Big FAQ - What do you want to see?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Galef**

XT-1984 wrote:
I'd like to see the rule of 3 removed. It was added at a time before Castellans, Assassins, and the new missions.

Three Castellans is ok, nine Talos is ok. But you mustn't take four Death Company Dreadnoughts because that would be broken. Typical ham fisted response to a few bad eggs that ruined it for the rest of us and hurt more armies than it healed.

While this is a fair point, there MUST be some kind a limit on duplicate units.
Otherwise you get stupid stuff like 9 Hive Tyrants.

You could give every single unit a set limit, but there would be too much salt if unit A is limited to 2, while unit B is limited to 4, yet both units are relatively simiar
Really, the only way to "fairly" do this is either as it currently is (Ro3 under 2K pts)
Or have the limits per slot. Something like:

HQ - limit 3 duplicates
Elites - 4 duplicates
Fast/Heavy - 3 duplicates
Flyers - 2 duplicates
Lords of War - 2 duplicats

Just as an example

-

**Daedalus81**

XT-1984 wrote:

Three Castellans is ok, nine Talos is ok. But you mustn't take four Death Company Dreadnoughts because that would be broken. Typical ham fisted response to a few bad eggs that ruined it for the rest of us and hurt more armies than it healed.

It's not that 4 DC Dreads wouldn't be broken. It's that 5+ flyrants WOULD be or 6 Tzeentch DPs or many other potentially strong units. You can call it ham fisted all you want, but it's silly to write a rule that says "only three of anything except this this this this this this and this super melee focused dreadnought that has a hard time getting across the table versus the castellan meta".

Points can't solve everything. Maybe at some point they can 0-3 specific entries, but that would have taken way more time and it's far easier to set a baseline and work it back than to figure out each individual problematic unit.

**Phaeron Gukk**

A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.

**Daedalus81**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.

And who is running 12 russes?

**Phaeron Gukk**

No-one, but I don't recall anyone running 7 Hive Tyrants outside of some tourney grinders either.

**Stux**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Phaeron Gukk wrote:
A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.

And who is running 12 russes?

Nobody outside of narrative games I would suggest. It really isn't a problem.

**Bharring**

To be fair, the rules do not ban 4 Dreads. You can have a full army of them (standard, ironclad, ven, Doradeo, etc).

**Phaeron Gukk**

Exactly. My point is that I have no idea what the rule of 3 (in an already bloated rule-set) is even "saving" us from.

**Daedalus81**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
No-one, but I don't recall anyone running 7 Hive Tyrants outside of some tourney grinders either.

Flyrants were absolutely dominating and got squashed within a couple of months.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Exactly. My point is that I have no idea what the rule of 3 (in an already bloated rule-set) is even "saving" us from.

Because dreadnoughts and russes are not hyper competitive in large numbers. You need CP. You need obsec. 5 melee attacks doesn't do gak to GEQ so unless you have a Gallant running at you it's really not useful without screen clearing and delivery.

**Eihnlazer**

Trust me, rule of 3 is stopping some gamebreaking things. It doesn't fix all the spam issues but it helps a lot.

Would you really want to see 6 decimators with +1 to hit and a 4++?

Oh heres 24d3 mortal wounds hitting on 2+...……….

**Sunny Side Up**

Rule of 3 is just an event recommendation.

It‘s not an actual rule and not in effect, unless a TO says he wants to use rule of 3 (or rule of 4 or whatever)

**Bharring**

Rule of 3 is a release valve for balancing mistakes; if/when they make something too good, you're still only seeing 3 of them. It doesn't solve any problem, but it does mitigate problems between when they pop up and when they get solved.

**Galef**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Exactly. My point is that I have no idea what the rule of 3 (in an already bloated rule-set) is even "saving" us from.

