the day, GW propose the organised play rules to improve fairness, so it's no surprise that people expect to use them in all matched play games by default.
Where is that stated? To improve fairness, that bit.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
No, the stratagems , even compared to the underwhelming ones in the CSM dex (nt cacophony or Votwl,) are just bad.
Add to that that Guard literally drowns in CP and well, you get the picture why everyone in the IoM likes guardsmen suddenly whilest guardsmen themselves wonder about their leaders capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW , if we 'd remove stratagems and CP, then a lot of the issues with allies would drop, aswell as alot of units could finally be priced propperly and not in their best case scenario.
Which would help certain subfactions alot.
I mean ALOT.
Brother Castor wrote: At the end of the day, GW propose the organised play rules to improve fairness, so it's no surprise that people expect to use them in all matched play games by default.
Where is that stated? To improve fairness, that bit.
Their exact statement was that they create "more dynamic and enjoyable games for everyone", so of course people are going to want that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
Because as we've stated over and over, it was in response to spam lists dominating tournaments. I know it's sefondary to points for some armies like R&H but for the vast majority of other armies it was not fun to play against 18 culexus, 8 hive tyrants, 10 malefic lords or 20 fw hellhounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
The forged narrative goes like this: The first March Spring FAQ was postponed to not interfere with a major tournament right on the release day (IIRC it was adepticon). The developers were dragged out of their ivory tower to attend that tournament and see their rules in actions. According to spectators, the devs were shocked to see everyone spamming PBC, Tau commanders and hive tyrants, something they never had anticipated. This resulted in the FAQ getting postponed even further and then getting released some weeks late (with the usual rage everywhere) but with the current rule of 3.
And everybody lived grimdark ever after.
Before that there were multiple attempts to specifically target offending units, but GW is a slow giant who sucks at whack-a-mole.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
Because as we've stated over and over, it was in response to spam lists dominating tournaments. I know it's sefondary to points for some armies like R&H but for the vast majority of other armies it was not fun to play against 18 culexus, 8 hive tyrants, 10 malefic lords or 20 fw hellhounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
The forged narrative goes like this: The first March Spring FAQ was postponed to not interfere with a major tournament right on the release day (IIRC it was adepticon). The developers were dragged out of their ivory tower to attend that tournament and see their rules in actions. According to spectators, the devs were shocked to see everyone spamming PBC, Tau commanders and hive tyrants, something they never had anticipated. This resulted in the FAQ getting postponed even further and then getting released some weeks late (with the usual rage everywhere) but with the current rule of 3.
And everybody lived grimdark ever after.
Before that there were multiple attempts to specifically target offending units, but GW is a slow giant who sucks at whack-a-mole.
Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
Are you asking why GW is incompetent at balance and rules writing? That might be a question better directed at the development team. Their inability to see blatant problems isn't exactly new to this edition.
Not Online!!! wrote: Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
Game developers and designers are not the same thing. Designers come up with ideas, developers make them work. As far as I'm concerned, 8th edition is the first edition ever to show signs of game development.
They simply had no clue those kind of armies ever existed.
Not Online!!! wrote: Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
Game developers and designers are not the same thing. Designers come up with ideas, developers make them work.
As far as I'm concerned, 8th edition is the first edition ever to show signs of game development.
They simply had no clue those kind of armies ever existed.
Or lack the basic capability to be developers and designers in the first place.
While it's not the game breaking issue some claim, I do think your being too dismissive about people complaints that it bars them form fielding a "competitive list" ie having enough acess to CP and hence strategums to have a balanced game.
IOW, "I want my army to be better at winning games, can we change the rules so it wins more". If that's the issue then at least admit it and stop hiding behind this idea that the RO3 makes it impossible to play thematic lists.
The ability to field two battalions is not just about CPs. It's also about having enough Troop slots available; you know, those very slots that GW is encouraging us to fill by introducing the Rule of Three. Kabalites are cheap, so in a Drukhari army, 6 Troop slots don't take you very far in terms of points.
"Just run a Brigade!" you might say. Okay. Filling the Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots of a kabal-based Brigade sets you back at least 795 points (assuming your Scourges don't even have special weapons). It also requires you to be made of money.
