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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Why isn’t it fun for u? What are the flaws that are stopping us having fun?

Over-homogenization, rules that are still a bloated mess despite having the tactical depth of a puddle, complete destruction of the idea of faction identity in favor of spam and soup, continued poor balance (as demonstrated by the existence of this thread).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.

No, but it will make you take a second-tier unit instead of just spamming the single most broken thing you can find. And it will add some variety to your army since it limits your ability to identify the most broken thing available and spam as many copies as you can fit within the point limit. The only problem with the rule is that it doesn't go far enough. The change we need is a return to the 5th edition FOC and single-codex armies, but this is a small step in the right direction.

At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.

So, how again, is limiting me to three Whirlwinds or Thunderfire Cannons make me take the other? It doesn't. It doesnt create variety at all. If anything, it makes it harder for Gw to identify the problem units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.

So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom. The more and more I read on here the more I think a different rule set akin to epic 40000 with strict build rules would suit competitive players. Bringing in restrictions across the board that limit players who want freedom for funs sake not winning isn’t a fair answer. The rule of the isn’t used by me and mates and doesn’t need to be. We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem. I think we are looking for a different game from u.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.

So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

No, what I'm saying is I spend the points on the 3 Predators and none of the other Lascannon platforms because those platforms are bad. It isn't difficult to grasp. Here's another one:

How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.

Andykp wrote:
I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom.

Sure you can. People made plenty of fluff-accurate and fun lists in 5th edition, when the rules were far more restrictive. In fact, spam lists that are restricted by the rule of three tend to be less fluffy. A "real" 40k army would have a pretty diverse mix of units, even if the focus is on a particular thing. For example, an IG armored unit might have a tank commander and three LRBTs (~750-1000 points) but also have supporting infantry, Hellhounds, etc, to make up the rest of the points. An army that is just 1750 points worth of tank commanders and a cheap CP battery is much less fluffy.

We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning 5e games as a reply to 8th being over-homogenized and shallow, but if you're house ruling 8th to the point that it is no longer over-homogenized and shallow you've created an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.

It doesn't force you to take that one particular unit, but that's not the point. It makes you take something else, whatever that other thing might be. And in the case of MSU spam where you could take the same models in a different configuration it at least forces you to group them up into larger units and lose the benefits of MSU.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.

So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

No, what I'm saying is I spend the points on the 3 Predators and none of the other Lascannon platforms because those platforms are bad. It isn't difficult to grasp. Here's another one:

How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.

But if you want more than 3 preds worth of lascannons you'd have to take something else instead of another predator, which is the whole point.

The problem with spam is that spam combined with some units, pushes these units into an OP position, and always will, and at zero benefit to the game - these armies of the opposite of what makes tabletop gaming good. Flyrants for example now are not at all OP, you can only take 3 and it's not hard for most armies to deal with. Turn that back into 9 Flyrants with support and all of a sudden that's a narrow profile to need an entire army's worth of units to deal with, and each one of them has full mobility, survivability, utility, damage application, and such a broad offensive profile and now it's a problem. Then from a gameplay perspective we have the most boring list, you haven't out thought your opponent in the list building stage you've just maxed out on a single unit you recognise as strong, and you haven't outplayed him you've just banked on powering through the number of weapons he could possibly have taken that deal well with such a strat.

The pseudo intellectualism I see from some people in here, and the mental gymnastics I'm seeing used here to actually argue that this change was a bad thing for the game, has done more to support gw's decision here than counter it.

What kind of 2 dimensional bs games do you play where you need to spend 600-800+ points on 1 greaking tank being spammed?
Jesus learn to play properly

I like the rule of 3.

It reminds me of the highlander rule from 2nd ed. {there can only be one}

With the armies 2 to 3 times as large as a game back then....it fits.

The Problem I still have with them trying to limit spam abuse is the reliance on the FoC.

They made about every army legal....but every army is different. Some will always have cheaper troops to fill out or just plain better units to spend points on.

As an elder player in 2nd ed....I would spam Exarchs like the rest of them. The inherent rules made sure you had to pay a 'tax' in an aspect unit for each exarch.

I think that idea of 'unlocking' units with other units is a very viable possibility to addressing some of the challenges they are trying to address.

