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.

Yeah I'm sorry but I've seen this coming for ages. I deliberately haven't gone over three units of anything non-troop for this exact reason. I find it difficult to believe that people didn't consider this as a possibility when making their purchase. You knew the risk you just wanted the immediate benefits, you got them, and it was always gonna be a matter of time how long it lasted. If anything you should be happy it lasted as long as it did, rule of 3 was long overdue.





EDIT: damn this thread and the rule of 3 thread have basically became blended into the same thing. Oh well, it was pretty transparent from the start that the salt about no longer being able to field an army of spammed units is the real reason behind a lot of the nonsense 8th hate in here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units

ITT: nobody played themed lists back in 5th edition, when none of this "TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT FORGE A SOUP NARRATIVE LOL" nonsense existed and you were limited to three copies of any non-troops unit because of the FOC.

I didn't play 5th or prior editions but from what I keep reading it seems like the allied detachments were an utter gaffe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:


EDIT: damn this thread and the rule of 3 thread have basically became blended into the same thing. Oh well, it was pretty transparent from the start that the salt about no longer being able to field an army of spammed units is the real reason behind a lot of the nonsense 8th hate in here.

Agreed that arguing about that rule is pure salt. Spam has been a thorn in the game's side for so long, it's good that the limit it. It is objectively good.

There were no allies in 5th besides Witch Hunters or Inquisition.

You picked your codex and got 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elite, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Heavy Support from that codex. Full stop.
Dedicated Transports were options for units and then shared the slot with the unit. If a unit didn't have the option, no transport for them.
Any fliers that existed at that time were fast attack or heavy support or dedicated transports. There was no LoW slot or any way to field a stompa or bane blade in a regular game, even though GW already sold the plastic kits.

So it was not just "don't bring more than 3 of any datasheet", it was "don't bring more than 3 of any battlefield role".

There were a few units that got around those limits, but they were rare and usually required a unique character to move certain units to the troops slot.

 Jidmah wrote:


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

My Blood axe themed Kommando Horde. 6 units of 15 Kommandos, along with Snikrot to lead them and a Painboy on a bike escorted by a unit of Stormboys.

I love my Kommandos.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

My Blood axe themed Kommando Horde. 6 units of 15 Kommandos, along with Snikrot to lead them and a Painboy on a bike escorted by a unit of Stormboys.

I love my Kommandos.

How many points were that?

Snikrot is something like 240pts with 3 units of kommandos.

Can see Blood Axes having a rule so Snikrot makes kommados troops, very easy way around that particular problem, throw the pain boy in and run as a battalion...

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

My Blood axe themed Kommando Horde. 6 units of 15 Kommandos, along with Snikrot to lead them and a Painboy on a bike escorted by a unit of Stormboys.

I love my Kommandos.

How many points were that?

Snikrot and 90 Kommandos was 879pts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The beauty of Running a Kommando Horde was being able to have 120 Boyz in 7 units in charge range on turn 1. Really put a hurt on gun line armies

The IG player in me is afraid. But I thought that infiltrating prevented you from charging right away, back in time.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
The IG player in me is afraid. But I thought that infiltrating prevented you from charging right away, back in time.

Last edition it did, which is why NOBODY used Kommandos in Ork armies. If you can't assault the turn you infiltrate you are basically throwing those guys away, because they will get slaughtered.

In 8th, it wasn't over powered at all, it just gave my ork army a chance to not get blasted off the board by turn 2-3. Because you are still 9' away from the enemy which means you have about a 45% chance to successfully charge, and that is including rerolls. So basically, if I charge you with 7 units, 3 on average will successfully get into CC. And kommandos aren't that great in CC compared to a regular boy, 3 attacks total hitting on 3s wounding on 4s

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

My Blood axe themed Kommando Horde. 6 units of 15 Kommandos, along with Snikrot to lead them and a Painboy on a bike escorted by a unit of Stormboys.

I love my Kommandos.

