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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Again, for him 4 dp 's are somehow great, 6 even better but god forbid you bring 4 terminators squads......

Yeah. While I do agree that it breaks a commonly accepted rule, it's not breaking the reason it was implemented.

And it doesn't even fix the issue it was meant to that well to begin with!

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

Would you then play him, if it was Open Play?

Yes.

If it was open play I could also try my own silly nonsense things. It'd be fun to have 3x Njal Stormcallers in a list, casting 6 living lightnings a turn.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

So there is nothing wrong with the ro3 atm?

Because that is what you literally stated here considering the INTENT behind the ro3.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

So there is nothing wrong with the ro3 atm?

Because that is what you literally stated here considering the INTENT behind the ro3.

I'm not going to dive into an argument with you. You aren't here to have a discussion, you're here to attack me. I would not play a matched play game without matched play rules and restrictions as published by GW.

Is there nothing wrong with the rule of 3? That's irrelevant to the conversation.
It is not literally what i stated. This is you putting words in my mouth. Argue with someone else. I'm not interested in your brand of debate.

Doesn't Njal have a rule saying you can only take one of him? Like, on his datasheet? Or somewhere, because he is unique.

And wouldn't that make you feel like a bit of a tool? Someone wants to break the Rule of Three to stay fluffy and is making their list WORSE by doing so, whereas you're taking an incredibly unfluffy and high-powered combo?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.

That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.

Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.

Why is it needlessly stubborn? The whole point is that you just play by the rules as they are, with no exceptions. If you play by a policy of "usually Ro3 but ask if you'd like to break it" then you have to consider the veterans, but then you also have the precedent that you also have to consider everyone else's request to break the rule. And how many of those are going to be as clear a case of making your army worse by "spamming" a terrible unit?

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.

That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.

Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.

Why is it needlessly stubborn? The whole point is that you just play by the rules as they are, with no exceptions. If you play by a policy of "usually Ro3 but ask if you'd like to break it" then you have to consider the veterans, but then you also have the precedent that you also have to consider everyone else's request to break the rule. And how many of those are going to be as clear a case of making your army worse by "spamming" a terrible unit?

Why is it so bad to talk to an opponent before having a game with them?

If one side is "I absolutely refuse to violate the Rule of Three no matter what" I'd consider that needlessly stubborn.
Likewise, if the other side is "I will never take less than four Veteran squads in my IG list EVER!" I would ALSO consider that needlessly stubborn.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Doesn't Njal have a rule saying you can only take one of him? Like, on his datasheet? Or somewhere, because he is unique.

And wouldn't that make you feel like a bit of a tool? Someone wants to break the Rule of Three to stay fluffy and is making their list WORSE by doing so, whereas you're taking an incredibly unfluffy and high-powered combo?

It isn't high powered at all.

And this is the point of standardized game play. These kinds of discussions don't need to be had when setting up a game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is it so bad to talk to an opponent before having a game with them?

Because it's a sign of a bad game and often results in needless arguing. Bring a legal army, play the game by the standard rules. Why even bring up the possibility of giving people special snowflake exceptions the to rules?

(Though, for the record, if my opponent asked in this particular case I'd allow it just like I'd allow them to play a 2000 point game with 1500 points. But I can understand entirely why people have a policy of "no exceptions, period".)

Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.

Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."

If you want to run some nonsense in an open play game I said i'd play.

Sometimes I think you guys take the militant casual at all costs attitude too far. I want to play the game with the rules and restrictions of a matched play game. Why is what I want less important than what you want?

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.

Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."

When have people said "It's totally fine to do that" without adding in something along the lines of "just let your opponent know" or "with opponent's permission, which I'd certainly give myself"?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately if you work something out before hand that's fine. But that's an assumption you're making.

Showing up to a matched play game with 4 squads in GENERAL is bad form. And then we just get back to the best answer, which was "talk to you group."

When have people said "It's totally fine to do that" without adding in something along the lines of "just let your opponent know" or "with opponent's permission, which I'd certainly give myself"?

