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.

 Valentine009 wrote:
As someone who is in the leadership of a local club I think the rule of 3 is a good rule. Yes it is not internally balanced well, for example the pt jump for admech between a tech priest and an enginseer is so high for limited utility that it can be frustrating, but at the end of the day it limits skew.

I find it weird that people have said that it limits thier ability to bring themed lists and therefore should be removed. There are three types of play, open, narrative, and matched play. Matched play favors balance over fluff, if you want to bring a themed spam list play narrative.

Matched play doesn't favor balance. It gives a perception of balance.

If Matched Play favored balance?
You wouldn't be able to take Battalions or Brigades as "auxiliary" detachments for your main faction, you wouldn't be able to have a Warlord in your least numerous Detachment, and more than that?
You'd actually be limited by keywords rather than datasheets.

And frankly, the attitude of "WELL IF YOU WANT SPAM, PLAY NARRATIVE!" is ridiculous. If I want spam, I'll play Matched Play or go to a tournament--where the lists are basically just all netlists, all the time--with spam being a common occurrence, just "mitigated" by the netlists that got copypasted.

When you have casual players come in and dedicate 4 hours to playing a game, it can be incredibly frustrating to go against skew lists where they have lost from the start bc they didnt take triple the normal amount of counter weapons. Mass infantry and Knight builds are especially egregious in this regard.

Let's not pretend it's "skew lists" alone that cause this problem. It's a common issue with players, where they don't seem to understand that having an active community means that you need to recognize there are people who play differently than you.

Matched play isn't perfect, but it certainly considers balance more than narrative or open play.

Kanluwen 779089 10542970 wrote:
Let's not pretend it's "skew lists" alone that cause this problem. It's a common issue with players, where they don't seem to understand that having an active community means that you need to recognize there are people who play differently than you.

That's some pretty intense gaslighting. Maybe the people bringing skew lists without giving thier casual opponents a head's up need to realize there are people who play to have fun and not get bullied.

 Valentine009 wrote:
Matched play isn't perfect, but it certainly considers balance more than narrative or open play.

Yeah...no, it doesn't. People just like to pretend it does.

I can do the same crap in Matched Play as I can in Open/Narrative. Because, again, "Rule of 3" isn't a Matched Play rule--it's a suggestion for tournament organization.
"Matched Play" just means you're using Points instead of Power and a few codices have things limiting Matched Play items(Command Squads for Guard being a notable example), but otherwise...it's the same damn thing despite what people pretend.

Kanluwen 779089 10542970 wrote:
Let's not pretend it's "skew lists" alone that cause this problem. It's a common issue with players, where they don't seem to understand that having an active community means that you need to recognize there are people who play differently than you.

That's some pretty intense gaslighting. Maybe the people bringing skew lists without giving thier casual opponents a head's up need to realize there are people who play to have fun and not get bullied.

Frankly, I've yet to ever see anyone "get bullied" into playing against a theme list. I have seen people get bullied into having to play against "Rule of 3" adhering, copypasted netlists.

And you're more than welcome to pretend that "PLAYERS AREN'T THE PROBLEM!"...but yeah, they really can be. Especially the cheesemongers that hop from book to book and "chase the meta" of tourneys, despite never actually setting foot in one.

At this point, we have entire factions inherently built around being skew lists as their fundamental schtick, GW appears to be ok with skew lists at this point, and in fact go out of their way to facilitate them.

The rule of 3 doesn't do anything to stop that nor is it intended to, it just puts the brakes on spamming the most undercosted unit selections, and that's about all it's intended to do.

I can see why they included it. As Jidmah alluded to, many units become much better when spammed vs taken in smaller amounts. They have exponential value increases as you take more units of them, rather than additive. And, to be fair, it tends to be on the "swingier" units, where the averages start favoring you more as you bring more to bear.

That said, I can see the issues with Rule of 3 as well. What would be your solution? Increasing the point cost of the units that benefit from spam seems like a poor choice, as it would force an "all or nothing" list building style if you want to include them. Either they'd be over costed when taken in small amounts or appropriately costed when spammed. Limiting by keywords seems to (to me) to be even MORE restrictive than the Rule of 3 we have now, since most armies have multiple units that share keywords.

My personal suggestion would be to increase cost once you take more than 3 of the unit. Something like: "up to 3 units, go by book cost. For each unit over 3, add 50% to the cost. For each unit over 6, add 100% of the cost."

