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.

Daemon Prince and Daemon Prince of Nurgle are two different datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you've only got 16 terminators then what was the problem with running 3x5 palladins?

Karol wrote:

 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.

Still perfectly legal and not a "dick move" as some are claiming.

Just popping in to say that the rule of three is the single dumbest thing that's been added to 8th edition. It has managed to:

DECREASE list diversity. Pretty much every list now is, 3 of best unit 1, 3 of best unit 2, 3 of best ally units one, 3 of best ally unit 2. Before you could create archetypes based around large numbers of particular units and their support options, now it's just going down the OP checklist.

Do NOTHING to make the game more balanced. There wasn't even a small decline in the power of the top lists compared to the power of everyone else.

Push soup from common to EPIDEMIC. Since very few armies have enough viable options under the rule of 3 to be competitive in mono-faction Soup when from a powerful list building tool to being totally mandatory.

Increase the relative power of already powerful horde units, especially troops. Hordes suck to use and suck to play against but with this rule become even more powerful. It's entirely possible for someone to run a 'green tide' type list but almost impossible to scrape together enough anti-infantry to have any shot at killing it.

The rule of 3 is terrible, makes the game worse for no reason, accomplishes nothing AT BEST and the opposite of what it was meant to do at worst, and the fact that anyone thought it was a good idea is a tragedy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Karol wrote:

 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.

Still perfectly legal and not a "dick move" as some are claiming.

Unless two of those were daemon princes of Slanesh.


... I'll show myself out.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Daemon Prince and Daemon Prince of Nurgle are two different datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you've only got 16 terminators then what was the problem with running 3x5 palladins?

We have to have a battalion in our list. not enough models and points.

Still perfectly legal and not a "dick move" as some are claiming.

you know that is a bit like an eldar player saying that reapers are fine, and spaming them and mixing craftworlds and ynari was not a dick move, because it was legal.

But what I was trying to point out that it favors already good lists and hurts bad armies a lot more. Did after the rule of 3 and the deep strike nerf, and the reaper nerf eldar stop scoring high in tournaments ? how about GK being seen actually being played at any event?

I really don't get the issue with those "all daemon prince" lists. In my experience they just get blasted off the board because daemon princes simply aren't that durable and aren't killy enough to handle vehicles or hordes. A friend of mine brought is old "flying circus" list to the table and was murdered by pre-codex tau.

So, what the is issue with them besides leading the rule of three ad absurdum?

Karol wrote:

We have to have a battalion in our list.

Just to make elite armies which are already struggling completely inflexible? That sucks. Basically you now HAVE to go out and get three squads of guard plus two commanders so that you can do what you want with your GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
how about GK being seen actually being played at any event?

To be fair, they weren't being seen at events before the rule of three either - it hasn't really affected GK at all.

In my meta we have 3 GK players (including myself). I think that I've been the only mono-GK player with the other 2 having either a detachment of SM or IG. To be honest I'm probably going to add a detachment of IK to my army just because GK can't handle vehicles/heavy units very well (IMHO).

RedGriefer wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the Rule of Three? I like how it encourages variety in an army but then again as a Drukhari player it prevents me from taking two battalion detachments with my Wych cult. Do you think the Rule of Three will make it past the Beta phase unchanged? What are your thoughts on it?

rule of 3 IS NOT a beta rule, is an official rule for matched play, if after what we faced in past, 7 flyrants, 6 PBC and so on there are still players who lame about rules of 3 i guess we have a perfect clear picture of how wh40k is fethed up, rule of 3 is a rule they should enforce since start of edition, period.

I hate hate hate hate hate the rule of 3.

 ph34r wrote:
I hate hate hate hate hate the rule of 3.

play narrative and you ok, there is no rule of 3 there

 blackmage wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I hate hate hate hate hate the rule of 3.

play narrative and you ok, there is no rule of 3 there

There is no rule of 3 in matched play either.

 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't get the issue with those "all daemon prince" lists. In my experience they just get blasted off the board because daemon princes simply aren't that durable and aren't killy enough to handle vehicles or hordes. A friend of mine brought is old "flying circus" list to the table and was murdered by pre-codex tau.

So, what the is issue with them besides leading the rule of three ad absurdum?

depend what is the rest of your list, 4-5 Dp's are viable and sure nothing to joke about, when you put down 90 plaguebearers 9 nurglins bases and 7-8 Nugle drones, i can grant they go where they want before you can touch them, beside some sniper fire, sure not enough to rid off all those princes, without counting Ts princes casting 2 powers each turn harrassing you with tons of mortal wounds, i play that list i know what it can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

There is no rule of 3 in matched play either

i didn't see any tournament wont use it, is a suggested rules yes but every tournament will use.It was made after the savage spam at last big tournaments so dream on major events will not use it.

Matched Play != Tournament.

