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.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
Yes I know I’ll get the inevitable- “But Grimtuff, I started in 3rd and I hate the Ro3!” Yes, I know there will be exceptions but this is just a general observation both from online and IRL.
Ro3 is good IMO. Yes there are certain things that are caught in the crossfire, such as Heavy weapon teams; but that’s a symptom of the dafty rescission to do away with platoons for IG and not inherently the Ro3’s fault.
As for the OPs question- well it depends. With all my opponents I tend to vet them as I don’t get a lot of opportunities to play right now. If you’re a long term friend- yup, I’ll allow it. If you’re some rando I’ll be incredibly wary as I’ll wonder what other rules you want to bend. Now this is normally harmless, but I refer you back to the beginning of this paragraph and I’ve been burned before.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I think the fact it is listed as a "organised play" rule suggests that GW are listening to those who want balance over fluff (ie it is not meant in any way to represent scarcity of units) but making a rather ham fisted job of it. Essentially removing list organisation slots and 1+/0-1 limits has created this mess, obviously there's a reason for that (if people didn't want it it wouldn't sell miniatures) but I think it hurts the game overall.
I've not played a huge amount of games of 8th but it's never been a necessary rule as far as i remember, that's just not how our lists have been constructed (yes peregrine I am virtue signalling at you super hard right now).
AnomanderRake wrote: The Rule of 3 exists to nerf two things: Flyrant-spam, and Tau Commander-spam, and it didn't actually catch Tau Commanders because there are six or seven different datasheets for them, so they had to write an entire extra rule to stop that.
Tau commanders were limited before the Ro3, and there are more units that made the Rule Of 3 necessary. At the same tournament that made GW aware of the hive tyrand problem, there was a high-placing list with 8 PBC, as well as dark reaper and shining spear spam. There are also tons of spamable HQ units, like dawn eagle captains, GMDK or TS daemon princes. There was also scion spam and storm raven spam, each needed to be handled by their own rule to nerf them.
So saying that spam is not a problem in 8th edition is flat out wrong.
Dawneagle Captain-spam was a joke list and pretty effectively nerfed by the changes to character targeting anyway (you can't prevent the other guy from shooting the damaged one by parking the undamaged one in front anymore). And the main reason people take three Captains is because Custodian infantry are expensive and bad, which means the Supreme Command detachment is a better way of getting them into a list than spending the thousand points you'd need to take an Outrider detachment or wasting a hundred and fifty points on a pointless Guard squad.
Dark Reapers/Shining Spears are rendered powerful by Soulburst actions (now limited to one of each variety per turn) and psychic powers/stratagems (always limited to one of each per turn). The more different units you take the worse the Soulburst action/psychic power is (since you aren't taking max squads) and the worse subsequent units are (since they don't have rerolls/save bonuses/to-hit penalties/shoot-and-scoot).
Stormraven-spam was powerful in the Index, before Dawneagles, before the Knight-Castellan, before Russes and Fire Prisms got price drops and double shots...I have a sneaking suspicion if you tried to run a five-Stormravens-and-Guilliman list today you'd see one or two Stormravens crashing every turn. Not to mention the fact that they have to stop (giving up Hard to Hit and unchargeability) to score.
I don't see how the GMDK is that big of a problem given the diminishing returns on taking more psykers and given that the Rule of 3 still allows six Dreadknights. People spammed them more because there are no other playable units in that army book than anything else; similarly Thousand Sons Daemon Princes are much more of a spam threat because the rest of the book (Rubrics, vehicles) are kind of crap. Those two are more internal problems than external problems and would be fixed if you fixed their army books.
Everything else is either a) rendered powerful by psychic powers/stratagems/relics/warlord traits that you can't duplicate and therefore not really worth spamming (ex. Hive Guard, Knight-Castellan), b) so spammable within the Rule of 3 that a typical 2,000pt limit is more of a limiting factor than the Rule of 3 (ex. Leman Russes, of which you can have 12 (3 squads of 3 and 3 commanders) before running afoul of the Rule of 3), c) not really worth spamming, or d) Troops and therefore unaffected.