Like I said before, the issue is not so much a matter of rule design as a matter of Drukhari having too few options to abide by that rule effectively, compared to literally EVERY OTHER ARMY. That's why, if invited to a 2000 game, I would explain my situation and request that we either make a single exception to the RO3, or make it a 2001 game instead. In a tournament I would run Drazhar; but my point is, I should not have to. It's a stopgap solution at best.
I remember reading a thing were one of the GW rules team guys was asked about the lash prince being used to back models in a nice little circle so you could bomb them with a pie plate and his response was no one here had ever thought of using it that way.
GW's rules guys have constantly shown that they are not playing in a competitive manor and that shows in how often they miss unintended rules interactions and interpretations.
Hopefully 2020 will be the year of the Xeno. The best solution is for GW to release 4-5 DE characters to solve the problem.
Who doesn't want to see them rebuild Vect and the Dias of Destruction; his trenchcoated incubi guards were awesome.
I have always wanted Keradruak the decapitator. A four armed mandrake? Yes please!
Baron Sathonyx and Duke Sliscus are two old faves too. For Kabals, Lady Malys is a counterpoint to Vect- he would be the DE equivalent of primarch power, so Malys is actually the more feasible option.
The dracon would be the more practical solution. I say release one for Kill Team with 40k rules in the box. Here's hoping.
Multiple generic HQ options- every faction should have them. I play campaign style, so I've just finished building a continent with 245 territories, organized into one large city and eight smaller settlements. The City garrison is a Brigade while the settlements host a battalion at each of their garrisons. It doesn't make sense for the detachments at the settlements to be commanded by company level officials, who would issue their orders from HQ in the cities, and only show up in settlements in response to overwhelming opposition. Platoon Commanders would be perfect for this role of commanding settlement garrisons, but they aren't HQ choices in 8th. Nothing to do with wanting to win; I just want to tell a story.
Of course, in a campaign full of friends, you just make them HQ choices an get back to the game.
-Guardsman- wrote: "Just run a Brigade!" you might say. Okay. Filling the Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots of a kabal-based Brigade sets you back at least 795 points (assuming your Scourges don't even have special weapons). It also requires you to be made of money.
Shock! Horror! RO3 encourages you to spend ~40% of your points on filling up a range of FOC slots instead of just spamming the best option. This sounds like a very good argument in favor of RO3. Of course it isn't mandatory, you're always free to use the less powerful option. But "I want my army to win more" is not the same as "RO3 prevents my army from working" or "RO3 makes it impossible to take themed lists".
That's why, if invited to a 2000 game, I would explain my situation and request that we either make a single exception to the RO3, or make it a 2001 game instead.
IOW, "I want to win more, so let's play a 2000 point game without RO3 or play a 2000 point game without RO3". How about instead of asking to bend the rules for an advantage you just play with the standard rules like everyone else?
Not Online!!! wrote: Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
Game developers and designers are not the same thing. Designers come up with ideas, developers make them work. As far as I'm concerned, 8th edition is the first edition ever to show signs of game development.
They simply had no clue those kind of armies ever existed.
Or lack the basic capability to be developers and designers in the first place.
I wasn't joking though, most of this comes from people talking to developers or from interviews with them. The designers had a culture of "games don't need to be balanced, just talk to your opponent" and "competitive players are doing it wrong", stuff that is still echoed by some long-time players. When the internet happened, GW took down all their public endpoints for criticism, and the designers just went with what they learned in their micro-cosmos of players - who were mostly just tossing dice with fluffy arrangement of models to wait for awesome things to happen. Unclear rules were never an issue because they knew how they were meant to be played. Any WD game from that era is testament to that, for example Phil Kelly was playing his own codex' KFF not according to the rule he wrote, but to how he intended it to be used. He was massively irritated when he was told that he was using his rule wrong. Something like using double lash princes simply would never happened because that would mean building two identical princes, none of them would have done that.
GW has always had good designers, as in people who think up creative and awesome rules to go with their miniatures, finding design space in army ranges (putting a space marine in armor in armor in armor ) - that's a designers job. You might disagree on certain design choices, but there will be at least some people here on dakka that love whatever you hate.
