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.

 Galef wrote:
Rule of Three is like a vaccination. It's a great idea and prevents a LOT of sickness, but it doesn't cure what is already sick.
Individual units still need "treatment", but the Rule of 3 stopped the sickness from growing.

-

What they need to do is revisit models individually and given them a X or - where X means how many units of each you can have an army with - indicating as many as you want. Their current approach is a sledgehammer, now they need finesse.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If they wanted to fix Flyrant spam, they would've made wings more expensive.

Now you're still obligated to take the max you can. It didn't fix the unit at all.

They did that too, wings were bumped by 20 points in that same FAQ.

Bharring wrote:
"Tactical Marines were taken 6 times. That's because of Gladius look at that."
I didn't realize they had Gladius before their 7E codex! Obsec Spam lists - Tacs and Pods or Rhinos - did great in 7E as soon as it dropped, long before Gladius was a rule.

"Also the easiest fix to the Ravager is to hit the Disintegrator and buff the Dark Lance. Rule Of Three does nothing to stop the unit itself from being broken. It only limits how many you can take."
So now you've fixed 2 units out of maybe a thousand units in the game. Sure, only maybe a dozen of them needed fixing. But, assuming your fixes are perfect, you're only 1/6th of the way there.

The Rule of Three is more of a stopgap or limitor on how broken a non-troop can be in practice. Because they will continue to make mistakes. And they knew they couldn't fully rebalance every broken unit. So, of course they should continue to fix units. But, unless they can be confident that they've properly handled *every single* offender, and will *never* release an offender again, the Rule of Three still mitigates a very real scenario.

The question was "Rule of Three or no Rule of Three", not "Rule of Three or this other list of fixes".

Those "ObSec" spam lists really didn't do much so I'm not sure what you're babbling about.

However, Rule Of Three asks the wrong question. The question you should be asking is "Why are people playing Army X taking as many of this unit as they can?" The question GW asked themselves is "How can I stop people playing Army X from taking too many of this unit as they can?"

They sound similar, almost two sides of the same coin, but they're answered differently.

Tacs might have been in lists that did well, but I can assure you that it was in spite of tacs, not because of them. Tacs haven't been an asset since 3rd. Take that to the bank.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Rule of Three is like a vaccination. It's a great idea and prevents a LOT of sickness, but it doesn't cure what is already sick.
Individual units still need "treatment", but the Rule of 3 stopped the sickness from growing.

-

What they need to do is revisit models individually and given them a X or - where X means how many units of each you can have an army with - indicating as many as you want. Their current approach is a sledgehammer, now they need finesse.

The rule of 3 wasn't a vaccination, it was cutting off your hand to get rid of a splinter. Oh, and then not treating the stump so it becomes gangreneous.

Man you must have hated 4-5 editions. Ya Know, when the only "detachment" you could take was a SINGLE Force Org Chart that allowed MAX 3 Elites, 3 Fast and/or 3 Heavies.
If you wanted to field more than 3 of ANYTHING, you couldn't unless it was Troops.
Period.

Being able to take 4+ of any unit is a relatively "new" thing.
The Rule of 3 is just reigning in some of the craziness GW has let loose in the last few years
Kids these days are so spoiled

-

 Galef wrote:
Man you must have hated 4-5 editions. Ya Know, when the only "detachment" you could take was a SINGLE Force Org Chart that allowed MAX 3 Elites, 3 Fast and/or 3 Heavies.
If you wanted to field more than 3 of ANYTHING, you couldn't unless it was Troops.
Period.

Being able to take 4+ of any unit is a relatively "new" thing.
The Rule of 3 is just reigning in some of the craziness GW has let loose in the last few years
Kids these days are so spoiled

-

An exception to this was special weapon squads and heavy weapon squads for guard, which are now limited to 3 of each, rather than the 3 or 5 per troop choice we used to get with platoons. I find this annoying, but sadly don't expect it to change.

If I remember correctly, the Force Org was doubled at 2k points, in 5e.

Also, at the time, troops were more than a tax for the fun things, since tanks and not-troops couldn't hold objectives.

 Galef wrote:
Man you must have hated 4-5 editions. Ya Know, when the only "detachment" you could take was a SINGLE Force Org Chart that allowed MAX 3 Elites, 3 Fast and/or 3 Heavies.
If you wanted to field more than 3 of ANYTHING, you couldn't unless it was Troops.
Period.