My main Bone Kingdom list went to the crapper as well with a limit on Flayed Ones.

Nobody used Kommandos because:
-Cost like Marine Scouts, die like Ork Boyz, especially when Ignore Cover was involved.
-Only 2 Burnas. If you really needed infiltrating Burnas, a Finkin' Cap CAD boss was generally reliable "enough" to bank on. Alternately, Bossboyz granted Outflank.
-The Elite slot had the far more important Tankbustas.

No assault after Infiltrate was just the beginning of their problems.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

My Blood axe themed Kommando Horde. 6 units of 15 Kommandos, along with Snikrot to lead them and a Painboy on a bike escorted by a unit of Stormboys.

I love my Kommandos.

How many points were that?

Snikrot and 90 Kommandos was 879pts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The beauty of Running a Kommando Horde was being able to have 120 Boyz in 7 units in charge range on turn 1. Really put a hurt on gun line armies

It's almost like GW realized that 120 orks charging on turn one with little to no counterplay involved isn't fair, balanced, or fun, and fixed the issue with the rule of three and deepstrike changes. Go them.

Do you really think that the rule of 3 was put there because GW thought that orcs needed a nerf, and not just a knee jerk reaction that their majority of buyers feel bad about a xeno lists that is owning them and is based around running the same model spamed for the 3ed or 4th edition?

jcd386 wrote:


It's almost like GW realized that 120 orks charging on turn one with little to no counterplay involved isn't fair, balanced, or fun, and fixed the issue with the rule of three and deepstrike changes. Go them.

Very good point, almost like playing against IG, Tau, Space Marines and the plethora of other shooting armies that don't have to even move the entire game and spend the entirety of turns 1 and 2 blowing my army off the table before I can do any counterplay is fair, balanced or fun. So when can I expect a MASSIVE nerf to all shooting armies?

And as for "No counterplay" and "Balanced" I should point out meat shield units like Guardsmen, conscripts, scouts, drones, and the plethora of other throwaway units that eat up board area and deny my units any chance to assault anything worth a damn. And for balanced...again I point to the above. It now takes me 2 full turns of movement to get into assault range unless my opponent is tactically incompetent and once I get there I still have to wade through Overwatch, of which several factions now have strategies and army abilities which drastically improve this. And how do shooting armies suffer in comparison? They might have to reposition a unit to get around LOS blocking terrain and they hit on 4s instead of 3s for that one turn.

Also just so you understand, 120 orkz charging at 9' range = 3 units successfully charging on average which translates to 45-60 Boyz and Kommandos, and that is before overwatch.

Sigh. Imagine thinking that you should be able to consistently assault from the same range as shooting because "balance". Balance doesn't mean symmetrical gameplay genius, there are plenty of advantages to CC that you get in return for range, and I know that because I play a CC centric army. Stop seeing it all as us vs them and try to be the tiniest bit objective instead of whining about assault being too weak at every turn when it's incredibly strong in this edition.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Sigh. Imagine thinking that you should be able to consistently assault from the same range as shooting because "balance". Balance doesn't mean symmetrical gameplay genius, there are plenty of advantages to CC that you get in return for range, and I know that because I play a CC centric army. Stop seeing it all as us vs them and try to be the tiniest bit objective instead of whining about assault being too weak at every turn when it's incredibly strong in this edition.

.....At no point did I say "assault is too weak" nor did I say anything similar to "Balance means Assault and CC having the same range". What I did say was that ORKZ using Kommandos was NOT overpowered and by nerfing turn 1 assault AND by making the rule of 3, GW basically killed off my Blood Axe Themed army. You know, the original question that I quoted in my post.

Furthermore I encourage you to follow Rule #1 on this forum and keep those comments to yourself.

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Sigh. Imagine thinking that you should be able to consistently assault from the same range as shooting because "balance". Balance doesn't mean symmetrical gameplay genius, there are plenty of advantages to CC that you get in return for range, and I know that because I play a CC centric army. Stop seeing it all as us vs them and try to be the tiniest bit objective instead of whining about assault being too weak at every turn when it's incredibly strong in this edition.

