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.

Honest question:

If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.

31. st Mechanized, formerly loyal, Khornate Mechanized Regiment, and only consisting of Veterans that are recruited out of inhabitants of a spacehulk. (Renegades and Heretics)



Disciples here are the offending unit, The army was based upon IA 13 which had Renegade Veterans as a Troop choice, (think of them as Melee orientated IG veterans with ws 3+ instead of Bs 3+). For R&H these Veterans cost 6ppm,gain nothing over regular Vets

Thematic enough?

Removed - BrookM

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question:

If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.

A lot of my lists were built up around formations last edition. My Tau basically can't work with Ro3, since I built them around maxxing out things like the Optimized Stealth Cadre or the Pathfinder+Broadside formations.
My Skitarii got screwed over, hard, since I used to regularly field 2 squadrons of 3 Onagers each--with a floater Onager sometimes with an Icarus Array fielded solo. Same thing goes for my Killclade.
That's not even taking into account that I can't field the army period without a TechPriest tax now which is just suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper( cause adding the Skitarii Primus that keep showing up in fluff is too difficult!).

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Removed - BrookM

Productive Post is Productive....

Rule of 3 was absolutely a good decision by GW. "Take whatever you want" needs to be confined to narrative and open play and should never be done in a game you want any semblance of balance. There needed to be some hard limits on army building and 3 detachments/3 per datasheet is good.

That being said, if my opponent asked to suspend the rule of 3 for a game for fun I would probably be ok with it if they're ok with me bringing something dumb like 5 tank commanders or 100 gun drones with 6 commanders.

Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

"Yes but no exception and if you game the system you deserve gulag? "

Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question:

If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.

A lot of my lists were built up around formations last edition. My Tau basically can't work with Ro3, since I built them around maxxing out things like the Optimized Stealth Cadre or the Pathfinder+Broadside formations.
My Skitarii got screwed over, hard, since I used to regularly field 2 squadrons of 3 Onagers each--with a floater Onager sometimes with an Icarus Array fielded solo. Same thing goes for my Killclade.
That's not even taking into account that I can't field the army period without a TechPriest tax now which is just suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper( cause adding the Skitarii Primus that keep showing up in fluff is too difficult!).

I think that was a big misconception on my part. A lot of people might have hangover from 7th, or still want to play the army they did in the last edition. That I can understand. That is actually a great argument. I want to play 7th style.

Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.

I do feel for armies that have very limited HQ options. I really wish the bigger formations didn't require such a high HQ tax when GW seems to assume every faction has an eldar or marine level of options.

Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.

Thank you for showing that you literally are uninformed.

The army is neither CSM nor IG, the name of the index list is "Renegades and Heretics" you find them ATM in the FW index for astra militarum, (for reasons i can not name to you, thank GW for that matter)

You might even have seen some of these models: Like these https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/6f6w4r/my_renegades_heretics_collection_going_into_8th/

Or thishttps://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/6r9x7l/the_first_painted_unit_of_my_renegades_and/

Or even ths insanity: https://www.google.com/search?q=renegades+and+heretics&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ8qPDg5nkAhXCpIsKHfkiBUcQsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=2560&bih=1326#imgrc=LugdwY_gzmxzpM:

But sure it isn't a legal army and i don't know it therefore it is ILEGAL!!!! (and was at no point ever produced by FW)

BTW: Since you also lack basic knowledge about the army: The army is considered so bad that even GK players have a field day against it.
But he, mister knows it all sure as gak has the correct assumption 95% time

Not Online!!! wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

"Yes but no exception and if you game the system you deserve gulag? "

Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?

What sensible person who cares about the health of the game isn't?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question:

If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.

My armies usually actually conform to all tournament all suggestions by accident, but sometimes I want to field an Imperial hodgepodge soup led by an Inquisitor. Then its not RO3 that's the issue, it's the detachment limit. Such an army can have easily have units from crazy number of factions. Inq, Ministorum, Assassins, IG, could have some Ad Mech, SoS, GK or Deatwatch too etc. The old Inquisition stuff being now scattered among at least three separate factions really complicates things.

The Newman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

"Yes but no exception and if you game the system you deserve gulag? "

Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?

What sensible person who cares about the health of the game isn't?

Now that is the other position that i would stand behind.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?

One tournament suggestion I wish actually existed is a maximum number of total CP you can ever have for each point level.

 Crimson wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Question, are you also opposed to cheap CP batteries and skew lists then?

One tournament suggestion I wish actually existed is a maximum number of total CP you can ever have for each point level.

Only works if stratagems would be equally powerfull.

