Switch Theme:

Revising the Ro3  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




So, given GW have now brought in escalating costs for weapons in the T'au codex maybe they could make a change to how they go about preventing unit spam?

First, remove the rule of 3. Madness, right?

Then, build an escalating cost into the base cost of units.

So, on the data sheet (for power level) & on points list for points you have the base cost for a minimum size unit. You then have an additional cost that the unit goes up by for each subsequent unit.

Having it on each sheet rather than having a set increase means you can tune unit by unit if any unit is being particularly problematic.

I would expect troops, dedicated transports and HQ's would probably have an escalating cost of 0, to prevent armies with fewer choices getting hit by it too severely just for going for a battalion rather than 2 patrols, etc.


Example:

Assault Intercessors 95pts/0pts.

So each minimum size unit costs 95, and additional models cost their normal amount.

Incubi 90pts/20pts

So, the first minimum size unit costs 90pts, the second costs 110, the third 130, etc but additional models stay at 18pts per model.

Thoughts?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/22 11:06:05


 
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

That's kinda the entire point of PL.

That kind of scale has been around all edition. GW actually seems to be moving to more static, rather than dynamic costs like you suggest.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

I'm okay with the current implementation. Balancing aside, it forces players to not just spam a unit until you hit diminishing returns.

Makes for a more pleasant experience for the eye. The fact that some armies are able to circumvent this in some form like IG or GK with samey units in HQ and Heavy Support slots is a bigger problem, imho.

Personally, even bringing three of the same units is already one too much for my own taste. Normally people don't do this because they love the model, but because the rules are strong.

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Blndmage wrote:
That's kinda the entire point of PL.

That kind of scale has been around all edition. GW actually seems to be moving to more static, rather than dynamic costs like you suggest.


No, because the power cost goes up based on the total number of models in the unit, not the number of previous units.

So a unit of 5 incubi might be 5 power and the unit power increases by 1 for each extra model.

With this, it would be 5 power for the first unit (+1 power per additional model), 6 power for the second unit (+1 power per additional model), 7 power for the third unit (+1 power per additional model), etc


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm okay with the current implementation. Balancing aside, it forces players to not just spam a unit until you hit diminishing returns.

Makes for a more pleasant experience for the eye. The fact that some armies are able to circumvent this in some form like IG or GK with samey units in HQ and Heavy Support slots is a bigger problem, imho.

Personally, even bringing three of the same units is already one too much for my own taste. Normally people don't do this because they love the model, but because the rules are strong.


That's why you don't have a fixed formula, but have it on the sheet/points list - if a particular HQ *is* being a problem, then you can still escalate the cost in the MFM, etc.

It also allows you to reduce the base cost, but increase the escalating cost, making one very attractive but 2 more expensive than currently and 3 being really costly.

For example, no one generally plays land raiders, but if the first one is 150pts and the second is 250pts (150+100), then taking one becomes far more attractive and you end up with more varied lists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/22 12:01:43


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm not really a fan.

The Rule of 3 is a bandage - but a fairly successful one in preventing GW points screw ups completely dominating the meta. I have sympathy for "why can't I spam [relatively harmless unit]" or "why can X squadron up but Y can't". But it does work.

This just gives GW scope to screw up further. They have enough difficulty trying to work out what an Incubi should cost on its own. Determining that the first squad costs X, the second Y etc would be a complete nightmare.

I can see why you might push it if you really wanted highlander lists - but that's an aesthetic choice rather than a concern with balance.
   
Made in pt
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

I like the idea of increased cost for multiples of similar units, with faction specific conditions e.g. not so for rhinos for Ultramarines, maybe something like that. More generally, along with points changes, CA might also tweak these points cost penalties for instance if rules favor over-use or abuse of a unit because it is too effective. Wave serpents of a certain vintage come to mind, here. So, sure, the cost of a wave serpent might increase as they become abused due to being OP, and then the cost of bringing 2 or 3 would increase also with a coeeficient say +10% and +20% until the rule of three limit is met. GW could explain these adjustments in terms of resource over use, as Eldar field so many serpents that many or most are not damaged or being repaired, or destroyed, or simply seeing action on other fronts, making them less available here and now for this battle, unless requisition penalties are paid.