In addition to some one-off power combos, like 5+ Tyrants, what the Ro3 really "saves" us from is boring lists.
Outside of some VERY specific narratives (like 8 Bloodthristers attacking Terra) the vast majority of fluff showcases diverse armies. The table should reflect that when possible.

Facing 12+ DC Dreads might not be hard to defeat, but good gods it would be boring.

-

**Horst**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rule of 3 is just an event recommendation.

It‘s not an actual rule and not in effect, unless a TO say he wants to use rule of 3 (or rule of 4 or whatever)

Oh god let's not start this argument again....

Point is many of us play with it as though it was always in effect. It's in effect unless explicitly stated that it isn't in most cases I've seen, or unless your play group doesn't use it. If it's an "official rule" or an "event rule" or an "event suggestion" has no bearing on this, because it's played as though it was a standard rule by many (probably most, but I cannot prove that) people.

**Sunny Side Up**

Horst wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rule of 3 is just an event recommendation.

It‘s not an actual rule and not in effect, unless a TO say he wants to use rule of 3 (or rule of 4 or whatever)

Oh god let's not start this argument again....

Point is many of us play with it as though it was always in effect. It's in effect unless explicitly stated that it isn't in most cases I've seen, or unless your play group doesn't use it. If it's an "official rule" or an "event rule" or an "event suggestion" has no bearing on this, because it's played as though it was a standard rule by many (probably most, but I cannot prove that) people.

But what do you want GW to do? Remove helpful tips and recommendations for people organizing events?

The paragraph also explicitly says people should tinker and modify event recommendations to suit their needs. Doesn’t get more freeform than that. They literally tell you white on black that if you don’t like that recommendation, change or ignore it!

**Xenomancers**

I mean....Does anyone really want to face 9 Ravagers?

**Galef**

Xenomancers wrote:
I mean....Does anyone really want to face 9 Ravagers?

Or 9 Alaitoc Hemlock Wraithfighers?
Ro3 may be "just a suggestion for organized play" but enough players recognize it as a GOOD suggestion, that it is more than fair to assume it's "in affect" unless otherwise stated.

-

**Phaeron Gukk**

Galef wrote:
...what the Ro3 really "saves" us from is boring lists.

On the one hand you're absolutely right, and the rules should have some ability to slap people for spamming a single unit.
But Codex: IK exists so it's not like I can avoid the kind of "person" who runs these "lists" without just telling people to push off anyway.

**Billagio**

Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.

And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.

Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.

Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.

"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"

It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.

Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.

I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?

**Galef**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Galef wrote:
...what the Ro3 really "saves" us from is boring lists.

On the one hand you're absolutely right, and the rules should have some ability to slap people for spamming a single unit.
But Codex: IK exists so it's not like I can avoid the kind of "person" who runs these "lists" without just telling people to push off anyway.

Yeah, I kinda wish the Ro3 would "close the gap" on situations where you can STILL take 9 Daemon Princes (3 from CSM codex, 3 from TS codex, 3 from DG codex)
Or 9 of the same Russ Tank because "technically" each datasheet splits into 3 separate units

Those kind of units should get a cap too. Which is why I am starting to be more and more in favor of a slot-by-slot breakdown, rather than all non-Troops are capped a 3 datasheets.
It should be UNITS and the breakdown could allow 4 duplicates for Elites, Fast or Heavy units.
But than only 2 duplicates for Flyer units and Lords of War.

Would 2 duplicates for HQs be too restrictive? Every faction has plenty of HQs to choose from (save maybe Dark Eldar)

That might be a bit better as an "all Matched play" rule, not just an event suggestion

-

**Eihnlazer**

Trajann, -1 vexilla, termycaptain +7 calidus grav tanks will poon just about anything honestly if we are getting rid of rule of 3.

If it goes first it gets 56 shots at str8 -3 ap hitting on 2's rerolling 1's to hit and wound that do D3 dmg (50 dmg to T8 on average not accounting saves) and another 42 shots at str6 -2 ap (about 15 more wounds againgst T8 not accounting saves).

