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.

The case where it comes up the most is if you want to FSE as you have to use a ton of cadre FBs as that is the only non-restricted HQ choice, admittedly running FSE in a competitive setting is pretty rare.

The only thing Rule of Three affected in my collection, was my all Bike Space Marine list, which suffered more from bikes not being troops (and me not having any tacticals or scouts). I ended up selling off that army anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if CA drops points on bike units and I end up kicking myself for that....

Back on topic, I'm actually hoping some line troops get a price HIKE to make up for my Ork boyz going up a point. Also, now that unthinkable about it, my MSU loota spam list is also affected by Rule of Three.... I might just give Bad Moons with them after all. I'm really a Death Skull ork boy at heart.

Bharring wrote:
What units are:
a) Super cheap, even maxed out
b) Not troops
c) Fluffy to spam
?

I dunno. As a Tau player I wouldn't mind taking more Pathfinders (with ion rifles) or Hammerhead tanks, but I can't sit back and say an army with 6 Hammerheads and Longstrike is an especially fluffy list for Tau.

For T'au, what I'd want more of 3 of would be Pathfinders. I'd agree with that.

And Scarab Swarms make sense.

I think Rule of 3 does cost us some things. But I'm nowhere close to convince that the bandaid was worse than the disease.

Bharring wrote:
What units are:
a) Super cheap, even maxed out
b) Not troops
c) Fluffy to spam
?

Tanks. Basilisks. (we get squadrons on these, though, so we don't ever practically run afoul of the field allowance)

More relevantly, Heavy Weapons Sections.


Predators and vindicators too, most probably.


Also, unrelated to the rule of 3: Infantry. I frequently find myself out of troop slots in my battalions, though that's also a me problem since I also field 3 Tank Commanders in a supreme command, which is decidedly not-fluffy.



Also, Canonesses. 3+Celestine does not many detachments make.

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance and minimum reqs on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, unrelated to the rule of 3: Infantry. I frequently find myself out of troop slots in my battalions, though that's also a me problem since I also field 3 Tank Commanders in a supreme command, which is decidedly not-fluffy.

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance and minimum reqs on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

^I wish. I dislike having to purchase more Space Marine characters than I'd like.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

to add on to this, I think reducing the number of HQ slots would help to reduce some of the worst spam (tau commanders, tyrants etc...) without needing rule of three. So drop Supreme Command and drop HQ slots by at least one across the board.

In addition, changing Battalions to only require 1 HQ would open them up to more elite armies that don't have cheap HQs. Adding more than one commander should really be deliberate and not a tax.

Sounds like some people need the IG rule of redundancy: the first copy will die before it can do anything, the second copy will fail at dice, and the third might get the job done but you should probably have another 2-3 units that can do it as a secondary role as a backup plan. Taking one unit and expecting it to work is strategy, if it's powerful enough to be worth taking one it's almost certainly worth taking 2-3.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like some people need the IG rule of redundancy: the first copy will die before it can do anything, the second copy will fail at dice, and the third might get the job done but you should probably have another 2-3 units that can do it as a secondary role as a backup plan. Taking one unit and expecting it to work is strategy, if it's powerful enough to be worth taking one it's almost certainly worth taking 2-3.

No some of us just have to pay full points or even worse pay premium points for our unit's, not the buy 2 get a third free IG prices.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, unrelated to the rule of 3: Infantry. I frequently find myself out of troop slots in my battalions, though that's also a me problem since I also field 3 Tank Commanders in a supreme command, which is decidedly not-fluffy.

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance and minimum reqs on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

^I wish. I dislike having to purchase more Space Marine characters than I'd like.

I think the reason it's min 2 HQ for a battalion, 3 for a brigade is because Space Marines are so hero-y and they assume you're going to use those slots to field something like a Captain, a Librarian, 2 Lieutenants, and a Chaplain.

Space Marine lieutenants and advisors are HQ's, but IG Lieutenants and advisors are elites.

Also, like Company Commanders are absurdly underpriced as slot-filler.

I still think they should raise the detachment CP baseline to +2, drop Battalion points to +4, and drop Brigade points to +8 while lowering requirements to 2 units each specialist category.

That or just fix the CP based on points.

Also, while we're at it with the rules wishlisting, get rid of Seize the Initiative, create special rules for assaulting within ruins, make it cost CP to bring Lords of War, and definitely get rid of -1 to hit past 12" (use cover save bonuses instead).

