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.

 Galef wrote:
I started playing in 4E when the only "detachment" was the Force Organization Chart:
1-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-3 Elite
0-3 Fast
0-3 Heavy

That was it, and you could only take 1 FOC. period. No one could ever take more than 3 of anything that wasn't Troops or DTs
I got use to not getting more than 2-3 of any 1 choice and it just sorta stuck.
I've basically been playing my own Rule of 3 since then, even when you could start taking 2 FOC and later more detachments.

There several reason why this is a good idea.
1) Balance, obviously
2) Variety. Your opponent will appreciate not having to deal with the same unit more than 3x. It makes the game more fun.
3) Protection from nerfs. What I mean by this is that if you spam a unit 4+ times because it's super good, you can expect that unit is getting a nerf eventually. By limiting yourself to 3 or less of any particular unit, you avoid having tons of worthless models when the inevitable rules changes this them.
By having a variety in your collection, you can better adapt to changes without having to basically buy a whole new army

Now, if you are just doing "gaks & giggles" lists, then no one cares, so it doesn't matter. Go crazy

-

Bingo. I started in 5th and liked the old FOC, and how certain chapters, HQ's, etc. altered it to suit the armys playstyle. It makes SENSE that when I face a deathwing army, they have a ton of terminators and heavy stuff. It makes SENSE when I face Ravenwing they had troop bikers and access to more fast attack.

I really didn't like the "Take whatever the hell you want" mentality of 8th when I returned. Even now I still feel dirty because to play competitive 40k you need to mix and match to do well, it just is what it is. I enjoy the fact they cut back choices; yes, it didn't address variety (much), because you still have power units that will be abused. But its still better than "7 Hive Tyrants!" or "10 Plagueburst Crawlers!" that came before. I have a feeling the next nerf will be utilization of a set amount of codices; for example, you can only use 2 codex's within an army that share a keyword (so no IG/BA/IK, or Demons/DG/1k Sons, or Ynnari/Eldar/DE, or whatever other funky ass combos people play). Limiting options just bolsters creative list building IMO, but you can never "truly" balance the game with so many options. However, much like a video game, giving players a limited number of options does create a more balanced play environment.

I do look forward to lists making more sense on the table as a game goes, and I feel its slowly shifting in that direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I started playing in 4E when the only "detachment" was the Force Organization Chart:
1-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-3 Elite
0-3 Fast
0-3 Heavy

That was it, and you could only take 1 FOC. period. No one could ever take more than 3 of anything that wasn't Troops or DTs
I got use to not getting more than 2-3 of any 1 choice and it just sorta stuck.
I've basically been playing my own Rule of 3 since then, even when you could start taking 2 FOC and later more detachments.

There several reason why this is a good idea.
1) Balance, obviously
2) Variety. Your opponent will appreciate not having to deal with the same unit more than 3x. It makes the game more fun.
3) Protection from nerfs. What I mean by this is that if you spam a unit 4+ times because it's super good, you can expect that unit is getting a nerf eventually. By limiting yourself to 3 or less of any particular unit, you avoid having tons of worthless models when the inevitable rules changes this them.
By having a variety in your collection, you can better adapt to changes without having to basically buy a whole new army

Now, if you are just doing "gaks & giggles" lists, then no one cares, so it doesn't matter. Go crazy

-

Outside of White Scar bike spam, I honestly don't know why people would want more than 3 of things in a list. The way some people post about it I'm curious if they're applying it to troops.

Demon princes, Plagueburst crawlers, Hive Tyrants... its just the WAAC broken units that people spammed more than 3 of, or that became broken when you ran a ton of them. People can deal with 3 Hive Tyrants with wings, but 7 or 8, that can deep strike in Turn 1? That was a bit much

wouldn't such a way of picking an army be super punishing to armies with good models in only one slot. Let say your only good unit is an HQ, even if that costs 300pts your sitll left with 1400/1650pts to spend on other stuff that is bad.

Karol wrote:
wouldn't such a way of picking an army be super punishing to armies with good models in only one slot. Let say your only good unit is an HQ, even if that costs 300pts your sitll left with 1400/1650pts to spend on other stuff that is bad.

If your referring to the old FOC way of doing stuff, you only got your codex to use (say, Codex CSM). People would always spam their good units, elites, heavies, whatever. to maximize a slot, then fill in from there. Yes, it was imbalanced because some armies had great units in certain slots; longfangs for Space Wolves, Psycannons for Grey Knights, etc. But it was balanced a bit by the fact you only had one codex, and you had to pick everything from that codex. As opposed to now where you can take X great HQ's from Blood angels, and Y great troops from IG, and Z great heavy options from codex whatever.

 Zid wrote:
As opposed to now where you can take X great HQ's from Blood angels, and Y great troops from IG, and Z great heavy options from codex whatever.

Lets not imply people are taking battalions of 30 Guard and 2 smash captains. There's still a scout tax on those guys if you want the CP.