   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Why? Just why?

You propose to replace simple and robust system with pointlessly complicated one that ruins fluffy armies. You want to build devastator company for SM, IG tank regiment or wraith army for Eldar? Screw you, have a nerf to the basic unit you need to take for no reason!

The point about encouraging use of rare units by dropping points cost of first one is interesting, but I don't think it will work. It will both be haven of Thatguys smugly spamming whatever unit got big discount and will turn some units into mandatory choices if you want to have any chance in game, robbing players of agency. I'd just prefer buffs to rare units to make them worth it, like GW just did with 2+ on Russes. Also, would prefer not needing a spreadsheet with dozens of calculations and extra rules added alongside just to make 1000 pts army.

I still have no idea why people are so upset about rule of 3. Old HOC was rule of 3 on everything yet somehow no one complained back then. Through the 8th edition I read discussions about it and never saw a single good argument for scrapping it, it just looks like Tau WAAC types crying their utterly nonsensical from fluff standpoint, broken commander spam was reined in infected whole discussion with salt and it never progressed past that...

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

For the record, old FOC wasn't rule of 3 on anything, as you could take multiple FOCs even in 4th depending on game size. Those FoCs could even be different armies (i.e. Eldar and Imperial Guard) iirc.
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof




a_typical_hero wrote:
The fact that some armies are able to circumvent this in some form like IG or GK with samey units in HQ and Heavy Support slots is a bigger problem, imho.

Wait, IG running a bunch of leman russes is a big problem? Maybe for the person trying to run them.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




sanguine40k wrote:
So, given GW have now brought in escalating costs for weapons in the T'au codex maybe they could make a change to how they go about preventing unit spam?

First, remove the rule of 3. Madness, right?

Then, build an escalating cost into the base cost of units.

So, on the data sheet (for power level) & on points list for points you have the base cost for a minimum size unit. You then have an additional cost that the unit goes up by for each subsequent unit.

Having it on each sheet rather than having a set increase means you can tune unit by unit if any unit is being particularly problematic.

I would expect troops, dedicated transports and HQ's would probably have an escalating cost of 0, to prevent armies with fewer choices getting hit by it too severely just for going for a battalion rather than 2 patrols, etc.


Example:

Assault Intercessors 95pts/0pts.

So each minimum size unit costs 95, and additional models cost their normal amount.

Incubi 90pts/20pts

So, the first minimum size unit costs 90pts, the second costs 110, the third 130, etc but additional models stay at 18pts per model.

Thoughts?

It reminds me of the old ETC system of 'let's punish armies we don't like.' Nothing says fluffy like kneecapping someone Who's Doing It Wrong.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm okay with the current implementation. Balancing aside, it forces players to not just spam a unit until you hit diminishing returns.

Makes for a more pleasant experience for the eye. The fact that some armies are able to circumvent this in some form like IG or GK with samey units in HQ and Heavy Support slots is a bigger problem, imho.

Personally, even bringing three of the same units is already one too much for my own taste. Normally people don't do this because they love the model, but because the rules are strong.


I just hate that troops and dedicated transports are exempt.

Give a unit obsec or a transport capacity and suddenly it can't create gameplay issues when take en masse? Drukhari disagree.


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Blndmage wrote:
That's kinda the entire point of PL.

That kind of scale has been around all edition. GW actually seems to be moving to more static, rather than dynamic costs like you suggest.


No PL doesn't work like that. If it did then the first unit would cost say 5PL, next 6PL, third 7PL, fourth 8PL...While all 4 units would be identical size and composition.

5 incubis(no upgrade) 90 pts, 2x5 incubis(no ugrades) 90+110, 3x5 incubis(no upgrades) 90+110+130, 4x5 incubis=90+110+130+150.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

I like OP's idea.

IMHO rule of 3 is already too forgiving, it should be rule of 2. Anything that counters the spam of a single unit is a good idea.

I love freedom in selecting desired slots and I praise the current detachments system, I hate relying on very limited array of units though. I like "highlander" style armies.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Rule of 3 wouldn't even be necessary if there were limits of how many things you could take in any game.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rule of 3 wouldn't even be necessary if there were limits of how many things you could take in any game.