Ice_can wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like some people need the IG rule of redundancy: the first copy will die before it can do anything, the second copy will fail at dice, and the third might get the job done but you should probably have another 2-3 units that can do it as a secondary role as a backup plan. Taking one unit and expecting it to work is strategy, if it's powerful enough to be worth taking one it's almost certainly worth taking 2-3.

No some of us just have to pay full points or even worse pay premium points for our unit's, not the buy 2 get a third free IG prices.

*eyeroll*

The IG rule of redundancy has been true for several editions, even when IG weren't a top-tier army. If your army has no reasonably priced units to copy then sorry, GK aren't viable and you should buy a new army. Otherwise find your best units and spam them.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, unrelated to the rule of 3: Infantry. I frequently find myself out of troop slots in my battalions, though that's also a me problem since I also field 3 Tank Commanders in a supreme command, which is decidedly not-fluffy.

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance and minimum reqs on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

^I wish. I dislike having to purchase more Space Marine characters than I'd like.

I think the reason it's min 2 HQ for a battalion, 3 for a brigade is because Space Marines are so hero-y and they assume you're going to use those slots to field something like a Captain, a Librarian, 2 Lieutenants, and a Chaplain.

Space Marine lieutenants and advisors are HQ's, but IG Lieutenants and advisors are elites.

Also, like Company Commanders are absurdly underpriced as slot-filler.

I agree that it's their intention, but like you I feel limited on Troops slots. 2 Battalions and SM gets expensive on the Character side, while a Brigade gets expensive on the 'everything-else' side. I'd also like to generate more CPs without using named characters or bringing in allies.

I'm probably being particular, but it's just the organization squeeze I usually find myself in. If I felt better about the inclusion of Librarians and Chaplains that'd be fine, they're just not quite there for me.

Ice_can wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like some people need the IG rule of redundancy: the first copy will die before it can do anything, the second copy will fail at dice, and the third might get the job done but you should probably have another 2-3 units that can do it as a secondary role as a backup plan. Taking one unit and expecting it to work is strategy, if it's powerful enough to be worth taking one it's almost certainly worth taking 2-3.

No some of us just have to pay full points or even worse pay premium points for our unit's, not the buy 2 get a third free IG prices.

True that.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, unrelated to the rule of 3: Infantry. I frequently find myself out of troop slots in my battalions, though that's also a me problem since I also field 3 Tank Commanders in a supreme command, which is decidedly not-fluffy.

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance and minimum reqs on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

^I wish. I dislike having to purchase more Space Marine characters than I'd like.

I think the reason it's min 2 HQ for a battalion, 3 for a brigade is because Space Marines are so hero-y and they assume you're going to use those slots to field something like a Captain, a Librarian, 2 Lieutenants, and a Chaplain.

Space Marine lieutenants and advisors are HQ's, but IG Lieutenants and advisors are elites.

Also, like Company Commanders are absurdly underpriced as slot-filler.

Lt.'s could probably be an elite choice but it's a pretty crowded slot

 Peregrine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like some people need the IG rule of redundancy: the first copy will die before it can do anything, the second copy will fail at dice, and the third might get the job done but you should probably have another 2-3 units that can do it as a secondary role as a backup plan. Taking one unit and expecting it to work is strategy, if it's powerful enough to be worth taking one it's almost certainly worth taking 2-3.

No some of us just have to pay full points or even worse pay premium points for our unit's, not the buy 2 get a third free IG prices.

*eyeroll*

The IG rule of redundancy has been true for several editions, even when IG weren't a top-tier army. If your army has no reasonably priced units to copy then sorry, GK aren't viable and you should buy a new army. Otherwise find your best units and spam them.

^

I first heard this back in 4E "IG always brings stuff in 3's, because one will miss and one will be dead"

A pretty defining trait for an attrition based army.

The second they repeal the rule of the 3 is the day that i run 12 ravagers. It's a good rule.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

You know, I think it'd be nice if they reduced the allowance on headquarters units in general. Why do I have the whole regimental command chain here to supervise one company of guys?

Because some schmuck decided to remove the names from "Senior Officer" and "Junior Officer" to something else. Literally all we need is a return to those names and people can start to focus on the actual issue of Orders being a bit clunky to utilize with only a few being viable compared to auras generally tending to be effective but limited in range.

Dandelion wrote:

to add on to this, I think reducing the number of HQ slots would help to reduce some of the worst spam (tau commanders, tyrants etc...) without needing rule of three. So drop Supreme Command and drop HQ slots by at least one across the board.

I agree and disagree. The issue with Tau Commanders and Tyrants isn't simply "spam", it's that similar options just didn't work. Crisis Suits are overpriced for what they bring to the table and the requirement of bringing three in a unit drives that up more.