So, if nothing is affected and at least one unit is nerfed by it, there is no reason not to use it.
The most nonsensical thing about the Rule of 3 is the arbitrary divisions between which tanks can be taken in squadrons and which can't, or which tanks are separate datasheets and which are weapon options on the same datasheet. If the Rule of 3 is necessary for game balance you're telling me that nine Russes are completely fair but four Onagers would be broken, and that it's totally okay if I take twelve Predators but if any more than three of them have flamers the game would collapse, unless I'm playing Blood Angels and then it's fine. There are also a lot of units (Guard Veterans, Servitors, Assault Marines, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Sisters of Silence...) that could allow for interesting build variety if you were allowed to take more of them.
I'd rather see instead of the Rule of 3 a generalization of the Tau Commander rule that says you can't have duplicate HQ datasheets within detachments (or in the case of Tau Commanders only one thing with the Commander keyword); it'd catch out things like Flyrants and Tau Commanders that are issues when spammed, patch gibberish soup builds with Supreme Command detachments of upper-tier SM/Custodes characters running about with armies of Guardsmen or three Thousand Sons daemon princes deciding it'd be fun to leave their own armies behind and hang out with a Death Guard army, and wouldn't interfere with people who want to do sensible things that involve having a large number of duplicate non-Troops units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: ...Nah, there were other problem units. Remember that list with I think it was 7 Dark Talons that was doing rather well?
Look, it's not perfect. But it keeps a bunch of degenerate lists in check. Sure, some still slip through. Could probably do with tightening up still. But I'm very glad it's a thing.
I'm reasonably certain that SM flyer-spam was only really a thing before the scoring nerf came down, and neither the scoring nerf nor the Rule of 3 has put a crimp in Eldar flyer-spam simply because they have three datasheets' worth of good airplanes.
Even if I ignore that you get half your facts wrong and have no clue what some units do, you just provide the same fallacy as many other posters. Just because the rule is not the perfect, sensible solution to everything, doesn't mean it makes the game worse.
WH40k with Ro3 is still better than WH40k without it because unit spam has been a problem and will continue to be one unless you put a limit on datasheets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: There should not be any reason f.e. to not allow more then 3 termi squads beeing played , etc. At the same time the DP sheets should get a uniified keyword and then stopped there to succesfuully curb them there a bit.
I have yet to see a single battle report of some one getting curb-stomped by the fabled 9 daemon prince list.
Yet, you still think that there should be a rule of three for daemon princes, but not for terminators. Which feels pretty hypocritical, considering that chaos can field 9 units of terminators for the same reasons they can field 9 daemon princes. Loyalist marines can field 12 units of terminators without even adding a second codex. Imperium can have a total of 33 Terminator squads by combining codex marines, dark angels and space wolves. I guess someone put a stop to that as well.
First off, hypocritical, i am not so shove your ad hominem where the Sun don't shine.
Secondly, reigning in the outliers, which are 95% HQ UNITS would've allready been a better option.
You don't use a sledgehammer on a screw now do you? Fix the problem units, and problem detachments.
Also thirdly i meant coherent terminators, but please missrepresent me more, so go take a hike.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 11:04:47
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
List them. List all of them, then, if it's so easy.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
Its not rude to expect a uniform set of rules in matched play. Open play and Narrative play are a thing, I play every other week with my FLGS owner when its not his weekend to work and he plays Orks and of course he always wants to use looted rules and I let him because its a fun game.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
List them. List all of them, then, if it's so easy.
Which codex do you want?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Jidmah wrote: ...Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
Until the Rule of 3 GW was fixing the units that were broken. The Rule of 3 allows GW to pat themselves on the back, say "yay we fixed everything", and go to the pub in the fewest words' worth of rules. It's like how they made you generate powers randomly in 7th and restrict you to one cast attempt per power per turn in 8th to limit the impact of broken psychic powers instead of fixing the broken psychic powers and render the whole system screwy and nonsensical as a result.
RO3 was unironically one of the best things to happen to matched play.