Being able to take 4+ of any unit is a relatively "new" thing.
The Rule of 3 is just reigning in some of the craziness GW has let loose in the last few years
Kids these days are so spoiled

-

Well, except for all those lists that swapped units around slot wise. Ravenwing, Deathwing, assorted Eldar craft worlds, Armoured Companies, etc etc etc. And if memory serves weren't there some that just deleted slot from one section & added them to another.
And then there were things that you could take multiples of within 1 slot.

I think the current force organization charts are too free.

But I think the original idea was not to invalidate bike armies, which they basically did by giving battalions more cp

Hopefully this "new" formation idea they have breaths life back into people bike armies

But I'd just prefer being able to take a battle company and have it work

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If I remember correctly, the Force Org was doubled at 2k points, in 5e.

Also, at the time, troops were more than a tax for the fun things, since tanks and not-troops couldn't hold objectives.

The Force Org was not doubled at 2k by default. Maybe some tournaments did, but it wasn't a regular rule.
Apocalypse had no force org, but that was above 3k.

2nd edition had it easier. 25% minimum infantry units. The best games were armies that had 50% infantry.

Now Infantry could mean tacs, assault, devastator, etc.

The problem with 3rd and on is who has the best troop tax Some armies will always be better than others in that regard.

Now 8th has tried to give options so that you can field an all LoW or all Character forces. I like these ideas.....

Since this is the CP and stratagem edition.....I think more bonuses should be handed out to forces that have max units(s) and less min tax units.

Look and elder mech force...and 3 min units of rangers.
Look a jump assault marine force and 3 min scouts, etc.

I don't think CPs have to be the end all or be all of bunuses in an army build. Perhaps you get an extra relic or some other generic wargear like a vortex grenade, etc. A bonus to first turn, a special deployment trick....whatever.

The point is to have a more flavorful army rather than the bare bones since 2nd ed came out and everyone has tried to fulfill the tax no matter the edition.

Bharring wrote:
When I said "things like Flyrant Spam", I meant Flyrant Spam and things like it.

Making Flyrant wings more expensive wouldn't fix Ravager Spam. Or any other type of Spam out there.

.

So fix ravagers so they aren't automax. Rule of 3 does nothing to make them not automax which is the problem. It's putting head in sand claiming no problem exists. Lazy solution to allow not having to do actual game design job

The "Rule of Three" was instituted to remove a number of spam list form the game. It wasn't just Flyrant Spam, but also Plagueburst Crawler and Hellhound Spam that were taken out of action. It also removed any future such spam, outside of Troop spam.

Why is this is good thing rather than a lazy solution? Because many units are priced, correctly, when you take a few. They because too cheap for the points when you take an army that is 50-75% one unit.

Now GW could severely regiment army creation to prevent this, but prefers the more hands off approach of take what you want, but not lots of duplicates of any one thing.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If I remember correctly, the Force Org was doubled at 2k points, in 5e.

Also, at the time, troops were more than a tax for the fun things, since tanks and not-troops couldn't hold objectives.

The Force Org was not doubled at 2k by default. Maybe some tournaments did, but it wasn't a regular rule.
Apocalypse had no force org, but that was above 3k.

Yeah double force org wasn't a thing in 5th, but I'm 99% sure it was in 6th.
Actually, come to think of it I'm actually 100% sure it was, since that's how the term "1999+1 pts Tournaments" came about (refering to 2000pts tournaments that banned double force orgs).

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If I remember correctly, the Force Org was doubled at 2k points, in 5e.

Also, at the time, troops were more than a tax for the fun things, since tanks and not-troops couldn't hold objectives.

The force org did double at 2k points but most tournaments did had a weird 1999+1 rule. In essence you had a 2k list but didn't get the double force org.

 alextroy wrote:
The "Rule of Three" was instituted to remove a number of spam list form the game. It wasn't just Flyrant Spam, but also Plagueburst Crawler and Hellhound Spam that were taken out of action. It also removed any future such spam, outside of Troop spam.

Why is this is good thing rather than a lazy solution? Because many units are priced, correctly, when you take a few. They because too cheap for the points when you take an army that is 50-75% one unit.

Now GW could severely regiment army creation to prevent this, but prefers the more hands off approach of take what you want, but not lots of duplicates of any one thing.

That makes no sense. Bad pricing is bad pricing regardless of how many you can take. Roboute is super expensive because of everything he does, but we won't make him cheaper because you can only take one. Would it be okay of Obliterators were only 25 points each if you could only take two squads?

 alextroy wrote:
The "Rule of Three" was instituted to remove a number of spam list form the game. It wasn't just Flyrant Spam, but also Plagueburst Crawler and Hellhound Spam that were taken out of action. It also removed any future such spam, outside of Troop spam.

Why is this is good thing rather than a lazy solution? Because many units are priced, correctly, when you take a few. They because too cheap for the points when you take an army that is 50-75% one unit.

