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.

I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

Talinsin wrote:
So much of this discussion seems to be stuck on Organized Play and tournaments. Imagine the same discussion just translated over to a different competition, like Soccer.

1 "I want to play, but I want 4 goalkeepers."
2 "Go ahead, I'm sure you could find some friends to play like that."
1 "I want to do it using official rules, or in a tournament."
2 "Tournaments won't allow that, it's against the rules."
1 "But it's a dumb rule, it would be more fun without it."
...etc

Group 1 wants the rules to change, while group 2 plays with the rules they've been given. Both sides have merit, but neither gets to do anything about it.

Except both teams in soccer have the same exact list, or lineup if you will. False comparison.

w1zard wrote:
I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

40k is a complicated game. There’s a lot of moving parts and GW doesn’t get access to telemetry data like multiplayer video game developers do. It isn’t easy to perfectly balance the game and as it is people are already complaining about FAQs and CA.

meleti wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

40k is a complicated game. There’s a lot of moving parts and GW doesn’t get access to telemetry data like multiplayer video game developers do. It isn’t easy to perfectly balance the game and as it is people are already complaining about FAQs and CA.

Basic problem is GW not having professional developers.

And FAQ's and CA's are problem because rather than actually fixing problem they just shift things around. They are more of marketing tool...Only naive ones believe they are actually for balance rather than for sale. If they were for balance units that aren't even close at being broken(rather underperforming) wouldn't get 300% price hikes. Or automatic lose models wouldn't get 33% price hike.

tneva82 wrote:

meleti wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

40k is a complicated game. There’s a lot of moving parts and GW doesn’t get access to telemetry data like multiplayer video game developers do. It isn’t easy to perfectly balance the game and as it is people are already complaining about FAQs and CA.

Basic problem is GW not having professional developers.

And FAQ's and CA's are problem because rather than actually fixing problem they just shift things around. They are more of marketing tool...Only naive ones believe they are actually for balance rather than for sale. If they were for balance units that aren't even close at being broken(rather underperforming) wouldn't get 300% price hikes. Or automatic lose models wouldn't get 33% price hike.

What do you mean they don't have professional developers?

They have staff who develop games professionally. Some of them, like Jervis Johnson, have been working developing games for literally decades. How is that not having professional developers?

 Stux wrote:
What do you mean they don't have professional developers?

They have staff who develop games professionally. Some of them, like Jervis Johnson, have been working developing games for literally decades. How is that not having professional developers?

Because people understand "professional developers" to mean more than the technicality of getting paid to make a game? That it implies a degree of competence and being worthy of getting paid that GW's rule authors don't have?

 Stux wrote:


What do you mean they don't have professional developers?

They have staff who develop games professionally. Some of them, like Jervis Johnson, have been working developing games for literally decades. How is that not having professional developers?

I think this depends on the definition of professional. If it is doing something and being paid for it, they are 110% professionals. If by professional someone means being actually good at something, so that others are willing to pay you for doing the stuff, then someone like mr Johnson is not a professional. He hates points and rules. That is on the same tier as a doctor that hates vaccination.

w1zard wrote:

Kdash wrote:
It does not limit army diversity though – not by much.

So far, the only counter to my “what fluffy armies are restricted by the rule of 3”, has been that you can no longer run a full 9th Company of Ultramarines (pre-Primaris) at 2000 points (though, that said I still think you could depending on which Dreadnoughts you chose).

The only reason that 90% of all competitive Imperium lists look the same, is because competitive players play the units that are competitive.

If every single unit was balanced against every other unit, then, you will get more diversity in the “combined arms” forces, but, that’s just not going to fully happen.

Just because people don’t play some units, or that some other units/combinations are way more common is simply just down to their rules and points and has nothing to do with the rule of 3.

2000 points is a fair amount of points, but, even with using the rule of 3 you can still make all kinds of specialised lists before you have to worry about getting that 4th unit.

There are plenty of themed lists that get hurt and are more difficult or impossible to play by the rule of three.

Just off the top of my head:
-Nidzilla
-Ork Meganobs
-Ork Bikers
-IG Veterans
-SM Bikers
-IG Aircav
-IG Tempestus
-IG Heavy Weapons Battallion
-Eldar lists that focus on one particular form of aspect warrior
-Tau Battlesuits
-SM Terminators

etc...

Sorry for taking so long to reply – I had a massive headache last night so called it early after I got home from work.

Nidzilla, I’m guessing you can still run at 2k with rule of 3. 3 Tyrants, 9 of each Carnifex, 3 Mawlocs, 3 Trygons, 3 Tyranofexs etc etc. Should push you over 2k easy enough.
Ork meganobs. Hrm, well, 1 max squad is either 350 to 430 points. 3 squads will put you at 1050 to 1290. I guess it’s a bit short of the 2k, but, I’m also guessing that the force wouldn’t usually contain more than 30 meganobs and nothing else.
Ork Bikers. 3 max units of warbikers and 3 max units of nobs on bikes, + 1 Warboss on bike will easily see you over the 2000 points.

