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:

 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.

Nope, he means regular LRBT

2 Commanders and 6 in 2 Squadrons in 1000pts.
3 and 9 and ofcourse 4 and 12.

Still possible.

Again, Drukhari using their Raiding Force rules will routinely come out with more detachments than the Ro2/3/4 permits.

Catulle wrote:
Again, Drukhari using their Raiding Force rules will routinely come out with more detachments than the Ro2/3/4 permits.

Why is it that you can't take fewer and larger detachments/units instead of MSU CP farming?

 Peregrine wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Again, Drukhari using their Raiding Force rules will routinely come out with more detachments than the Ro2/3/4 permits.

Why is it that you can't take fewer and larger detachments/units instead of MSU CP farming?

Hillariously battalions are more efficient allready, so your complaint is allready void

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

I agree, but keep in mind that there are some true squadrons left, like blight haulers or kanz.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Again, Drukhari using their Raiding Force rules will routinely come out with more detachments than the Ro2/3/4 permits.

Why is it that you can't take fewer and larger detachments/units instead of MSU CP farming?

Hillariously battalions jare more efficient allready, so your complaint is allready void

Yep, it's a case in point *because* it's not CP efficiency anyone doing this would be chasing, but capturing the alliance of convenience flavour of the faction and, again, directly supported by their Codex rule set (but less so by the organised play advice we're centring this discussion on).

I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?

 Peregrine wrote:
I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?

Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?

ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.

I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...

Catulle wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?

Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?

ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.

I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...

Let it rest.
It's clear that some have not read really what the codex should simulate.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?

Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?

ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.

I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...

Let it rest.
It's clear that some have not read really what the codex should simulate.

I think it's quite apposite to the (poor) argument being advanced, though, isn't it? Which is, ultimately, that house rules trump core rules from the *weirdest* angle.

Catulle wrote:
What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity

What identity are you losing? You can take three patrol detachments and use your faction's special rule. As far as I can tell you're obsessing over one particular list that is so obscure that nobody can figure out what it is and calling your faction's identity while disregarding all of the other perfectly thematic lists that are legal.

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.

Find me a marine list that doesn't get gutted first turn by non-marines.

According to the "Marines suck" players, this is all marines lists.

While I'd be fine with them going back to a more unified FOC for most (not all) factions, getting rid of them entirely and/or ending the allies system can't/won't happen. We have way to many small/ complementary factions at this point that you would be erasing a lot of units/ factions if I can't ally them in.

 Peregrine wrote:

Catulle wrote:
What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity

What identity are you losing? You can take three patrol detachments and use your faction's special rule. As far as I can tell you're obsessing over one particular list that is so obscure that nobody can'' figure out what it is and calling your faction's identity while disregarding all of the other perfectly thematic lists that are legal.

It's literally expounded in the Codex... do try to keep up.

In an attempt to break whatever argument is going on...

Expect isn't the right word. I anticipate the that my opponent will follow the rule of three, so I prepare my lists to follow that rule. I'm more than happy to let my opponent not follow the rule; just so long as they grant me the same.

Catulle wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?

Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?

ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.

I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...

I'd like to point out that the detachment limit is NOT the rule of three. In fact, when I did a poll last year on all the optional rules, the detachment limit was the rule with the least acceptance of all. Many people aren't aware that it exists at all.

In my opinion the difference with Ro3 and the detachment limit is that the Rule of 3 actually fixes problems many people notice during their games (even if it does so with a sledgehammer and not a scalpel), while the detachment limit kind of does nothing outside reducing the CP by one in a few edge cases.

 Jidmah wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I still don't see what the problem is for DE. You can play your army just fine, so why do you need a RO3 exception?

Because it's explicity called out in the faction's core (Codex) rules and isn't game breaking (it's even a slight disadvantage to use it in pure CP terms, but I can see a niche use of multiple Obsessions getting weird). What's so vital in the organised play guidance that it should override a faction's core identity? Restricting spam seems like an odd hill to die on when one is calling out the imbalance of multiple *patrols* that it addresses (if I'm following)?

ETA: The Drukhari codex gives an example of a Raiding Force that works out to, by my calculations, 996 points. Great as a "sampler platter" for getting into the factionand seeing what you like best, but less so if the people down the games club won't play you due to your "WAAC" insistence on playing 3 detachments at 1000 points.

I'm just glad I found my niche right fast, I guess (Kabals and mercs, starting to experiment with Cults) so as to not have that experience...