The other idea is that one army could 'pay' a certain tax because they have a very cheap unit option. That leads to unfairness ....But they already had that 'fixed' in 2nd edition.

Instead of the FoC inherent and flawed idea of units....the older game REQUIRED you spend 25% of your points on troops...or a tax.

So if we are still going to go with all the new fancy detachments and such to make a 'themey' spearhead or 'themey' battalion...WHY NOT just build a certain point percentage in each detachment AND to keep it 'themey' Make a 'tax' unit.

That fixes the differences in cheap tax units in one army vs another and still cuts down on spam while letting players pick and choose the formation/units they want while keeping it in character/theme ...all the while limiting spamming of broken units to an extent.

 admironheart wrote:
I like the rule of 3.

It reminds me of the highlander rule from 2nd ed. {there can only be one}

With the armies 2 to 3 times as large as a game back then....it fits.

The Problem I still have with them trying to limit spam abuse is the reliance on the FoC.

They made about every army legal....but every army is different. Some will always have cheaper troops to fill out or just plain better units to spend points on.

As an elder player in 2nd ed....I would spam Exarchs like the rest of them. The inherent rules made sure you had to pay a 'tax' in an aspect unit for each exarch.

I think that idea of 'unlocking' units with other units is a very viable possibility to addressing some of the challenges they are trying to address.

The other idea is that one army could 'pay' a certain tax because they have a very cheap unit option. That leads to unfairness ....But they already had that 'fixed' in 2nd edition.

Instead of the FoC inherent and flawed idea of units....the older game REQUIRED you spend 25% of your points on troops...or a tax.

So if we are still going to go with all the new fancy detachments and such to make a 'themey' spearhead or 'themey' battalion...WHY NOT just build a certain point percentage in each detachment AND to keep it 'themey' Make a 'tax' unit.

That fixes the differences in cheap tax units in one army vs another and still cuts down on spam while letting players pick and choose the formation/units they want while keeping it in character/theme ...all the while limiting spamming of broken units to an extent.

I get what your going for, but I think that would just compound the issues you mention... 25% in troops is not a symmetrical restriction... E.G. Orks will be like "hell yeah I was taking that anyway" while Space Marines are like "goddamn I have to take 500 pts of Tacs?"

jcd386 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
At that point I don't take the bad units. I just take the efficient ones and hope to God I DID cover the bases.

So you take 1000 points in a 2000 point game and leave the other half of your points un-spent? Nonsense. If the rule of three limits your spam then you have to look elsewhere for alternative units. If following the rule doesn't force you to look for alternatives then you were already taking an army with enough diversity that the rule didn't apply.

No, what I'm saying is I spend the points on the 3 Predators and none of the other Lascannon platforms because those platforms are bad. It isn't difficult to grasp. Here's another one:

How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.

But if you want more than 3 preds worth of lascannons you'd have to take something else instead of another predator, which is the whole point.

You just end up not taking anything at all, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom.

Sure you can. People made plenty of fluff-accurate and fun lists in 5th edition, when the rules were far more restrictive. In fact, spam lists that are restricted by the rule of three tend to be less fluffy. A "real" 40k army would have a pretty diverse mix of units, even if the focus is on a particular thing. For example, an IG armored unit might have a tank commander and three LRBTs (~750-1000 points) but also have supporting infantry, Hellhounds, etc, to make up the rest of the points. An army that is just 1750 points worth of tank commanders and a cheap CP battery is much less fluffy.

We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning 5e games as a reply to 8th being over-homogenized and shallow, but if you're house ruling 8th to the point that it is no longer over-homogenized and shallow you've created an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.

It doesn't force you to take that one particular unit, but that's not the point. It makes you take something else, whatever that other thing might be. And in the case of MSU spam where you could take the same models in a different configuration it at least forces you to group them up into larger units and lose the benefits of MSU.

I'm not losing THAT much a footprint with the Sentry Turrets so that's clearly not a good argument.

I'm not gonna bring anything else is the point. Marines aren't the only one that suffer this issue either

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You just end up not taking anything at all, actually.

Nonsense. You are not bringing 1500 points to a 2000 point game and leaving the other 500 points unspent because you can't spam another copy of your best unit, you're taking something else with the remaining 500 points.