A game developer has to make sure that the game is fun to play for everyone, or - in business terms - make sure that people will pick up the game and then stay with it. This includes, but is not limited to - internal and external balance (all units are viable vs all armies are viable) - if you buy and army full of cool things and it sucks, you stop playing - accessible(easy to learn and understand) - If people become irritated and can't just start pushing models around without reading 100+ pages first, you'll struggle to introduce new people to the game. 8th has a done a lot of good in this regard. - clear and precise rules - When half the game is arguing how rules are to be read, how many models were hit by a template, where the scatter dice is pointing, whether the polish or the english wording is the correct one to use, you are not going to have a good time. 8th is light-years from 5th, but 8th is just as far from air-tight ruleset like MtG has. - intuitive rules - people hate things that just don't make sense. Proof of that is how often "flamers are great anti-air" comes up on this forum, despite them not actually being good at killing planes. - game health - certain units or rules have the ability to warp the game, forcing everyone to play in a certain way that they don't actually want to. The castellan was a prime example of this. Everyone needed to bring weapons to kill a 28W T8 4++ monster, which in turn made all vehicles with less durability obsolete.
In general, game development requires completely different set of skills than game design, but you can't have a great game without either. Very few people are good at doing both. MtG realized that they need game developers to reign in their designers in 1998 when the designers almost killed their game during combo winter. GW took two more decades to get there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: I remember reading a thing were one of the GW rules team guys was asked about the lash prince being used to back models in a nice little circle so you could bomb them with a pie plate and his response was no one here had ever thought of using it that way.
That's not even the worst way to use them. I was playing orks against a chaos player regularly, and he would use the princes to move my units backwards, allowing his units to fight just 3-4 boyz at a time until they lost combat and were run down.
No, GW has a herd of sheep making wool. And they are producing a lot of wool. However, four of those sheep have wandered off, one is drunk because it found some booze, three are on fire and one is slaughtering goats to purify itself.
They are missing a shepherd and a sheepdog, the sheep are doing their job just fine.
Jidmah wrote: No, GW has a herd of sheep making wool. And they are producing a lot of wool.
However, four of those sheep have wandered off, one is drunk because it found some booze, three are on fire and one is slaughtering goats to purify itself.
They are missing a shepherd and a sheepdog, the sheep are doing their job just fine.
This analogy is... Questionable.
But you are trying to say that the need leadership and someone to reign their stupid backsides in?
That ain't how it works.
It would be the Job of the designers to have a fething idea what is going on.
A DESIGNER's job ist not to balance the game. Their job is to make the game interesting. They are doing creative work. Most of GWs games have been games solely ritten by designers so far. Creative tend to be terrible at doing structured work.
A DEVELOPER's job is not to make an interesting game. Their job is to make the game work on technical level. Their job is analysis, abstraction, iteration and math. Games written exclusively by developers tend to be bland and unfun to play. While they have tight and well-thought rules, they are often lacking fun components.
If you take the ork buggies an example: DESGINERs did a great job - they hit the nerve of what orks were lacking (light battle tanks), managed to create six buggies with different look&feel that don't tread too much on other unit's reason to exist. DEVELOPERs dropped the ball by making them cost way too many points, not catching that the squig launcher has a profile which is never worth shooting, not giving the mek special the proper stat line and confusing/forgotten grot gunner rules.
Both the designer and developper would need to have a basic clue about the game. One in order to determine designspace the other for balance.
As it stands both suck at it.
considering that the same people design all their books, I don't not see how the design team that exists right now done a good job. Maybe for some armies. Eldar were fun to play for a long time in 8th, knights and IG soups of different kind seem fun, the new chaos soup seems to be doing fine too. But the same people also did very unfun to play armies, and then the developers let it through.
Plus from what I understand the studio is full of people working on their 4th or 5th edition of w40k. Those aren't new designers that can drop, something in form of we didn't knew people would be playing it that way. after 20 years you should very well know how people are playing your game. Or at least check the tournament lists or what the forums lists look like.
Karol wrote: considering that the same people design all their books, I don't not see how the design team that exists right now done a good job. Maybe for some armies. Eldar were fun to play for a long time in 8th, knights and IG soups of different kind seem fun, the new chaos soup seems to be doing fine too. But the same people also did very unfun to play armies, and then the developers let it through.
