Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

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

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

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

It's an absurd argument and you know it.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

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

Pretty sure this is the case before.

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

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

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

Such as?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

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

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

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

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

 n0t_u wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 vipoid wrote:

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

Can you not play Eldar without taking 8 Ravagers?

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

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

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

Blastaar wrote:

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

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

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

meleti wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

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

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

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

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

meleti wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 vipoid wrote:

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

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

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

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

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

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

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

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

Karol wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

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

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

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

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

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

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

 SHUPPET wrote:

Karol wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

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

These posts are unbelievably transparent.

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

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

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

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

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

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