I'm not losing THAT much a footprint with the Sentry Turrets so that's clearly not a good argument.

Ok, now ignore this one example where you can combine a "cheapest possible FOC slot filler" unit into a single unit because you were only ever MSUing them and look at units in general. One exception does not mean the rule has no purpose.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You just end up not taking anything at all, actually.

Nonsense. You are not bringing 1500 points to a 2000 point game and leaving the other 500 points unspent because you can't spam another copy of your best unit, you're taking something else with the remaining 500 points.

I'm not losing THAT much a footprint with the Sentry Turrets so that's clearly not a good argument.

Ok, now ignore this one example where you can combine a "cheapest possible FOC slot filler" unit into a single unit because you were only ever MSUing them and look at units in general. One exception does not mean the rule has no purpose.

That 500 points isn't going to Lascannon platforms. You aren't listening.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That 500 points isn't going to Lascannon platforms. You aren't listening.

You're making a straw man argument. It doesn't have to be going to other lascannon platforms (though if you spammed so many lascannon platforms some of it probably will, since you clearly needed that many) as long as it's going to something other than the spammed unit. Replace your spammed lascannon unit with tactical marines, I don't care. It's still less spam.

people literally saying they take 1000 pts armies to 2000 pt games because their entire collection was two models repeated, and wondering why 8th feels so difficult

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.

You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.

The root of the problem is that GW doesn't know how, or doesn't care, to make all units viable. That being said, restricting non-troops unit in some way is healthy for the game.

Blastaar wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Sounds to me like a lot of people have forgotten that this hobby is meant to be fun. Socialable and a laugh.

You mean the people working at GW who create a badly flawed game that isn't fun for a lot of us? Yeah, I'd like for them to remember that the hobby is supposed to be fun and stop being bad at their job. Imposing the 0-3 limit is one tiny step towards accomplishing this goal.

No it isn't, because implementing that rule doesn't make you take any of a bad unit.

The root of the problem is that GW doesn't know how, or doesn't care, to make all units viable. That being said, restricting non-troops unit in some way is healthy for the game.

What counts as troops though? The Necron Bone Kingdom would've been primarily Flayed Ones as their troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That 500 points isn't going to Lascannon platforms. You aren't listening.

You're making a straw man argument. It doesn't have to be going to other lascannon platforms (though if you spammed so many lascannon platforms some of it probably will, since you clearly needed that many) as long as it's going to something other than the spammed unit. Replace your spammed lascannon unit with tactical marines, I don't care. It's still less spam.

So you want us to build less effective armies for our area because 4 Predators is just too much for you.

What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I really enjoy the smaller games for the speed, being able to get a w games in one night is awesome. They also allow me to really focus on the themes of the lists, but I find that 2 is simply too few.

Same for bigger games, where it's Rule of 4.

I tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to these things, so I think the rule of two is fine at 1000. I think the concept of redundancy is one of the most powerful in this game, and the easiest way to do that is to pick a good unit and spam it. I understand people do it because it's easy and they can, but I also think it's boring, and that boring is bad for the game.

Id much prefer moderate limitations on what units are allowed, and having the list building process be much more like a deck building/tools in my tool box type process. If a codex doesn't have enough good tools, that doesn't mean we need to throw out the rule of three, it means the codex needs a buff.

Buuuuut I'd also be okay with severely limiting/nerfing allies, bringing back the FoC from 5th, and balancing the game as tightly as possible from there, which I get everyone wouldn't enjoy.

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I really enjoy the smaller games for the speed, being able to get a w games in one night is awesome. They also allow me to really focus on the themes of the lists, but I find that 2 is simply too few.

Same for bigger games, where it's Rule of 4.

Is it rule of 4 all the way up to like 4000 pts? Because that might be a bit soft. But I guess that points level unlocks a lot more options, I supposed they expect you to put LoW's in. I don't think that's a good thing though. Rule of 2 works at below 1000, I think it should be rule of 3 per 2000 pt detachment going upwards though.

All limits are for the entire army:

0 to 1,000: 2 Detachments, Datasheets can be used 2 times.
1,001 to 2,000: 3 Detachments, Datasheets can be used 3 times.
2,001 to 3,000: 4 Detachments, Datasheets can be used 4 times.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So you want us to build less effective armies for our area because 4 Predators is just too much for you.