The question was asked in general and I gave a general answer. His response to those prompts was he wanted to get a general feeling, so i gave a general answer.

People expect that they can violate the rules, and if others refuse to play with them, suddenly that's toxic? News flash. Even narrative games a larger events have these restrictions in place. There is no "fluffy" argument to be made. I think it would be fluffy if my marines had a 2+ rerollable invuln. Want to have a game?

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

I want to play with standard matched play rules! Those rules do not include the rule of three or the detachment limit.

Why is the tournament rules, narrative or open only options? Why standard matched play rules are not a valid option?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

This is why it is a poop rule.

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

I want to play with standard matched play rules! Those rules do not include the rule of three or the detachment limit.

Why is the tournament rules, narrative or open only options? Why standard matched play rules are not a valid option?

Play whatever you want, I'm not stopping you.

 Marmatag wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

So there is nothing wrong with the ro3 atm?

Because that is what you literally stated here considering the INTENT behind the ro3.

I'm not going to dive into an argument with you. You aren't here to have a discussion, you're here to attack me. I would not play a matched play game without matched play rules and restrictions as published by GW.

Is there nothing wrong with the rule of 3? That's irrelevant to the conversation.
It is not literally what i stated. This is you putting words in my mouth. Argue with someone else. I'm not interested in your brand of debate.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is it so bad to talk to an opponent before having a game with them?

Because it's a sign of a bad game and often results in needless arguing. Bring a legal army, play the game by the standard rules. Why even bring up the possibility of giving people special snowflake exceptions the to rules?

(Though, for the record, if my opponent asked in this particular case I'd allow it just like I'd allow them to play a 2000 point game with 1500 points. But I can understand entirely why people have a policy of "no exceptions, period".)

So you both agree that its best to play without the RO3, because they are NOT the standard matched play rules and instead SUGGESTIONS for ORGANISED EVENTS.

You cannot say you advocate for playing with standard matched play and only matched play rules and advocate for RO3 at the same time.

The kinds of people who would not let OP do this are the exact kinds of people who would also run everything they possibly could to abuse the ruleset; which ended up creating the rule of 3 anyway.

I'm not interested in playing with those people, or with a ruleset that intentionally caters to them. This is one of the many reasons why I haven't played 8th.

People are always going to try to list build their way out of playing a tactical match.

I've accepted that 40k is now a game of deck building like MTG rather than a tactical wargame dependant on positioning and strategy.

The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.

What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?

When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.

 Marmatag wrote:
The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.

What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?

When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.

Which is why we were all so happy when Rule of Three curbed abuses like 12 Leman Russes, or 9 Daemon Princes! And which is why it was made an official matched play rule and NOT a tournament suggestion! /s

 Marmatag wrote:
The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.

What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?

When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.

lol if it actually placed realistic limitations on list building and power gaming, then it might be good for the game, but as of now, no it's not at all.

Veterans are needlessly hampered by this rule when they should be troops whilst you have things like leman rushes which can be spammed to a ludicrious degree.

 Marmatag wrote:
The rule of 3 is good for the game.

That is debatable.

I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.

What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?

No one is doing that. I wouldn't demand you to follow it either, nor, I assume, would the OP.

When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.

I think that when playing a matched play game, which is not a part of tournament, it is perfectly reasonable assumption that standard matched play rules are followed. Tournament suggestions are not part of that. I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect others to follow your houserules (i.e. using tournament rules outside tournaments) as a default.

Having just gone to check what sort of rule it is, I think the current question should really be - "What rule of three?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it introduced - as a beta rule, possibly - in Big FAQ 1?

And guess what file doesn't appear to be available on the WHC Downloads page at present?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The rule of 3 is good for the game. I don't see why some players should be held to this standard but not others.

What game system allows you to selectively apply restrictions to some players but not others?

When we're playing narrative games, we don't even bother with force orgs. Because the expectation is a fluffy fun game. You can't take this expectation into a matched play game. Stop being tone deaf.

Which is why we were all so happy when Rule of Three curbed abuses like 12 Leman Russes, or 9 Daemon Princes! And which is why it was made an official matched play rule and NOT a tournament suggestion! /s

Yeah, who cares though, those lists suck.

Spam basic Leman Russ tanks. Spam Veterans. Neither list is good.

Table sizing is also a tournament suggestion. There are MANY aspects of this game that are organized event suggestions that are *generally followed.* Terrain is another example. If someone wants to play on a board with no terrain, how dare you refuse that game? There is no terrain rule? How dare you place your house rules as a requirement for a game with you, unreasonable cur.

A lot of this game requires a gentleman's agreement to even function. Which is why standard rules are so important.

Using terrain, is in fact, suggested for all games, not just tournaments. This is a ludicrous strawman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

A lot of this game requires a gentleman's agreement to even function. Which is why standard rules are so important.

Sure. Which is why it is a bit weird that you are vehemently against using the standard rules.

I didn't see my question triggering such heated debate and I apologize as such.

The real question is; if you want to play more than three squads of SM Vets, why aren't you playing Deathwatch? Not only are they troops in a DW army but they also have a better selection of wargear and special rules.

The Newman wrote:
The real question is; if you want to play more than three squads of SM Vets, why aren't you playing Deathwatch? Not only are they troops in a DW army but they also have a better selection of wargear and special rules.

This is about IG veterans ....

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I didn't see my question triggering such heated debate and I apologize as such.

Not your fault, you asked a simple question and some people are incapable of letting other people answer without jumping down their throat for having a different opinion. I mean it's kind of silly. Someone says they'd refuse, someone else starts to rip into them because, "Rule of 3 isn't a rule!".... who cares. That's how my group plays, that's how I play, so I wouldn't play outside of that. If your group is different, power to you.

Not your fault, just a lot of angry argumentative people on this forum that don't deal well with people who play different variations of the game that they disagree with.

 Horst wrote:

Not your fault, you asked a simple question and some people are incapable of letting other people answer without jumping down their throat for having a different opinion. I mean it's kind of silly. Someone says they'd refuse, someone else starts to rip into them because, "Rule of 3 isn't a rule!".... who cares. That's how my group plays, that's how I play, so I wouldn't play outside of that. If your group is different, power to you.

Not your fault, just a lot of angry argumentative people on this forum that don't deal well with people who play different variations of the game that they disagree with.

People can play using whatever rules they want. It just gets bizarre when the same poster champions using standard rules while at the same time expects others to conform to their houserules.

 Crimson wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Not your fault, you asked a simple question and some people are incapable of letting other people answer without jumping down their throat for having a different opinion. I mean it's kind of silly. Someone says they'd refuse, someone else starts to rip into them because, "Rule of 3 isn't a rule!".... who cares. That's how my group plays, that's how I play, so I wouldn't play outside of that. If your group is different, power to you.

Not your fault, just a lot of angry argumentative people on this forum that don't deal well with people who play different variations of the game that they disagree with.

People can play using whatever rules they want. It just gets bizarre when the same poster champions using standard rules while at the same time expects others to conform to their houserules.

You gotta admit it comes off a bit disingenuous and dismissive to refer to a GW suggested rule for organized play as "their houserule".

If your group doesn't play with it, like I said, it's fine. Many groups do, which is why OP needs to ask to find out which group his is.

 Horst wrote:

You gotta admit it comes off a bit disingenuous and dismissive to refer to a GW suggested rule for organized play as "their houserule".

Using it outside tournaments is absolutely a houserule. If people want to play that way, they of course can, but then they at the same time can't claim that they're playing using the standard rules. It becomes frustrating that the point when people who actually want to play using the standard rules are treated as unreasonable and demanding special treatment.

I do love the defense of the non-rule ROT by screaming "BUT ITS THE ROOOOOOOLS".

No. No, it isn't. It's a suggestion for one mode of play that has been adopted wholesale by people who crave routine and rigidity.

For whatever (entirely obvious) reason.