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.

 Jidmah wrote:

Theoretical and moral problems have no impact on the quality of the game.

Of course they do.

In all threads on these topics, the naysayers have failed to provide even a single battle report where these missing limitation on LRBT, daemon princes or other similar units have actually caused problems, while there a plenty of samples of real problems that have been reigned in by the rule of 3.

Nor would four Onagers cause any problem. Or indeed four IG veteran squads, which started this whole thread!

As already established, when playing matched play anywhere outside of your home, you can assume that you are expected to follow the rule of 3. It really doesn't matter in what category GW puts a rule when more than 80% of the community uses it in their default games.

It has not been established. Dakka polls are not indicative of the playerbase as a whole. Dakka has far higher concentration on wannabe tournament tryhards than the gaming population as a whole. Also, the whole 'most people used so so should you' argument is completely circular anyway. There is a loud contingent on Dakka who tell everybody they should use this rule, going so far as lying that it is a normal matched play rule. They're literally spreading misinformation of the game rules to ensure the prevalence of their preferred houserule.

How about you back up all your conspiracy theories up with facts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

In all threads on these topics, the naysayers have failed to provide even a single battle report where these missing limitation on LRBT, daemon princes or other similar units have actually caused problems, while there a plenty of samples of real problems that have been reigned in by the rule of 3.

Nor would four Onagers cause any problem. Or indeed four IG veteran squads, [i]which started this whole thread!

I asked you to provide proof of there being a problem. Failing that you must admit that the loop holes through squadrons and datasheets variants are not a problem and that you were wrong about this.

The problem is the limit itself. Many units being able to circumvent the rule merely shows how poorly conceived it is.

Also, pointing out an obvious things is not 'conspiracy theory'. In this very thread a lot of people kept using words 'standard matched play rules' when they meant 'standard tournament rules'. So either they are seriously confused or intentionally spreading misinformation.

Tourney prep has to use tourney rules. I usually describe my matches as itc, so no confusion there.

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is the limit itself. Many units being able to circumvent the rule merely shows how poorly conceived it is.

Since your arguments have come to a full circle now, and you failed to provide any reason why this would be a problem for the game while other, real problems are fixed by the rule, I'll just consider this point void. Not being able to play four veteran squads is fine if it keeps PBC and flyrant spam out of the game.

Also, pointing out an obvious things is not 'conspiracy theory'. In this very thread a lot of people kept using words 'standard matched play rules' when they meant 'standard tournament rules'. So either they are seriously confused or intentionally spreading misinformation.

Claiming those people are intentionally spreading misinformation to further their hidden agenda is very much a conspiracy theory.

 Jidmah wrote:

Since your arguments have come to a full circle now, and you failed to provide any reason why this would be a problem for the game while other, real problems are fixed by the rule, I'll just consider this point void. Not being able to play four veteran squads is fine if it keeps PBC and flyrant spam out of the game.

I have repeatedly said what the harm is, you just keep ignoring it. The harm is the collateral damage caused by such blanket restrictions and the unfairness in the manner it is applied. Banning all units whose name starts with the letter 'H' would solve the Hive Tyrant spam issue too, but it doesn't mean it would be a good or fair rule. If the Hive Tyrants are an issue, then address that. Tau got a bespoke rule to limit the Commanders, same could have been done for other problem units.

Claiming those people are intentionally spreading misinformation to further their hidden agenda is very much a conspiracy theory.

So why do you think they're spreading misinformation then?

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Since your arguments have come to a full circle now, and you failed to provide any reason why this would be a problem for the game while other, real problems are fixed by the rule, I'll just consider this point void. Not being able to play four veteran squads is fine if it keeps PBC and flyrant spam out of the game.

I have repeatedly said what the harm is, you just keep ignoring it. The harm is the collateral damage caused by such blanket restrictions and the unfairness in the manner it is applied.

And yet, the collateral damage is doing less harm to the game than the damage done by such a rule missing. That's what you keep ignoring.
I also fail to see how putting bespoke rules to limit units is "fair" while putting bespoke rule on units to ignore a blanket limit(squadrons) is not. One is blacklisting while the other one is whitelisting, two attempts at the very same problem. If anything, GW should whitelist more units (like veterans), as I do not trust them to maintain a blacklist in a timely manner.

Claiming those people are intentionally spreading misinformation to further their hidden agenda is very much a conspiracy theory.

So why do you think they're spreading misinformation then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

 Jidmah wrote:

And yet, the collateral damage is doing less harm to the game than the damage done by such a rule missing. That's what you keep ignoring.

I am not ignoring it, I am disagreeing. It may be true for tournaments that killing some fluffy casual builds to gain a bit more balance is worth it, but it is not worth it for casual pick up games. This is what I've been saying the whole time: the tournament rule shouldn't be used for casual pick up games!