IG Veterans. Ok, this I concede to. Even in tooled out max squads with transports you’re still a long way off 2k. But, I guess you could run 3 Commanders, 3 Command Squads (technically veterans), 3 Veterans, 3 TPrimes, 3 Scion Command Squads and 3 Chimeras. This would put you over 1000 points, but, not by a great deal. You’d have the bite the bullet here and add in support for your Veterans in one form or another.
Space Marine Bikers. 3 squads of bikes and 3 squads of attack bikes with plasma and melta puts you over 1500 points. Add in a captain, a librarian and apothecary and you’re at 1850. You can then add in Scout Bikers, Vets on bikes etc to easily reach 2000 points.
IG Aircav, depends on what you’re classing as “Aircav”. Vendettas, Valkyries, Vultures + all the other FW flyers. You then have all the units on the ground/being transported by said units. If you really wanted you could take 9 Vultures with Gatling Cannons for 1440 of the 2000 points.
Tempestus Scion armies can reach 2000 points easily enough with the rule of 3.
IG heavy weapons battalion – I’m guessing you’re just referring to the HWT units and not all the other heavy weapon units (i.e. tanks, artillery, squads in Infantry squads) etc?
Aspect Warrior armies, is kinda like the Meganob army imo. Most Aspect Hosts always seemed to have been run/capped at 3 squads anyway. I’ve also not read anything fluff wise (probably missed it) where there are more than 30 of said Shrine on the battlefield together. Sure it probably happens in the background as each Craftworld will have more than just 3 of each shrine, but, each time an Aspect host goes into battle, it does so with a fair amount of support around it. Be it warriors from other Aspects or mass amount of regular support. While it’d be cool seeing 110 Howling Banshees running across the table with Jain-Zar, an Autarch Bike, Farseer Bike and 2 Warlock Bikes, we also have to accept that, that army literally has no reason to exist in a matched play game and would (imo) be an ideal candidate for a narrative game.
T’au battlesuit armies can break 2000 points with just 6 or 7 units (rip Crisis Suit costs).
SM Terminators. So, currently, in a standard Marine dex force, you can have 120 terminators + characters. Hell, even just 3 units of each of the standard Terminators and assault terminators puts you over 2000 points.

In regards to a Windrider style army, 3 units of max Windriders and 3 units of Shining Spears is 1600 points before HQs.

I think the problem people are having, is that, all these armies are still possible, it is just that people don’t want to run full squads for whatever reason. You can still spam the models, and in some cases (i.e. Marines) you can still split them up via combat squads.

I also 100% agree with Galef. Spamming MSU =/= Fluff.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

As for Corsairs, they have a bigger problem than RO3. In that they don’t have any HQs so are 100% a support faction, like Assassins and Sisters of Silence are. That said, even with rule of 3, you can get to 2000 points of Corsairs, whilst giving yourself 0 command points to play with, no WL trait and no relic. All you have to do is take 3 of each of the 2 units that are restricted to the RO3 rule, and then fill up the remaining ~600 points with troop units and Venoms that aren’t affected by the RO3. Personally, if I was going to run some Corsairs, I’d go down the current logical route and add them as a 0 CP detachment into a Craftworld, Harlequin or Drukari force – but, you can still run them solo if you wanted pretty easily.

Edit to add – I know a lot of what I said above has been covered by other people, but, as I asked the original question which started the last few pages, I thought it best to give a full reply anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
What do you mean they don't have professional developers?

They have staff who develop games professionally. Some of them, like Jervis Johnson, have been working developing games for literally decades. How is that not having professional developers?

Because people understand "professional developers" to mean more than the technicality of getting paid to make a game? That it implies a degree of competence and being worthy of getting paid that GW's rule authors don't have?

Still applies. Jervis Johnson again is widely regarded as one of the best tabletop games designers in the business.

People simply don't realise how complex this stuff is, that's all there is to it. Everyone considers themselves an expert, but 90% of their ideas would just make things worse.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a game, or book, or show, or whatever with any significant amount of popularity who's creative designers weren't called "incompetent" at one point or another.

 Peregrine wrote:


Because people understand "professional developers" to mean more than the technicality of getting paid to make a game? That it implies a degree of competence and being worthy of getting paid that GW's rule authors don't have?

Whilst I have my fair share of complaints about the rules, reading any Dakka discussions and posters' attempts to 'fix' the game always reassures me of the competence of the GW writers; sure, they might have their flaws, but they obviously have way better grasp of the game design than an average internet 'expert'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

People simply don't realise how complex this stuff is, that's all there is to it. Everyone considers themselves an expert, but 90% of their ideas would just make things worse.