But, that'd be pretty wonky in regards to math, so it might not be great either.

 Crimson wrote:

Different but same datasheets - this seems to be an intended way of GW to get around the rule of three, allowing certain units like carnifexes or battlewagon to be taken in larger numbers. They have put a limit on this where deemed it necessary, like commanders and daemon princes.

It is not intended at all! Are you high? Most of the datasheets were designed befor RO3 existed, and units themselves were designed maybe even decades ago.

Except the ork codex was written after the RO3 and yet contains both squadrons and multiple datasheets for the same model and neither the new buggies nor the battlewagon variants were designed decades ago.

I'm not high, you are just ignoring facts in favor of your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
My personal suggestion would be to increase cost once you take more than 3 of the unit. Something like: "up to 3 units, go by book cost. For each unit over 3, add 50% to the cost. For each unit over 6, add 100% of the cost."

The thing is, when you argue people about their "fluff" lists long enough, it always boils down to them wanting to *WIN* with their list, not *PLAY* it.
Your suggestion would weaken their army and thus not be satisfactory to them.

 flandarz wrote:
I can see why they included it. As Jidmah alluded to, many units become much better when spammed vs taken in smaller amounts. They have exponential value increases as you take more units of them, rather than additive. And, to be fair, it tends to be on the "swingier" units, where the averages start favoring you more as you bring more to bear.

That said, I can see the issues with Rule of 3 as well. What would be your solution? Increasing the point cost of the units that benefit from spam seems like a poor choice, as it would force an "all or nothing" list building style if you want to include them. Either they'd be over costed when taken in small amounts or appropriately costed when spammed. Limiting by keywords seems to (to me) to be even MORE restrictive than the Rule of 3 we have now, since most armies have multiple units that share keywords.

My personal suggestion would be to increase cost once you take more than 3 of the unit. Something like: "up to 3 units, go by book cost. For each unit over 3, add 50% to the cost. For each unit over 6, add 100% of the cost."

But, that'd be pretty wonky in regards to math, so it might not be great either.

Let's be honest. who does their own math anymore? I have literally never played an opponent who didn't use battlescribe. This would be super easy to do, and would incentivize GW to make a good list building app.

Outside tournaments, I don't see why Rule of 3 matters, tbh. Would not fault anyone for ignoring it.

If someone brought an Eldar list that was all jetbikes, I'd walk away from the table.

Why does courtesy need to be codified?

Why are you equating courtesy and not taking "too many" of a unit?

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are you equating courtesy and not taking "too many" of a unit?

Because too many Jetbikes is one thing, too many Howling Banshees is another.

Courtesy really just means thinking of the other player. No one wants to play a game they can't win.

So what you're saying is that it's rude to bring a list that can't win against jetbike spam.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's rude to bring a list that can't win against jetbike spam.

The opposite, don't bring jetbike spam when you know no one can beat it.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are you equating courtesy and not taking "too many" of a unit?

Because too many Jetbikes is one thing, too many Howling Banshees is another.

Courtesy really just means thinking of the other player. No one wants to play a game they can't win.

Courtesy is an arbitrary thing you decided for yourself. The rule of 3 is a rule that is created by a independent (though incompetent) entity that, according to polls here on dakka and other pages, nine out of ten players are following.

Dakkanauts have claimed to walk away from tables for the following reasons:
- Using forgeworld models
- Using more than one of any unit
- Using more than two of any unit
- Using character models
- Bringing a knight
- Bringing a lord of war
- Bringing a super-heavy unit
- Bringing a landraider
- Bringing multiple tanks
- Bringing more than one detachment
- Unpainted minis
- Badly painted minis
- Eldar jetbikes
- Eldar hover tanks
- Primaris marines
- Psykers
- Playing eldar
- Playing tau
- Playing orks
- Playing grey knights
- Using a competitive list
- Not using a competitive list
- Using battlescribe
- Using a phone or tablet for list building
- Using paper for list building
- Using dice apps
- Not using dice apps
... and more!

So as you can see, "common courtesy" is not common at all, much like "common sense".

To be fair, I would apply the "extra points" to troop options too. Make it a bit harder to build 3 CP batteries and what not.

And yeah. Common courtesy is very subjective. You got folks who think playing as competitively as possible is common courtesy (so you can teach your opponent to be a better player) while others think it's better to bring a more relaxed list to your friendlies.

