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.

So did anyone else notice you are no longer limited to 3 of the same datasheet anymore. Big Faq 2 apparently entirely supplanted Big Faq 1 through either GW's incompetence or ... well through their incompetence. So you can't actually find that stupid rule anywhere in GW's official material.

Unless i missed something.

Rulebook FAQ p9.

Note that this is an Organised Play rule, so the decision to include the rule outside of events that use it must be agreed upon before the game.

Damn missed that

Rule of 3 was never "a rule".

Just like there isn't "a rule" limiting you to 3 detachments.


15 units of Terminators in 5 Vanguard Detachments is a perfectly legal matched play army under current matched play rules.


There're simply some "event recommendations" for larger tournaments, which admittedly basically everyone on the world just treats as matched play rules in all but name.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rule of 3 was never "a rule".

Just like there isn't "a rule" limiting you to 3 detachments.


15 units of Terminators in 5 Vanguard Detachments is a perfectly legal matched play army under current matched play rules.


There're simply some "event recommendations" for larger tournaments, which admittedly basically everyone on the world just treats as matched play rules in all but name.

While this is "technically" correct, it is such a GOOD suggestion, that the majority of players abide by it.

So the assumption most players have is that their opponents are using the Rule of 3.
If you intend to not use the "suggestion", it is a good courtesy to discuss that with your opponent first. Most players won't mind if you want to add a 4th unit of something benign.
Although on the flip-side of that, I very much think most players will mind if you want to take 6+ of the newest OP gak, which is what the "Rule of 3" is there to prevent

-

Sure. What I said. Basically everyone just assumes or plays it as if it were a rule. Many people are actually genuinely surprised to find out it is not "a rule".

That said, there'll be the day when some TO from a small local tournament doesn't put it into the package and some guy shows up with an early 8th style list of 9-10 Plague Burst Crawlers or some such nonsense.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Sure. What I said. Basically everyone just assumes or plays it as if it were a rule. Many people are actually genuinely surprised to find out it is not "a rule".

That said, there'll be the day when some TO from a small local tournament doesn't put it into the package and some guy shows up with an early 8th style list of 9-10 Plague Burst Crawlers or some such nonsense.

It is a rule though, even if it's a suggested one.

The distinction between suggested and mandatory is pretty meaningless anyway when players are free to use whatever parts of the system they want. It just semantics.

What matters is that the Rule of 3 as it is known colloquially has became the default for the majority of play.

 Stux wrote:
It is a rule though, even if it's a suggested one.

No. It is a suggestion for organized play (i.e., tournaments) where time, space and other concerns may impact the event. It has no more weight than any other house rule, no matter who suggested it.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It is a rule though, even if it's a suggested one.

No. It is a suggestion for organized play (i.e., tournaments) where time, space and other concerns may impact the event. It has no more weight than any other house rule, no matter who suggested it.

Agreed. It's not an actual "rule" in the strictest sense.

Yeah, it's not a fixed rule. Doubly so because the "recommendation" doesn't say "3 detachments max".

It literally says maybe try it with three and, quote, "you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc."

That is very different from the rule that, say, bolters shoot 24". GW doesn't modify that with "this is just a suggestion, changes it as you like".

The latter is a fixed rule, and any modification of that is clearly a houserule. The former is a suggestion on how you (or any other TO) might wanna houserule for organisational reasons with essentially an example (limit at up to 3) of how that houserule could potentially look like.


On the other hand, yes, people seem to have adopted it as ironclad rule, so it has some weird institutional weight because of that.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It is a rule though, even if it's a suggested one.

No. It is a suggestion for organized play (i.e., tournaments) where time, space and other concerns may impact the event. It has no more weight than any other house rule, no matter who suggested it.

Ok, and if you are using it then what is it? A rule. Therefore it is a suggested rule.

Again, it's not a rule from Games Workshop. It's nothing more than a suggestion that the players or tournament organizers are free to take or leave as they will. Games Workshop made a suggestion. It's the players or tournament organizer who make it a house rule (and not a 'rule', i.e. a rule found in a published rulebook).

Answering the tough questions.

Put your todgers away. It matters not.

I'll bite.

rule
/ro͞ol/
noun
1. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, court order, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, ordinance, pronouncement, mandate, command, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, proclamation, injunction, commandment, prescription, stipulation, requirement, precept, guideline, direction; More

It sure looks like GW's suggestion, which is an understood guideline for conduct in matched play adopted by the overwhelming majority of tournament organizers and players, fits the definition of a rule.

 deviantduck wrote:
I'll bite.

rule
/ro͞ol/
noun
1. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, court order, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, ordinance, pronouncement, mandate, command, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, proclamation, injunction, commandment, prescription, stipulation, requirement, precept, guideline, direction; More

It sure looks like GW's suggestion, which is an understood guideline for conduct in matched play adopted by the overwhelming majority of tournament organizers and players, fits the definition of a rule.

You may wish to read the Tenets of YMDC, especially #6. And a suggestion is still just that. It's not a rule.

gendoikari87 wrote:
So did anyone else notice you are no longer limited to 3 of the same datasheet anymore. Big Faq 2 apparently entirely supplanted Big Faq 1 through either GW's incompetence or ... well through their incompetence. So you can't actually find that stupid rule anywhere in GW's official material.

Unless i missed something.

Always make sure the incompetence is not your own before blaming others.

I never knew anything about this rule. Don't think I'd ever follow it since I never run anything broken.

I really wanted to continue debating whether this is a rule or not, but then I realized how completely and utterly irrelevant it is.
Not even GW defines what a "rule" is, outside of things outlined in the Core Rules and Advance Rules sections.