Now GW could severely regiment army creation to prevent this, but prefers the more hands off approach of take what you want, but not lots of duplicates of any one thing.

So again lazy solution. Rather than fix the problem unit just put your head in sand and pretend there's no problem.

"There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem. "

That's GW's attitude in nutshell. If they were actually professionals who would do actual job they wouldn't need rule of 3. But they aren't professional game designers. They don't even pretend to be.

 alextroy wrote:
The "Rule of Three" was instituted to remove a number of spam list form the game. It wasn't just Flyrant Spam, but also Plagueburst Crawler and Hellhound Spam that were taken out of action. It also removed any future such spam, outside of Troop spam.

Why is this is good thing rather than a lazy solution? Because many units are priced, correctly, when you take a few. They because too cheap for the points when you take an army that is 50-75% one unit.

Now GW could severely regiment army creation to prevent this, but prefers the more hands off approach of take what you want, but not lots of duplicates of any one thing.

It's absolutely not a good thing, at all. When rule of 3 was instituted there were only 3 spam lists that could compete with soup lists at the time. You had Flyrant spam, Dark Angels flyer spam, and Dark reaper spam. Plagueburst spam was gak, same with hellhound spam, same with DP spam, same with everything else. The vast majority of spam lists had either been faqed out (smite spam) or were inferior to their more flexible soup cousins. Sure, there were some units you would run 5 or 6 of, but that was never actually spam.

The flyrant and dark talon spam would have been killed by the unit nerfs and Dark reapers just made bigger units and totally ignored the rule of 3. So it was essentially pointless in 'fixing' the problem it was made to solve.

Balance in the game hasn't improved even marginally due to the rule of 3. The changes to Flyrants themselves had an overall bigger impact on the powercurve of the game than the rule of 3 ever did. The rule of three traded around what lists were where on the curve sure, but it didn't make the top lists any closer to the bottom lists than they would be if they had just done nothing.

Mono-faction armies are essentially dead, especially if your codex came out before the rule of 3 existed. Sure, you have Orkz and CWE making repectable showings but very very few and very far between. Even those people who are seeing success with mono-faction lists would certainly be doing better with soup options. This is because GW is so terrible at internal Codex balance that every army has 2-3 very strong options in it at the ABSOLUTE most with some not even having that. Since you can't run multiples of your good units you run 3 of your good unit, 3 of their good unit, and 3 of the other guys good unit.

The introduction of the rule of 3 has mudered unit variety. Almost every list across Xenos, Imperium, and Chaos is just different combinations of the same two dozen or so units. You used to see more variety when you could bring more of your good units because you could build your entire list AROUND your 18 oblits or w/e. Now you don't have list archetypes anymore really, you just have a checklist: Loyal 32: Check, Kight: Check, Best knight supporting unit: Check. It's the goddam same every time.

The rule of 3 was a lazy, hack, patch job GW instituted to avoid actually having to balance their units(which you can tell because it excludes troops and DTs for NO fething REASON despite spams of THOSE having been broken in the past too). It's a terrible lazy rule and they should feel bad for ever making it.

The rule of 3 is a band-aid plastering over the gaping, sucking wound GW inflicted on themselves by opening up the detachment system and effectively removing restrictions on army selection. Until formations came along in 7th edition (and we all know how badly they broke the game) you had a de facto rule of 3 thanks to the core army selection rules. That provides a baseline to balance against for all of your units because you know the absolute maximum number people can field. Now we can field whatever we want we need some restrictions on top of that but the rule of 3 is such a clumsy way to do it, and that's before you take into account things like Daemon Princes or vehicle squadrons that basically completely ignore it. The fact GW were surprised by armies that spammed powerful units to a ludicrous degree shows you how little thought they put into 8th's army selection system.

You can see a similar lack of thought with the Fly changes in the last FAQ. According to the report from the Vigilus Weekender GW claim they didn't realise what the consequences would be, but now also claim fixing it in the way they want is not easy so they're going to take some time to think about it. If they can't understand the fairly simple consequences of such a basic change I don't think we should get our hopes up for Chapter Approved.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That makes no sense. Bad pricing is bad pricing regardless of how many you can take. Roboute is super expensive because of everything he does, but we won't make him cheaper because you can only take one. Would it be okay of Obliterators were only 25 points each if you could only take two squads?

I wonder if progressive point cost wouldn't be a kind of a fix to some spam issues. Lets say a unit costs X, if you take 2 they cost X+some points. Wouldn't eliminate 6 of something in a list, but if you did the 6th unit maybe costing twice the points the first one does.