.....At no point did I say "assault is too weak" nor did I say anything similar to "Balance means Assault and CC having the same range". What I did say was that ORKZ using Kommandos was NOT overpowered and by nerfing turn 1 assault AND by making the rule of 3, GW basically killed off my Blood Axe Themed army. You know, the original question that I quoted in my post.

Furthermore I encourage you to follow Rule #1 on this forum and keep those comments to yourself.

What your army was, was terrible game design. After it went, you are asking for a bunch of fairly designed armies to be destroyed for no other reason than "they deserve to feel this too". Assault is fine. Orks are getting a codex in due time.

And as I feel I have been following rule #1, the content of my posts will not be changing. It's not a "waaa I don't like when people disagree with me" button, I think you are whining because your spam army is no longer playable as opposed to actually trying to improve balance, so I'm going to call it.how I see it.

Anyone who bought 7 flyrants or 9 pbc in 8th must have seen this coming. The very first GT winner of this edition got his investment in 7 storm ravens voided days after he won that event.

If you haven't caught on GW calling exterminatus on every OP spam list this edition, bad luck for you. Even if you did not expect the rule of 3, PBC and flyrant spam were going down one way or another, just like storm ravens, conscripts, brimstones and commanders before them.
One upside of the rule of 3 is that you no longer need get rid of two thirds of your army because the top spam army from last event go the axe.

100% agree...

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

My Blood axe themed Kommando Horde. 6 units of 15 Kommandos, along with Snikrot to lead them and a Painboy on a bike escorted by a unit of Stormboys.

I love my Kommandos.

Yeah, you totally played that list because of the awesome fluff behind it

leopard wrote:
Can see Blood Axes having a rule so Snikrot makes kommados troops, very easy way around that particular problem, throw the pain boy in and run as a battalion...

Apart from GW having abandoned "X makes Y troops" system ork codex is already written out so would be too late anyway to change codex with that rule.

And even then. Rule of 3 doesn't even fix problem. Just adds bandaid. Real culprit is here. Now GW just can put head in sand chanting "there is no problem there is no problem there is no problem there is no problem there is no problem there is no problem there is no problem there is no problem" ad infimum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
It's almost like GW realized that 120 orks charging on turn one with little to no counterplay involved isn't fair, balanced, or fun, and fixed the issue with the rule of three and deepstrike changes. Go them.

IF GW thought orks were broken before then they are even bigger idiots than I have thought. Lol. If so what a losers they are if they manage to lose to orks.

Literally implies that you should never ever win with Orks even pre-rule of 3, and then questions the skill of his opponents in the same breath. Some people have zero self awareness.

So you should never win with orks.
And if you lose to orks you're a loser.
...wow...just...wow...what a pathetic attitude

Maybe GW thinks that if you like orcs your enjoyment with them should come from buying and reading BL novels, and not playing the game?

Having a theme is not the same as spamming a unit. Just because you're playing Blood Axes (or White Scars, etc) doesn't mean the one signature unit should be spammed to the exclusion of all else. Your army is just as themed by making all your Elites, or Fast Attack, or whatever, Kommandos and taking Boyz as Troops. The whole point of Troops choices is they're supposed to represent the core of a typical army from that faction, regardless of which specialised units they tend to lean towards.

Slipspace wrote:
Having a theme is not the same as spamming a unit. Just because you're playing Blood Axes (or White Scars, etc) doesn't mean the one signature unit should be spammed to the exclusion of all else. Your army is just as themed by making all your Elites, or Fast Attack, or whatever, Kommandos and taking Boyz as Troops. The whole point of Troops choices is they're supposed to represent the core of a typical army from that faction, regardless of which specialised units they tend to lean towards.

Most rational post I've seen yet.