Plus from what I understand the studio is full of people working on their 4th or 5th edition of w40k. Those aren't new designers that can drop, something in form of we didn't knew people would be playing it that way. after 20 years you should very well know how people are playing your game. Or at least check the tournament lists or what the forums lists look like.
What you have to remember though is the sorts of people regularly post here or on Reddit or whatever are just one demographic of player. We are a minority. Sure, they still should be aware of what people like us think. But they're not just making the game for us.
Karol wrote: considering that the same people design all their books, I don't not see how the design team that exists right now done a good job. Maybe for some armies. Eldar were fun to play for a long time in 8th, knights and IG soups of different kind seem fun, the new chaos soup seems to be doing fine too. But the same people also did very unfun to play armies, and then the developers let it through.
Plus from what I understand the studio is full of people working on their 4th or 5th edition of w40k. Those aren't new designers that can drop, something in form of we didn't knew people would be playing it that way. after 20 years you should very well know how people are playing your game. Or at least check the tournament lists or what the forums lists look like.
What you have to remember though is the sorts of people regularly post here or on Reddit or whatever are just one demographic of player. We are a minority. Sure, they still should be aware of what people like us think. But they're not just making the game for us.
Even on dakka we are a diverse group, I myself are mostly narrative focused. Casual second and so far away from tournaments. And yet I still find there game frustrating and rather poor.
There are some things that happen that just sit back and think how did they think that was right.
Karol wrote: considering that the same people design all their books, I don't not see how the design team that exists right now done a good job. Maybe for some armies. Eldar were fun to play for a long time in 8th, knights and IG soups of different kind seem fun, the new chaos soup seems to be doing fine too. But the same people also did very unfun to play armies, and then the developers let it through.
All of what you are describing is DEVELOPMENT failing.
I don't think any of the soups were created by designers, outside of traditional allies like CSM+daemons, Assassins, Harlequins or Ynnari.
Plus from what I understand the studio is full of people working on their 4th or 5th edition of w40k. Those aren't new designers that can drop, something in form of we didn't knew people would be playing it that way. after 20 years you should very well know how people are playing your game. Or at least check the tournament lists or what the forums lists look like.
I just wrote a couple of extensive posts outlining what exactly they did and did't do, you might want to give them a read
From that it should be pretty clear that game DEVELOPMENT started with 8th, maybe even later. Thus, they have no experience to draw from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Both the designer and developper would need to have a basic clue about the game. One in order to determine designspace the other for balance.
As it stands both suck at it.
So, which of the releases that happend during 8th do you think were badly designed?
Master of executions, new havocs, Lord discordant (because he fails at what he is supposed to do, making daemon engines viable), newblits, MoP, newpostle,
Not Online!!! wrote: A competently balanced game is good for all people and all groups.
Only in abstract sense. How you arrive to that balance matters. If you start to ban and limit stuff to improve balance, then it is not good for everyone. Ro3, detachment limits, banning allies, banning Forgeworld. All popular in Dakka in the name of improving balance, all limit what sort of army you can make. Some of us prefer the freedom of army construction over what questionable improvements of balance tossing all this bathwater with alarmingly high concentration of babies would achieve.
Not Online!!! wrote: A competently balanced game is good for all people and all groups.
Only in abstract sense. How you arrive to that balance matters. If you start to ban and limit stuff to improve balance, then it is not good for everyone. Ro3, detachment limits, banning allies, banning Forgeworld. All popular in Dakka in the name of improving balance, all limit what sort of army you can make. Some of us prefer the freedom of army construction over what questionable improvements of balance tossing all this bathwater with alarmingly high concentration of babies would achieve.
That would insinuate that i regard the Dakka balance suggestions as usefull in the first place.
Which i don't.
All of what you are describing is DEVELOPMENT failing.
I don't think any of the soups were created by designers, outside of traditional allies like CSM+daemons, Assassins, Harlequins or Ynnari
I just wrote a couple of extensive posts outlining what exactly they did and did't do, you might want to give them a read
From that it should be pretty clear that game DEVELOPMENT started with 8th, maybe even later. Thus, they have no experience to draw from.
So, which of the releases that happend during 8th do you think were badly designed?