What needed to happen with Tau was the addition of an HQ that wasn't a Commander but still in a Suit.

In addition, changing Battalions to only require 1 HQ would open them up to more elite armies that don't have cheap HQs. Adding more than one commander should really be deliberate and not a tax.

That's not the thing stopping them from "running Battalions"...it's that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to put points into as little as possible to "get the most effectiveness" out of everything.

 Marmatag wrote:
The second they repeal the rule of the 3 is the day that i run 12 ravagers. It's a good rule.

You're not alone. I'm sure many players in the competitive scene would at the least ramp up to 6 Ravagers in their lists.

I'm quite neutral on the rule of 3. It works well enough for what it was intended to do, but seems kinda of arbitrary and doesn't scale well. I think there's an issue with certain similar units (such as Dreadnoughts) that have a lot of different variations as separate datasheets (thus count as different units for the rule of 3), whilst other units may simply have a larger amount of customisation under a single datasheet which do not count as separate for the rule of 3. The Daemon Prince ruling from the FAQ is a showing of some of the larger scale issues that currently exist with the standing rule, and might need some additional rulings or clarifications in the future.

What’s wrong with IG Aircav? Valkyries have the Squadron rule, right?

Asmodios wrote:
If people really really really hate the rule of three because they just love running themed lists why don't you simply not play an official match play game? When my group is just playing at home having fun we make custom scenarios all the time. Im sure 99% of players looking for a pickup game wouldn't mind if you let them know in advance.

IMO i love the rule of 3. It stops the most boring spam lists that were beginning to become the norm at tournaments before the release of the rule of three.

You may as well tell people that if they don't like the smell of earth they can stop breathing. Matched play is what is played. Asking for anything else to be played, specially not covered by ETC or some other tournament rules pack that is used locally, is just going to end with people hearing a No.

Also if the rule of 3 was so bad for tournaments, why don't the tournament just enforce the rule of 3? Why force the rule in to non tournament games, by making them official. But then again we are talking here about a company, which nerfed deep strike and fly for all armies to stop very specific and very few units from being used. And that is after they designed some of the books to work with those deep strike rules as the main mechanic of the entire army.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I agree and disagree. The issue with Tau Commanders and Tyrants isn't simply "spam", it's that similar options just didn't work. Crisis Suits are overpriced for what they bring to the table and the requirement of bringing three in a unit drives that up more.

For sure, but GW likes their super hero units for some reason (and they should get a proper nerf), but in the meantime I think limiting HQs would be healthy for the game. I'd rather GW reduce HQ requirements/allowances than have the commander limit for example. Also it'd keep HQs rare to make them actually special.

In addition, changing Battalions to only require 1 HQ would open them up to more elite armies that don't have cheap HQs. Adding more than one commander should really be deliberate and not a tax.

That's not the thing stopping them from "running Battalions"...it's that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to put points into as little as possible to "get the most effectiveness" out of everything.

That's kind of beside my gripe with current detachments. I just think reducing HQ slots would simply allow more room for non-hqs for those of us who dislike running half a dozen hqs just to get CP. One overall commander and a couple aides would feel much better imo. Again, it's not a fix for other problems, but it would be nice to have I think. I only mentioned the elites thing as a potential bonus to the change. Some armies would free up 100+ pts by changing this, which makes Soup CP a bit less desirable. (again, not a fix in and of itself, but a neat bonus).

 Apple Peel wrote:
What’s wrong with IG Aircav? Valkyries have the Squadron rule, right?

Yep. You can easily spend over half you army on Valkyries if you want to purchase 9 of them.

Karol wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
If people really really really hate the rule of three because they just love running themed lists why don't you simply not play an official match play game? When my group is just playing at home having fun we make custom scenarios all the time. Im sure 99% of players looking for a pickup game wouldn't mind if you let them know in advance.

IMO i love the rule of 3. It stops the most boring spam lists that were beginning to become the norm at tournaments before the release of the rule of three.

You may as well tell people that if they don't like the smell of earth they can stop breathing. Matched play is what is played. Asking for anything else to be played, specially not covered by ETC or some other tournament rules pack that is used locally, is just going to end with people hearing a No.

Also if the rule of 3 was so bad for tournaments, why don't the tournament just enforce the rule of 3? Why force the rule in to non tournament games, by making them official. But then again we are talking here about a company, which nerfed deep strike and fly for all armies to stop very specific and very few units from being used. And that is after they designed some of the books to work with those deep strike rules as the main mechanic of the entire army.