Yep, exactly this.

 Stux wrote:
Jervis Johnson again is widely regarded as one of the best tabletop games designers in the business.

By who? Last I checked he's an incompetent CAAC who regularly makes smug comments about how making quality rules is bad because BEER AND PRETZELS FORGE A NARRATIVE, with a long history of publishing utter garbage for rules. I'm really not sure what he's supposed to be "best" at, aside from reinforcing the moral superiority of CAAC TFGs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I have my fair share of complaints about the rules, reading any Dakka discussions and posters' attempts to 'fix' the game always reassures me of the competence of the GW writers; sure, they might have their flaws, but they obviously have way better grasp of the game design than an average internet 'expert'.

Well yes, the GW writers are somewhat more competent than the average forum poster, in that publishing a bad wargame is better game design than a baby smearing its all over the walls and bragging about how "awesome" their fan codex. But that's really damning with faint praise. Compare GW writers to other professionals, the actual peers they should be compared to, and it's an embarrassment.

wow it's already that time of the month when we confuse "the rules aren't to my liking" with "writers are bad" ?
Not saying they don't have issues but they are successful, so they might be doing something right.
Regarding JJ, didn't he write Bloodbowl and Epic armageddon rules, which are still largely used by fans decades after they conception ? He obviously don't know much about games.

Kdash wrote:
IG Veterans. Ok, this I concede to. Even in tooled out max squads with transports you’re still a long way off 2k. But, I guess you could run 3 Commanders, 3 Command Squads (technically veterans), 3 Veterans, 3 TPrimes, 3 Scion Command Squads and 3 Chimeras. This would put you over 1000 points, but, not by a great deal. You’d have the bite the bullet here and add in support for your Veterans in one form or another.

IG Aircav, depends on what you’re classing as “Aircav”. Vendettas, Valkyries, Vultures + all the other FW flyers. You then have all the units on the ground/being transported by said units. If you really wanted you could take 9 Vultures with Gatling Cannons for 1440 of the 2000 points.

Tempestus Scion armies can reach 2000 points easily enough with the rule of 3.

IG heavy weapons battalion – I’m guessing you’re just referring to the HWT units and not all the other heavy weapon units (i.e. tanks, artillery, squads in Infantry squads) etc?

Just going to clarify the IG ones here, since it's my army:

Veterans are hurt by RO3, but are already an irrelevant unit now that GW has decided to replace them with scions. But even classic mech vet armies from 5th edition didn't just spam 2000 points of veterans and Chimeras, they had LRBTs/Vendettas/etc in support of those veterans. And it matches the fluff. Veterans are supposed to be the elite survivors of a regiment acting in support of the bulk of the army, not waves of cannon fodder to be thrown unsupported into the meat grinder.

IG air cav are fine. Even without getting into the FW flyers you can take Valkyries in squadrons of three, for a total of nine under RO3. Add in the troops for the Valkyries to carry and you're easily hitting 2000 points without worrying about RO3.

Scions are fine. RO3 doesn't apply to troops or dedicated transports, and that's all scions have except for command squads. Unless your "fluffy" scions army just happens to consist of mass deep striking plasma command squads (yeah, sure, 100% fluff-driven, I believe you) RO3 has zero effect.

IG heavy weapons armies are not a thing in the fluff. HWS act in support of the rest of the army, you'd never have a whole army of them with nothing else. It might be nice to take 4-5 of them since they're so tiny (or, like the tanks, have a datasheet give you 1-3 squads of three HWT each), but having a slightly smaller HWS element supporting your army is hardly a crushing fluff burden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:
wow it's already that time of the month when we confuse "the rules aren't to my liking" with "writers are bad" ?

I guess it's that time of the month where we defend poor game design as "just your opinion" and create this weird situation where criticism of game designers is impossible because as long as it sells at least one copy then someone liked it and it's just not your thing?

Not saying they don't have issues but they are successful, so they might be doing something right.

Alternatively, 40k succeeds because of the strength of its fluff and model design combined with a critical mass effect of being the easiest game to find players for and boosted by GW's past dirty business practices driving independent stores out of the market. Take away the non-rules aspects of the game and nobody would be playing it. Take away the 40k rules but keep the fluff and models and the game probably goes on without interruption.

Regarding JJ, didn't write Bloodbowl en Epic armageddon rules, which are still largely used by fans decades after they conception ? He obviously don't know much about games.

Wait, I thought we were judging games by commercial success. Isn't Epic that game that went OOP because of poor sales, and is only played by a tiny community of its most dedicated fans? I'll grant that Blood Bowl is more successful than Epic, but it's still not even successful enough to get consistent support from GW.