Maybe you should learn to play the game properly?

 SHUPPET wrote:
people literally saying they take 1000 pts armies to 2000 pt games because their entire collection was two models repeated, and wondering why 8th feels so difficult

It really is a sad state of affairs.
"WAAAA MY 1000PTS OF PREDATORS CAN'T WIN AGAINST 2000PTS. GW SUCKS WAAAA!!!"

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.

What if I'm trying to base my list around a Spearhead, Vanguard or Outrider detachment? In a 1,000 and lower, that's totally viable, but the Rule of 2 can totally shaft thematic lists.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.

I miss the old 40k in 40min games!
Even 500 points takes a while now!

 Blndmage wrote:
What if I'm trying to base my list around a Spearhead, Vanguard or Outrider detachment? In a 1,000 and lower, that's totally viable, but the Rule of 2 can totally shaft thematic lists.

But these rules of 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc are for matched play with battle forged armies. Which is competitive gaming basically.
Themed lists are better for Narrative or Open play.
I'd certainly not want to fight a guy who spams Lascannon predators for WAAC advantages in narrative or open play.
Sure you might find a space marine armoured company. But I doubt that players attitude will be quite as toxic and childish as a certain someone else.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.

I miss the old 40k in 40min games!
Even 500 points takes a while now!

Those were good times.
It wouldn't work in 8th though. Not because of the rules but because of the attitudes nowadays of players.
Shame really.

ValentineGames wrote:

But these rules of 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc are for matched play with battle forged armies. Which is competitive gaming basically.
Themed lists are better for Narrative or Open play.

At least for my local meta, everyone runs games via matched play and with a trend toward competitive lists or mindsets. I'm a narrative player. I totally get the math and such, the logic behind what's good or bad, but I really just wanna play the game, I don't care if I lose, at least I get to use my models!

You can at Battle Forged armies in Narrative Play as well I think. I'm still adjusting from 3rd-early 5th, I'm in love with the new Detachment style, finally allowing the lists I always wanted!

 Blndmage wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

But these rules of 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 etc are for matched play with battle forged armies. Which is competitive gaming basically.
Themed lists are better for Narrative or Open play.

At least for my local meta, everyone runs games via matched play and with a trend toward competitive lists or mindsets. I'm a narrative player. I totally get the math and such, the logic behind what's good or bad, but I really just wanna play the game, I don't care if I lose, at least I get to use my models!

Unfortunately that's the trend now.
"Forging a narrative" has become a joke term and those of us who just want to play a game with toys are regarded as chaff.
We aren't welcome in 8th. And I see it all the time on forums like this and social media.
We are the butt of the joke now.

 Blndmage wrote:

You can have Battle Forged armies in Narrative Play as well I think. I'm still adjusting from 3rd-early 5th, I'm in love with the new Detachment style, finally allowing the lists I always wanted!

I believe so yeah. But then the 2/3/4 rule doesn't...or shouldn't, really apply. It's not needed as that's the turf for fun.
But if you've got a bad gaming environment of competition players...You're screwed.
But hey you can always play yourself. I find that's the only option available now.
It's not like you can discuss anything fun around here

Most armies are more than capable of creating a competitive build that fits the fluff. Just not every model is going to be competitive, that's all there is to it. You can do both at once quite handily, I think.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Most armies are more than capable of creating a competitive build that fits the fluff. Just not every model is going to be competitive, that's all there is to it. You can do both at once quite handily, I think.

I fully agree. It's possible to make an army at the FLGS level, that is both fluffy, either to it's armies fluff, or what the player works out, and still has a reasonable expectation of winning.

I don't think that it is true for all armies. From what others have told me on this forum, there is nothing a GK army can build that can rival an imperial soup list or an Inari list.

I've always supported a return to more 5th style army building, so rule of 3 works for me. Three of a unit is more than enough for games up to 2k, and restrictions are good for games as they force the players to make tougher decisions. I've always disliked the more free form, do as you please style list construction we've had from 6th onwards, as it really has boiled down to finding the most overpowered things and finding out ways to bring the most of it. Sensible restrictions are good. We've had this rule before for a few editions, and it wasn't an issue then, I don't think it'll be an issue now, just that players are used to doing whatever they want.