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.

Since we are discussing this again, I wonder how the acceptance has shifted. Last time I did a similar poll more than 80% were using that rule.

Once again, I'm asking about how you handle it in games you actually play, not about hypothetical events you will probably not attend.
If the answer differs for you because you play under varying conditions, pick the one you would apply for most of your games.

So long as their force is legal per the Force org charts in the rule book I don't care.

Voted option 2 but I would ask them what they are running more of and why at which point I would suggest we play an anything goes narrative game instead.

I honestly think the rule has improved competitive and casul gaming for me.

No.

Unless it's a practice game for an event-format that uses rule of 3 (or rule of 2, which is popular around here), I don't see why.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Voted option 2 but I would ask them what they are running more of and why at which point I would suggest we play an anything goes narrative game instead.

I honestly think the rule has improved competitive and casul gaming for me.

If someone were to field 6 units of veterans in a mechanized guard army? Just curious.

The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.

Tends to be an unwrittten rule amongst my group but dont really care either way.

Honestly these things tend to vary depending on the nature of local groups. Even rules within the formal game can be ignored such as the double turn in AoS which is, in some groups/clubs ignored as a general policy.

I find that groups which have smaller memberships where everyone knows everyone can tend to have more of these informal agreements where "everyone does/doesn't'" use something is commonly accepted in most pick up games unless otherwise stated.

Whilst larger groups where there might be a far wider variety of members and more dropping in and out and thus more chance of playing someone new; you tend to have less but the pre-game becomes more critical and setting up expectations.

Yes I do expect it, spamming units is not fun to play against unless there's a narrative to explain why you've spammed.

 Nithaniel wrote:
The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.

Mostly because I f.e. started out in an edition where veterans were standard choices and i like the feel of Panzergrenadier like units?

And ofcourse i also wouldn't be nonplussed by comparable units that were at one point troop choices.

I feel like the issue really shows up though when we go into the too pts effective units like flyrants (which were the cause for this rule in the first place )
But most units don't really fall into that. Or would people be annoyied at 5-6 units of mandrakes?

Edit: and I for one would've rather seen Limits on these extreme sheets rather then the rule of three.

Well, our gaming group follows strictly the rule of 3. Period.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.

Mostly because I f.e. started out in an edition where veterans were standard choices and i like the feel of Panzergrenadier like units?

And ofcourse i also wouldn't be nonplussed by comparable units that were at one point troop choices.

I feel like the issue really shows up though when we go into the too pts effective units like flyrants (which were the cause for this rule in the first place )
But most units don't really fall into that. Or would people be annoyied at 5-6 units of mandrakes?

Edit: and I for one would've rather seen Limits on these extreme sheets rather then the rule of three.

Here I think we would agree that with your multiple veteran squads you're wanting to list build in a narrative way and with that cleared up we'd have a great fun game.

The rule of three is a clumsy knee jerk reaction to improve matched play and despite the ineptitude in the way it was implemented (9 daemon prince exception) it still cleaned up the game. It could/should be refined but that kind of granular approach to list building refinement is outside of the rules team's capability and/or desire.

I stille celebrate the rule of three as a massive step in the right direction

Am I the only person who just has a discussion with my opponent about this sort of stuff before a game? No hard and fast rules, just "what do you wanna play?" and then reach an agreement that works for both parties.

Obv if it's some sort of organised event/league thing or whatever, then it's the event organiser's call.

Remind the more ignorant of us about all of the caveats of rule of three? Am I mistaken in recalling that it doesn't apply to troops and transports?

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Remind the more ignorant of us about all of the caveats of rule of three? Am I mistaken in recalling that it doesn't apply to troops and transports?

Rulebook FAQ wrote: This does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role, nor does it apply to any units that are added to your army during the battle that cost reinforcement points.

Page 15.

I've had people complain equally when I've asked about using more that three units of Kastelan Robots or Killa Kans...

 Nithaniel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The question would be why run 6 squads of veterans. Its not gonna be as gamebreaking as 9 PBC's but if my opponent feels the need to run that way then I would agree to play but with the caveat that I may do the same.

Mostly because I f.e. started out in an edition where veterans were standard choices and i like the feel of Panzergrenadier like units?

And ofcourse i also wouldn't be nonplussed by comparable units that were at one point troop choices.