 Peregrine wrote:


I guess it's that time of the month where we defend poor game design as "just your opinion" and create this weird situation where criticism of game designers is impossible because as long as it sells at least one copy then someone liked it and it's just not your thing?

Nah, I just don't believe saying "they suck" is good criticism. Particularly when you're talking about balance in a game that was never meant as a competitive game. That would be like competitive story telling : weird. They are more or less embracing it now because it's a demand from the community, doesn't mean they have to be perfect at it in a snap and forget everything they've done before (they are doing a decent job imho when you consider what they have to work with)

Alternatively, 40k succeeds because of the strength of its fluff and model design combined with a critical mass effect of being the easiest game to find players for and boosted by GW's past dirty business practices driving independent stores out of the market. Take away the non-rules aspects of the game and nobody would be playing it. Take away the 40k rules but keep the fluff and models and the game probably goes on without interruption.

Yep. The rules never were the primary product, so I wonder why we are up in arms about them not being perfect. You just have to look at how AoS survived despite having barely any rules to understand that tight rules isn't what they sell.

Wait, I thought we were judging games by commercial success. Isn't Epic that game that went OOP because of poor sales, and is only played by a tiny community of its most dedicated fans? I'll grant that Blood Bowl is more successful than Epic, but it's still not even successful enough to get consistent support from GW.

Poor sales compared to 40K/WFB, yes. We all know how and why specialist games got cut off, I'm not sure it's relevant to the "discussion" (if we really are having one)

If we were judging games on sales then clearly 8e is an amazing edition. QED.

Kdash wrote:
Sorry for taking so long to reply – I had a massive headache last night so called it early after I got home from work.

Nidzilla, I’m guessing you can still run at 2k with rule of 3. 3 Tyrants, 9 of each Carnifex, 3 Mawlocs, 3 Trygons, 3 Tyranofexs etc etc. Should push you over 2k easy enough.
Ork meganobs. Hrm, well, 1 max squad is either 350 to 430 points. 3 squads will put you at 1050 to 1290. I guess it’s a bit short of the 2k, but, I’m also guessing that the force wouldn’t usually contain more than 30 meganobs and nothing else.
Ork Bikers. 3 max units of warbikers and 3 max units of nobs on bikes, + 1 Warboss on bike will easily see you over the 2000 points.

IG Veterans. Ok, this I concede to. Even in tooled out max squads with transports you’re still a long way off 2k. But, I guess you could run 3 Commanders, 3 Command Squads (technically veterans), 3 Veterans, 3 TPrimes, 3 Scion Command Squads and 3 Chimeras. This would put you over 1000 points, but, not by a great deal. You’d have the bite the bullet here and add in support for your Veterans in one form or another.
Space Marine Bikers. 3 squads of bikes and 3 squads of attack bikes with plasma and melta puts you over 1500 points. Add in a captain, a librarian and apothecary and you’re at 1850. You can then add in Scout Bikers, Vets on bikes etc to easily reach 2000 points.
IG Aircav, depends on what you’re classing as “Aircav”. Vendettas, Valkyries, Vultures + all the other FW flyers. You then have all the units on the ground/being transported by said units. If you really wanted you could take 9 Vultures with Gatling Cannons for 1440 of the 2000 points.
Tempestus Scion armies can reach 2000 points easily enough with the rule of 3.
IG heavy weapons battalion – I’m guessing you’re just referring to the HWT units and not all the other heavy weapon units (i.e. tanks, artillery, squads in Infantry squads) etc?
Aspect Warrior armies, is kinda like the Meganob army imo. Most Aspect Hosts always seemed to have been run/capped at 3 squads anyway. I’ve also not read anything fluff wise (probably missed it) where there are more than 30 of said Shrine on the battlefield together. Sure it probably happens in the background as each Craftworld will have more than just 3 of each shrine, but, each time an Aspect host goes into battle, it does so with a fair amount of support around it. Be it warriors from other Aspects or mass amount of regular support. While it’d be cool seeing 110 Howling Banshees running across the table with Jain-Zar, an Autarch Bike, Farseer Bike and 2 Warlock Bikes, we also have to accept that, that army literally has no reason to exist in a matched play game and would (imo) be an ideal candidate for a narrative game.
T’au battlesuit armies can break 2000 points with just 6 or 7 units (rip Crisis Suit costs).
SM Terminators. So, currently, in a standard Marine dex force, you can have 120 terminators + characters. Hell, even just 3 units of each of the standard Terminators and assault terminators puts you over 2000 points.

In regards to a Windrider style army, 3 units of max Windriders and 3 units of Shining Spears is 1600 points before HQs.