I play grey knights. My codex was bad designed, bad developed. Non of the FAQ or CA errata GW implemented to made the codex better, in fact a lot of the changes made the codex worse. I haven't played whole 8th ed, but from what I think is true, the codex was 4th or 5th GW made. Codex that were before it and were weak, like for example primaris in space marine codex, Got fixed. Now an interecessor costs 17pts, when a 1w GK strike cost 21. And the grey knight strike has one stratagem that buffs its ammo, something primaris just do by having different weapons or have it stock if they are DW. All the GW "fixs" were stuff they had to do, because they were doing it to other marines. Other marines got cheaper HQs and cheaper primaris. GK got cheaper HQs ,even if HQ price wasn't their problem. SM dreads got cheaper, GK dreads got cheaper. But GW doesn't understand that stuff like psychic powers has huge diminishing returns when you have, maybe, 3 to cast per turn for an entire army that has points cost added to it as if they were casting every turn. Same with deep strike. GW articles about how GK should work are full of powerful turn 1 deep strike and using stormbolters, only you can't do that in 8th ed.
Some of us prefer the freedom of army construction over what questionable improvements of balance tossing all this bathwater with alarmingly high concentration of babies would achieve.
yeah, those some people who have good working armies, and who want even more out of the game. On the other hand some people have armies that just don't work, and taking ally would only mean you would have to take less and less of the army you want to play, to a point where ally are no longer ally, but they are your army.
Peregrine wrote: How about instead of asking to bend the rules for an advantage you just play with the standard rules like everyone else?
He is asking to play by the standard rules. You're the one who wants to use optional stuff for your own benefit.
The 80% of people who voted that they consider RO3 at least the expected standard, if not strictly mandatory, would disagree with you.
And no, it isn't for my own benefit. My army gets better if I can spam mortar HWS, deep striking plasma command squads, etc. But RO3 is good for the health of the game as a whole even if it hurts my win percentage.
The 80% of people who voted that they consider RO3 at least the expected standard, if not strictly mandatory, would disagree with you.
Dakka is not representative of the payerbase as a whole and certainly has no authority to decide what the rules are. Only GW can do that.
And no, it isn't for my own benefit. My army gets better if I can spam mortar HWS, deep striking plasma command squads, etc. But RO3 is good for the health of the game as a whole even if it hurts my win percentage.
Oh please! I was talking about relative power, of course every army gets better without Ro3, some are just affected much more. And we all know that you're a complete hypocrite on this 'limitations for balance' thing. At them moment banning FW for balance is suggested, you start shrieking. Yet in many tournaments banning FW is indeed a convention, and doing so is hardly uncommon among the playerbase. You have advocated banning allies, because you your self do no not use them. You're fine with all sort of restrictions as long as they do not actually affect you.
And no, do not bother with 'my preferred restrictions are good for the game, those that I do not like are bad for it.' You are not the arbiter of the good game design, and I have to say you have highly inflated opinion of your grasp of the subject matter.
It always bugged me that people who want to play a certain way, choose armies that are antithetical to that style of play.
The kid who gets upset when my custodes slaughter his ork boyz, is upset that his horde is not as strong as my 3 guys that cost more than 20 of his guys.
The girl who got upset when her 3 knight list got taken down by nids.
If you want to play horde, play horde. But don't play Custodes and demand they cost 17ppm, and you should be able to field squadrons of Telemons. I'm sorry your army was designed by Stevie Wonder on crack, but if you don't like that play style, don't play that army.
I'm sorry the hobby is really expensive, and it sucks to start a new army. Try ebay? But that's how it is.
If you want to play your own game, suggest that. Come up with rules, stats, and whatever, disseminate it. I would love to use my army to play different games. I would enjoy seeing a different self made warhammer.
But I think it's wrong to just look at the majority playing a certain way, and demanding they play your way.
Not every faction gains a lot by having 4+ of the same datasheet in a list. As a BA player I could take 2 instead of 1 smash captain but everything else I would rather just take one off. Even our smash captains have extremely diminishing returns due to extreme CP usage. I like the RO3 since it limits the broken stuff my opponents can do since I have 0 units that are under costed in both points and CP. The smash captain is perhaps a bit under costed in points but not in CP so even having 10 of them wouldnt really do much.