Yeah, it should be rule of 1 and rule of 2 for most of the HQs, elites, FA, HS, LoW and flyers.

 
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof




 Blackie wrote:
I like OP's idea.

IMHO rule of 3 is already too forgiving, it should be rule of 2. Anything that counters the spam of a single unit is a good idea.

I love freedom in selecting desired slots and I praise the current detachments system, I hate relying on very limited array of units though. I like "highlander" style armies.
You like highlander armies, that's good for you. Not everyone does. Most fluffy lists need a theme, and running max of a unit is required to fit that team. The issue is less that 3 of a unit is good, it's that there are OP units you want to take 3 of.

Everyone looks at this from the perspective of "they ran 3 max size squads of this unit that is already overpowered" okay so nerf the unit. Switching over to this new way of doing it is just going to make it even harder for GW to buff/nerf things, and we know how good they are with points balance right now. Regardless, you'll still get stupid broken netlists because people will find the ultimate minmax combination every time.

I hate to always focus on how things are for the guard, but that's because guard are generally bad and have been, and claiming that 3 of a unit is spamming when guard used to have platoons is just hilarious. Guard used to be able to run 5 heavy weapon squads per troop slot. It was pretty cool, and really fluffy to run full platoons. Now, you can run one heavy weapon squad as heavy support choice. A maximum of 3 when there used to be people that ran 15 of them. And now you're telling me "actually no, you should only be allowed to run 2 heavy weapon squads, that's how good balance works and themed armies are bad".
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, it should be rule of 1 and rule of 2 for most of the HQs, elites, FA, HS, LoW and flyers.
That's not what I meant. Arbitrary limitations like the above would be just as unnecessary as Ro3 if the FOC had any limits, which it doesn't.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Most themed armies can be fluffy without spamming the same unit. Orks speed freaks have tons of options even with the current buggies limitations. SM have tons of termies or other multiwound bulky models, countless different tanks to field an armoured company, drukhari work perfectly with 0-1 or 0-2 caps on every unit in their codex, tau have tons of different robots, tyranids can field monster spam even with 0-1 cap on each of their big guys, etc...

Then my favorite example, AM. Even with rule of 1 to all their units they could still field: an HQ tank, a named character tank, a FA tank, a squadron of 3 leman russes and 5 other different tanks from the heavy support section. Plus baneblades and chimeras. Seriously, even rule of 1 wouldn't prevent AM to field a full tank army. They simply couldn't spam the same tank.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, it should be rule of 1 and rule of 2 for most of the HQs, elites, FA, HS, LoW and flyers.
That's not what I meant. Arbitrary limitations like the above would be just as unnecessary as Ro3 if the FOC had any limits, which it doesn't.


We already discussed this. I don't think the limitation on the slots is reasonable considering current army rosters. It was a relic of older edition when most of the armies had 3-5 options for each slots, so taking a bit of everything didn't break the FOC. Now it does, that's why it doesn't exist anymore.

Rule of X serves a useful function, it prevents people spamming the same unit. In a game like 40k, where perfect balance is impossible and not even a goal for the designers, it's a useful patch. IMHO not strict enough, it's purpose is to limit maxing out the best units and in that it kinda fails. 3 redemptors in each SM list are terrible game deisgn and kinda boring to play everytime against the same stuff. On the other hand the cap on buggies is good, now no more lists running 9 squigbuggies or 9 scrapjets which wouldn't break the old FOC. Nor does bringing 3 kill rigs. Again, boring and gamey.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 09:31:57


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







When y'all get GW to rewrite the Daemons codex so that it's not necessary to spam units (so that there are actually more than one unit of troops for each of the factions and/or the factions can actually be used together), then arguments that the RoX needs to be made more strict will stop sounding completely out of touch for the lesser books.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

 Blackie wrote:
Most themed armies can be fluffy without spamming the same unit.


This line of thinking is why there are 6 different Terminator unit entries to use for Deathwing.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade






So long as some factions best units are in the troops and dedicated transport slots, while other factions aren't so blessed, the Ro3 only serves to push those weaker factions down. Warp help you if your best units are troops or transports AND they still suck.

