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.

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

Lolwut? I don't give a about ITC and their house rules (other than the obvious change that ruins block LOS), and I'm fine with games below 2000 points. But above 2000-2500 points the sheer number of models on the table (and dice to roll, buffs to keep track of, etc) turns the game into a miserable slog that's made even worse by GW clinging to the idiotic IGOUGO mechanic. And I genuinely have no idea why this is a controversial opinion.

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.

...but it does scale, unless I'm missing your point here?

Admittedly, the table could do with a fourth row making it explicitly clear - as apparently the pattern isn't enough - that for every 1,000 points or part thereof the number of datasheets and detachments allowed goes up by 1. Not sure how the expected table size or game length would scale though - an extra 2' of width each time? Min/max game size goes up by another hour?

Equally, though, given it is an organised event guideline, how many such events are there where armies are at over 3k points?

 Dysartes wrote:


...but it does scale, unless I'm missing your point here?

Seems like someone's in such a hurry to point out how incompetent the 40K rules team are, they've not paid very much attention to detail, which is kinda ironic.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

Lolwut? I don't give a about ITC and their house rules (other than the obvious change that ruins block LOS), and I'm fine with games below 2000 points. But above 2000-2500 points the sheer number of models on the table (and dice to roll, buffs to keep track of, etc) turns the game into a miserable slog that's made even worse by GW clinging to the idiotic IGOUGO mechanic. And I genuinely have no idea why this is a controversial opinion.

On the igougo part i agree.

usually preer rule of 3 but exceptions can be made. if we are doign somethign narrative like airbase run where my orks need to down planes or they take flight turn 3 and start shooting turn 4 then not only woudl my opponent get to have 6 say valkries, but also they would prooably not be payign the points.

alternatively if the tabels are turned and I am runnign a mek shop and the ultramarines are trying to tear down my mek shop to stop vehicles being built there then I will probably be running pure buggies and dreds/kans as that is what the mek was workign on at the time.

I'm usually in the camp of rule of cool and exceptions can be made. And I suppose there might be one here too.

But in a vacuum? No. Stick with the rule of 3. My main reasoning is that exceptions lead to other exceptions. In certain things this is ok. But more than 3 non troop/DT is spam. More spam is not really needed or healthy for the game IMO.

There are a fair number of folks who like mono-faction armies for fluff reasons. Sometimes single factions don't have enough HQ choices to field enough detachments to get CP, especially since GW jigged the CP structure so that playing without battalions or brigades is non-starter.

A brigade + rule of three breaks the mono- faction option for any army with a single HQ choice.

Most armies do have more than 1 HQ, but there are some who only have a single generic HQ. This is more likely to be a problem in armies with distinct sub-factions; if you play sisters of battle, but don't want Ecclesiarchy models contaminating the saintly faith of your holy sisterhood, the best you can do is 2 battalions or a brigade and a detachment that doesn't confer enough CP to meaningfully contribute to the army because you only have 4 HQ options. Same is true of Wyches and Haemonculi in Drukari armies, and the Kabalites have it even worse because their named character isn't really a kabalite- he's an Incubus, which makes him a mercenary.

Many of the posters in this thread are aware of the fallacy that is absolutism, and if they were playing against such an opponent they would gladly ignore the rule of 3. Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.

And finally, I don't think it's actually possible for anyone to say how how 'most people' play. I don't even think GW knows. I think it's actually unknowable- there's just no way to collect the data on such a diverse player base.

You can say you know how 'most people' in your local meta play, or how most people on dakka play, or how most people at the tournaments you have attended, watched on Warhammer TV or read about play.

But none of us, including GW themselves can claim to know how most people play. As a rhetorical strategy, I would suggest substitution of 'many' for 'most'. You can also use the "In my experience" disclaimer.

If you do this, you'll notice that a) more people are able to see your point or even agree with it b) those who don't agree with it will be less likely to respond with personal attacks based on a visceral, emotional reaction to absolutism and c) those with training in rhetoric, communication and education will feel less compelled to respond with paragraphs.

I'm sorry, but trash casuals and their trash PL aside, if you are such a jerk that you are willing to walk into a place with your 6 invictors, using power level only, and then cry about "optional", you are doing it to be a jerk. You get off on forcing everyone else to conform to your standards.

And please, enough with the hating on "those ITC" types. The game was designed for and by people who play it competitively. If you need to ditch the commonly accepted rules of the game, go play another game, because you obviously don't want to play this game.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry, but trash casuals and their trash PL aside, if you are such a jerk that you are willing to walk into a place with your 6 invictors, using power level only, and then cry about "optional", you are doing it to be a jerk. You get off on forcing everyone else to conform to your standards.

And please, enough with the hating on "those ITC" types. The game was designed for and by people who play it competitively. If you need to ditch the commonly accepted rules of the game, go play another game, because you obviously don't want to play this game.