9 mortar squads on the other hand sounds very good. Their only drawback is that you can't take more than 3 of them right now. 0 reason not to fill up max heavy slots with mortars if you had any open. Best spent points there is.
Klickor wrote: Not every faction gains a lot by having 4+ of the same datasheet in a list. As a BA player I could take 2 instead of 1 smash captain but everything else I would rather just take one off. Even our smash captains have extremely diminishing returns due to extreme CP usage. I like the RO3 since it limits the broken stuff my opponents can do since I have 0 units that are under costed in both points and CP. The smash captain is perhaps a bit under costed in points but not in CP so even having 10 of them wouldnt really do much.
So in other words you are arguing in a favour of a game format which gives you a competitive advantage?
And I am not saying this is wrong. Every format has its winners and losers. But lets try to be objective here and understand that this indeed is the case.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It always bugged me that people who want to play a certain way, choose armies that are antithetical to that style of play.
The kid who gets upset when my custodes slaughter his ork boyz, is upset that his horde is not as strong as my 3 guys that cost more than 20 of his guys.
The girl who got upset when her 3 knight list got taken down by nids.
If you want to play horde, play horde. But don't play Custodes and demand they cost 17ppm, and you should be able to field squadrons of Telemons. I'm sorry your army was designed by Stevie Wonder on crack, but if you don't like that play style, don't play that army.
I'm sorry the hobby is really expensive, and it sucks to start a new army. Try ebay? But that's how it is.
If you want to play your own game, suggest that. Come up with rules, stats, and whatever, disseminate it. I would love to use my army to play different games. I would enjoy seeing a different self made warhammer.
But I think it's wrong to just look at the majority playing a certain way, and demanding they play your way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It always bugged me that people who want to play a certain way, choose armies that are antithetical to that style of play.
The kid who gets upset when my custodes slaughter his ork boyz, is upset that his horde is not as strong as my 3 guys that cost more than 20 of his guys.
The girl who got upset when her 3 knight list got taken down by nids.
If you want to play horde, play horde. But don't play Custodes and demand they cost 17ppm, and you should be able to field squadrons of Telemons. I'm sorry your army was designed by Stevie Wonder on crack, but if you don't like that play style, don't play that army.
I'm sorry the hobby is really expensive, and it sucks to start a new army. Try ebay? But that's how it is.
If you want to play your own game, suggest that. Come up with rules, stats, and whatever, disseminate it. I would love to use my army to play different games. I would enjoy seeing a different self made warhammer.
But I think it's wrong to just look at the majority playing a certain way, and demanding they play your way.
About whom are you talking here?
No one person, I find singling out someone leads to trouble. Just more of a general observation. I've heard a lot of people on Dakka advocate for volumes of rule changes, or new "suggestions". I have seen countless posts in this thread stating GW is crap at their job, and their output as far as rules is crap. I have seen people claim they could do it better.
All I am saying is that sounds AWESOME. Lets see it. I'd love it if someone that can, would. Because I think a F2Play living rules set for Warhammer 40k (modded version) would be an amazing thing. I'm totally serious. I'd love to help start a Battlescribe list for races, so people could play with a unified (user-created) list of stats/rules. It's like how Skyrim sucked until the players completely redesigned the game with mods.
But if no one can do that, maybe we should tone down the "GW sucks, GW sucks, GW sucks" incessant chanting around here.
For starters, it would eliminate the BS cost of buying new rules every couple months, and it would make toting the books around a lot easier.
Also, it would help GW see what the players actually want.
For starters, I want my Custodian Guard to be allowed to use Saggy Guard as troops.
So in other words you are arguing in a favour of a game format which gives you a competitive advantage?
And I am not saying this is wrong. Every format has its winners and losers. But lets try to be objective here and understand that this indeed is the case.
That is true, and it is good. But to me it looks a bit as if we played in an event where there are 10 people 4 from first class in highschool, 3 from last school in highschool and 3 come from sports school and were held up there for 2 years, and take part in school wrestling derby at the age of 19 vs guys who are 15.
It always bugged me that people who want to play a certain way, choose armies that are antithetical to that style of play.
unless your a GW designer or a GW owner, I doubt most people can decide on the rule set your playing with.
)
no.
cause adding the Skitarii Primus that keep showing up in fluff is too difficult!).