There are units that can be appropriately pointed when you take 1-3 that become absolutely unbearable when you are allowed to take unlimited numbers of them. See mortar squads as an example. Even without a price hike, they show up a lot less in lists now that you can't take18+ bases worth of them. Because even though they're still cheap in points, they can't get the volume of fire that would let them break through even targets that are traditionally inefficient to shoot them with. In addition, having them capped makes your opponent able to actually do something about it. Killing 1-3 PBC's is possible, killing 6-9 is a freaking nightmare.
Flying Hive Tyrants is the classic example. What point cost would have made taking 5+ impossible, while still make taking 1-3 not trash? They're relatively fragile, have no character protection, but can kill pretty decently. By limiting them to a cap of three, your opponent has an opportunity to reduce them before they hit their lines. Killing 1-2 on approach when they have 3 versus killing 1-2 on approach when they have 7 is a huge difference in that unit's effectiveness.
.
Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam.
Personally, I wish they had done unit by unit restrictions instead, but Ro3 solved a lot of problems in one go and I'm glad it's there.
RogueApiary wrote: ...Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam...
I don't keep bringing it up because it's a boogeyman, I keep bringing it up because I find limiting Predators/Vindicators/Onagers/most other tanks to 0-3 but not limiting Russes kind of nonsensical.
Jidmah wrote: ...Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
Until the Rule of 3 GW was fixing the units that were broken. The Rule of 3 allows GW to pat themselves on the back, say "yay we fixed everything", and go to the pub in the fewest words' worth of rules.
They basically nerfed everything that got spammed to no longer be played at all. In WH40k any highly durable or glass cannon unit gets more powerful when spammed, the only way to prevent this is to nerf all of them to oblivion so only generalist units remain.
Putting a limit on all datasheets is a proven concept across many games, and lots of those employ better rule-writers than GW does.
RogueApiary wrote: ...Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam...
I don't keep bringing it up because it's a boogeyman, I keep bringing it up because I find limiting Predators/Vindicators/Onagers/most other tanks to 0-3 but not limiting Russes kind of nonsensical.
So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
.
Can the armies that pay in poins per model for deep strike get a discount then? When their codex came out GW even had an article how the main way to use those armies was to deep strike everything in range turn 1. With this removed, the whole GWs idea how those codex are suppose to work, are kind of a thrown out the window, with nothing else being given in return, but with all old and new limitations being added on top.
Of course they should get discounts. And probably a re-write while they are at it, since a core mechanic has been thrown out the window.
But even you must understand that there isn't just GK in this game. Unlimited duplicates of single units will never result in a balanced game. Until then rule of 3, GW was just playing whack-a-mole with all the spammed units that kept popping up.
It really isn't difficult to tell which units are broken though.
List them. List all of them, then, if it's so easy.
Which codex do you want?
All of them, please.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/09 07:54:36
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
RogueApiary wrote: ...Also, I've yet to see the 9-21 Russ bogeyman show up in any tournament top 8 lists or even at an FLGS, but pre-Ro3, I saw a lot of PBC/flyrant spam...
I don't keep bringing it up because it's a boogeyman, I keep bringing it up because I find limiting Predators/Vindicators/Onagers/most other tanks to 0-3 but not limiting Russes kind of nonsensical.
So do you want more than three of those tanks? Or do you just want the LR to not have squadroning? Because the former ain't happening as long as Bobby G/Cawl are around and the latter is de facto not happening because LR's are frankly not worth spamming (at least not in competitive). If the Castellan Nerf somehow allows for LR spam to be a thing, I'll happily welcome the loss of squadroning on their Datasheets.
Jidmah wrote: So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
Yes, it is. It puts nonsensical and arbitrary limitations on what models you're allowed to bring, and those limitations do not apply to all factions in any logical or fair manner.
Jidmah wrote: So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
Yes, it is. It puts nonsensical and arbitrary limitations on what models you're allowed to bring, and those limitations do not apply to all factions in any logical or fair manner.