I think the problem people are having, is that, all these armies are still possible, it is just that people don’t want to run full squads for whatever reason. You can still spam the models, and in some cases (i.e. Marines) you can still split them up via combat squads.

I also 100% agree with Galef. Spamming MSU =/= Fluff.

w1zard wrote:
I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

As for Corsairs, they have a bigger problem than RO3. In that they don’t have any HQs so are 100% a support faction, like Assassins and Sisters of Silence are. That said, even with rule of 3, you can get to 2000 points of Corsairs, whilst giving yourself 0 command points to play with, no WL trait and no relic. All you have to do is take 3 of each of the 2 units that are restricted to the RO3 rule, and then fill up the remaining ~600 points with troop units and Venoms that aren’t affected by the RO3. Personally, if I was going to run some Corsairs, I’d go down the current logical route and add them as a 0 CP detachment into a Craftworld, Harlequin or Drukari force – but, you can still run them solo if you wanted pretty easily.

Edit to add – I know a lot of what I said above has been covered by other people, but, as I asked the original question which started the last few pages, I thought it best to give a full reply anyway.

You make pretty good arguments. But I still think I have a point when I say it really limits flexibility for thematic armies. For example:

Kdash wrote:
Tempestus Scion armies can reach 2000 points easily enough with the rule of 3.

Sure, technically this is correct, but it will be an extremely narrow and limited "Scion army" with at most 3 officers, and at most 3 command squads, and the rest of the points has to be spammed infantry squads and or spammed taurox primes. If I want more HQs I have to break my own doctrines by taking non-scion units which really breaks the theme of the army and makes it significantly weaker on the tabletop, and why would taking 4 command squads and officers instead of three suddenly make my hypothetical scion army brokenly OP?

Kdash wrote:
SM Terminators. So, currently, in a standard Marine dex force, you can have 120 terminators + characters. Hell, even just 3 units of each of the standard Terminators and assault terminators puts you over 2000 points.

Ignoring the fact that terminators are awful right now... What if I wanted to do 4 units of standard terminators and 2 units of assault terminators to give my army more of a shooting focus? Nope apparently that is "broken spam".

Kdash wrote:
IG heavy weapons battalion – I’m guessing you’re just referring to the HWT units and not all the other heavy weapon units (i.e. tanks, artillery, squads in Infantry squads) etc?

Yes, I mean an infantry heavy weapons battalion/support battallion led by officers, with only a couple of IS for screens. Super fragile, not remotely OP, and yet a pretty fluffy army made impossible by the rule of 3.

And please, before anyone says "that is what narrative play is for" some people like to play somewhat inefficient themed lists in matched play and find ways to get them to work. I know I do.

 Stux wrote:
If we were judging games on sales then clearly 8e is an amazing edition. QED.

Am not sure I can follow that line of thought. JJ killed games, and his policy is as vogue rules, no points if possible and the game being some mythical contract between two players. I have no expiriance knowing the man, but the guy is a legend in Poland. He shouted down people from eastern europe at a big meeting for wanting clear rules and FAQ. His anwsers to stuff being bad or too good went along the lines, of him claiming he didn't expect people to do such stuff in games. Or outright telling lies that GW works on something for some factions, only in the end the stuff ending up being FW and another game set outside of w40k.

8th sales are mostly based on a super fast FAQ, and book print cycle. They printed more books, then they did for other editions in a year or so, and most editions were at least 2 years long. So of course the sells are going to be up. People would at least have to buy a codex and update their armies to be legal. Even people with bad armies, and no new units had to buy a CA, index and then a codex. From what I understand in prior editions the same people would have bought 1 book, maybe not even that if they codex didn't get to be updated.

My point is you can't really say there is a strong correlation between quality of rules and sales if your contention is that 8e has fundamentally poor rules, because it has sold really well.

You are correct that there are many other contributing factors in 8e's success, but if that is your position you also have to accept that there were likely many contributing factors to the financial failure of Epic for example and that it probably wasn't that connected to the quality of the rules.

Karol wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If we were judging games on sales then clearly 8e is an amazing edition. QED.

Am not sure I can follow that line of thought. JJ killed games, and his policy is as vogue rules, no points if possible and the game being some mythical contract between two players. I have no expiriance knowing the man, but the guy is a legend in Poland. He shouted down people from eastern europe at a big meeting for wanting clear rules and FAQ. His anwsers to stuff being bad or too good went along the lines, of him claiming he didn't expect people to do such stuff in games. Or outright telling lies that GW works on something for some factions, only in the end the stuff ending up being FW and another game set outside of w40k.

8th sales are mostly based on a super fast FAQ, and book print cycle. They printed more books, then they did for other editions in a year or so, and most editions were at least 2 years long. So of course the sells are going to be up. People would at least have to buy a codex and update their armies to be legal. Even people with bad armies, and no new units had to buy a CA, index and then a codex. From what I understand in prior editions the same people would have bought 1 book, maybe not even that if they codex didn't get to be updated.