Also, I misspoke before. I mean, I don't get why people would want TO want more than 3 of things. I get the power aspect, but if your reason is power, well.... that's what nerfs are about. I was just commenting on the reasons Galef posted that its beneficial for players to not feel like they need or can spam things.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Zid wrote:
As opposed to now where you can take X great HQ's from Blood angels, and Y great troops from IG, and Z great heavy options from codex whatever.

Lets not imply people are taking battalions of 30 Guard and 2 smash captains. There's still a scout tax on those guys if you want the CP.

Also, I misspoke before. I mean, I don't get why people would want TO want more than 3 of things. I get the power aspect, but if your reason is power, well.... that's what nerfs are about. I was just commenting on the reasons Galef posted that its beneficial for players to not feel like they need or can spam things.

This is true, its not a blanket statement because everyone plays differently.

I just wish some of the fluff and reasons for taking certain chapters or legions or whatever still existed in some form, aside from a specific chapter tactic and strategems. For example, taking Khan as your warlord should bestow some benefit to all bikes in your army (like making them troops, or can fall back and shoot/charge, or something). Right now each codex follows the same basic flow, but it encourages players to power game toward certain chapters or tactics, as opposed to picking a character or army that you like and being able to build around a theme.

I guess it just irks me, lol. I like the fact back in 5th if I saw a list with certain characters, I knew how the army would be made up and play. Now people can toss together a bunch of characters all willy nilly... bleh. Same basic reason all these auras are irritating

I talk to my opponent about following it. I don't actually have any unit (besides Daemon Princes, which I have four of) that it'd be an issue for. My most numerous unit is Nurglings, which are troops.

But I do find the rule incredibly rock-feth stupid. It's a crappy bandaid they slapped on to try to patch a cannon wound in the system.

 JNAProductions wrote:

But I do find the rule incredibly rock-feth stupid. It's a crappy bandaid they slapped on to try to patch a cannon wound in the system.

I know very very few game systems that don't have something similar in place.

Yeah, but, my list already followed the rule of 3. In fact my list already followed the rule of 2, if there was such a rule. No spam in this bitch.

 LunarSol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

But I do find the rule incredibly rock-feth stupid. It's a crappy bandaid they slapped on to try to patch a cannon wound in the system.

I know very very few game systems that don't have something similar in place.

And that's fine-I'm sure they were built with that in mind.

8th was not.

In terms of list building, the rule of three diffinatly makes it less exciting in my opinion. While I don't go out of my way to spam the cheese, I definitely prefer to take the units I like over the "variety" of others in the codex. I love the thematic idea of bringing hordes of a few units, like swarms of jet bikes or cc elites ect. With the rule of three this makes it a lot less strategicallty viabe as smaller squads are often more ideal. I do like the greater freedom of unit spam at the tax of an HQ (I don't have to takes troops now!), however the rule of three is a creative restriction towards list building, which was my initial largest draw towards 40k.

While spamming units can be abuesd (6 flyrents, dark reaper hordes, ect), it is very reasonable to anticipate these lists and if you bring the counter, crush your opponent. I suppose it tends to make matches much more jadded(if you have the counter you win, if you don't, gg), and strategically there is probably better options (most of the time at least) then bringing more that three squads of a single unit, however any competent person would know that vs nids youll need some str 8 and skyfire, probably a lot more than vs orks, for example. Using the rule of three just isolates what is being used as cheese to an even greater extent, as there is less freedom between lists to start with now.

People tell me that GW's stuff is just a suggestion so it doesn't matter whether it's good or not and then suddenly their suggestions for tournaments becomes a rule most people follow in their avarage games.

 lolman1c wrote:
People tell me that GW's stuff is just a suggestion so it doesn't matter whether it's good or not and then suddenly their suggestions for tournaments becomes a rule most people follow in their avarage games.

Because it speaks to something that most people find compelling...

 jeff white wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
People tell me that GW's stuff is just a suggestion so it doesn't matter whether it's good or not and then suddenly their suggestions for tournaments becomes a rule most people follow in their avarage games.

Because it speaks to something that most people find compelling...

Exactly! But people tell me it doesn't matter... unless it's offical people won't care. However, it does mean gw need to be careful with their suggestions.

Yes I follow the rule of three, but I did abuse it in a recent game. I took 3 Predators and a Hellforged Predator Executioner as part of a CSM list.

It doesn't always feel fair having "duplicate" data sheets.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yes I follow the rule of three, but I did abuse it in a recent game. I took 3 Predators and a Hellforged Predator Executioner as part of a CSM list.

It doesn't always feel fair having "duplicate" data sheets.

Yeah, the rule of 3 can be abused. For instance, bringing squads of 3 Carnifex for a total of 9, and they deploy and act independently.

I don't like the rule of 3, I think it's a lazy hotfix for the lack of internal balance. I don't think it strongly affects the "good" armies, since there are few single units that are so far above and beyond the curve that that unit just wins games, so it also mostly drives down smaller or less competitive armies that may only have one or two useful choices.

However, I abide by it.