So even with a 3++ a knight would take about 28 dmg or so without any CP spent. Will kill a lot more than that of anything else.

Also a very small chance of killing more than 2 of them a turn with the -1 to hit and 14 wounds each with a 2+/5++ on turn one.

**Ordana**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.

You need to make your arguments differently and thinking about them some more.
You don't want to remove the rule of 3, because that would cause a gakload of abuse.
You want to change or remove how vehicle squadrons interact with the rule of 3.

Make better thought out arguments and people will agree with you more.

**Xenomancers**

Billagio wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.

And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.

Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.

Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.

"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"

It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.

Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.

I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?

I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.

**Galef**

Ordana wrote:
You want to change or remove how vehicle squadrons interact with the rule of 3.

Easiest way to do this is for the Ro3 to limit UNITS that share the same Datasheet, rather than duplicate Datasheets.

So for Russ tanks, you can still take 3 of a particular datasheet in a single Heavy support slot, but as they will be separate units, they cap at 3. (or 4 with my previous suggestion)
This wouldn't even be that big a change since GW is increasingly releasing separate datasheets over just alternate options.
Armigers are a good example of this. They really could have shared a single datasheet with weapons swaps, but instead, each loadout has it's own datasheet.

So even with the current Ro3, you can have 12 Armigers (3x 2 Warglaives and 3x 2 Helverins)
If the restriction was on UNITS, you could only have 6 (3 of each), which isn't bad and leaves points for other stuff.

-

**Lemondish**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Exactly. My point is that I have no idea what the rule of 3 (in an already bloated rule-set) is even "saving" us from.

The funniest part is that it's not actually a rule. It's a suggestion for event organizers. Nothing anywhere says it's a rule as far as I can see.

**Daedalus81**

Billagio wrote:

I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?

An army that goes WWWWWL at LVO and the only loss was by 5 points to Ynnari list that went to #2...is doing really well.

Another player that goes WWWWLW and loses by ONE point to the same player that the above Ork player lost to...is doing really well.

Orks are GOOD. People need to stop acting like them not taking the whole tournament means they are bad.

**Galef**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Billagio wrote:

I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?

An army that goes WWWWWL at LVO and the only loss was by 5 points to Ynnari list that went to #2...is doing really well.

Another player that goes WWWWLW and loses by ONE point to the same player that the above Ork player lost to...is doing really well.

Orks are GOOD. People need to stop acting like them not taking the whole tournament means they are bad.

And considering Orks haven't had this kind of success since 5E biker Nob lists (that I can tell) speaks volumes of how decent Orks finally are.

-

**Phaeron Gukk**

Ordana wrote:
Make better thought out arguments and people will agree with you more.

If one has a yearning for people to agree with them, DakkaDakka is not the place to achieve it.

Regarding Orks, isn't the problem that the codex hinges entirely on a few "balanced" stratagems (so poor design)?

**Bharring**

Billagio wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.

And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.

Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.

Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.

"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"

It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.

Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.

I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?

This is DakkaDakka. Where the evidence is made up and the logic doesn't matter.

**Daedalus81**

Galef wrote:
And considering Orks haven't had this kind of success since 5E biker Nob lists (that I can tell) speaks volumes of how decent Orks finally are.

-

I did see on reddit someone rumor mongering about Orks in a FB chat with Pampreen on it. Someone mentioned the SAG taking a hit and Mob Up working only on Boyz, which would be painful to the popular lists with Lootas. There will be howling from the general Ork community at how badly they've been nerfed if it happens, but they'll pull through just fine, I think.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Ordana wrote:
Make better thought out arguments and people will agree with you more.

If one has a yearning for people to agree with them, DakkaDakka is not the place to achieve it.

Regarding Orks, isn't the problem that the codex hinges entirely on a few "balanced" stratagems (so poor design)?

Current builds focused on a narrow set of stratagems. The codex doesn't hinge on them.