The huge sales of 8th actually have more to do with the fact that this edition has brought a significant influx of new blood into the game. We can argue about the fact that attracting new players does not equal good rules, but saying that the good sales only come from spamming books is refusing reality.

w1zard wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Sorry for taking so long to reply – I had a massive headache last night so called it early after I got home from work.

Nidzilla, I’m guessing you can still run at 2k with rule of 3. 3 Tyrants, 9 of each Carnifex, 3 Mawlocs, 3 Trygons, 3 Tyranofexs etc etc. Should push you over 2k easy enough.
Ork meganobs. Hrm, well, 1 max squad is either 350 to 430 points. 3 squads will put you at 1050 to 1290. I guess it’s a bit short of the 2k, but, I’m also guessing that the force wouldn’t usually contain more than 30 meganobs and nothing else.
Ork Bikers. 3 max units of warbikers and 3 max units of nobs on bikes, + 1 Warboss on bike will easily see you over the 2000 points.

IG Veterans. Ok, this I concede to. Even in tooled out max squads with transports you’re still a long way off 2k. But, I guess you could run 3 Commanders, 3 Command Squads (technically veterans), 3 Veterans, 3 TPrimes, 3 Scion Command Squads and 3 Chimeras. This would put you over 1000 points, but, not by a great deal. You’d have the bite the bullet here and add in support for your Veterans in one form or another.
Space Marine Bikers. 3 squads of bikes and 3 squads of attack bikes with plasma and melta puts you over 1500 points. Add in a captain, a librarian and apothecary and you’re at 1850. You can then add in Scout Bikers, Vets on bikes etc to easily reach 2000 points.
IG Aircav, depends on what you’re classing as “Aircav”. Vendettas, Valkyries, Vultures + all the other FW flyers. You then have all the units on the ground/being transported by said units. If you really wanted you could take 9 Vultures with Gatling Cannons for 1440 of the 2000 points.
Tempestus Scion armies can reach 2000 points easily enough with the rule of 3.
IG heavy weapons battalion – I’m guessing you’re just referring to the HWT units and not all the other heavy weapon units (i.e. tanks, artillery, squads in Infantry squads) etc?
Aspect Warrior armies, is kinda like the Meganob army imo. Most Aspect Hosts always seemed to have been run/capped at 3 squads anyway. I’ve also not read anything fluff wise (probably missed it) where there are more than 30 of said Shrine on the battlefield together. Sure it probably happens in the background as each Craftworld will have more than just 3 of each shrine, but, each time an Aspect host goes into battle, it does so with a fair amount of support around it. Be it warriors from other Aspects or mass amount of regular support. While it’d be cool seeing 110 Howling Banshees running across the table with Jain-Zar, an Autarch Bike, Farseer Bike and 2 Warlock Bikes, we also have to accept that, that army literally has no reason to exist in a matched play game and would (imo) be an ideal candidate for a narrative game.
T’au battlesuit armies can break 2000 points with just 6 or 7 units (rip Crisis Suit costs).
SM Terminators. So, currently, in a standard Marine dex force, you can have 120 terminators + characters. Hell, even just 3 units of each of the standard Terminators and assault terminators puts you over 2000 points.

In regards to a Windrider style army, 3 units of max Windriders and 3 units of Shining Spears is 1600 points before HQs.

I think the problem people are having, is that, all these armies are still possible, it is just that people don’t want to run full squads for whatever reason. You can still spam the models, and in some cases (i.e. Marines) you can still split them up via combat squads.

I also 100% agree with Galef. Spamming MSU =/= Fluff.

w1zard wrote:
I still maintain rule of three is a lazy band-aid fix that makes listbuilding for thematic lists a lot harder than it needs to be (or impossible in some cases *cough* corsairs *cough*) purely because GW are too lazy or too incapable to point their units correctly.

As for Corsairs, they have a bigger problem than RO3. In that they don’t have any HQs so are 100% a support faction, like Assassins and Sisters of Silence are. That said, even with rule of 3, you can get to 2000 points of Corsairs, whilst giving yourself 0 command points to play with, no WL trait and no relic. All you have to do is take 3 of each of the 2 units that are restricted to the RO3 rule, and then fill up the remaining ~600 points with troop units and Venoms that aren’t affected by the RO3. Personally, if I was going to run some Corsairs, I’d go down the current logical route and add them as a 0 CP detachment into a Craftworld, Harlequin or Drukari force – but, you can still run them solo if you wanted pretty easily.

Edit to add – I know a lot of what I said above has been covered by other people, but, as I asked the original question which started the last few pages, I thought it best to give a full reply anyway.