Nice.
Rule 1 exists you know?

PenitentJake wrote:
Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.

What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?

I do, but I also expect people to understand it as well. See the YMDC thread on Daemon princes. You won’t see me roll up with 4+ DPs from the DP data sheet. You MIGHT see me roll up with Be’Lakor, Syll’Eske and three more DPs, being as those two are specific, unique data sheets.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You get off on forcing everyone else to conform to your standards.

Like all the people here who want to force others to conform to the tournament suggestions in casual play?

The game was designed for and by people who play it competitively.

LOL, no! GW guys are beer and pretzels fluffbunnies.

 Peregrine wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.

What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?

"He dude, i'd like to bring my old mech IG over for a match, you got time?"
"Sure.... WAIT A MINUTE YOU FILTHY EXPLOITING GAK THAT ARMY HAS ONLY VETERANS IN IT!"
"Yeah, it's from the last 3 editi...."
"fething REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

 Peregrine wrote:

What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?

No rules are being bend.

Well, this sure got toxic quickly.

Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.

Also, looking at the voting, I'd say most people (51%) prefer Ro3, but are willing to bend in certain instances. Another 27% only play Ro3 and will never bend on it (making Ro3 players compose 78% of the voters). At this point, we probably have an answer.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.

And that rule can even prevent you from taking different datasheets together as they represent different versions of the same character - Marneus Calgar and Njal Stormcaller spring to mind straightaway.

 Dysartes wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.

And that rule can even prevent you from taking different datasheets together as they represent different versions of the same character - Marneus Calgar and Njal Stormcaller spring to mind straightaway.

Njal is Spacewolves, I thought. How are you confusing him with Calgar? The rule is there to prevent to duplicate individuals. You can't have Old Calgar and New Calgar on the same list, because they are both Calgar, the individual.

I feel like I really misunderstood your point? Are you talking about Chapter Masters? Because even that isn't the same as the Rule of 1.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Actually there is a Rule of 1. You are not allowed to have two of the same characters.

And that rule can even prevent you from taking different datasheets together as they represent different versions of the same character - Marneus Calgar and Njal Stormcaller spring to mind straightaway.

Njal is Spacewolves, I thought. How are you confusing him with Calgar? The rule is there to prevent to duplicate individuals. You can't have Old Calgar and New Calgar on the same list, because they are both Calgar, the individual.

I feel like I really misunderstood your point? Are you talking about Chapter Masters? Because even that isn't the same as the Rule of 1.

Two different individuals, who both have multiple datasheets, only one of which you can use per character at a time. Tycho might be a third, but I'd have to check.

And, of course, any newly embiggened characters will qualify as well.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?

No rules are being bend.

Only by the incredibly weasely argument that RO3 is technically only a suggestion that is accepted by the majority of the community and not strict RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Others seem pretty adamant that taking exception to the rule of 3 can only mean that you're looking for exploits.

What else would you call "can we bend the rules so my army can have a better CP battery"?

"He dude, i'd like to bring my old mech IG over for a match, you got time?"
"Sure.... WAIT A MINUTE YOU FILTHY EXPLOITING GAK THAT ARMY HAS ONLY VETERANS IN IT!"
"Yeah, it's from the last 3 editi...."
"fething REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Since when did "mech IG" mean nothing but veterans? 3x veterans in Chimeras is ~450 points, add a couple of HQs and command squads for another ~2-300 points and now you're up to ~750 points for the core of your army. Add some LRBTs or artillery or infantry squads in Chimeras or storm troopers in Valkyries or whatever you want to fill up the rest of the points. You can easily make a fluffy 2000 point mechanized IG army within the RO3 limits. So yeah, of course it's totally unreasonable to expect someone to bring a legal army instead of mindlessly spamming veterans because they haven't bothered to update their collection in the past decade.

Alternatively, you'd better be willing to accept that my tanks can shoot without the -1 penalty if they move, my Tau can still JSJ, etc, because that's how it worked in past editions.

 Peregrine wrote:

Only by the incredibly weasely argument that RO3 is technically only a suggestion that is accepted by the majority of the community and not strict RAW.

Your attempts to bully others into playing by your houserules is distasteful. This really what bugs me most about this RO3 thing. I am perfectly willing to use the tournament suggestions if politely asked beforehand, but people here are utterly obnoxious about it. They expect others to just accept their modified way of playing the game and think that people who want to play by the actual rules are somehow the problem. The tournament suggestion pushers often go so far that they actually lie to the newbies about the rules.

Also, a poll on Dakka is not indicative of how people in general play. I'd wager that people who frequent on dedicated gaming sites (and Dakka especially which is pretty competitively minded) are far less casual than the playerbase on average.

So yeah, of course it's totally unreasonable to expect someone to bring a legal army instead of mindlessly spamming veterans because they haven't bothered to update their collection in the past decade.