At this point it's a broken record.

GW changing the Battalion and Brigade detachment CP's was the absolute worst thing they could have ever done.

 oni wrote:
At this point it's a broken record.

GW changing the Battalion and Brigade detachment CP's was the absolute worst thing they could have ever done.

It was a stupid choice and completely counter-productive to what their stated goal was. They wanted to give elite armies more CP... so they made cheap CP batteries even more valuable! Completely nonsensical. They should have just increased the basic battleforged CP.

 Crimson wrote:

 oni wrote:
At this point it's a broken record.

GW changing the Battalion and Brigade detachment CP's was the absolute worst thing they could have ever done.

It was a stupid choice and completely counter-productive to what their stated goal was. They wanted to give elite armies more CP... so they made cheap CP batteries even more valuable! Completely nonsensical. They should have just increased the basic battleforged CP.

Stuff like the RC trait would have worked better
Probably should have added as a special rule for marine like troop units.

By default yes, only because everyone already thinks it's a baseline rule.

If someone were to ask about it beforehand and we weren't playing a competitive game, then I'd probably be okay with it. But nobody asks because everyone thinks it's an actual rule.

The emotional investment in this particular rule and its application is curiously intense, particularly given the quite numerous and intended bypasses offered by GW through squadron rules and variant units (often as simple as a single weapon swap), methinks people are attaching a lot more value to this rule across the board than I think is really there. Detachment limits have an order of magnitude more relevance I think in limiting spam and enforcing balance, given the numerous ways to otherwise get around the Ro2/3/4 with many units that the game intentionally offers.

If you're willing to play against 9 Russ tanks in a 1500pt ame, but not 4 Helbrutes because of this rule in a non tournament setting, you're probably attaching far too much value to this rule as a meaningful balance mechanism and are probably more upset about percieved convention being broken.

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.

*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games"*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.

Funny part - I opened the spoiler tags in his post and saw Khorne Orgryns and immediately thought to my myself "Hell yeah, I'd play that." before checking anything else in that list.

 Jidmah wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.

*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games"*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Khornate Ogryns I am sorry, I do not understand that and it looks very odd. A IG/CSM blended army, that uses the best of each, there are so many hurdles here I can't begin to try and attempt at wondering how I would let that on the table. IG army that gets CSM buffs. Yeah I'll go ahead and not play against you.

Funny part - I opened the spoiler tags in his post and saw Khorne Orgryns and immediately thought to my myself "Hell yeah, I'd play that." before checking anything else in that list.

Irony, khorne ogryns are with marauders the only thing worth playing

 Jidmah wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.

*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.

When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.

The Newman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Where's the "Yes, no exceptions, and if he puts down something that's legal under Ro3 but still clearly violates it's spirit like a Guard Tank Division with nothing but LRs or 9 Deamon Princes I'll just pack my models back up" option?

I don't support arbitrary reasons to quit the game.

*adds "running a guard tank division to the list of reasons why dakkanauts walk away from games.

When you find a Marine list that doesn't get gutted turn one by 2000 points of LRs you let me know. I've played that match up more times than I care to admit looking for a solution before I gave up and started turning the games down.

it's like skewlists aren't particulary healthy for the game, isn't it

But the select few still possible are not an issue.
3 Hellbrutes in 1000 pts matches are BROKEN OP, 6 Leman russ are perfectly fine.

 Kanluwen wrote:
A lot of my lists were built up around formations last edition. My Tau basically can't work with Ro3, since I built them around maxxing out things like the Optimized Stealth Cadre or the Pathfinder+Broadside formations.

Zero sympathy for you.

Shadowsun = 167 points
3x6 stealth suits = 504 points
3x1 ghostkeel = 537 points

That's over 1200 points of stealth units without even touching anything else, plenty to have a nice fluffy stealth cadre as the core of your army. Can you honestly say that you really need to make a perfectly one-dimensional 2000 point army consisting of nothing but copies of those two units, and that this is enjoyable for your opponent? Or let's look at your gunline nonsense:

3x3 broadsides with HYMP/SMS = 1260
3x10 pathfinders = 240

That's 1500 points of just those two units, not even counting an HQ unit/drones/etc. Add a couple of token infantry squads and you easily have a 2000 point army built around that core.

So, that's two of your armies that work just fine with RO3. Why exactly do you need to get a special exception?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
3 Hellbrutes in 1000 pts matches are BROKEN OP, 6 Leman russ are perfectly fine.