You make pretty good arguments. But I still think I have a point when I say it really limits flexibility for thematic armies. For example:

Kdash wrote:
Tempestus Scion armies can reach 2000 points easily enough with the rule of 3.

Sure, technically this is correct, but it will be an extremely narrow and limited "Scion army" with at most 3 officers, and at most 3 command squads, and the rest of the points has to be spammed infantry squads and or spammed taurox primes. If I want more HQs I have to break my own doctrines by taking non-scion units which really breaks the theme of the army and makes it significantly weaker on the tabletop, and why would taking 4 command squads and officers instead of three suddenly make my hypothetical scion army brokenly OP?

Kdash wrote:
SM Terminators. So, currently, in a standard Marine dex force, you can have 120 terminators + characters. Hell, even just 3 units of each of the standard Terminators and assault terminators puts you over 2000 points.

Ignoring the fact that terminators are awful right now... What if I wanted to do 4 units of standard terminators and 2 units of assault terminators to give my army more of a shooting focus? Nope apparently that is "broken spam".

Kdash wrote:
IG heavy weapons battalion – I’m guessing you’re just referring to the HWT units and not all the other heavy weapon units (i.e. tanks, artillery, squads in Infantry squads) etc?

Yes, I mean an infantry heavy weapons battalion/support battallion led by officers, with only a couple of IS for screens. Super fragile, not remotely OP, and yet a pretty fluffy army made impossible by the rule of 3.

Actually, I plan on posting it in YMDC to let people know, but I asked the 40K Facebook (I know, not totally official) about how Militarum Tempestus and Advisors and Auxillia interact, and the page agreed with a guy that said they keep the doctrine.

I think it's important not to conflate financial success with critical success. Really, as far as Games Workshop as a company is concerned, financial success is their priority. As a consumer, we are concerned about the critical success (i.e. the actual quality of the product irrespective of sales).

 Apple Peel wrote:
Actually, I plan on posting it in YMDC to let people know, but I asked the 40K Facebook (I know, not totally official)

And that is where the discussion stops, IMHO. After all, I too asked Facebook and they said my Ultramarines have 650 wounds each and automatically hit. The rules are explicitly clear, if GW want to change what the rules do, they can issue an errata. They have issued enough small errata to change RaW "problems" by now that anything left in must by definition be intentional. I am talking about things like the Names to Keyword errata in Ariel Spotter, or the errata exempting single use weapons from being forced to fire, or the Errata to loot it to stop Meganobz having an effective 2++.

I'm old enough to remember the time of the "Rulez Boyz" who would give 4 different answers to the same question asked 3 times. The sad truth of it is that Social Media Interns are not an authority on the rules, the actual rulebooks are.

Karol wrote:
the game being some mythical contract between two players.

I see this attitude or thought all the time, that the idea that 2 people can agree game rules between themselves is non-existant. That playing anything other than the most official rules is impossible, even when paradoxically using house rules like no forge world, or using the rule of three in a non-tournament game. Since this is based on nothing more than anecdotes, i'll chime in with mine.

Me and my friends come up with house rules ALL THE TIME. We are effectively playing open or narrative ALL THE TIME. My local GW has crazy senseless 9 way narrative battles ALL THE TIME.

So for example, when chapter approved comes out and looted vehicles are open play only and we still like points, we just use a power level to points conversion or figure out our own points. We won't whine endlessly about how its not matched play so its pointless. We'll just agree conditions like grown ups and play the damn game.

And I'm someone who prefers points to power level, prefers matched play if possible and believes that the tournament scene helps the casual scene (overall). Jervis Johnsons view of the game and the hobby is idealistic and strong headed, but I at least agree with him in principle, I understand where he is coming from. He comes from a place and time where these sort of games were a hap hazardly negotiated contract between players looking to have a good time. Those sort of people still have a lot of fun and still exist in great numbers, regardless of whether your local shop doesn't. To be honest most of the people who think nothing but matched play exist, probably add to that mentality within their community.

Spoletta wrote:
The huge sales of 8th actually have more to do with the fact that this edition has brought a significant influx of new blood into the game. We can argue about the fact that attracting new players does not equal good rules, but saying that the good sales only come from spamming books is refusing reality.

I think its fair to say new books and the FAQs - which have by and large been good - have kept the meta bubbling along, and kept interest up.
I agree though that sales are however largely about getting new people in and showing off kits (in 40k and beyond) that someone somewhere wants to buy.

I think GW have also been aided by the fact the competition, who seemed to have all the right moves from around 2012-2015, have fallen behind - suffering from (markedly) inferior models, their own rules bloat and a lack of inspiration. Obviously this is an IMO - but X-Wing and its spinoffs are in a bit of a mess, and Warmachine 3rd Edition was a train wreck they can't seem to get out of. Infinity is a bit better but unfortunately its incredibly complicated, and the result of someone who doesn't know what they are doing playing someone who does will tend to be a one-sided, potentially flawless victory. Which means it has niche appeal.

