Switch Theme:

The Rule of Three  [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
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

It does have some strangeness with regard to squad sizes and squadrons.

e.g. 30 Incubi in 3 10-man squads is fine. 20 Incubi in 4 5-man squads is banned.

9 Leman Russ in 3 squadrons of 3 is fine.

4 Leman Russ as separate squads is illegal... even though Leman Russ squadrons separate at the beginning of the game and work independently thereafter.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Not to be "that guy", but taking 3 Daemon Princes and then a Special Character is perfectly fine and legal under the rule of 3. You might as well get angry for someone taking 3 Hive Tyrants and the Swarmlord. Or 3 Company Commanders and Creed.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




One of the big problems is that GW never said just what was a data sheet proper. Is it enough to change just a word or key word (UM vs Salamander)? If we have 2 of the same units in 2 books are they different or the same data sheets (CSM pink horrors vs chaos daemon pink horrors)? Or a little bit of both instances (BA devastators vs UM devastators)? Do variances in weapons make for different data sheets (Leman Russ Punisher vs LR Exterminators)?

Also you get into the relative unfairness of squadron rules. Why can guard take 3 Leman Russ tanks per slot but Ad Mech can only take 1 Onager?

Anyway hopefully GW will flesh out this rule more thoroughly before making it a permanent rule rather than its current Beta status.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 13:50:01


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
One of the big problems is that GW never said just what was a data sheet proper. Is it enough to change just a word or key word (UM vs Salamander)? If we have 2 of the same units in 2 books are they different or the same data sheets (CSM pink horrors vs chaos daemon pink horrors)? Or a little bit of both instances (BA devastators vs UM devastators)? Do variances in weapons make for different data sheets (Leman Russ Punisher vs LR Exterminators)?

Also you get into the relative unfairness of squadron rules. Why can guard take 3 Leman Russ tanks per slot but Ad Mech can only take 1 Onager?

Anyway hopefully GW will flesh out this rule more thoroughly before making it a permanent rule rather than its current Beta status.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the rule of 3 ain't a beta rule, it's a full fat errata to the suggestions for organised play. Yes, they are suggestions, yes they are for organised play, that doesn't stop 99% of people thinking they are iron clad rules to the level of "you can't re-roll a re-roll" for all matched play games, nor does it stop every single tournament circuit from using them (because independent thought is verboten along with conversions).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 13:51:40


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Karol wrote:

My expiriance with the rule of 3 was this. Played maybe my 4th or 5th game in life. Opposing player informs me that I can't take more then 3 units of the same kind. So I have to change my lists from running paladins with draigo, to termintors and draigo. I mess up the points, my opponent gets angry. Mostly because my list now had 1800pts and he wanted to get full 2000pts for tabling me. He on the other hand had 4 demon princes, and told me he could take them, because he took them from 2 different books and the 4th one is a special character, so not realy a demon prince.


Your opponent was a prick, Karol, for getting angry at a new player.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 13:53:08


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Karol wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
[
Ah, right.

But don't you think weak codices are also hurt by other codices spamming models they cannot handle well?

On the other hand, the rule of 3 "protects" codices from units getting nerfed because they can be spammed.
The prime example of this is the PBC - three of them are some annoying big guns you cannot kill. Eight of them are an annoying army you cannot kill. Every army that struggle to handle T8 3+/5++/5+++ vehicles is boned against such a spam army, while they can ignore, outmaneuver or lock down one or two of the three PBC that can be brought to the table now.
The unit literally fine at 3 but broken at 8+ models. If you nerf them to be fine at 8+ models, they might become useless for those who were just using them as a more resilient variant of the predator.