I doubt any list is unbeatable, in theory. But bringing a list that requires your opponent to tailor their list to counter just makes everyone mad.

 Jidmah wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are you equating courtesy and not taking "too many" of a unit?

Because too many Jetbikes is one thing, too many Howling Banshees is another.

Courtesy really just means thinking of the other player. No one wants to play a game they can't win.

Courtesy is an arbitrary thing you decided for yourself. The rule of 3 is a rule that is created by a independent (though incompetent) entity that, according to polls here on dakka and other pages, nine out of ten players are following.

Dakkanauts have claimed to walk away from tables for the following reasons:
- Using forgeworld models
- Using more than one of any unit
- Using more than two of any unit
- Using character models
- Bringing a knight
- Bringing a lord of war
- Bringing a super-heavy unit
- Bringing a landraider
- Bringing multiple tanks
- Bringing more than one detachment
- Unpainted minis
- Badly painted minis
- Eldar jetbikes
- Eldar hover tanks
- Primaris marines
- Psykers
- Playing eldar
- Playing tau
- Playing orks
- Playing grey knights
- Using a competitive list
- Not using a competitive list
- Using battlescribe
- Using a phone or tablet for list building
- Using paper for list building
- Using dice apps
- Not using dice apps
... and more!

So as you can see, "common courtesy" is not common at all, much like "common sense".

Yeah, there are many points in that list. You have many points.

It's a lot easier to define courtesy as: "that which makes an opponent walk away from the table."

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Stux wrote:

xenoterracide wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, it's just a tournament suggestion, outside of those you can easily decide to ignore it with your playgroup. It's not even a matched play rule.

yeah, someone accused me last night of breaking the rule as it was a matched play rule, so I went looking for it. I'm going to correct him next week.

It is the standard most groups play to though, so don't be too hard on them.

On the contrary, be hard on them. Unless you've actively agreed to it--don't bring that crap into pick-up games. It's an optional rule and people need to stop conflating pick-up games with matched play.

It's a good rule that should always be included, and people need to stop hiding behind a ridiculous technicality to defend their spam lists.

It's a lazy rule enforcing an arbitrary number limitation on bad book's only good units because GW wouldn't know good internal codex balance from a hole in the wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Different but same datasheets - this seems to be an intended way of GW to get around the rule of three, allowing certain units like carnifexes or battlewagon to be taken in larger numbers. They have put a limit on this where deemed it necessary, like commanders and daemon princes.

It is not intended at all! Are you high? Most of the datasheets were designed befor RO3 existed, and units themselves were designed maybe even decades ago.

Except the ork codex was written after the RO3 and yet contains both squadrons and multiple datasheets for the same model and neither the new buggies nor the battlewagon variants were designed decades ago.

I'm not high, you are just ignoring facts in favor of your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
My personal suggestion would be to increase cost once you take more than 3 of the unit. Something like: "up to 3 units, go by book cost. For each unit over 3, add 50% to the cost. For each unit over 6, add 100% of the cost."

The thing is, when you argue people about their "fluff" lists long enough, it always boils down to them wanting to *WIN* with their list, not *PLAY* it.
Your suggestion would weaken their army and thus not be satisfactory to them.

So you pretty much always throw bathwater out, regardless of the number of babies in it, huh?

 Crimson wrote:


The thing is, when you argue people about their "fluff" lists long enough, it always boils down to them wanting to *WIN* with their list, not *PLAY* it.
Your suggestion would weaken their army and thus not be satisfactory to them.

Exactly. People dont tend to spam crappy units, they spam super heavies, or 120+ troops or Coldstar commanders or whatever else. They want to win through defeating thier opponent's list building rather than through on table strategy.

If someone talked to me beforehand about a fluffy idea they had I would try to accommodate them, but it's not the club's responsibility to feed them casual TAC players, its their responsibility to adjust and recognize that the game in a non-tornament setting requires a degree of social intelligence.

A lot of them wouldn't even bring those types of lists to a tournament bc they know once they play someone they aren't punching down on they will likely lose.

Only if those babies are also nukes threatening to eradicate humanity with bad analogies.

It's a lazy rule enforcing an arbitrary number limitation on bad book's only good units because GW wouldn't know good internal codex balance from a hole in the wall.

