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.

 Earth127 wrote:
By accident. I have hobby ADD so I rarely build/paint the same thing 3 times.

Yeah, same.

But I would not expect an opponent to abide by this rule or the detachment limit in a casual matched game. They're tournament suggestions, not actual rules (and rule of three isn't even a very good suggestion.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Everyone around here plays matched play rules so we have too.

It's not a matched play rule.

 Crimson wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Everyone around here plays matched play rules so we have too.

It's not a matched play rule.

Because every Tourney format doesn't immediately pick up rules like Ro3 and consider them as such? Open play around the basement table doesn't exist anywhere near me or in any of the towns across the country I play in while traveling for work. Beta matched play rules are never anything but matched play rules.

 dracpanzer wrote:

Because every Tourney format doesn't immediately pick up rules like Ro3 and consider them as such? Open play around the basement table doesn't exist anywhere near me or in any of the towns across the country I play in while traveling for work. Beta matched play rules are never anything but matched play rules.

I just said it is not a standard matched play rule, it is a suggestion for tourneys. My casual matched games are not tourneys, thus I don't use those suggestions. If you choose to apply tourney suggestions to non-tourney games that's up to you, but doing so is a houserule.

I'm taking 4 veteran squads whether the rule of 3 says so or not. They should be troops anyway. I only playu narrative style games, so this is not a problem.

I mean I can literally take 13 leman russes and be in the clear..... it's pretty pointless in a lot of circumstances.

This is a problem that is confined to tournament play, not friendly or narrative play. In no way should my lore and narrative be invalidated because of an entirely different method of play.

I find it funny so many people seem to dislike this rule, but its mean't for matched play. Narrative and fun games your supposed to take whatever, the game's not "balanced" toward that side of play; if your buddy wants to take 6 PBC's to a narrative game, thats between ya'll.

That said, any hobby game with a competitive side (including video games) set limits on stuff to make it not only easier to balance, but also "level" the playing field. Warmahordes does it by encouraging you to take specific units with specific casters, 40k does it through throttling how many of a unit you can take.

 Zid wrote:
I find it funny so many people seem to dislike this rule, but its mean't for matched play.

No, it is meant for tournaments, not for standard matched play games.

 Crimson wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I find it funny so many people seem to dislike this rule, but its mean't for matched play.

No, it is meant for tournaments, not for standard matched play games.

To be fair, the vast majority of players who use Matched player are either tournament players, or play against tournament players who would prefer to face other tourney-legal lists.
So in affect, Matched play=Tourney play in 99% of all discussion

-

 JNAProductions wrote:
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"?

Nothing really works out that way. Games are way more complicated than "worth X points" and nearly any model spammed has a different affect on your opponent's options than taken in moderation. Getting the exact point cost where players want to take 3 of something but not 4 is pretty much never going to happen. Even if you get it JUST right, the meta impact on specific abilities is going to tip the scales one way or another.

Also, if the answer is "just fix it" the rule of 3 is still a worthwhile net to protect players from your changes. When any slight mistake, even if its just the way players react to changes in another army can result in someone buying half a dozen of a specific model, it becomes hard on the players to correct the mistake. Players have a massive demand but limited tolerance for changes. Putting in some safeguards to how badly they can abuse something makes it easier when it comes time to fix it.

Suggestions, beta rules, matched play rules. All that stuff. A LOT of people (I'm hesitant to say most, without data to back it up!) take all this stuff as the true game. That's a reality we live with, for a lot of us. So we have to expect that when we go into a game it will apply.

It might not apply in your group. That's cool. But organised play suggestion or not, it affects many of us in casual games too.

 Galef wrote:
,To be fair, the vast majority of players who use Matched player are either tournament players, or play against tournament players who would prefer to face other tourney-legal lists.
So in affect, Matched play=Tourney play in 99% of all discussion

Nope. I'm sure majority of players play matched games, but only a minority attends tournaments. Hell, even our latest local league didn't use the tournament suggestions!

 LunarSol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
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"?

Nothing really works out that way. Games are way more complicated than "worth X points" and nearly any model spammed has a different affect on your opponent's options than taken in moderation. Getting the exact point cost where players want to take 3 of something but not 4 is pretty much never going to happen. Even if you get it JUST right, the meta impact on specific abilities is going to tip the scales one way or another.

Also, if the answer is "just fix it" the rule of 3 is still a worthwhile net to protect players from your changes. When any slight mistake, even if its just the way players react to changes in another army can result in someone buying half a dozen of a specific model, it becomes hard on the players to correct the mistake. Players have a massive demand but limited tolerance for changes. Putting in some safeguards to how badly they can abuse something makes it easier when it comes time to fix it.

The idea is not to make it where it's desirable to take three but not four, the idea is to make it so that way taking four is not a huge deal. If it's OP for it's cost, it's OP whether you have one or a thousand. If it's appropriate for the cost, it should be appropriate whether you have one or a thousand.

Now, in an ideal system, you'd actually be worse-off taking an army of spam, because you'd have stunning weaknesses. 40k is not that game, though.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
,To be fair, the vast majority of players who use Matched player are either tournament players, or play against tournament players who would prefer to face other tourney-legal lists.
So in affect, Matched play=Tourney play in 99% of all discussion

Nope. I'm sure majority of players play matched games, but only a minority attends tournaments. Hell, even our latest local league didn't use the tournament suggestions!

In my experience, even the majority that do not attend tournaments often use the "tournament standard" rules. Mostly because these rules are good guidelines and are universal (as-in not different from LGS to LGS like house rules).