Yeah, about the protection. It works only if your codex is not that bad, or at least has 3-4 good options. If your codex is carried by one option then the rule of 3 sucks hard, because all those top tier armies just run bigger squads or reapers, more lances fewer reapers or demon princes from other codex. While you not only end up with a 4th NDK you can't use now, but also have less power then ever before. The rule of 3 changes nothing when a bad armies plays against a top tier one. It does hurt the bad army though, when is faces a mid tier one. Because before the bad army would probablly lose, but the game could be close, because of units that were carrying the bad army, Now that this is no longer the case, the number of armies percived as tier 1, for someone with a bad army, only grew, plus the players of those bad armies got punished for people with good armies having fun for a year. That is like your sister eating all the holiday sweets ment for your confirmation, and you being punished for it.


There is no easy way out of making good codices, rule of 3 or not. The rule of 3 will never make a good codex bad, but it prevents single units from becoming toxic.

If your codex is carried by single good unit you need to spam, you need a new codex, not the rule or 3 to go away.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Jidmah wrote:
There is no easy way out of making good codices, rule of 3 or not. The rule of 3 will never make a good codex bad, but it prevents single units from becoming toxic.

If your codex is carried by single good unit you need to spam, you need a new codex, not the rule or 3 to go away.


What about codices like drukhari where you are required to take 4 succubus for two wych cult battalions? Is taking one additional 54pt model really a game changer?
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 14:41:05


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Stitch Counter





The North

t's a wonderful number for extra-curricular activities, but as far as some thematic armies go (such as Orks, Nids and Drukhari) it's a royal pain in the carapace.

Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts

Saga: (Vikings, Normans, Anglo Danes, Irish, Scots, Late Romans, Huns and Anglo Saxons), Lion Rampant, Ronin: (Bushi x2, Sohei), Frostgrave: (Enchanter, Thaumaturge, Illusionist)
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.


The point of the question is that in typical GWS fashion, they introduce blanket rule with no consideration for the nuances in each codex. Yes, things like Hive Tyrants and Demon Princes needed to be brought into line, but things like succubi really didn't. Especially in a codex where, other than special characters, there are only 3 options for HQs AND you cannot mix the HQs in a detachment without breaking obsessions!
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I think this wraps around to the issue with why USRs are bad for the game. A universal rule cannot, by definition, take into consideration the nuance of every single faction. It also cannot account for things that interact with it poorly (oh, hi there vehicle squadrons not-squadrons!).

The correct fix is either 1) points (Tau Commander), or 2) specific fixes that devolve into whack-a-mole (Flying Hive Tyrant). The community is clearly too impatient for option 2, and too finicky about balance for option 1 (no one likes to see their favorites smashed).

8th feels a lot more a-la-carte than previous editions, and blanket and totalitarian-style rules just do not mix into the system very well. Maybe CA 2018 will buy them enough time for some internal analysis to fix a few of the problem units and get back to "business as normal" before this ham-handed solution?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 14:52:47


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






RedGriefer wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.


The point of the question is that in typical GWS fashion, they introduce blanket rule with no consideration for the nuances in each codex. Yes, things like Hive Tyrants and Demon Princes needed to be brought into line, but things like succubi really didn't. Especially in a codex where, other than special characters, there are only 3 options for HQs AND you cannot mix the HQs in a detachment without breaking obsessions!


And you'd rather trust GW to no longer create units that become overpowered when spammed than have them implement a fail-safe against that?

Guess what happens to your wych cult if succubi become the new hawt thing to spam? GW will put them in a place where they are sub-par when spammed and utterly useless when not, that's going to happen.

As long there are units which are reigned in by the rules of three, it has a reason exist.

Also note that you are constructing a corner case of you wanting to build an otherwise functional army in a very specific way. The only thing dark eldar need more HQs for is to gain more CP/a more optimal variant of your special archetype. It's pretty much on par with an eldar player complaining about having less exarchs in his jetbike army due to the rule of 3.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in fr
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





Watch Fortress Excalibris

Ushtarador wrote:
if you want to field your cool Night Lords army according to the fluff I'm sure you can agree with your opponent to not use it.