 LunarSol wrote:


Outside of White Scar bike spam, I honestly don't know why people would want more than 3 of things in a list. The way some people post about it I'm curious if they're applying it to troops.

Redundancy. Also, sometimes there aren't enough useful units, so you just bring a bunch of what you have

You absolutely want more than 3 of a thing in a list.

Tau say hello, with the Commander Spam list that was still topping the charts pre-codex.

Or AM, a carnival of undercosted nonsense to spam.

Yes, though it put something of a crimp in my list as I used to run two pairs of squads in transports and as they can't be mixed with other squads due to their special rule that has gone out the window under 2000pts, along with any thought of running a jump pack list in the future.

 austinkos39316 wrote:
I always chat up my opponent and see if they want to, as long as it is fluffy and not a WAAC move, I don't mind. I like to bring all 4 of my OoF that I scratch build, and only three Valks or vendettas hurts my play style, since Elysians lost Valks as dedicated transpo.....

But you can bring 9 Valkyrie AND 9 Vendetta since they are different datasheet and can be take in squadron of 3

Everyone around here plays matched play rules so we have too. You still get 3 detachments though, so SOUP is everywhere. Sisters got punched in the junk by the Ro3, especially so if you want to just play Sisters, like I do... So soup is fine by it, but 4 squads of Dominions is game destroying WAAC...

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if they limited it to one FOC like older editions. They didn't though, so it affects some armies worse than it affects others and does nothing to stop the lists causing all the trouble anyways. Terrible rule, I know it doesn't affect any of the players who care less about official or don't play where it matters, but balanced? It destroys balance...

Returning player...6-7+ years. I was always a Fantasy player (hate Sigmar :/) and it was a thing then too. Also, requiring troops choices...I’ve always been a fan of basic troops; and am happy with the use of them imparting bonus CP.

In short, rule of three should never have left...I’m 100% for anything that curbs rampant power gamers: soup nerf and all that too

Funnily enough, there are very few models in my collection that I could not play due to Rule of 3. I have 5 Helbrutes for my CSM, and those are probably the only thing that I could not run all at once. Even my HQ's, of which I have plenty, are varied enough (Librarian on Bike, Librarian in Terminator Armor, etc.) that I don't have more than 3 of any one dataslate. The only other units I have more than 3 of are troops and transports.

What's amusing to me is that you don't see anybody saying "eh, I don't really care for it". You're seeing only responses which are "this is fething stupid as feth, and I fething hate it".

Something tells me some people are playing the wrong game.

 vim_the_good wrote:
Our meta at the moment are small 750 point games so it's the rule of two for us :|
Does not seem to hurt too badly for my guard but makes my all LRBT spearhead illegal :(

Rule of two does interact with the detachments in a slightly wonky way.

The rule is ridiculous. Guard can still spam 18 hellhounds, 9 hellhounds plus 9 artemia pattern hellhounds while SM can only bring three predators.

Elbows wrote:What's amusing to me is that you don't see anybody saying "eh, I don't really care for it". You're seeing only responses which are "this is fething stupid as feth, and I fething hate it".

Something tells me some people are playing the wrong game.

I think its more that many people who love it aren't playing the same game. Its a blanket rule that hits the least offending armies harder than 90% of the others while not doing a thing to rein in the armies it was written for. If it was written for single FOC armies (which wouldn't be necessary anyways) or even a game that required mono faction armies, it would be a better rule.

p5freak wrote:The rule is ridiculous. Guard can still spam 18 hellhounds, 9 hellhounds plus 9 artemia pattern hellhounds while SM can only bring three predators.

Remove all squadrons and it would be a better rule.

The rule only encourages more and more soup in the game. And simply punishes those armies that dont have double digit data-slates for half of the actual units in their codex. How many SM captain data-slates are there? Compare that to how many total HQ data-slate options there are for Sisters and ask yourself if the rule affects armies equally.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule is ridiculous. Guard can still spam 18 hellhounds, 9 hellhounds plus 9 artemia pattern hellhounds while SM can only bring three predators.

If you really want a laugh work out how many russes they can take.

I haven't seen the 90% of armies that this somehow breaks according to some people here. I think for every one person who's saying "Oh, I play White Scars and I can't take enough bikes now" there are fifty people hiding behind that player's excuse so they can use seven flying HIve Tyrants or eight plagueburst crawlers etc.

If you're not playing in a tournament, you're not beholden to this rule...and if you're playing with friends and you run a White Scars army or a Saim Hann force or something, I'd be shocked if they didn't simply let you run your units as you want. If you are playing heavily in tournaments, then that's the price you pay for choosing to play that narrow slice of 40K. It's not a tournament suitable game, never has been.

Wouldn't it be better to balance Hive Tyrants or Plagueburst Crawlers so they're not OP, and not just bandaid over their OPness by saying "You can only take three"?

There’s a lot of strong units, though. It’s not just 2-3 units, most armies potentially have builds where they could just spam like 6+ of the same unit and do fairly well.