LRBTs (and similar units) should not have squadrons in an edition where squadrons just give you multiple independent units per FOC slot with zero drawbacks. I am 100% fine with RO3 and removing squadrons.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question:

If you are on the side of it's optional, and you are choosing not to follow this "rule", then what lists are you running that would be considered in violation? I'm just wondering what lists people are coming up with. It would be interesting if someone was running an all Ogryn/Bullgryn army, or an all Sentinel army. Something themed. But if you are just running a 6 Telemon army, it paints a different picture.

The rule of 3 really hurts my Penitent Legion, which is made up of units in the Sisters of Battle dex that aren't sisters, plus the Repentia and their mistresses.

The bulk of the force is Arcos, Repentia and Penitent Engines, with enough priests and mistresses to saturate the field with auras. Other battle conclave units would appear, but would exceed 3 units each; it is after all the penitent legion!

Also, squadron rules DO let me take up to 9 Pennies, but they'd be better fielded as 9 units- way more flexible and survivable.

I find the detachment limit more annoying. If I could get the equivalent CP's, I'd almost never use Battalions and Brigades- they bore the crap outta me. I mean, a battalion IS just two patrol detachments put together, right? So why can't you field it that way an get the same CP. Character wise, it would reflect commander A' s preference for working with squads A & B and Commander B's preference for working with squad C. It's the exact same number and distribution of models and unit types, but the realistic, story based option gets you 0 cp, while the far less interesting, everybody in the same box option nets 5 cp. Ridiculous.

Similarly, who doesn't think that a patrol, a vanguard, a spearhead and an outrider working together is a more interesting story than a brigade?

I feel really sorry for the Drukari, whose interesting and unique command structure stopped being viable as soon as GW buffed battalions and brigades-they used to be able to match the CP yield of a battalion with four patrols and a brigade with eight, but now they can't match the brigade at all since the book doesn't increase CP yield at 12 patrols (even if it did, rule of 3 would prevent us from fielding 12 patrols, because Drazar isn't an Archon. (The lack of a named Archon is a HUGE issue for other reasons as well)

Luckily, I pretty much only play narrative campaigns with friends and family, and none of us really care about either of these restrictions. We always fight battleforged and we always use points, but we play 40k when we want to tell stories. When we want to compete, we play collectible card games, video games or classics like chess and backgammon. Blackstone Fortress is actually my favourite GW product at the moment because it's cooperative.

To be fair, even without squadrons however, with Ro2/3/4 you could still run 8/12/16 Russ tanks, thanks to Tank Commanders, Annihilators, and Conqueror's all being separate datasheets from the basic Heavy Support version, and they're far from the only unit where this applies.

The Ro2/3/4 is a ham-fisted post-facto duct tape fix layered on top of a system that's fundamentally and intentionally designed to allow people to bring whatever they want in whatever quantities they want and has devised a gazillion ways to make that happen.

If it were up to me, everything would still be running a 3E-5E style FoC, but given the way GW has built 8E, it's clear that the rule of 2/3/4 is an afterthought that they pay minimal attention to in their design space.

PenitentJake wrote:
Also, squadron rules DO let me take up to 9 Pennies, but they'd be better fielded as 9 units- way more flexible and survivable.

And here's what we so often come back to. It's not that the "fluffy" army is not legal, it's that removing the RO3 makes it more powerful and allows you to win more games. How exactly is it that people advocating RO3 as standard policy get labeled "WAAC ITC fanboy TFGs" while people openly saying "I want to change the rules to make my army more powerful" are not considered WAAC?

Similarly, who doesn't think that a patrol, a vanguard, a spearhead and an outrider working together is a more interesting story than a brigade?

The person who wants people to actually take a diverse mix of units and heavy use of their faction's basic troops, not a list of the most overpowered shiny toys they could find. 40k needs to go back to the 5th edition rules: one FOC, no allies at all, and only troops can score objectives.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, even without squadrons however, with Ro2/3/4 you could still run 8/12/16 Russ tanks, thanks to Tank Commanders, Annihilators, and Conqueror's all being separate datasheets from the basic Heavy Support version, and they're far from the only unit where this applies.

The Ro2/3/4 is a ham-fisted post-facto duct tape fix layered on top of a system that's fundamentally and intentionally designed to allow people to bring whatever they want in whatever quantities they want and has devised a gazillion ways to make that happen.

If it were up to me, everything would still be running a 3E-5E style FoC, but given the way GW has built 8E, it's clear that the rule of 2/3/4 is an afterthought that they pay minimal attention to in their design space.

I thought this got Errata'd, no? Now all Lehman Russ Variants, be they FW or not, count as one Data Sheet? The Tank Commander being an exception, as that is an entirely different unit.