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.

RedGriefer wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult.

The problem there is not with the rule of three.

The problem is with the DE codex having a steaming pile of manure in place of a HQ section.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.

Alternately: It's good because it might force GW's writers to pay more attention to a given Codex rather than sticking with "oh, give them one powerful crutch unit, they'll be fine".

I like your optimism but I don't believe that GW is aware that some of the dataheets they have created are OP and some are garbage. I genuinely don't believe they understand the game well enough to make that determination.

So you think that GW should not implement the rule of 3 and balance every unit properly instead because you think GW is unable to balance units?

The rule of three hurts the weaker codexes disproportionately.

If in some hypothetical point in the future this isn't the case because all of the codexes have good internal balance then it's fine but implementing this in the the hope that better internal balance in the weaker codexes will be implemented doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.

Balance the units and then implement the rule of three, not the other way around.

However my comment was more in response to the assertion that GW is deliberately giving codexes a crutch unit, I do not believe that is what is happening. Were they able to do that we wouldn't see the complete garbage units.

I agree with the notion that the rule of three is too broad to work well in practice. One-size-fits-all does not work generally in a asymmetrically balanced system.

It's more work for the devs, but, they need to just roll up their sleeves and get into the nitty gritty of fixing the IMBA units in specific codices.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
The rule of three hurts the weaker codexes disproportionately.

If in some hypothetical point in the future this isn't the case because all of the codexes have good internal balance then it's fine but implementing this in the the hope that better internal balance in the weaker codexes will be implemented doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.

Balance the units and then implement the rule of three, not the other way around.

However my comment was more in response to the assertion that GW is deliberately giving codexes a crutch unit, I do not believe that is what is happening. Were they able to do that we wouldn't see the complete garbage units.

Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.

Outside of Troops I don't have more than three of any unit. So I'm totally okay with the rule. But I'm playing Chaos and I could see the rule becoming a problem for some of the Codizes with few choices. That problem should be solved by releasing more units for those factions - instead of even more Space Marines...

Rule of 3 is basically GW putting their head in sand shouting "there is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem" at the top of the lungs while ignoring the problem that's about to swallow them.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
The rule of three hurts the weaker codexes disproportionately.

If in some hypothetical point in the future this isn't the case because all of the codexes have good internal balance then it's fine but implementing this in the the hope that better internal balance in the weaker codexes will be implemented doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.

Balance the units and then implement the rule of three, not the other way around.

However my comment was more in response to the assertion that GW is deliberately giving codexes a crutch unit, I do not believe that is what is happening. Were they able to do that we wouldn't see the complete garbage units.

Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.

Absolutely but until we have that internal balance it makes more sense to address the specific problem units with duplication limits (like the tau commander) than introduce an overly broad rule which disproportionately impacts the codexes that are already struggling.

Given the lack of insight repeatedly shown by the dev team I think that a reactive but very specific approach is the one most likely to at least approach success. Sweeping changes like this have too many consequences to be properly assessed.

I haven't been in the 40k scene for a while due to an insurance kerfufle (nothing big, but i had to call three separate government agencies to get what is essentially a glorified air pump for my face), but here's my old fuddy duddy perspective:

(insert high pitched laugh).

Ok jokes aside, I don't see this as much of a problem, at least for me. I am still more or less used to 3rd edition rules, and back then you were hard pressed to field more than 3 troop choices (as in, in total), while all other choices were hard limited to 3 due to slots. Unless you were hard cheesing something, this shouldn't be a problem.

My only real gripe is that this is a result of GW's "detachment" system that has blighted the game since late 6th/all of 7th edition. I really wish they would return to the old CAD FoC. Few people remember that the CAD was originally designed as a system of balance, specifically against spam, and deviating from it was usually considered a pretty big thing (to the point that certain FoCs they introduced at the time always came with a warning saying it is possibly OP).

I remember how much backlash IW players got in Chaos 3.5 when they got 4 HS slots, 1 FA slot, and access to IG Basalisks. 8th ed was a real turn around from then.

I just thought the Rule of 3 was GW saying "We need more balance, but can't redo it all right now - here's a stopgap".

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I haven't been in the 40k scene for a while due to an insurance kerfufle (nothing big, but i had to call three separate government agencies to get what is essentially a glorified air pump for my face), but here's my old fuddy duddy perspective:

(insert high pitched laugh).

Ok jokes aside, I don't see this as much of a problem, at least for me. I am still more or less used to 3rd edition rules, and back then you were hard pressed to field more than 3 troop choices (as in, in total), while all other choices were hard limited to 3 due to slots. Unless you were hard cheesing something, this shouldn't be a problem.

My only real gripe is that this is a result of GW's "detachment" system that has blighted the game since late 6th/all of 7th edition. I really wish they would return to the old CAD FoC. Few people remember that the CAD was originally designed as a system of balance, specifically against spam, and deviating from it was usually considered a pretty big thing (to the point that certain FoCs they introduced at the time always came with a warning saying it is possibly OP).