But whether you use the word "rule" or not, the restriction on duplicate datasheets IS a restriction/suggestion/guideline/[insert synonym of your choice] that has been given to us by GW for use in our game (if we choose)
So whether you want to use it or not, it is "official" regardless, it's just "optional"
And "optional" does not have to contradict "official".

Personally, however, I wish GW would make it mandatory instead because it may as well be.
And combined with so, so many new units getting different datasheets for what really should just be different loadout options, it's not like you can't bring tons of the same unit anyway.

For example, Armigers have 2 separate datasheets for Helverins and Warglaives. Both of which are just weapon swaps.
AND, each datasheet can take 2 models that operate independently.
So you can take 12 Armigers in a list and be perfectly compliant with the "Rule of 3". You would just have 3x 2 Helverins and 3x 2 Warglaives

But "Rule of 3" is not only good a reducing spam of OP units, but also encourages diversity in a list, which should always be encouraged. Games are just more fun if your opponent has more than 2-3 unit types

-

If you use it it’s a rule for your game.
If you don’t it isn’t.
It is still in current GW publications.

The OP’s question has been ably answered. Discussion of the rule’s merits when used isn’t a YMDC matter.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you use it it’s a rule for your game.
If you don’t it isn’t.
It is still in current GW publications.

The OP’s question has been ably answered. Discussion of the rule’s merits when used isn’t a YMDC matter.

Agreed, it doesn't really matter. The original interjection from someone trying to correct people for calling it a rule just got my goat a bit.

I have not had a pick-up game since the introduction of the Rule of Three that did not treat it as a cast-iron rule.

'Broken' or not doesn't matter. You don't even need an appearance of 'broken'; I built five Hellflayers pre-RoT and have never been allowed to use all five, despite them being very far from powerful.

They're not even 'good', really. But it doesn't matter, 'cause people who have no intention of ever playing in a tournament slavishly follow the rule.

So whether it is a Rule or not (it's not), if the group you play in or with treats it as such, you have to as well. If they ignore it, so can you.

Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

Well I didn't even know it existed until today so back off would you?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

To put it a little more kindly - the rule doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports. So you can have all the Infantry Squads you want.

Additionally, the rule is for Units, not Models. And Units with the exact same name at that. So as Leman Russes and many other Astra Mitarum tanks come in squadrons, you can take rather a lot of them still! You could take 3 squads of 3 Russes, 3 Tank Commanders and Pask for 13 Russes without breaking the rule! And that's without getting into Forgeworld variants.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

Well I didn't even know it existed until today so back off would you?

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. If you're going to contribute and participate in a discussion about something, you should IMHO take the most basic efforts to be informed about the facts at hand. Your argument was invalid. I apologise if you feel slighted at being told that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

Well I didn't even know it existed until today so back off would you?

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. If you're going to contribute and participate in a discussion about something, you should IMHO take the most basic efforts to be informed about the facts at hand. Your argument was invalid. I apologise if you feel slighted at being told that.

And you couldn't have explained that more like Stux? You know, less like a jerk?

*NVM, I didn't see the edit.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

To put it a little more kindly - the rule doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports. So you can have all the Infantry Squads you want.

Additionally, the rule is for Units, not Models. And Units with the exact same name at that. So as Leman Russes and many other Astra Mitarum tanks come in squadrons, you can take rather a lot of them still! You could take 3 squads of 3 Russes, 3 Tank Commanders and Pask for 13 Russes without breaking the rule! And that's without getting into Forgeworld variants.

And to support this, the Ro3 actually creates a MORE fluffy game in most instances because of that.

Guard would certainly have tons of Infantry Squads, which is why they are Troops and therefore not beholden to the Ro3.
Leman Russ variants, however, are specialized things and should be uncommon for an army (the scale of which is represented on a 6x4 table) to have many duplicates of the SAME variant.
So in that regard, it forces players to take armies that are more representative of an armies composition in the fluff

If you want to take 12 specific Leman Russ's, then you are doing one of 3 things:

A) Trying to recreate a very specific battle that pointed out the rarity of such an event, but it happened anyway. If so, that's why Narrative play exists or
B) You see how powerful that variant is and want to spam it for wins. If so, the Ro3 protects us from you or
C) You have the models from a previous edition or second hand and are generally ignorant of the Ro3 or 40k in general, If this is the case, you should be discussing games with your opponent. If both of you are civil an agreement can be made and should be a fun game whatever is decided

-

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Honestly it can kind of take you out if the game in some instances. Telling a faction like Astra Militarum which is designed to have many instances of the same unit is unrealistic. No more than three Infantry squads? Unlikely unless you're an armored group.

If you're going to complain at least have a valid argument. The "Rule of Three" doesn't apply to Troops or Dedicated Transports.

Well I didn't even know it existed until today so back off would you?

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. If you're going to contribute and participate in a discussion about something, you should IMHO take the most basic efforts to be informed about the facts at hand. Your argument was invalid. I apologise if you feel slighted at being told that.

And you couldn't have explained that more like Stux? You know, less like a jerk?

*NVM, I didn't see the edit.

Best to ignore him if his delivery method bothers you. He's been called out on it numerous times and will likely never take the feedback to heart.

But yeah... the Rule of 3 is pretty widespread. It's safe to assume an average pick up game at an average store will be using the rule/recommendation. It never applies to Troops or Dedicated Transports. You can have an army made almost entirely of Tactical Marines and their Rhinos, if you want.

The question has been answered and we're once again going down that same road it seems.

So, we are done here.