I can only assume that my post was terribly unclear. The Ro3 doesn't actually affect my NL army (or any of my 40K armies). I'm not even against it. I just think it's silly (and amusing to me because of the irony I described in my previous post) to claim that it will encourage more 'fluffy' lists. It actually makes some long-established 'fluffy' armies (Ravenwing, Deathwing, most Traitor Legions, single-clan Ork armies, mono-god Daemons...) harder or impossible to build legally. Like you said, it's a (suggested) rule for tournaments, where it frankly doesn't matter whether people are playing 'fluffy' lists. So the argument that it is a good rule because it encourages 'fluffy' lists is both wrong and irrelevant.

A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I don't think there is a single "fluff" ork army affected by the rule of 3.

What's affected are klan-focused armies that hat to MSU their signature unit because it sucked in big mobs. I have yet to meet anyone who owns more than 45 warbikes.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 15:50:33


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of your question?

As far as I'm aware, dark eldar are doing fairly well without two wych cult battalions.

Also, Lelith Hesperax.

Why should I be forced into a specific Wych Cult AND forced into using Lelith?

How is THAT anymore balanced than just allowing 4 generic Succubus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
It does have some strangeness with regard to squad sizes and squadrons.

e.g. 30 Incubi in 3 10-man squads is fine. 20 Incubi in 4 5-man squads is banned.

9 Leman Russ in 3 squadrons of 3 is fine.

4 Leman Russ as separate squads is illegal... even though Leman Russ squadrons separate at the beginning of the game and work independently thereafter.

Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:07:39


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:14:24


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


In the Index? Sure. In the Codex? No, Berzerkers and Noise Marines are Elites, until the FAQ added these:
[Thumb - RoleReassignment.jpg]

   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


Citation please. AFAIK there has been no statement from GW regarding this. Since all Leman Russ tanks use the same data sheet you can only have 9 of them if you put them into 3 squads of 3. There is no mention of different weapon configurations = different data sheets.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Now, does the fact the two datasheets have different Battlefield Roles on their datasheet mean they are the same datasheet anymore?

If you say they are, then you are saying that ULTRAMARINE Predators are the same datasheet as a BLOOD ANGELS Predator.

GW's half-arsed attempts actually causing more harm than good? I don't believe it!
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


In the Index? Sure. In the Codex? No, Berzerkers and Noise Marines are Elites, until the FAQ added these:


So World Eater Berzerkers are Troops instead of elites, so "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." It is pretty clear. If you try to arguee otherwise, go ahead, I'm not gonna enter in this, but this is something clear to everybody. And I admit that theres many situations where GW makes confuse rules open to interpretation, but this is not one of those cases.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:25:31


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


Citation please. AFAIK there has been no statement from GW regarding this. Since all Leman Russ tanks use the same data sheet you can only have 9 of them if you put them into 3 squads of 3. There is no mention of different weapon configurations = different data sheets.
While he is incorrect in that you can't take 4+ different turret russes, what you CAN do is take 3 squadrons of the LR Demolisher datasheet from the Index (which have the old 6 wound Plasma Vent rule, by the by), and 3 squadrons of each Leman Russ Variant in the FW index (which also have the 6 wound plasma vents), PLUS Cult Leman Russes from the GSC index entry (notice a trend here, Old 6 wound plasma vents!).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:26:59


 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not only that, you're allowed 9 Russes if they have different turrets as they're considered separate identities. Predators have to suffer.


Citation please. AFAIK there has been no statement from GW regarding this. Since all Leman Russ tanks use the same data sheet you can only have 9 of them if you put them into 3 squads of 3. There is no mention of different weapon configurations = different data sheets.

Absolutely, that is not how it works.

Now the FW variants are all different datasheets which might be what's confusing him. So you can have regular russ, tank commander, FW Vanquisher, FW Annihilator, FW Conqueror, FW Mars Alpha, index Demolisher, etc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:37:10


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
Also, a related Rule Blooper.

What Role Am I Anyway?: The rules to the aforementioned hard limit say that "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." However, this does not account for the fact that the same Datasheet can be taken for multiple Battlefield Roles. For example, Khorne Berzerkers are Troops in a World Eaters Detachment and Elites otherwise. Depending on your interpretation, this can either mean "ignore Troops and Dedicated Transports when determining your total," that units cannot be exempt unless they can only ever be taken as Troops or Dedicated Transports, or they can so long as the potential to take them as Troops exists.