Yep. Me too. Most of my armies still look like they are in a CAD...it tends to make for solid, balanced lists for normal play.

i prefer detachments over the “old” 5th ed system of “you’re locked to this FOC, but if you buy overpriced Commander faceroll, you get to take this elite/Fast attack/heavy support as a troop.”

Draigo apparently hated my Tau army so much that he would be pulled out of the warp to fight me 2-3 times a week.

I like the rule of three because it limits spam and I love the detachment system because outside of specific builds, your not married to a special character to build you list your way. My local meta is much more chill so you don’t really see ton of LVO or ITC top table lists, so my view is skewed, but the FOC and all of the exceptions to the rules if you took Special Characters was much more obnoxious than just giving us more tools to list build imo.

I also hated the FoC shenanigans in 5th. I think the entire reason that was even a thing was because they tried condensing the Codex: Craftworld into the 4th edition Eldar Codex and did a crap job of that (not to mention the same attempt is also why Eldar ended up with Jetbikes as troops natively. I hate that book because it essentially messed up the entire faction for the sake of simplification).

 LunarSol wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
THANK YOU
Sheesh. There is literally no upside to ignoring this rule. More variety is good for the game.

Its not quite that simple.

Forcing more variety is fine for the armies with lots of good units, it's very bad for the armies that have few good units which are mostly the ones that are already struggling.

Though its good for players to not feel forced into buy 5+ of the only good model that at some point will get toned down or otherwise fall out of favor as other things are buffed into a more prevalent role. The one model to rule the codex style armies that have always driven the competitive game are a big reason people have collections that do not survive an edition change. This is honestly a good way to minimize the damage done when changes need to be made.

I hate this rule because of the principle, GW say's you have the freedom to build an army anyway you like. A mere eight months later all those models you brought and painstaking painted go into the bin. It's too late to save gamers money. Some stability would be appreciated! Some spam builds weren't broken or overly competitive with the old freedom, some were laughably broken such is the huge variety of 40k. And what if a old troop choice becomes elite or your faction literally only has one tank equivalent? Did those players need to psychially know that they could only take three while the guard players go crazy?


It's funny that the only people who don't hate this rule in my area are the people who play factions with loads of options.

Rule of 3 hurts everyone except Imperial Guard, which is the "reason" the rule of 3 was implemented, since the pre-nerfed the T'au Commanders already.

Personally I'd prefer if there were percentage limits, or some way of taxing multiples of the same unit, but that's beyond the complication level GW seem to want to take 40k to.

Alternatively, bring back Platoons for IG so Imperial armies aren't obligated to pay 180pts for 5CP

In the old days the rule of 3 was basically standard, since the FOC chart only had 3 of everything except for troops. The second piece needs to be a reduction of the standard game size down to a point where a single FOC will fill all the points with slots to spare.

 Jidmah wrote:
[
Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.

Yeah, about the protection. It works only if your codex is not that bad, or at least has 3-4 good options. If your codex is carried by one option then the rule of 3 sucks hard, because all those top tier armies just run bigger squads or reapers, more lances fewer reapers or demon princes from other codex. While you not only end up with a 4th NDK you can't use now, but also have less power then ever before. The rule of 3 changes nothing when a bad armies plays against a top tier one. It does hurt the bad army though, when is faces a mid tier one. Because before the bad army would probablly lose, but the game could be close, because of units that were carrying the bad army, Now that this is no longer the case, the number of armies percived as tier 1, for someone with a bad army, only grew, plus the players of those bad armies got punished for people with good armies having fun for a year. That is like your sister eating all the holiday sweets ment for your confirmation, and you being punished for it.

Even if the rule itself is a little ham fisted in its application across all factions equally, I love what it represents for the game in terms of GW trying to push us to play more diverse lists.

I'm all for the rule of 3, and any other rule that forces competitive players to take more fluffy lists.

 greyknight12 wrote:
In the old days the rule of 3 was basically standard, since the FOC chart only had 3 of everything except for troops. The second piece needs to be a reduction of the standard game size down to a point where a single FOC will fill all the points with slots to spare.

The problem is that at those point levels the 'rule' becomes "the rule of 2".

Two words: Fake Balance

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Even if the rule itself is a little ham fisted in its application across all factions equally, I love what it represents for the game in terms of GW trying to push us to play more diverse lists.

I'm all for the rule of 3, and any other rule that forces competitive players to take more fluffy lists.

>Diverse Lists.

You sure we're playing the same game? Lists haven't been made more diverse. All it's done is remove the Tyrant Spam list from the meta, and made Minimum Guard Battalions even more valuable. It did literally nothing to curb the CWE lists, they had already nerfed Ynnari to the point of unviability and nerfed Tau Commanders (double so now because they can't even take 3 in one detachment). Removing lists wholesale from the meta isn't making the game more diverse, because they don't get replaced with "new" lists to compensate, people just move to whatever lists were already viable.