They could also add detachments for mono lists, that they would be build. So If you wanted to take 6 units of striking scorpions, they wouldn't scale the way they would in a normal detachment. They could even slap on some rules to make those detachments have more flavour . Mono players would be happy, soup players would still have their soups. IMO would work better, although the problem with such a game setting is that they would have to redo points for all armies.

Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

Am not sure that the argument of disintagrators being undercosted and OP, is a valid one, if the the only thing in favour of it, is the fact that at some time in the game people could take more of them. Everyone knows that already prior FAQ Inari players moved away from running 6 reaper squads to, running 2-3 larger squads. If we go by that the fix makes no sense. Unless of course the FAQ was done only to help eldar match ups by killing their hard counter in form of tyranids.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

Am not sure that the argument of disintagrators being undercosted and OP, is a valid one, if the the only thing in favour of it, is the fact that at some time in the game people could take more of them. Everyone knows that already prior FAQ Inari players moved away from running 6 reaper squads to, running 2-3 larger squads. If we go by that the fix makes no sense. Unless of course the FAQ was done only to help eldar match ups by killing their hard counter in form of tyranids.

Ravagers and reapers are different examples. You can't take more than 3 ravagers, which aren't that OP in this numbers like some people may think, while you can take the same number of reapers than before, just condensed in bigger squads. 3 units are not a spam, they make a thematic army.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

Am not sure that the argument of disintagrators being undercosted and OP, is a valid one, if the the only thing in favour of it, is the fact that at some time in the game people could take more of them. Everyone knows that already prior FAQ Inari players moved away from running 6 reaper squads to, running 2-3 larger squads. If we go by that the fix makes no sense. Unless of course the FAQ was done only to help eldar match ups by killing their hard counter in form of tyranids.

It's more their is issues of context for how a unit performs on the table top, take one of something and it's probably what 10/15% or less of your 2k list, take 3 and its stil going to be in that 30 to 50% range. You still have thr other 50% of their list to interact with.
7 turn 1 deepstriking flyrents gives you like 7 spore os some BS to interact with turn 1.
It gave nids a 100% protected alpha strike with charictors
Now as GW have changed the rules maybe rule of 3 has become less of an issue but if anything what it probably needed was to be reworked around datasheet keyword instead of the way it has been.

Also you think rule of 3 is bad atleast you don't have 1 per detachment rules in most codex's. That is a real gut punch when others are complaining about only being able to take 3 of a given HQ.

I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

Karol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That makes no sense. Bad pricing is bad pricing regardless of how many you can take. Roboute is super expensive because of everything he does, but we won't make him cheaper because you can only take one. Would it be okay of Obliterators were only 25 points each if you could only take two squads?

I wonder if progressive point cost wouldn't be a kind of a fix to some spam issues. Lets say a unit costs X, if you take 2 they cost X+some points. Wouldn't eliminate 6 of something in a list, but if you did the 6th unit maybe costing twice the points the first one does.

They could also add detachments for mono lists, that they would be build. So If you wanted to take 6 units of striking scorpions, they wouldn't scale the way they would in a normal detachment. They could even slap on some rules to make those detachments have more flavour . Mono players would be happy, soup players would still have their soups. IMO would work better, although the problem with such a game setting is that they would have to redo points for all armies.

So, you're basically talking about the Power Level system.

Kdash wrote:
I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

If I were to play where Ro3 was enforced I'd have a tough time fielding my Ultra-Marine 9th Co.

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

If I were to play where Ro3 was enforced I'd have a tough time fielding my Ultra-Marine 9th Co.

Which is unfortunate, but I don't think we can base the rules on exceptional cases and try to accommodate everyone's own personal collections into rules that are supposed to be about balance. Personally, I would get rid of the Ro3 and go back to a more restricted Force Organisation Chart. Yes, that would mean some armies are no longer legal, but I think if you're going to take an extreme army (note in this case "extreme" just means something quite out of the ordinary) you always run the risk of the army not being valid at some later point.

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

If I were to play where Ro3 was enforced I'd have a tough time fielding my Ultra-Marine 9th Co.

Interesting.

What is in the 9th Company? Isn’t it the Dreadnought and Fire Support one?

In which case, I could argue that 3 units of Hellblasters, 3 units of Devestators and 3 units of Aggressors alongside several Dreadnoughts, a Captain and 2 Lieutenants. However, I will admit that if you’re not running Primaris, then it becomes a lot harder (Unless you want to run 1000 points of Dreadnoughts and transports) as the only option you have is 3 10-man Devestator squads.

I’m curious to know what else might be slightly missed cos of it.