Alternatively, you'd better be willing to accept that my tanks can shoot without the -1 penalty if they move, my Tau can still JSJ, etc, because that's how it worked in past editions.

Hyperbole aside that isn't even a good comparison.
One has to do with the basic rules of what a unit get's /is whilest the other literally destroyed the capacity to be run as an army coherently even though it was perfectly fine and acceptable for 10+ years.
Additionally again it would be hardly "gaming" the system for better cp considering that would be run entirely legal in vanguard detachments.

I answered no, mainly because my group doesnt play matched play games, we narrative with a few matched nits and bobs we like sprinkled in (yes, those of us that use power levels and narrative scenarios DO exist, heck, we`ve even used some of the environmental stuff they`ve put out, and i`ve Never encountered that on dakka).

Dont get me wrong, i'm not one of these "casual is better than tourney" types its just not the way we like to play round these parts.

 Crimson wrote:

Your attempts to bully others into playing by your houserules is distasteful. This really what bugs me most about this RO3 thing. I am perfectly willing to use the tournament suggestions if politely asked beforehand, but people here are utterly obnoxious about it. They expect others to just accept their modified way of playing the game and think that people who want to play by the actual rules are somehow the problem. The tournament suggestion pushers often go so far that they actually lie to the newbies about the rules.

Yes, how horrible of us, "bullying" people into using a good rule that has been suggested by GW and embraced by the majority of the community. Clearly we should allow every WAAC spam list anyone can think of because RO3 is just a suggestion, and how dare we limit the ability to spam a single unit as many times as possible. Every newbie needs to have the right to play their spam lists!

Also, a poll on Dakka is not indicative of how people in general play. I'd wager that people who frequent on dedicated gaming sites (and Dakka especially which is pretty competitively minded) are far less casual than the playerbase on average.

Well that's certainly a convenient excuse for why your opinion is losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Hyperbole aside that isn't even a good comparison.
One has to do with the basic rules of what a unit get's /is whilest the other literally destroyed the capacity to be run as an army coherently even though it was perfectly fine and acceptable for 10+ years.

Rules change, the fact that something worked a certain way for a while doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. Tau/Eldar and Necron/BA allies used to be legal, now they aren't. Should we allow everyone to mix Tau and Eldar because it wouldn't be fair to make their army illegal in a new edition? Do my veteran squads get to keep taking Hades drills because that's how it worked when I bought them back in 5th edition? At what point is a player expected to update their army to match the new edition? Or are you entitled to keep playing the same army forever just because it was legal at one point?

Additionally again it would be hardly "gaming" the system for better cp considering that would be run entirely legal in vanguard detachments.

That's why it is gaming the system. You can take that SoB army just fine using other detachments, all you lack is the ability to get more CP from using a particular arrangement of detachments.

That's why it is gaming the system. You can take that SoB army just fine using other detachments, all you lack is the ability to get more CP from using a particular arrangement of detachments.

Where the feth am I talking about Sisters.

Get a grip on yourself and propperly read the argument.

And for your Information, a good rule looks completely diffrent and I am far from the only one in this thread pointing that out.

I just wanna mention that if the vote was skewed because everyone is "competitively minded" the first option would be the majority. Instead, the middle option seems to be the most popular (I prefer it, but I can work without it).

Not Online!!! wrote:
Where the feth am I talking about Sisters.

The person who complained about CP was, and my "bending the rules to get a better CP battery" comment was a direct reply to that. Was there some other question about CP that I missed? Because your hypothetical veteran army had nothing to do with it.

 flandarz wrote:
I just wanna mention that if the vote was skewed because everyone is "competitively minded" the first option would be the majority. Instead, the middle option seems to be the most popular (I prefer it, but I can work without it).

I didn't say that 'everyone is competitive minded' merely that people who frequent these sort of sites, discuss tactics and armylists etc are bound to be less casual than the playerbase in general.

But yes, regardless of this, the middle option is overwhelmingly the most popular. It probably indeed is true that most people are not super adamant about this and are fine playing either way as long as the matter politely discussed.

 Crimson wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I just wanna mention that if the vote was skewed because everyone is "competitively minded" the first option would be the majority. Instead, the middle option seems to be the most popular (I prefer it, but I can work without it).

I didn't say that 'everyone is competitive minded' merely that people who frequent these sort of sites, discuss tactics and armylists etc. are bound to be less casual than the playerbase in general.

But yes, regardless of this, the middle option is overwhelmingly the most popular. It probably indeed is true that most people are not super adamant about this and are fine playing either way as long as the matter politely discussed.

"I don't care" =/= "I expect RO3 to be followed but might grant an exception". The poll does not show apathy towards RO3, it shows that most people expect it to be followed as the standard but some people might consider granting an exception in certain cases if the other player justifies it sufficiently and the army looks fun. I would not at all take that as an endorsement of showing up with a non-RO3-legal army and expecting people to be happy to allow it.