That's specifically why matched play contains extra rules that are for "organized events".

Lucky are those who don't have players in their playing group/store which need to reigned in by the rule of three.

ERJAK wrote:
Hordes suck to use and suck to play against

 blackmage wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't get the issue with those "all daemon prince" lists. In my experience they just get blasted off the board because daemon princes simply aren't that durable and aren't killy enough to handle vehicles or hordes. A friend of mine brought is old "flying circus" list to the table and was murdered by pre-codex tau.

So, what the is issue with them besides leading the rule of three ad absurdum?

depend what is the rest of your list, 4-5 Dp's are viable and sure nothing to joke about, when you put down 90 plaguebearers 9 nurglins bases and 7-8 Nugle drones, i can grant they go where they want before you can touch them, beside some sniper fire, sure not enough to rid off all those princes, without counting Ts princes casting 2 powers each turn harrassing you with tons of mortal wounds, i play that list i know what it can do.

4-5 isn't really spamming them. You could just have 3 DP and Ahriman in that same list without any datasheet shenanigans. If you felt silly, you could even add Be'lakor.

Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.

Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

And... that's still dramatically more diverse than 6 of the same thing. Twice as diverse even. Rule of 3 is long long long needed. Almost every game out there has something similar and 40k has degenerated without it for far too long. The most important thing about it honestly is that its a solid promise to the players that they don't have to buy more than 3 of anything. That's actually fairly important, especially for potential new players.

 LunarSol wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

And... that's still dramatically more diverse than 6 of the same thing. Twice as diverse even. Rule of 3 is long long long needed. Almost every game out there has something similar and 40k has degenerated without it for far too long. The most important thing about it honestly is that its a solid promise to the players that they don't have to buy more than 3 of anything. That's actually fairly important, especially for potential new players.

Total Bunk, now they just need to buy tons and tons of troop units? It didn't hurt the top armies or even really impact the mainstream codex's. It did blow up a ton of armies that require them to now work around the fact that they don't have the number of Dataslates available to them other armies do. DE can only make mixed armies now, Sisters can only field two detachments unless they go with the 6 of one slot detachments the rule blows up for them. Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.

This.

 vipoid wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Not saying something wasn't needed, but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise. All this while Guard get to spam Russes because of the Squadron rule is laughable. I'm not saying a fix wasn't needed, but the Rule of 3 affects the least offending armies the worst while not actually affecting the offenders.

This.

Yep, a targeted point solution had the best chance of approaching success without hurting the armies that were already struggling and making soup the default.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Hordes suck to use and suck to play against

[morgan freeman]He's right, you know.[/morgan freeman]

Limiting players to 3 of something is important if they're going to aggressively change models to address balance. If 2000 points of the one best model is the way to play, every time you need to address that model you invalidate the entire army. Rule of 3 keeps people's collections within reasonable bounds and limits how badly necessary changes affect them.

It's really not a balance fix in and of itself. It's just something that simply should have always been there, but GW of the past was not in the business of doing anything that might prevent players from overspending on as many copies of a kit as they could.

 dracpanzer wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
but if 7 FlyRants were the problem, make them 0-1 per Nid detachment or otherwise.

Or increase the point cost! Preferably the point cost of the wing option (GW always does this, mobility options for characters such as wings, bikes and jetbikes are always undercosted, so taking them is a no-brainer choice.)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

Ummmmm that still closes the power gap...... Instead of fighting against 9 (best unit in army) im not fighting against 3 (best unit) 3 (2nd best unit) 3 (third best unit). This has closed the power gap by reducing that army (and any army that could spam 1 broken unit) power level significantly.

You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.

Pretty sure this is the case before.

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Rule of 3 was the single best change they have added in. Seeing every army be (insert: 6 of best unit x) was incredibly lame. This rule also somewhat closed the power gap between armies as any army with a broken unit could no longer just spam it.

Did.. did you not read the rest of the thread? Now it's just 3 Best units, 3 Best of allied units. It didn't close the power gap, it made weaker armies even weaker and didn't affect strong armies in the slightest.

Ummmmm that still closes the power gap...... Instead of fighting against 9 (best unit in army) im not fighting against 3 (best unit) 3 (2nd best unit) 3 (third best unit). This has closed the power gap by reducing that army (and any army that could spam 1 broken unit) power level significantly.

Or you could not be lazy, look at what's making said unit broken, and adjust cost so they aren't broken.

An underpriced unit is an underpriced unit, regardless of how many you can bring. Would it still be okay for Roboute to be 350 points just because there is only one to deal with?

It's an absurd argument and you know it.

Tyel wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You seem to not realise that the best GK unit is still weaker than the 4th best Eldar or Imperial unit.

Pretty sure this is the case before.

It is but the point is that weak armies are now using their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best units dropping their power level substantially while the strong armies 1st, 2nd and 3rd are all really good so their power has barely dropped.