-

 Galef wrote:

IMO, even the majority that do not attend tournaments often use the "tournament standard" rules. Mostly because these rules are good guidelines and are universal (as-in not different from on LGS to another).

Whether they're good guidelines is debatable. Regardless, using them outside a tournament is a houserule; I would not expect other people to play by my houserules without negotiating with them first.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

IMO, even the majority that do not attend tournaments often use the "tournament standard" rules. Mostly because these rules are good guidelines and are universal (as-in not different from on LGS to another).

Whether they're good guidelines is debatable. Regardless, using them outside a tournament is a houserule; I would not expect other people to play by my houserules without negotiating with them first.

But they are better than House rules because you can roll up to any LGS and everyone should know what you are requesting. THIS is why most players use them. They are easy to reference and thus most common.
This is generally assumed on this board as well, as 95% of tactics/armylists are discussed from a tourney level review. Unless the poster specifically says it's for casual play.

So while no one is forcing you to use these "optional" rules, you must accept that the majority either do use them, or are affected by them in some way, and thus discuss often assumes they are in place.

-

 Galef wrote:

So while no one is forcing you to use these "optional" rules, you must accept that the majority either do use them, or are affected by them in some way, and thus discuss often assumes they are in place.

It is fine to discuss tactics assuming these rules are in place. It is not fine to spread misinformation that they're the standard matched play rules while they are not. A lot of people in this thread don't like this rule, so perhaps the awareness of the fact that it is a mere tournament suggestion rather than an actual matched play rule will help them convince their playgroups to not use this rule. (I mean it is obviously fine to use the rule if you like it.)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
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"?

Nothing really works out that way. Games are way more complicated than "worth X points" and nearly any model spammed has a different affect on your opponent's options than taken in moderation. Getting the exact point cost where players want to take 3 of something but not 4 is pretty much never going to happen. Even if you get it JUST right, the meta impact on specific abilities is going to tip the scales one way or another.

Also, if the answer is "just fix it" the rule of 3 is still a worthwhile net to protect players from your changes. When any slight mistake, even if its just the way players react to changes in another army can result in someone buying half a dozen of a specific model, it becomes hard on the players to correct the mistake. Players have a massive demand but limited tolerance for changes. Putting in some safeguards to how badly they can abuse something makes it easier when it comes time to fix it.

The idea is not to make it where it's desirable to take three but not four, the idea is to make it so that way taking four is not a huge deal. If it's OP for it's cost, it's OP whether you have one or a thousand. If it's appropriate for the cost, it should be appropriate whether you have one or a thousand.

Now, in an ideal system, you'd actually be worse-off taking an army of spam, because you'd have stunning weaknesses. 40k is not that game, though.

It's been my experience that no game is truly that game. I totally agree with the sentiment, but I've been watching gaming metas develop for decades now and its just not what happens when players start pounding on a game system. Players put way too much stock in points to balance games, but there is so much relative value in a model's stats compared to what else is out there and popular for points to ever settle in a constant place. The simple act of fixing one model's point cost adjusts the relative value for the rest of the game so significantly that you create as many problems as you solve as you try to get things perfect.

I really do get the faith in points, but I've just come to see them as one of many possible levers that can adjust balance and honestly? I think points are one of the messiest strings to pull. Things like Rule of 3 aren't absolute solutions either, but they provide some padding to make the system less fragile. Points are always a bit of an approximation and a few safeguards are often a better way to keep things running smoothly than expecting things to remain absolutely perfect as the world changes around them.

 Zid wrote:
I find it funny so many people seem to dislike this rule, but its mean't for matched play.

Because there is much to dislike about this rule. It makes the game worse, not better.

 p5freak wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I find it funny so many people seem to dislike this rule, but its mean't for matched play.

Because there is much to dislike about this rule. It makes the game worse, not better.

I don't think there is nearly as much hate for this rule as Dakka makes it seem. Other than guard players I've met almost nobody that ever tried to run more than 3 of a specific unit. OF course, there are a couple super try hard tournament players that were affected..... but they change entire armies if an FAQ nukes them so it's not like the rule of 3 was anything out of the ordinary. Also if youre playing a fluff army in a fluff game nobody is going to care if you have multiple units of x unit.

On a side note funny story shortly after 8th dropped and there was a flyer nuke there was one super upset middle-aged man screaming in my local store screaming about how they wouldn't let him return the 5 half-built flyers he had just bought (i think storm talons but i can't remember).... I've never laughed so hard at someone's misfortune

Why on earth would he be able to return them...

drbored wrote:
I follow my local meta, which uses the rule of three and sometimes uses ITC rules for terrain and such (despite most people complaining about those rules.)

This. If the major tournaments use a rule, than the hardcore players in our meta use the rule (to prep), then everyone in the meta uses the rule

pm713 wrote:
Why on earth would he be able to return them...

I think he was just having a meltdown that he had dropped so much money and spent like a week straight building and painting just to never be able to dominate the small monthly tournaments the store has.... half of what he was even yelling was incomprehensible... funniest thing I've personally ever seen in a game store

 ChargerIIC wrote:

drbored wrote:
I follow my local meta, which uses the rule of three and sometimes uses ITC rules for terrain and such (despite most people complaining about those rules.)

This. If the major tournaments use a rule, than the hardcore players in our meta use the rule (to prep), then everyone in the meta uses the rule

Stop spreading misinformation guys... Its not like the five tourneys scheduled on my side of the state didn't immediately announce they would be using the beta matched play rules the day GW dropped them. Tourneys, PuGs, Leagues all went immediately to it. My house is the only place I can get a game where it isn't immediately assumed to be the same. At this point why bother.