I am of the opinion it's a rule better to have then not to at all, but it is obvious that it is a band aid at best for GW's incompetence.
Personally what would be bad about a limit on certain units?
One that could expand with more pts etc.
Nobody needs to bring 2 dp in a 1000 pts game.
And nobody cares about 40 veterans or 50 guardsmen as the mainline of an army.
It would also be less off a band aid and more along the line of a first aid kit for the gaping wound of GW balancing, heck you could even switch the limits up all 3 months....
Still bad, but less agrivatingly inadequat.

But he, who am I kidding.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's rude to bring a list that can't win against jetbike spam.

The opposite, don't bring jetbike spam when you know no one can beat it.

Yes, and that's my point: you have a blatant double standard where one person gets all of the obligation to bring the "right" list while the other person can bring whatever they want and demand that everyone else meet their power level. If it's rude to bring a list that nobody can beat then it's also rude to bring a list that can't beat the powerful list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's rude to bring a list that can't win against jetbike spam.

The opposite, don't bring jetbike spam when you know no one can beat it.

Yes, and that's my point: you have a blatant double standard where one person gets all of the obligation to bring the "right" list while the other person can bring whatever they want and demand that everyone else meet their power level. If it's rude to bring a list that nobody can beat then it's also rude to bring a list that can't beat the powerful list.

Roffle that depends massively on the context imo.
Go to a tournament and you would be right.
Go to a flgs and fight against someone thats only owns a somewhat balanced list that inherently can't efficiently fight skew lists and your whole argument breaks down.

Truth is, it is relative.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Go to a flgs and fight against someone thats only owns a somewhat balanced list that inherently can't efficiently fight skew lists and your whole argument breaks down.

Why are you assuming that instead of a fight between a tournament player who only owns the "spam" list they play in tournaments and a "fluff" player who owns an entire space marine chapter but refuses to bring a powerful combination of those models?

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Go to a flgs and fight against someone thats only owns a somewhat balanced list that inherently can't efficiently fight skew lists and your whole argument breaks down.

Why are you assuming that instead of a fight between a tournament player who only owns the "spam" list they play in tournaments and a "fluff" player who owns an entire space marine chapter but refuses to bring a powerful combination of those models?

That was not my exemple and I know you know what i meant.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's rude to bring a list that can't win against jetbike spam.

The opposite, don't bring jetbike spam when you know no one can beat it.

Yes, and that's my point: you have a blatant double standard where one person gets all of the obligation to bring the "right" list while the other person can bring whatever they want and demand that everyone else meet their power level. If it's rude to bring a list that nobody can beat then it's also rude to bring a list that can't beat the powerful list.

That's an interesting piece of logic there.

I suppose my hypothesis regarding courtesy assumes a common, tactic understanding of what units are OP and should not be spammed. Facing against a noob player, obviously, they could not transgress for a lack of knowledge. Facing a tournament caliber player, they could not transgress for I would prepare appropriately.

But these are exceptions, the average player knows the game and engages at a sub-expert level.

In any tabletop game, there's a mutual desire for enjoyment, a fun factor sought by all sides. In competitive games, there's an expectation that each side has a chance to win, even if another player has an advantage. You know, the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat.

That's the difference between a game and a closed power system where numerical certainty demands a certain outcome. I just don't believe most people approach the game from the standpoint of annihilating the other player. Even in tournaments, there's an expectation that everyone will enjoy the competition instead of achieving a pre-determined outcome.

So 'rude' doesn't quite describe it. It's the sense of inadequacy radiating from people who feel the need to construct an army from only the most overpowered units. 'Power gamer' seems ironic, you're really dealing with someone so threatened by competition they refuse to share an experience with others.

I just don't like to think about people that way. I'd rather see the game bring out the best in people instead of designing rules to prevent them from acting their worst. In that sense, the rule of three doesn't really mean much. I don't care what someone brings so long as it doesn't detract from the experience. If it does, there's plenty of other ways to spend my time.

 techsoldaten wrote:
If someone brought an Eldar list that was all jetbikes, I'd walk away from the table.

so a Samm Hain player?
seems a bit dickish. its fluffy.

ValentineGames wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If someone brought an Eldar list that was all jetbikes, I'd walk away from the table.

so a Samm Hain player?
seems a bit dickish. its fluffy.

Depends, it's like with any skew list, give a heads up beforehand.
Then there will be no issue.
Like if I bring a full Chaos knight army it might be prudent that my mates sm bring a bit more Lascannons, else it just turns into a one sided stomp Festival.