Man, it's almost like you can remove some or all of those 'nonsensical and arbitrary' limitations for your house/FLGS games at will. Hell, playing with 2000 points is an 'arbitrary' limitation. Pretty much every aspect of the game is an arbitrary limitation because none of it is based on anything resembling reality. As for the competitive side of things, I can guarantee if Predators did not have a RO3 restriction I'd take a whole heaping bunch of them surrounding Bobby G. BS 3+ to hit, rerolling all hits and wounds with +1 to wound and 4D? Yes, please! So yes, I am in favor of 'nonsensical and arbitrary' limitations as long as the upside is that stupid spammy gak isn't opposite of me at every table. 6+ PBC's was absolute cancer to fight against.
You feel the fact that guard vehicles can be taken in squadrons is unfair, yet, nobody is running mass tank Guard. So, what you're really just looking for is something to whinge about on paper rather than anything that actually happens in game. This guy can theoretically take nine tanks when I can only take three, totally unfair!
Vets should never have been moved out of the troop slot. It was a cynical swap by GW to push scions and side line a unit they don't technically sell a kit for.
This thread is going how it usually does on this topic. You can really tell itt generally who started post 5th ed. and those before. The former dislike the rule of 3 as they weren’t brought up on those rules (see also no deep strike until turn 2 and the gnashing of teeth that came with that despite it just reverting to how it had been in every edition prior...) and the latter like them as it tends to reign in some of the spam that was curved by the good ol FoC.
Yes I know I’ll get the inevitable- “But Grimtuff, I started in 3rd and I hate the Ro3!” Yes, I know there will be exceptions but this is just a general observation both from online and IRL.
Ro3 is good IMO. Yes there are certain things that are caught in the crossfire, such as Heavy weapon teams; but that’s a symptom of the dafty rescission to do away with platoons for IG and not inherently the Ro3’s fault.
As for the OPs question- well it depends. With all my opponents I tend to vet them as I don’t get a lot of opportunities to play right now. If you’re a long term friend- yup, I’ll allow it. If you’re some rando I’ll be incredibly wary as I’ll wonder what other rules you want to bend. Now this is normally harmless, but I refer you back to the beginning of this paragraph and I’ve been burned before.
Would agree with you. I started around 3rd and was actually surprised the Ro3 wasn't around at the start of 8th. I do feel as well that most of the issues with the Ro3 hurting certain undeserving units is caused by the fact that the Ro3 wasn't a thing when the units were placed in the codex as they were. Like the argued of Vets, no one would fear mass units of guard veterans but because they aren't troops anymore they are caught in that net all the same. I could see the heavy weapon squads being an undeserving casualty but also maybe a bit desering with how abused mortars were. Just sucks for me as I have a ton of heavy weapons and very few now see the light of the day.
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.
Its not rude to expect a uniform set of rules in matched play. Open play and Narrative play are a thing, I play every other week with my FLGS owner when its not his weekend to work and he plays Orks and of course he always wants to use looted rules and I let him because its a fun game.
There are a uniform set of rules for Matched Play - they're called the rules for Matched Play.
What Crimson is referring to is people implementing the additional set of rules listed as "Matched Play rules for organised events" (I'm paraphrasing the title as I still can't get the damned Rulebook errata file to open, regardless of browser or device...) on games which are not organised events...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Jidmah wrote: So, is this making the game worse? Because that's all that matters.
Yes, it is. It puts nonsensical and arbitrary limitations on what models you're allowed to bring, and those limitations do not apply to all factions in any logical or fair manner.
Theoretical and moral problems have no impact on the quality of the game.
In all threads on these topics, the naysayers have failed to provide even a single battle report where these missing limitation on LRBT, daemon princes or other similar units have actually caused problems, while there a plenty of samples of real problems that have been reigned in by the rule of 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: What Crimson is referring to is people implementing the additional set of rules listed as "Matched Play rules for organised events" (I'm paraphrasing the title as I still can't get the damned Rulebook errata file to open, regardless of browser or device...) on games which are not organised events...
As already established, when playing matched play anywhere outside of your home, you can assume that you are expected to follow the rule of 3. It really doesn't matter in what category GW puts a rule when more than 80% of the community uses it in their default games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/10 09:26:06
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