Also, its all fine and well to love the Ro3 when you have ten different data-slates for SM Captain. Those factions who don't have such support have to fight against the Ro3 just to put an army together.

A ton of armies and a terrain habit...


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 dracpanzer wrote:

Also, its all fine and well to love the Ro3 when you have ten different data-slates for SM Captain. Those factions who don't have such support have to fight against the Ro3 just to put an army together.


Or, for that matter, the Storm Speeder Hammerstrike, Storm Speeder Thunderstrike, and Storm Speeder Hailstrike; the multiple Land Raider data slates; the Kataphron; etc.

There's stuff in the game that has more than one data slate because the alternative--data slates that have multiple pages of options--makes the game look too complicated. That's not a decision that should have game balance repercussions.
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof




 Platuan4th wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Most themed armies can be fluffy without spamming the same unit.


This line of thinking is why there are 6 different Terminator unit entries to use for Deathwing.

This. I wouldn't want to run 6 different kinds of terminators just to get around rule of 3. I'd want to run DW terminators and DW knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Then my favorite example, AM. Even with rule of 1 to all their units they could still field: an HQ tank, a named character tank, a FA tank, a squadron of 3 leman russes and 5 other different tanks from the heavy support section. Plus baneblades and chimeras. Seriously, even rule of 1 wouldn't prevent AM to field a full tank army. They simply couldn't spam the same tank.

You're ignoring everything I said. I'm saying rule of 3 is stupid when you're talking about vets, HWS, SWS, etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 18:06:04


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I think it wouldn't work.

Points are part of the balancing act. Either the unit is worth taking in multiples or it is not. Doing this just over complicates balancing an even wider set of scenarios.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




So It's hilarious to me that a player of the Tau faction, the faction that literally was the reason the RO3 was created, wants to "alter" the rule. Look, with all the stupid shenanigans armies, especially Tau and DE/Regular Eldar can or will be able to pull off, I don't think it's feasible to even allow any more than 3 of some units. Hard stop. Storm Surge, HammerHeads, and War Walkers are all shaping up to be mini-titans. Also, before our collective memories fall out of our ears, lets remember the stupidity of Triple Castellan lists, triple IH Relic Contemptor Dread lists, and other lists of silliness.

Nope, Ro3 is fine. If you want to ignore it, that is also fine. Ro3 is only for tournament play, and even then it's only a "guideline/suggestion". Most big games enforce it, but if it's just you and your friends, go nuts. 6 Hammerheads!
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So It's hilarious to me that a player of the Tau faction, the faction that literally was the reason the RO3 was created, wants to "alter" the rule. Look, with all the stupid shenanigans armies, especially Tau and DE/Regular Eldar can or will be able to pull off, I don't think it's feasible to even allow any more than 3 of some units. Hard stop. Storm Surge, HammerHeads, and War Walkers are all shaping up to be mini-titans. Also, before our collective memories fall out of our ears, lets remember the stupidity of Triple Castellan lists, triple IH Relic Contemptor Dread lists, and other lists of silliness.

Nope, Ro3 is fine. If you want to ignore it, that is also fine. Ro3 is only for tournament play, and even then it's only a "guideline/suggestion". Most big games enforce it, but if it's just you and your friends, go nuts. 6 Hammerheads!


Wasn't it the seven Flyrant list somebody brought to a GT that GW happened to be visiting?

At any rate, the Ro3 doesn't restrict the DE now, it just hurts those armies who only have one good unit and can't bring enough to compensate against the armies that have a choice of 3 each of seven or eight good units.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/23 18:56:17


A ton of armies and a terrain habit...


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm fine with the rule of 3, I think its healthy for the game. Just would be nice if GW didn't change it randomly to screw over certain factions *cough Ork Buggies *cough.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Commissar Yarrork wrote:
Wait, IG running a bunch of leman russes is a big problem? Maybe for the person trying to run them.
My statement is purely from the perspective that the current Ro3 is being countered by having the same unit under a slightly different name with mostly the same stats.

I'm well aware that Russes outside of the HQ slot are not worth bringing at the moment.

   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

Isn't the 1 Commander per detachment going to be in the next Codex too?

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Just dump the rule of 3 and put the number of copies you can take as a stat on the datasheet itself
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: