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.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not that it could ever REALLY be a problem, but I don't want to see 5 Telemons, 5 Callidus Tanks, or 5 Tank Commanders. If you come to the table expecting to use that gak, I am already at a disadvantage because I would never come to play a game expecting to face that. I come prepared to use the generally accepted rules in the community.

The fact that it's optional, is bunk. You could say the same thing about speed of play, or modeling for advantage, or knights without a base, kneeling characters etc.

This is more boring then RAW v RAI arguments.

good, your entitled to your opinion.
It still is an optional rule and only reccomended by gw for tournament play.

And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?

Yes. If my opponent shows up with a spam list and tries to hide behind the technicality that it's an "optional" rule they're demonstrating too much of a WAAC attitude and I can expect them to try to bend other rules to their advantage. It's like showing up to game night and asking to use PL instead of the normal system: 99% of the time it's just someone who found a balance mistake to exploit and is asking for approval.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not that it could ever REALLY be a problem, but I don't want to see 5 Telemons, 5 Callidus Tanks, or 5 Tank Commanders. If you come to the table expecting to use that gak, I am already at a disadvantage because I would never come to play a game expecting to face that. I come prepared to use the generally accepted rules in the community.

The fact that it's optional, is bunk. You could say the same thing about speed of play, or modeling for advantage, or knights without a base, kneeling characters etc.

This is more boring then RAW v RAI arguments.

good, your entitled to your opinion.
It still is an optional rule and only reccomended by gw for tournament play.

And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?

It's optional in the sense that everything about the game is optional (outside an organised event).

It's also not optional in the sense that more often than not it'll be the default.

Panting your models is also "optional" by RAW, but am I going to allow unpainted trash? no.

Not Online!!! wrote:
And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?

Band aid > infected wound

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?

Band aid > infected wound

If they wanted to fix it in an "official" capacity, they'd do like they've done with a few units:
"In Matched Play..."

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes. If my opponent shows up with a spam list and tries to hide behind the technicality that it's an "optional" rule they're demonstrating too much of a WAAC attitude and I can expect them to try to bend other rules to their advantage. It's like showing up to game night and asking to use PL instead of the normal system: 99% of the time it's just someone who found a balance mistake to exploit and is asking for approval.

First of PL is a normal system, just one you specifically decide to crusade against. (And whilest i agree that points are better, it still leaves me with the option of cholera instead of the bubonic plague thanks to balance)


Secondly: You preety much can split up the WAAC dude hiding behind the technicallity from the regular dude that just got unlucky with his choice army by looking at the unit used more then 3 (2) times.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And you didn't attempt to even accept the fact that it is a band aid at best?

Band aid > infected wound

We got a bandaid when we needed a whole First aid kit instead.
But better the bandaid for the scratches around the gaping chestwound then nothing i guess


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

If they wanted to fix it in an "official" capacity, they'd do like they've done with a few units:
"In Matched Play..."

Or just a thought, stay with me on this one, MAYBEE LIMIT DATASHEETS.

There's no reason to see more then 2 Daemonprinces as HQ for CSM in a match of 2000 pts.
Same with flyrants etc.

It's pretty effective as a safety net I'd say. Even if balance was generally better, I still think rule of 3 is healthy for the game.

Overreliance on Rule of 3 is, quite frankly, compensating for a lack of interaction between players.

 Stux wrote:
It's pretty effective as a safety net I'd say. Even if balance was generally better, I still think rule of 3 is healthy for the game.

That for sure.
I absolutely agree with that.
I just do not think that it is a be all end all and leave it at that. Imo it would be time to propperly solve the issue and not just rely on the safety net to carry everything.

The real solution is to have faction specific, datasheet specific restrictions but then you fall into the territory of formations and we all know how that ended up.

A blanket rule like this is probably the best we can hope for.

I think for a company that makes money from models, having any restriction on how many to take is a pretty mature and counter profiteering move on their part. After all people did buy 9 PBC's and 9 Hive tyrants and they're no longer buying in those numbers. Would people have tried 5 lord discordants if the rule wasn't around...probably

I'm sure in the long term it improves their sales but thats giving them a lot of credit I'm not sure they're due

Basically, yes.

 Nithaniel wrote:
The real solution is to have faction specific, datasheet specific restrictions but then you fall into the territory of formations and we all know how that ended up.

A blanket rule like this is probably the best we can hope for.

I think for a company that makes money from models, having any restriction on how many to take is a pretty mature and counter profiteering move on their part. After all people did buy 9 PBC's and 9 Hive tyrants and they're no longer buying in those numbers. Would people have tried 5 lord discordants if the rule wasn't around...probably

I'm sure in the long term it improves their sales but thats giving them a lot of credit I'm not sure they're due

Sure, but does it really stop spam or just move it around a bit.
Last i cheked Arhiman and psyker spam are still very much liked. And let's be real here, Supreme detachments and other more focussed detachments preety much invite abuse.

As for 5 Lord discordants. What people tend to forget, 90% of all daemon engines have a severe case of the succ.
And the unit that actually should enable and keep such an army in the field, is ironically the only daemon engine that actually works, for once.
And i absolutely expect him to take a pricehike. (and i own a trio turned into retro Chaosknights)

Personally, yes I do expect the Ro3, but not to the point that I'd "enforce" it outside of a ridiculous situation like someone fielding 4+ of the same objectively OP unit.

In general I think the Ro3 is a great rule and since I generally play like-minded people, the Ro3 is generally observed without either player having to mention it, That's why I expect it.

There are also so many units in 40K now, that there really is no reason to spam the same unit more than 3 times anyway (especially if you can soup). You can build a list with a dozens of similar units without having to duplicate any particular one more than 3 times.
For example, You can take 3 Hive Tyrants, 3 Flying Tyrants and the rest of your list be MCs and the troops needed for Battalions.

-

 Kanluwen wrote:
Overreliance on Rule of 3 is, quite frankly, compensating for a lack of interaction between players.

Player interaction being required is a sign of bad rules. Improving the rules to make it redundant is a good thing!

Do I expect my opponent to follow the official rules?

Yes I do.

In a strictly friendly game alterations to the rules can be discussed.

 Ishagu wrote:
Do I expect my opponent to follow the official rules?

Yes I do.

In a strictly friendly game alterations to the rules can be discussed.

Yeah, the same. That’s why I don't assume that RO3 is used unless specifically agreed beforehand.

I'm the opposite: I assume that Ro3 is in effect at all times. A pinch of preparation saves a pound of trouble and all that. Or, in other words, it's easier to limit myself to 3 of the same unit if it isn't in effect than to have to rebuild my list because the club I walked into only plays Rule of 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also means that if I feel like getting into a tournament one day, I don't have to build a new list and learn how to play it effectively all over again.

Not Online!!! wrote:
First of PL is a normal system, just one you specifically decide to crusade against. (And whilest i agree that points are better, it still leaves me with the option of cholera instead of the bubonic plague thanks to balance)

PL is not a normal system, it's a steaming pile of that is worse than the normal point system in every way. Fans of PL are overwhelmingly one of two types:

1) WAAC players who figured out a broken list that exploits balance mistakes in PL and want to change the rules of the game so they can use it and win more games.

or

2) CAAC virtue signaling players who embrace it because of how badly flawed it is, as a weird masochistic statement of how opposed to competitive play they are.

The fact is that the majority of games use the obviously superior conventional point system, and anyone asking to use the inferior alternative should be treated with skepticism. Yeah, just like breaking RO3 there are a few players who might do it with good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that in the majority of cases there is no legitimate reason to do either.

Secondly: You preety much can split up the WAAC dude hiding behind the technicallity from the regular dude that just got unlucky with his choice army by looking at the unit used more then 3 (2) times.

Or, instead of having to carefully analyze their list to see if there's something I missed and the unit I think is weak is actually powerful when spammed we can just follow the normal rules. It's not like one-dimensional spam lists produce fun games anyway, even when they aren't overpowered compared to a normal list.

I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

Darsath wrote:
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

I'm not sure why this is an issue. The game is unplayable beyond 2000-2500ish points anyway, so who cares how many copies of a unit you could theoretically take at 5000 points?

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
First of PL is a normal system, just one you specifically decide to crusade against. (And whilest i agree that points are better, it still leaves me with the option of cholera instead of the bubonic plague thanks to balance)

PL is not a normal system, it's a steaming pile of that is worse than the normal point system in every way. Fans of PL are overwhelmingly one of two types:

1) WAAC players who figured out a broken list that exploits balance mistakes in PL and want to change the rules of the game so they can use it and win more games.

or

2) CAAC virtue signaling players who embrace it because of how badly flawed it is, as a weird masochistic statement of how opposed to competitive play they are.

The fact is that the majority of games use the obviously superior conventional point system, and anyone asking to use the inferior alternative should be treated with skepticism. Yeah, just like breaking RO3 there are a few players who might do it with good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that in the majority of cases there is no legitimate reason to do either.

Secondly: You preety much can split up the WAAC dude hiding behind the technicallity from the regular dude that just got unlucky with his choice army by looking at the unit used more then 3 (2) times.

Or, instead of having to carefully analyze their list to see if there's something I missed and the unit I think is weak is actually powerful when spammed we can just follow the normal rules.

Roffle, Peregrine, mate calm down, not anyone thinks like you, or even shares your viewpoint.
And i hardly would assume the worst out of someone that fields such a RO3 offender, because turns out that most people don't tend to have gigantic collections and have maybee one army at best. AND if they have just one army that HAD units switched in slots around are you really going to be that way torwards them?
Common that is ridicoulus.


But then again you are also seemingly for minimizing social interaction in a, how to put it, social game, which seems a bit counterintuitive?

 Peregrine wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

I'm not sure why this is an issue. The game is unplayable beyond 2000-2500ish points anyway, so who cares how many copies of a unit you could theoretically take at 5000 points?

If the game becomes unplayable beyond 2000 points, there's bigger problems than the Rule of 3 that need changed anyways.

Darsath wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

I'm not sure why this is an issue. The game is unplayable beyond 2000-2500ish points anyway, so who cares how many copies of a unit you could theoretically take at 5000 points?

If the game becomes unplayable beyond 2000 points, there's bigger problems than the Rule of 3 that need changed anyways.

Don't bother, Peregrine is on one of his "2000 pts ITC only way of game" days.

To be fair, I can't think of too many folks or venues who play over 2k myself.

I don't care about rule of 3.

I play a mixed bag, and I can't think of a single unit I'd take more than 3 of (non-troops) as I wouldn't have fun playing that way.

I accept that 40k is not great in the balance department. Probably even poor. So if someone wants to walk up with 10 of the bestest-best their faction can bring... solid. If I don't have fun, I'll let my opponent know and I won't play against that again. Solid.

Once upon a time, 3 of a unit was spamming, because that filled your optional slots from one FOC. Now, 3's ok, but 4 isn't. I don't get the *anger* about it.

In a perfect world, people would just take whatever they want, un-battleforged or whatever it's called. Want to play 7 Samurai with Space Wolves? Go for it. Want a Tank Company of Guardsmen? Go for it. Want to play all big-bugs? Hammer down. You only like Tau with Suits? Me too, let's play.

My first interest in this game is having fun with friends. From there, a tactically interesting game would be nice, and well balanced to ensure we're fighting a mostly fair match would be good... I don't play much 40k these days, but I do like Kill Team.

Darsath wrote:
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

Uhhhhh… it literally *does* scale.

 Nazrak wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

Uhhhhh… it literally *does* scale.

Between 1000 and 2000.

Darsath wrote:
If the game becomes unplayable beyond 2000 points, there's bigger problems than the Rule of 3 that need changed anyways.

Well yes, and GW changed it by introducing Apocalypse to handle those larger games.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think the Rule of 3 is really just hiding some more obvious flaws with the edition's design. It works well enough, but doesn't scale at all with game size, much like Psychic Powers in this edition. It should have been a limit of 3 of each Datasheet (or similar in the case of things like Dreadnoughts) for every 2000 points being played.

Uhhhhh… it literally *does* scale.

Between 1000 and 2000.

The table literally has three rows – Up to 1,000, 1,001-2,000 and 2,001-3,000. I think they've fairly reasonably assumed most organised events aren't going to involve 3K+ games so stopped there, but it's fairly easy to apply common sense to how this might scale up further.