Slipspace wrote:
Having a theme is not the same as spamming a unit. Just because you're playing Blood Axes (or White Scars, etc) doesn't mean the one signature unit should be spammed to the exclusion of all else. Your army is just as themed by making all your Elites, or Fast Attack, or whatever, Kommandos and taking Boyz as Troops. The whole point of Troops choices is they're supposed to represent the core of a typical army from that faction, regardless of which specialised units they tend to lean towards.

But the detachment system means you don't even need Troops in your list, they can be optional.

What if you chose to build you collection, and thus army, around Filling out a Spearhead, Outrider, or Vanguard detachment? They're 100% valid, the skew in the list is countered by the lessened CP generation, so you're already at a mechanical disadvantage for theming your army. As well as Troops generally having Objective Secured. There's no reason to force people into the "you MUST have Troop units in your list" box, the gam does give you benefits for having them, but for most detachments, they're optional.

Slipspace wrote:
Having a theme is not the same as spamming a unit. Just because you're playing Blood Axes (or White Scars, etc) doesn't mean the one signature unit should be spammed to the exclusion of all else. Your army is just as themed by making all your Elites, or Fast Attack, or whatever, Kommandos and taking Boyz as Troops. The whole point of Troops choices is they're supposed to represent the core of a typical army from that faction, regardless of which specialised units they tend to lean towards.

Just to be fair:
Sometimes having a theme is exactly spamming a unit.

Ever since their inception, it's been clear that the Imperial Guard Regiments all are mono-typical in construction; that is to say, they possess only a single weapon type. An Air Defense Regiment, for example, will consist only of Hydras, Sky Eagle Manticores, and maintenance/transport vehicles for its staff. A tank regiment, as another example, will contain only tanks and little-to-no infantry. Artillery regiments only contain artillery, mechanized infantry regiments only contain mechanized infantry...
...the only exception are the Siege Regiments, which can and do mix unit types.

This is explicit in the lore, and if you really want, I can provide quotes.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Having a theme is not the same as spamming a unit. Just because you're playing Blood Axes (or White Scars, etc) doesn't mean the one signature unit should be spammed to the exclusion of all else. Your army is just as themed by making all your Elites, or Fast Attack, or whatever, Kommandos and taking Boyz as Troops. The whole point of Troops choices is they're supposed to represent the core of a typical army from that faction, regardless of which specialised units they tend to lean towards.

Most rational post I've seen yet.

Then why do we have FOC charts that actively avoid you having to use troops?

Sam Hain was ALWAYS about being mostly Windriders after all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Having a theme is not the same as spamming a unit. Just because you're playing Blood Axes (or White Scars, etc) doesn't mean the one signature unit should be spammed to the exclusion of all else. Your army is just as themed by making all your Elites, or Fast Attack, or whatever, Kommandos and taking Boyz as Troops. The whole point of Troops choices is they're supposed to represent the core of a typical army from that faction, regardless of which specialised units they tend to lean towards.

Just to be fair:
Sometimes having a theme is exactly spamming a unit.

Ever since their inception, it's been clear that the Imperial Guard Regiments all are mono-typical in construction; that is to say, they possess only a single weapon type. An Air Defense Regiment, for example, will consist only of Hydras, Sky Eagle Manticores, and maintenance/transport vehicles for its staff. A tank regiment, as another example, will contain only tanks and little-to-no infantry. Artillery regiments only contain artillery, mechanized infantry regiments only contain mechanized infantry...
...the only exception are the Siege Regiments, which can and do mix unit types.

This is explicit in the lore, and if you really want, I can provide quotes.

IG is an exception because in the fluff they are supposed to work togther to eventually bring the needed diversity of soldiers. On the table it is comletly logical, to respect the fluff, to have a few soldiers at least being part of troops through infantry platoons because either they are the regimen't light infantry, which is mandatory even in small number, or they are from another regiment, but the code is'nt varied whatsoever.

So i don't believe the lore here is an excuse as you claim it.