But then I think 8th is the best edition in at least a decade - and if they could kill soup and tweak some obvious problem units (too good and too bad) I would struggle to identify problems with it.

Darsath wrote:
I think it's important not to conflate financial success with critical success. Really, as far as Games Workshop as a company is concerned, financial success is their priority. As a consumer, we are concerned about the critical success (i.e. the actual quality of the product irrespective of sales).

Gonna conflate here. Critical success for a board game means people buy it. We lost a lot of game companies last year with really good, well-thought out rules, and now players are left with dead games.

You can't grow an apple tree in the arctic. Consumers are your ultimate critics and a ruleset without a business model is a really bad thing.

Honestly, out of everything that's happened with 8th edition, Chapter Approved and the FAQs are the best thing GW has done. Can't tell you how many people I've seen leave the game because of a static, inflexible ruleset that consigns your favorite army to victim status for years.

Going a little further, when 7th edition dropped, a lot of my friends boycotted the game and sold their armies. The logic was, we just paid for 6th, 7th is nothing more than a money grab that does nothing to improve the game.

The perception that the system will improve is more important than actually improving it. The perception the things you spend money on will have value a year from now is really important.

 techsoldaten wrote:
You can't grow an apple tree in the arctic. Consumers are your ultimate critics and a ruleset without a business model is a really bad thing.

So much this. That's why I replied to the "they are incompetent devs anyway" thing. The devs have at least one main goal : making the game popular enough so old timers come back, new players gets addicted and GW Sells.More.Stuff. Afaik, they perfectly achieved their goal here.
They aren't just making a ruleset for their intellectual pleasure, it's a whole product.

Stux wrote:

People simply don't realise how complex this stuff is, that's all there is to it. Everyone considers themselves an expert, but 90% of their ideas would just make things worse.

A near-universal truism for dakka.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Stux wrote:

People simply don't realise how complex this stuff is, that's all there is to it. Everyone considers themselves an expert, but 90% of their ideas would just make things worse.

A near-universal truism for dakka.

90% is an underestimate.

Dakka is the gladiatorial arena for bad ideas. The winner is rewarded with disappointment as GW ignores whatever point you labored to make.

The doors to this arena are guarded by Creberus, the twin-headed beast of idleness. With one mouth, he makes you think complaining will lead to something, when the most it will achieve is a proper squatting. With the other, he breathes the breath of false hope, making you think the others here are reasonable people capable of rational discussion.

His job is to keep you away from the exit and focused on the endless stream of threads spouting from the pits of gibberish surrounding the arena. He serves his masters, the MODS, who perform the Rites of Red Letters to give everyone the impression the forum is a fair and decent place to spend time.

It's not. There's nothing of value here. No one has a good idea. The best you can hope for is to see a nice paint job on a model. In a sea of bad ideas, speaking just means you drown faster.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Stux wrote:

People simply don't realise how complex this stuff is, that's all there is to it. Everyone considers themselves an expert, but 90% of their ideas would just make things worse.

A near-universal truism for dakka.

90% is an underestimate.

Dakka is the gladiatorial arena for bad ideas. The winner is rewarded with disappointment as GW ignores whatever point you labored to make.

The doors to this arena are guarded by Creberus, the twin-headed beast of idleness. With one mouth, he makes you think complaining will lead to something, when the most it will achieve is a proper squatting. With the other, he breathes the breath of false hope, making you think the others here are reasonable people capable of rational discussion.

His job is to keep you away from the exit and focused on the endless stream of threads spouting from the pits of gibberish surrounding the arena. He serves his masters, the MODS, who perform the Rites of Red Letters to give everyone the impression the forum is a fair and decent place to spend time.

It's not. There's nothing of value here. No one has a good idea. The best you can hope for is to see a nice paint job on a model. In a sea of bad ideas, speaking just means you drown faster.

My eyes don't go high enough for how hard I want to roll them right now.

Yeah, the armchair game devs on dakka are routinely terrible and I could say you could bump that percentage up to 95% but there are some solid ideas in every forum. Sure the complicated, goofy, 'let's bring it back to second edition plus infinity plus Counterstrike plus backgammon' ideas that people run with are asinine 100% of the time. But ideas like 'space marine tacticals are too expensive, they should lower them a point or two and see if that makes them more viable' and 'GK are overcosted for what they do an should probably see 5-15% drops depending on how conservative GW goes' and 'the cover system could use some more development, but let's avoid doing -to hit because we've seen the problems with stacking that bonus before' come up a lot and are fine. No need to go all 'freshman drama club kid' about it.