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.

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

Pure speculation so a complete waste of time.

Both players agreed to use the rule of 3, that is a fact.

That is not what has been described. Thats speculation on your part. Fact is, there is no "rule of 3".

Only if youi're being pedantic. "Rule of 3" is shorthand for referring to the rules on organised events limiting the number of times you can use a datasheet in an army. It's pedantic because the limit is different if the event is below 1000 point or above 2000 points. It is s rules suggestion, however, as shown in the main rulebook FAQ, so insisting it doesn't exist is misleading.

As has been pointed out by numerous people, you have people playing by this suggested rule in their pickup game. Claiming it isn't a rule in such a case in only an attempt to derail the entire conversation.

Andykp wrote:
I’m with p5freak on this. So much discussion about this “rule” fuels an assumption that it is a rule for pick up games and is used all the time. I think it’s a good idea to remind people that it isn’t a rule that must be followed in all games, or even all matched players games. It should be agreed upon first. Too often it is just assumed that it is in play. So keep bringing it up freak and stop the creep of tournament style play.

Except this is a rules forum and the question was about a rule which does exist even if it's technically an optional rule. Given the established context we can assume the rule is in effect so mentioning that it's an optional rule is useless noise and completely unhelpful. I'd also argue it goes against the very purpose of this specific forum as this has demonstrably derailed this thread from answering a legitimate rules question into pointless semantics (so par for the course in YMDC, especially from a handful of specific posters).

In the interests of not contributing to the further derailing of the thread, I'd say to the OP that the statement from the player about the mortar teams was incorrect. This has been shown by a few people above, but I would also advise that in any situation like this in the future it's always best to ask people to produce the rule in question. That way, if they're correct, everyone gets to see for themselves and it can help reinforce the learning experience quite well. If they're wrong you either help correct a misconception or misunderstanding or prevent players trying to cheat through bluffing about the rules.

 doctortom wrote:

Only if you're being pedantic.

This is Dakka. The only language anyone speaks here is pedantry.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

Pure speculation so a complete waste of time.

Both players agreed to use the rule of 3, that is a fact.

That is not what has been described. Thats speculation on your part. Fact is, there is no "rule of 3".

Demonstrably false.

If you can provide me the page where the terms "Rule of 3" show up in the BRB, I will happily agree with you. I suspect you will find no such rule, however, especially since the Organised Play rules have limits of 2, 3, or 4 duplicates of datasheets depending on the size of the game.

The fact of the matter is that far too many people mistakenly think that the erroneously nicknamed "Rule of 3" is a Matched Play rule that applies to any Matched Play games. p5freak helpfully correcting that misconception is welcome and appreciated in my opinion. But as is typical for YMDC, the thread has been derailed by people not liking the fact that additional clarifying information was added to the correct answer, as if it somehow makes the answer invalid.

And we're done here.