I'd like to point out that the detachment limit is NOT the rule of three. In fact, when I did a poll last year on all the optional rules, the detachment limit was the rule with the least acceptance of all. Many people aren't aware that it exists at all.

In my opinion the difference with Ro3 and the detachment limit is that the Rule of 3 actually fixes problems many people notice during their games (even if it does so with a sledgehammer and not a scalpel), while the detachment limit kind of does nothing outside reducing the CP by one in a few edge cases.

Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.

The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.

I like playing mono-faction lists, so with my Chaos Knights I fall foul of the rule of 2 at 1000 points because I take 6 War Dogs to fill a super-heavy detachment with 3 vehicle squadrons. In my defence I'd say that not taking a TITANIC unit is better for my opponent at 1000 points, and I already get 0CP for the detachment because of it. 6 War Dogs are also perfectly allowable in 2 vehicle squadrons of course, but I want to enjoy the game too, so being battle forged and having access to stratagems (even if I only get 3CP total), warlord traits and relics is why I take 3. The exact same army would be allowed for an IK list too because Helverins and Warglaives are separate datasheets.

 Dysartes wrote:
Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.

The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.

Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.

Seems reasonable Castor.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.

The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.

Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.

I belive enough exemples have been given to the contrary.

The propper Management would've been a limit on certain units.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Detachment quantity and recommended table size are both part of the OPGo234 - as is the anticipated game length.

The fact people don't seem to be aware of this does support that a number of players are going by relayed information, not by having read the OPGo234 for themselves.

Or that that people don't actually care about the organized rules thing, but about playing more enjoyable games, to which Ro3 contributes a lot, while other organized play rules do a lot less so.

So cherry-picking part of a guideline, and claiming it is a mandatory rule seems reasonable to you?

Pull the other one - it's got bells on.

Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance. If a certain unit is badly balanced or some new detachment or combo becomes too powerful then only having 3 units in the army mitigates how unbalanced the game can get.

Like hive tyrants were or having 8 alaitoc hemlock wraith fighters. At least only having 3 is less than 600 points of your army list.

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance. If a certain unit is badly balanced or some new detachment or combo becomes too powerful then only having 3 units in the army mitigates how unbalanced the game can get.

Like hive tyrants were or having 8 alaitoc hemlock wraith fighters. At least only having 3 is less than 600 points of your army list.

I wouldn't say 'bad game balance' as such. I'd say it's a balance safety net for an inherently unbalancable game.

 Stux wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance. If a certain unit is badly balanced or some new detachment or combo becomes too powerful then only having 3 units in the army mitigates how unbalanced the game can get.

Like hive tyrants were or having 8 alaitoc hemlock wraith fighters. At least only having 3 is less than 600 points of your army list.

I wouldn't say 'bad game balance' as such. I'd say it's a balance safety net for an inherently unbalancable game.

Yeah that's probably a fairer way to describe it. It's as balanced as is can be (apart from newer models generally being 10% too cheap).

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.

Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.

 p5freak wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.

Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.

Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.

Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.

Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.

Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!

 small_gods wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.

Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.

Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.

Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!

Ok, let's see, Malefics = issue. IG psykers are not?
Secondly, Malefics are now 80 pts. Double what they were and are worth compared to their IG counterpart.
Yet nobody deems it necessary to finally admit that the balancing is hillariously loopsided between the haves and have nots or have not anymores then i don't know what is.

And preciscely showing how the Rule of three still does not curb problem units.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Rule of 3 is just a way of mitigating bad game balance.

Except its not mitigating anything. Its not even close.

Ha as if anyoe would care, the real problem units still are at their cheap cost. And still are a problem.

Oh I totally understand that cheap malefic lords were and sub 200 point hemlocks are the problem. But imagine having as many as you can fit in a list?!

Ok, let's see, Malefics = issue. IG psykers are not?
Secondly, Malefics are now 80 pts. Double what they were and are worth compared to their IG counterpart.
Yet nobody deems it necessary to finally admit that the balancing is hillariously loopsided between the haves and have nots or have not anymores then i don't know what is.

And preciscely showing how the Rule of three still does not curb problem units.

So there wasn't a time when 30 point malefic lords were a problem to play against?? When top tables had 10-15 of them? Because that's exactly what I remeber.

I'm not saying it's either/or. You seem to be saying everytime I say rule of 3 is good for balance that I think everything else in the game is perfectly balanced. Which is not what I've said at any point....

Yes there are plenty of units and in some cases armies (r and h, grey knights etc) that are overcosted. But rule of 3 stops a 7 riptide lists being a thing and that is obviously good!

Or how about just properly price the units?