You do realize that the 'Rule of Three' is an Organized Event guideline for Matched Play and not a standard Matched Play rule? GW has given everyone not 3, but 4 ways to play (Open, Narrative, Matched, and Matched Play Organized Event). It's not their fault of you decide to play a way that doesn't allow you to play the army you want to play.

While I doubt this will happen I hope that they buff more minor characters like the company champion a little more attractive. He just seems like a "budget" Lt.

I'm sure there are loads of units across all codexes that could use a buff but I just find it hard to justify taking units like that or an apothecary (though bringing back a dev cent on the off chance I go crazy would be worthwhile) who has a 50/50 chance of not doing much

Side note: why can't command squads take jump packs? Is this cause it'd cause too much overlap with BA? I always thought it was weird Raven Guard can't take command squads with Jump packs

 alextroy wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
What’s wrong with IG Aircav? Valkyries have the Squadron rule, right?

Yep. You can easily spend over half you army on Valkyries if you want to purchase 9 of them.

Karol wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
If people really really really hate the rule of three because they just love running themed lists why don't you simply not play an official match play game? When my group is just playing at home having fun we make custom scenarios all the time. Im sure 99% of players looking for a pickup game wouldn't mind if you let them know in advance.

IMO i love the rule of 3. It stops the most boring spam lists that were beginning to become the norm at tournaments before the release of the rule of three.

You may as well tell people that if they don't like the smell of earth they can stop breathing. Matched play is what is played. Asking for anything else to be played, specially not covered by ETC or some other tournament rules pack that is used locally, is just going to end with people hearing a No.

Also if the rule of 3 was so bad for tournaments, why don't the tournament just enforce the rule of 3? Why force the rule in to non tournament games, by making them official. But then again we are talking here about a company, which nerfed deep strike and fly for all armies to stop very specific and very few units from being used. And that is after they designed some of the books to work with those deep strike rules as the main mechanic of the entire army.

You do realize that the 'Rule of Three' is an Organized Event guideline for Matched Play and not a standard Matched Play rule? GW has given everyone not 3, but 4 ways to play (Open, Narrative, Matched, and Matched Play Organized Event). It's not their fault of you decide to play a way that doesn't allow you to play the army you want to play.

It’s funny how true this is, all these people ignoring the other 3 ways to play just so they can complain about not running 9 devastator squads in a tournement that they assure people they don’t even care about.

So much of this discussion seems to be stuck on Organized Play and tournaments. Imagine the same discussion just translated over to a different competition, like Soccer.

1 "I want to play, but I want 4 goalkeepers."
2 "Go ahead, I'm sure you could find some friends to play like that."
1 "I want to do it using official rules, or in a tournament."
2 "Tournaments won't allow that, it's against the rules."
1 "But it's a dumb rule, it would be more fun without it."
...etc

Group 1 wants the rules to change, while group 2 plays with the rules they've been given. Both sides have merit, but neither gets to do anything about it.

I personally try to follow the strictest official rules one can find for this game. I’m building my army in mind so I can play anywhere without being denied (for any standard, non-custom game). That means no FW units and using rule of three. I’d rather not arrive at someplace and hear “No, we aren’t using yadda-yadda.”

I only play matched play.

If I want to have a narrative event, I'll play kill team or DND.

I respect that others can/do play open, but I feel the amount of people who are not interested in anything other than matched is relatively high.

 Apple Peel wrote:
I personally try to follow the strictest official rules one can find for this game. I’m building my army in mind so I can play anywhere without being denied (for any standard, non-custom game). That means no FW units and using rule of three. I’d rather not arrive at someplace and hear “No, we aren’t using yadda-yadda.”

Right. It's 40K in "compatability mode". Historically that's why I've usually done mono-dex and no Forgeworld, too.

Talinsin wrote:
So much of this discussion seems to be stuck on Organized Play and tournaments. Imagine the same discussion just translated over to a different competition, like Soccer.

1 "I want to play, but I want 4 goalkeepers."
2 "Go ahead, I'm sure you could find some friends to play like that."
1 "I want to do it using official rules, or in a tournament."
2 "Tournaments won't allow that, it's against the rules."
1 "But it's a dumb rule, it would be more fun without it."
...etc

Group 1 wants the rules to change, while group 2 plays with the rules they've been given. Both sides have merit, but neither gets to do anything about it.

Maybe I'm just not knowledgable about sports, but I'm pretty sure the rules for Professional, College, High School, and casual Soccer are not exactly the same.