I also fail to see how putting bespoke rules to limit units is "fair" while putting bespoke rule on units to ignore a blanket limit(squadrons) is not. One is blacklisting while the other one is whitelisting, two attempts at the very same problem. If anything, GW should whitelist more units (like veterans), as I do not trust them to maintain a blacklist in a timely manner.

The squadron rule is not put there to circumvent this rule, it is just an accident that it does. Squadron rule was there before, for completely different reasons. Now if all the harmless units hurt by this rule would be given a bespoke rule that allowed them to circumvent it, it indeed would have the same end result than having Ro3 (or similar) as a bespoke rule only on the problem units. But I wager that there are way less of the actual problem units than there are harmless units, thus it easier to limit them.

 Crimson wrote:
The squadron rule is not put there to circumvent this rule, it is just an accident that it does. Squadron rule was there before, for completely different reasons. Now if all the harmless units hurt by this rule would be given a bespoke rule that allowed them to circumvent it, it indeed would have the same end result than having Ro3 (or similar) as a bespoke rule only on the problem units. But I wager that there are way less of the actual problem units than there are harmless units, thus it easier to limit them.

Tell me, does your add-block use a blacklist or a whitelist?

Does your local pub use a blacklist or a whitelist? Silly comparison is silly.

It is not.

Having broken lists because units can be spammed is a major problem to the game. Entire events can be dominated by spam lists that GW failed to catch, and it takes at least two weeks for them to fix the problem, if not until the next big FAQ or CA.
Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best.

You use blacklists when undesired things getting through is not a problem, you use white lists when you want to make sure that nothing gets in that's not desired.
Therefore, a pub hosting a wedding will have a whitelist (guest list), a pub that just wants as many paying customers as possible will have a blacklist.

 Jidmah wrote:

Having broken lists because units can be spammed is a major problem to the game. Entire events can be dominated by spam lists that GW failed to catch, and it takes at least two weeks for them to fix the problem, if not until the next big FAQ or CA.

Event? Like a tournament?

Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best.

To you.

You use blacklists when undesired things getting through is not a problem, you use white lists when you want to make sure that nothing gets in that's not desired.
Therefore, a pub hosting a wedding will have a whitelist (guest list),

So this is an organised event, similar to a tournament.

a pub that just wants as many paying customers as possible will have a blacklist.

Like a store wanting to attract customer to play pick up games.


It is almost like GW recognised that tournaments and random pick up games had different requirements, and wrote rules that should be applied to the former but not to the latter.

@ Crimson

"Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best"

"To you."

That argument can be turned back around. For people who report in what they play, they don't seem to have enough of a problem with the rule to stop using it.

While I haven't been in the majority of game stores, I have been to them on two continents since Ro3 came out. One doesn't use it. But most of the players still do for their games outside the club.

So it seems that Ro3 isn't really a detriment to pick up games in most cases.

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Having broken lists because units can be spammed is a major problem to the game. Entire events can be dominated by spam lists that GW failed to catch, and it takes at least two weeks for them to fix the problem, if not until the next big FAQ or CA.

Event? Like a tournament?

Tournaments, campaigns, leagues, battle days, conventions, you call it.
Weeks, if not months go into organizing such events, people block times, spend money on traveling, hotels and whatnot. Just to find out half their games will be against spam-the-new-hot-stuff.

Meanwhile not being able to spam a unit that is not a problem, but an annoyance at best.

To you.

Preventing toxic elements from a game always takes priority over enabling fun things. When people hate parts of your game, it shrinks and disappears, while fun option don't necessarily make your game grow - 7th and 8th edition are a testament to that. Basic game design knowledge, really.

You use blacklists when undesired things getting through is not a problem, you use white lists when you want to make sure that nothing gets in that's not desired.
Therefore, a pub hosting a wedding will have a whitelist (guest list),

So this is an organised event, similar to a tournament.

No, this is you grasping straws to twist a metaphor into having an argument at all.

a pub that just wants as many paying customers as possible will have a blacklist.

Like a store wanting to attract customer to play pick up games.

Wow, you are moving goal posts so fast, weapons that target them get -1 to hit and can't be assaulted by units without FLY.

If you don't want to understand the advantages of opt-in over opt-out, that's fine with me. Denying facts has become and accepted part of society anyways.
That makes you unqualified to criticize GW's rule decisions though.

It is almost like GW recognised that tournaments and random pick up games had different requirements, and wrote rules that should be applied to the former but not to the latter.

It's almost like the players recognized that a rule intended for tournaments makes all their other games better as and this applied it to all their game.