I feel like the issue really shows up though when we go into the too pts effective units like flyrants (which were the cause for this rule in the first place )
But most units don't really fall into that. Or would people be annoyied at 5-6 units of mandrakes?

Edit: and I for one would've rather seen Limits on these extreme sheets rather then the rule of three.

Here I think we would agree that with your multiple veteran squads you're wanting to list build in a narrative way and with that cleared up we'd have a great fun game.

The rule of three is a clumsy knee jerk reaction to improve matched play and despite the ineptitude in the way it was implemented (9 daemon prince exception) it still cleaned up the game. It could/should be refined but that kind of granular approach to list building refinement is outside of the rules team's capability and/or desire.

I stille celebrate the rule of three as a massive step in the right direction

Oh I agree that it is a massive step in the right direction.
Only it just full hammered on the non issue units more often then not and could've been solved by gw taking a step back and actually thinking about limits and Implementation of it.

But alas, atleast gw has reacted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Remind the more ignorant of us about all of the caveats of rule of three? Am I mistaken in recalling that it doesn't apply to troops and transports?

Rulebook FAQ wrote: This does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role, nor does it apply to any units that are added to your army during the battle that cost reinforcement points.

Page 15.

I've had people complain equally when I've asked about using more that three units of Kastelan Robots or Killa Kans...

Really, about killa kans, of all things about killa kans
You would think they're happy if they see them

Not Online!!! wrote:
Really, about killa kans, of all things about killa kans
You would think they're happy if they see them

It basically goes like this:
"Oh, kanz, those suck, don't they?"
*use dread mob stratagem to destroy something half their points with 12 rokkit shots*
*kanz get evaporated whenever they show up*

I do wonder why you would want to run more than 18 of them though...

I also know at least one player who still refuses to play against GK because they are OP.

Nope. Not unless they've said they want to use it beforehand.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Really, about killa kans, of all things about killa kans
You would think they're happy if they see them

It basically goes like this:
"Oh, kanz, those suck, don't they?"
*use dread mob stratagem to destroy something half their points with 12 rokkit shots*
*kanz get evaporated whenever they show up*

I do wonder why you would want to run more than 18 of them though...

I also know at least one player who still refuses to play against GK because they are OP.

I would have, well in my Ork days.
Then again i always tended to bigmek and flymek armies.

As for GK thing, Bah let him. It isn't like there are many GK players left

 Jidmah wrote:
I do wonder why you would want to run more than 18 of them though...

Because I've got more than 18 of them

Sure, as a joke, but you are basically spending 1000 points to get a unit of tank bustas worth of shooting

 Jidmah wrote:
Sure, as a joke, but you are basically spending 1000 points to get a unit of tank bustas worth of shooting

BUt fancy Metallic tankbustaz.

LEAVE MY DREADS ALONE YOU BLOODY GIT!
*insane mek rumblings and angry fistshaking.

Me and my pals tend to use it, unless we're playing a "gaks and giggles" game. Like when I ran 2k of Gretchin and my opponent brought 2k of Kroot, just to prove which was the worse unit (this was back before the Ork Codex).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside, I've been guilty of thinking Rule of 3 is a general rule myself, due to how prevalent it is.

You have 2k points of Gretchins ?
And who won ?

Well, it was on Tabletop Simulator, so I technically have infinite Gretchin... but it was the Kroot. Morale hit harder than the Kroot did, so even with more models on the field, I couldn't make enough headway.

Is TTS fun / easy to setup?

You gotta search the Workshop for models and maps (which can be a pain), but it's fairly intuitive. Works pretty much exactly like real-life. BCB has made some stuff for it, so he might be able to help you along if you wanna give it a go.

Not that it could ever REALLY be a problem, but I don't want to see 5 Telemons, 5 Callidus Tanks, or 5 Tank Commanders. If you come to the table expecting to use that gak, I am already at a disadvantage because I would never come to play a game expecting to face that. I come prepared to use the generally accepted rules in the community.

The fact that it's optional, is bunk. You could say the same thing about speed of play, or modeling for advantage, or knights without a base, kneeling characters etc.

This is more boring then RAW v RAI arguments.

thanks.

The best thing about it is (for Orkz and other armies with lots of models) being able to pick up multiple models at once and move them. Of course, this may require you have an opponent who isn't as... strict about precise movement. The only real downside is finding opponents, so you'll probably want some people you already know to get into it.