No-ones suddenly going to use Pyrovores or Carnifexes because you lowered the number of Hive Tyrants they can take. They are just going to move to the RipIonHead Tau, CWE Cheddar or Imperial Superfriends. Furthermore, the Rule of 3 is actually the rule of 54 for Guard due to multiple Leman Russ Variants (which can all be taken in squadrons of 3) they can take thanks to Forge World and the Index. Basilisks are now rule of 18 thanks to squadrons and forge world. The only thing that IG suffered was the loss of 33 point mortar teams... which can be circumvented again with Forge World with DKOK Heavy Weapon Teams, so Rule of 6 there.

Meanwhile, Dark Eldar are now quite literally crippled into uselessness, because their HQs are a major tax, have subpar rules, and now you can't even take more than 3 Ravagers. Space Marines now can't even take a 4th predator to provide some redundancy for the Killshot stratagem. But Guard can take 54 Leman Russes, because that's Fair and Balanced.

I disagree, I'm not saying no that spam is totally fixed but if there is a unit for which it makes sense to be spammed, troops are those units.

Either way I believe that imposing restrictions such as this on lists forces players to be more creative in their list building.

Like you said - Flyrant spam is now gone. If I only play Nids I must change my build to suit the new restrictions. Same with Shield Captains on bikes that were prevalent. Not every player can instaswitch to the flavour of the week list and I have seen first hand new lists from the change.

This rule isn't going to fix spam completely, nor is it going to fix the issues with soup lists. They require their own fixes. Also combined with other changes (no DS turn 1, changes to smite, points changes to certain units) I'd say GW have successfully shaken up the meta, assuming this was their intent.

As to playing the same game, I guess we must be playjng different games because Ynnari certainly aren't unviable here.

E - lol at Dark Eldar being crippled, you can't be playing the same game as me.

The problem with killshot isn't that you can't take 4+ predators anymore, it's that it requires 3+ in the first place.

There is definitely more work to be done, but I really can't think of too many units I will miss seeing more than 3 of.

To be honest, with my 4 predator list (Everyone with 2 lass cannon) the rule of 3 really hurted me... normally my enemies destroyed max 1 predator in his first turn because I hide the rest... and now they do the same, but that just makes for me not possible to use my stratagem, and... yeah.
That sucks.

But nearly anythin else you have said, BaconCatBug, is just wrong. Ynnary useless? Dark Eldar Useless? Oh may god.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest, with my 4 predator list (Everyone with 2 lass cannon) the rule of 3 really hurted me... normally my enemies destroyed max 1 predator in his first turn because I hide the rest... and now they do the same, but that just makes for me not possible to use my stratagem, and... yeah.
That sucks.

But nearly anythin else you have said, BaconCatBug, is just wrong. Ynnary useless? Dark Eldar Useless? Oh may god.

You do have moments reading the forum where you wonder if you are playing the same game.

I think the rule of 3 is a good thing. I think the codexes should have been balanced with it in mind - same for deep strike changes - but there is always next edition.

My expiriance with the rule of 3 was this. Played maybe my 4th or 5th game in life. Opposing player informs me that I can't take more then 3 units of the same kind. So I have to change my lists from running paladins with draigo, to termintors and draigo. I mess up the points, my opponent gets angry. Mostly because my list now had 1800pts and he wanted to get full 2000pts for tabling me. He on the other hand had 4 demon princes, and told me he could take them, because he took them from 2 different books and the 4th one is a special character, so not realy a demon prince.

I find it hilarious. My Night Lords have never fielded more than 2 squads of Raptors at a time, and for years I've had people give me stick for "not playing NL right by the lore" because they thought a 'fluffy' NL army should consist entirely of Raptors, Warp Talons and Helldrakes. Now I literally can't field a 'fluffy' NL army even if I wanted to. And people are praising this rule because it will supposedly force the evil competitive players to build "more fluffy" armies.

because it will supposedly force the evil competitive players to build "more fluffy" armies.

Tournament players don't care about fluffy armies in competitive games, but it certainly makes the game much more diverse and interesting. After the rule of three many other builds became viable that where completely overshadowed by "spam the best unit" (Tyranids are probably the best example for this). Also, the rules is recommended for competitive games, if you want to field your cool Night Lords army according to the fluff I'm sure you can agree with your opponent to not use it.

My expiriance with the rule of 3 was this. Played maybe my 4th or 5th game in life. Opposing player informs me that I can't take more then 3 units of the same kind. So I have to change my lists from running paladins with draigo, to termintors and draigo. I mess up the points, my opponent gets angry. Mostly because my list now had 1800pts and he wanted to get full 2000pts for tabling me. He on the other hand had 4 demon princes, and told me he could take them, because he took them from 2 different books and the 4th one is a special character, so not realy a demon prince.

This guy sounds like an donkey-cave. If you are that new to the game it makes no sense to play hardcore competitive matches like this, and nobody will have fun. I would pack my things and leave if someone did such a move, such people are not worth anyones time.