World Eater Berzerkers and <Legion> Berzerkers are completely different units with different battlefield roles, so theres no possible confusion. You can take more than three World Eater Berzerkers, but you can't take more than three <Legion> Berzerkers.


In the Index? Sure. In the Codex? No, Berzerkers and Noise Marines are Elites, until the FAQ added these:


So World Eater Berzerkers are Troops instead of elites, so "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Role." It is pretty clear. If you try to arguee otherwise, go ahead, I'm not gonna enter in this, but this is something clear to everybody. And I admit that theres many situations where GW makes confuse rules open to interpretation, but this is not one of those cases.


Except you cannot have more than three of the same Datasheet. Even with different roles (say you allied in Alpha Legion Berzerkers in a separate detachment), they are still technically the same Datasheet, only one of the units now has the Elite role instead of the troops role.

When it says "this rule does not apply to units with the Troops role," this leaves it up for interpretation as to whether three units of World Eater Berzerkers lets you take a fourth Alpha Legion unit.
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

While it doesn't really effect me (dread mobs need more than just a lot of heavy support slots to be playable), my friend who play mordian iron guard likes to represent his more well-trained regiment by using veterans, and was quite upset when I told him the news. It wasn't as if he was spamming something powerful or playing an unfluffy list, he just got caught in the crossfire (which is why we're just ignoring it).

The original foc worked, but slot swapping was a common work around. I didn't like that you end up with special character that existed solely for that and/or how often that ended up being being just straight up more powerful that other options (i'm looking at you, 5th ed grey knights), but if they're going to keep this restriction taking one unit as a troop choice under the right conditions would be nice.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:42:53


Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?

Take a look at what I've been painting and modelling: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/725222.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







craggy wrote:
With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


"You cannot take more than three of the same Datasheet." This rule does not apply to units "with the Troops Battlefield Role", this could either mean that infinite troops can be taken but troops count against the three-unit limit for checking if Elites can be taken, or that the rule not applying means that Troops do not count against the three-datasheet limit. Feel free to roll-off.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 20:08:04


 
   
Made in au
Lady of the Lake






 MagicJuggler wrote:
craggy wrote:
With Berzerkers, since you can have a maximum of 3 of the same datasheet, excluding troops... Couldn't you have 3 units from Elites and another infinite number as Troops?


"You cannot take more than three of the same Datasheet." This rule does not apply to units "with the Troops Battlefield Role", this could either mean that infinite troops can be taken but troops count against the three-unit limit for checking if Elites can be taken, or that the rule not applying means that Troops do not count against the three-datasheet limit. Feel free to roll-off.


It's simple, if you have to take them as elites then you take up to 3; if you can take them as troops then you get as many as you want. It's not the potential of them being able to be either role but the current role they would be taking. By saying "this rule doesn't apply to units with the troop battlefield role" it would mean while they are troops they are not counted at all so they shouldn't effect the limit of 3.

   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





It's excellent.

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to be "that guy", but taking 3 Daemon Princes and then a Special Character is perfectly fine and legal under the rule of 3. You might as well get angry for someone taking 3 Hive Tyrants and the Swarmlord. Or 3 Company Commanders and Creed.

he took 2 csm ones, and 2 from the nurgle codex and a special character nurgle one.


This guy sounds like an donkey-cave. If you are that new to the game it makes no sense to play hardcore competitive matches like this, and nobody will have fun. I would pack my things and leave if someone did such a move, such people are not worth anyones time.

It was a store game, people here don't buy in to those bad armies, w40k costs too much for that. I think I got duped by the seller to buy his old army, and my friends wanted me to play with them with summer coming up etc. Plus my army did cost a lot less then theirs I think for 16 metal termintors and NDK, 5 strikes and 2 rhinos I paid less then 2 marines starter sets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 08:59:33


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: