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.

It's a de-facto rule that is the most common way of playing and what people expect when they show up for a pickup game. The whole "GW calls it a suggestion, not a rule" argument is a pretty weak objection to fall back on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

No, it's a very relevant comparison. Both use of terrain and Ro3 are suggestions, not mandatory rules. And both are the standard expectation unless you have a compelling reason otherwise.

Ignoring the Ro3 suggestion in some cases can give a more realistic army makeup and create more interest while an empty field is akin to 19th century stand and shoot battles.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Ignoring the Ro3 suggestion in some cases can give a more realistic army makeup and create more interest while an empty field is akin to 19th century stand and shoot battles.

In the end, it's going to come down to "ask your group". You can see there is on consensus on this topic on Dakka. Most people I play with probably wouldn't allow it. Most people I play with though are just testing out tournament lists, where rule of 3 is not a suggestion, so you can see why they wouldn't allow non-legal lists to be played. So yea, ask your opponent, get a feel for what players by you will allow. In the end you can agree to whatever rules you want, it doesn't matter, as long as you have fun.

 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.

Adorable. Considering you afterwards highten yourself to this comment :


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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."

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?

Who are you to judge form?

Also as pointed out, ro3 is not matched play and also not official yet, not to mention that as also pointed out, has massive loopholes.

 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".

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.

Out of interest, can you refer me to a currently-available source which includes this rule?

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that 'rule of three' isn't a real rule, I would be fine with this.

There however are a lot of rude people who want to impose their houserule of using tournament suggestions outside tournaments on others.

The person being rude is you, since you are going against a socially accepted norm of your group.

Kind of like people parking in Mother&Child parking spaces despite being single males because there isn't actually a law preventing you from doing so.

In a friendly game I wouldnt have a problem but because in my FLGS we dont have pick up games, we plan our games previously. So if somebody wants to try something strange or use some aditional rules is fine.
In tournaments just for having a playing field and avoiding that can of worms I would say no.
But then we also have a 12 year old kit the store owber allowed to play a tournament with death guard+adeptus nechanicus to reoresebt dark mechanicus (And so he could play the 2k tournament) and no body had a problem. But it was an exception for that kid

 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.

And when you factor in that it's not even for sake of balance as example shows. 4 veterans is hardly more broken than 12 leman russ. Well actually more than 12...Was it like 20 russ you could field at once if you want and have points.

I own 9 lictor models. Old, pewter ones. Most of them are converted in different poses or mid jump. It took its sweet time to do it and I was quite proud of it. Then GW thought it would be a good idea to make them single elite slots with 1 lictor only and no chance to go bigger. They also thought it would be a good idea to limit my options to 3. So now I cannot play with 6 out of my 9 models I physically bought and painted from their stores. It's like giving my kid legos, but then forbidding them from touching the red ones.

I am not going to forbid people from playing the models they bought and painted just because GW remembered mid-way they do not like spamming. want to play a 600 termagant list? Be my guest. Want to bring 50 terminators? I'll play you. 12 flyers? I'm game. The day GW will enable returns and cashbacks for the models they do not - suddenly- allow me to play any more, then I'll back their questionable rationale. Till then, game on.

I'd have no issues with the mass veterans, go for it. In my area the rule of three is pretty strong, suggested or not. However I get why they placed it in to try and half arsed fix a problem they placed in the game with all the detachments and removing the limits of three placed into the game from way back.

If I had to ask sticking to the rule of three is easy as it had been there pretty much since I started playing already. That said, some changes to what a unit counts as I feel were done without the Rule of three in mind. Such as guard veterans, maybe even heavy weapon teams even though they were spammed heavily for mortars as those were always troops in part of platoons for the HWS and their own unit entry for vets.

It really doesn't do much to balancing things unless you were one of those who had to run into like 6 storm ravens or the like I suppose.

Like every thread on this subject outside of events, the answer is the same:

If you and your opponent agree to use the rule it’s a rule.
If you don’t, it isn’t.

That’s all she wrote.

 Dysartes wrote:

 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".

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.

Out of interest, can you refer me to a currently-available source which includes this rule?

The latest warhammer 40k rulebook errata: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en.pdf

It's suggested for organized tournament play, which is why so many people follow it all the time. If you're going to play in a tournament, it makes sense to practice with those same rules all the time.

And for the vast majority who do not play tournaments, it makes no sense.

And yet almost everyone uses it anyway. Oh noes, five Hellflayers!! However do you counter that?

Baah.

It's almost as though it's the imbalanced units not being fixed being the reason Rule of Three still has lists that are nearly the same.

Big think

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Well I am aware that the rule of 3 is just a suggestion, could I justify having more than 3 squads of veterans? This would be to demonstrate a more experienced detachment of AM infantry. Compared to standard infantry, they differ only slightly and with CA18 they only cost 1ppm more than a standard infantry unit. Could I justify this? Or least would this be something people would get upset over?

Depends....
Friendly local game night its probably no big deal just check
At a tournament absolutely not without a TOs ok

You either play:

Competitive where RAW is important because if you win, you want to win fairly according to the rules... no other exceptions. Points are typically used for the finer scale of units costing.

Casual / Fluff / story driven play. "Rule of Cool" is a strong consideration, using power points is "simpler", pointing to various formations in Black Library books are a worthy argument/precedence. Actual crafted scenarios usually is what makes it all work and agreeable between players.

So for the OP: is it a more competitive group? Then stick with the rule of 3. If more story driven, do you have a "reason" to need more veterans? Is your army based on something you read or you just want a bunch of veterans? If you customized a bunch of guard to look very characterful as individuals that may be fine due to "rule of cool".

It all still hinges on what your gaming group says, not us bunch of strangers on the internet as has been pointed out.
I tend to find these questions are to obtain "evidence" to brow-beat your group with to get what you want, but I may bee a bit too cynical.
Was a good thought process anyway.

I tend to play competitive but got my friend to go with a scenario I made (I was oddly inspired) that was brutal and we had a great deal of fun.
Win criteria was still a big consideration but army structure got thrown out the window.

Skipped most of the discussion, but wanted to offer up the House rule our group has:

"Rule of 3" is based on patrol/battalion/brigade detachments with the Troops slots allowing unlimited datasheets; in the spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider detachments, heavy support/elite/fast attack units are the "core" of the detachments, so we allow those "core" datasheets unlimited within their detachments instead of troops.

Basically even if you had a patrol with a whirlwind or 2, if you had a Spearhead detachment alongside it the spearhead could have 2 more whirlwinds without counting against the rule of 3(but a second patrol could only have 1 more whirlwind)

 Horst wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 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".

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.

Out of interest, can you refer me to a currently-available source which includes this rule?

The latest warhammer 40k rulebook errata: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en.pdf

It's suggested for organized tournament play, which is why so many people follow it all the time. If you're going to play in a tournament, it makes sense to practice with those same rules all the time.

Thanks for confirming that, Horst - I was getting a "This site is trying to redirect you too many times" message in Chrome last night when trying to access the file.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a de-facto rule that is the most common way of playing and what people expect when they show up for a pickup game.

Citation needed. And even if it might be common convention in some places, it is unreasonable to assume that random newbies should have telepathically known that their lists need to conform to your houserules.

The whole "GW calls it a suggestion, not a rule" argument is a pretty weak objection to fall back on.

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

No, it's a very relevant comparison. Both use of terrain and Ro3 are suggestions, not mandatory rules. And both are the standard expectation unless you have a compelling reason otherwise.

One is suggestion for all games, whilst the other is suggestion for tournaments. A standard pick up game is not a tournament, how bloody difficult can this be to understand?

OP: I'd have no problem with it, and I'd wager most players would be fine with it too. Most players recognize the reason Rule of 3 exists, and it sure isn't to stop Veteran spam. Some players treat pick-up games as tournament practice and expect them to follow tournament rules to the letter, but they're typically a minority.

Personally, I use a Death Korps list that relies on an email from Forge World to say that Engineers should be able to take a Hades drill, which isn't RAW, and have never had a problem. Keep in mind that DakkaDakka is not representative of the general 40K population, let alone your local meta.

Ignore this post

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Skipped most of the discussion, but wanted to offer up the House rule our group has:

"Rule of 3" is based on patrol/battalion/brigade detachments with the Troops slots allowing unlimited datasheets; in the spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider detachments, heavy support/elite/fast attack units are the "core" of the detachments, so we allow those "core" datasheets unlimited within their detachments instead of troops.

Basically even if you had a patrol with a whirlwind or 2, if you had a Spearhead detachment alongside it the spearhead could have 2 more whirlwinds without counting against the rule of 3(but a second patrol could only have 1 more whirlwind)

But wouldn't that enable PBC spam, one of the reasons for GW to put the Ro3 in place?

 Crimson wrote:
One is suggestion for all games, whilst the other is suggestion for tournaments. A standard pick up game is not a tournament, how bloody difficult can this be to understand?

People who adhere strictly to matched play rulesets often play in order to practice for tournaments. Since tournaments tend to use the rule of three, playing a game without rule of three isn't good tournament practice.

You're engaging in philosophical hair-splitting on what does or does not counts as a rule in the face of a practical consideration.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

People who adhere strictly to matched play rulesets often play in order to practice for tournaments.

A tiny minority of matched play games are tournament practice. Matched is the most commonly played game type, and only minority of people attend tournaments. It is really annoying that this tiny minority of tournament players want to claim one gametype solely for themselves, going so far that they bully others to accepting their houserules.

Since tournaments tend to use the rule of three, playing a game without rule of three isn't good tournament practice.

It should be blindingly obvious that a person who would want to field abundance of IG veteran squads is not a good opponent for practising for tournaments. They're obviously looking for a more casual sort of matched game.

 Crimson wrote:

It should be blindingly obvious that a person who would want to field abundance of IG veteran squads is not a good opponent for practising for tournaments. They're obviously looking for a more casual sort of matched game.

Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.

How?

 Crimson wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.

How?

Not really. It's sarcasm, I agree with you.

Doesn't work via text all that well, I guess.

Ah, I see!

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Right, but you're the one ignoring practical considerations.

How?

Not really. It's sarcasm, I agree with you.

Doesn't work via text all that well, I guess.

Biggest practical consideration I see you both are missing is that it doesn't matter how you play, or how you want to play, it matters what OP's local group plays like. If it's like my group, rule of 3 is enforced for all games, so if he asks to break it he stands a chance of getting denied. It doesn't matter if it's a "suggested" rule if everyone uses it. If OP's group is different, then that's fine. It's not relevant if it's an "official rule" or "official suggestion" if everyone follows it, which is apparently going to be different from group to group. He asked if there is a consensus on this topic. There isn't.

 Crimson wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

People who adhere strictly to matched play rulesets often play in order to practice for tournaments.

A tiny minority of matched play games are tournament practice. Matched is the most commonly played game type, and only minority of people attend tournaments. It is really annoying that this tiny minority of tournament players want to claim one gametype solely for themselves, going so far that they bully others to accepting their houserules.

Since tournaments tend to use the rule of three, playing a game without rule of three isn't good tournament practice.

It should be blindingly obvious that a person who would want to field abundance of IG veteran squads is not a good opponent for practising for tournaments. They're obviously looking for a more casual sort of matched game.

Sure, it's annoying. Being annoying in pursuit of however-they-define-victory appears to be common in competitive communities.

What I'm saying is that splitting hairs over what's a common tournament rule vs. Game As It Is Written vs. Game As It Is Played isn't likely to be a compelling argument within a local gaming community, much less with strangers on Dakka that you don't even play with.

Edit:

Biggest practical consideration I see you both are missing is that it doesn't matter how you play, or how you want to play, it matters what OP's local group plays like. If it's like my group, rule of 3 is enforced for all games, so if he asks to break it he stands a chance of getting denied. It doesn't matter if it's a "suggested" rule if everyone uses it. If OP's group is different, then that's fine. It's not relevant if it's an "official rule" or "official suggestion" if everyone follows it, which is apparently going to be different from group to group. He asked if there is a consensus on this topic. There isn't.

Well stated.