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.

 small_gods wrote:

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!

Firstly 40pts.
They were never 30.

Secondly, there is no need for ro3 if the units would be balanced from the beginning.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Or how about just properly price the units?

Seems like that idea also is not very liked

 Dysartes wrote:

 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.

The only people claiming it to be mandatory are the ones who don't want to abide to it.

Nobody cares whether it is mandatory or not, they still expect you to follow it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Secondly, there is no need for ro3 if the units would be balanced from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Or how about just properly price the units?

Seems like that idea also is not very liked

That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.

That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.

Enlighten me then, I'll wait.

Or could it be that you can't?

Not Online!!! wrote:
I belive enough exemples have been given to the contrary.

Actually, no there haven't. He have 7th edition spam lists from players who refuse to do minimal adaptations to their lists (why would I want to play such a person?), and people who have some oddball fluff/FW list that three out of four players would allow anyways if asked before.

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

Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.

Enlighten me then, I'll wait.

Or could it be that you can't?

You and Crimson have ignored the arguments before, I will not waste my time on that again. Just search for one of my old posts where I bothered to explain. Some should even have links to the relevant articles from game designers of successful games which have also implemented very similar restrictions.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I belive enough exemples have been given to the contrary.

Actually, no there haven't. He have 7th edition spam lists from players who refuse to do minimal adaptations to their lists (why would I want to play such a person?), and people who have some oddball fluff/FW list that three out of four players would allow anyways if asked before.

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

Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.

If you are quoteing atleast do so propperly.

 Mmmpi wrote:

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.

I'm not one of them. I do just fine locally even if I'm leaning a little too heavily on Aggressor tricks with UMs at the moment, right up until I run into one of a handful of lists that I flat out do not have answers to: Knights, Russ spam, and one really tough Death Guard list (and I don't know about that one, I haven't fielded against it since I figured out how to make Aggressors work). And even then, I'm not really sure Marines don't have the answer. I'm just sure I haven't found it yet.

Everything else I can at least make sweat.

You and Crimson have ignored the arguments before, I will not waste my time on that again. Just search for one of my old posts where I bothered to explain. Some should even have links to the relevant articles from game designers of successful games which have also implemented very similar restrictions.

Atleast in this thread you did not provide anything in that way or form, but then again you'd rather state that everyone else argues dishonest, btw, for gaks and giggles i went through all 8 pages of this thread.

 Jidmah wrote:

Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.

Perhaps. And that's why it is... wait for it: a tournament suggestion!

That idea has objectively been proven wrong multiple times. At this point, repeating it is just dishonest argumentation.

No it hasn't. GW adjusts unit prices annually, sometimes more often than that. There is no reason they cannot address problem units this way. And if your argument is that Ro3 mitigates skew lists, that is hardly true. It is just changes who the winners and losers are. Under Ro3 the armies with large selection of nominally different datasheets or squadronable units are the winners, and can still build skew lists, while armies with limited unit selection can't. Whilst skew lists are non fun, allowing everyone to do it is in fact more balanced than allowing only some armies to do it.

The Newman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

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.

I'm not one of them. I do just fine locally even if I'm leaning a little too heavily on Aggressor tricks with UMs at the moment, right up until I run into one of a handful of lists that I flat out do not have answers to: Knights, Russ spam, and one really tough Death Guard list (and I don't know about that one, I haven't fielded against it since I figured out how to make Aggressors work). And even then, I'm not really sure Marines don't have the answer. I'm just sure I haven't found it yet.

Everything else I can at least make sweat.

Are you not one of them? And I know that how? Besides, the general view is that a all russ list is reletively easy to stop, just by tying them up.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Which has also been discussed to death and there is no advantage of having your tournaments ruined until the next big FAQ/chapter approved over just not allowing spam.

Perhaps. And that's why it is... wait for it: a tournament suggestion!

A 'tournament solution used by most of the people who play casually.

I can throw down some quick maths for ya.

A Shokk Attack Gun Mek costs around 80 pts. It has BS 5+, D6 shots, 2d6 Strength, AP -5, and D6 Damage. It also has a 1 in 6 chance to deal D3 Mortal Wounds per hit, and has Character Protection. Pretty fair for the pricetag, considering it will be throwing out somewhere around 2 damage a turn (on average) against it's preferred targets.

If you take 3 of them, you not only improve the average damage per turn (6), but you improve your chances of getting MWs from about once per game to once every other turn. A significant improvement, but still not too bad.

If you take 12 of them (for less than 1k pts), you now have 24 average Wounds going out every turn, with 2 of the units dealing a D3 MWs as well (and a 1 in 9 chance to deal 6d3 Mortal Wounds).

So, we've gone from seeing some MWs about once a game or so, and dealing some fairly lackluster damage, to a force that can wipe practically any vehicle list it sees, for less than half the point total of an average list.

As stated before, repricing units doesn't help because some units are ONLY OP when spammed, and are otherwise appropriately priced for what they provide.

For me, it isn't that spam is always inherently unbalanced. I like Ro3 because it promotes variety. But, since I voted for option 2, I'm always willing to work with someone if they bring a "spam" list.

 flandarz wrote:
I can throw down some quick maths for ya.

A Shokk Attack Gun Mek costs around 80 pts. It has BS 5+, D6 shots, 2d6 Strength, AP -4, and D6 Damage. It also has a 1 in 6 chance to deal D3 Mortal Wounds per hit, and has Character Protection. Pretty fair for the pricetag, considering it will be throwing out somewhere around 2 damage a turn (on average) against it's preferred targets.

If you take 3 of them, you not only improve the average damage per turn (6), but you improve your chances of getting MWs from about once per game to once every other turn. A significant improvement, but still not too bad.

If you take 12 of them (for less than 1k pts), you now have 24 average Wounds going out every turn, with a 2 of the units dealing a D3 MWs as well (and a 1 in 9 chance to deal 6d3 Mortal Wounds).

So, we've gone from seeing some MWs about once a game or so, and dealing some fairly lackluster damage, to a force that can wipe practically any vehicle list it sees, for less than half the point total of an average list.

As stated before, repricing units doesn't help because some units are ONLY OP when spammed, and are otherwise appropriately priced for what they provide.

For me, it isn't that spam is always inherently unbalanced. I like Ro3 because it promotes variety. But, since I voted for option 2, I'm always willing to work with someone if they bring a "spam" list.

This is exactly the point. 3 hive tyrants isn't inherently bad because you can deal with one or two before they get into anything meaty, but 8 means you'll still have 5 or more to deal with turn 2. Same with culexus assassins, fw hellhounds and lots of other stuff mentioned.

I think they should take it further to avoid loopholes like squadrons. More than half of your points can't be spent on one datasheet. It'd also stop boring lists like triple castellan before nerf.

I would allow case-by-case exceptions to the Rule of 3, mainly because my own army (Drukhari) could really do with an exception.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but currently, the Rule of 3 is making it really hard for Drukhari to field two Kabalite battalions. You need 4 HQ's, yet there is only one Kabalite HQ choice, the Archon. Using an HQ from another subfaction, such as a [wych cult] or [haemonculus coven] HQ, makes your ENTIRE detachment lose its Obsessions. Pretty much the only way to run two Kabalite battalions while abiding by the Rule of 3 is to include Drazhar, a non-subfaction HQ who is rather overpriced for what he does.

So I would very much like to run 4 Archons, but just for force organization purposes and not for spamming. Archons are pricey anyway, and widely considered as little more than a "tax".

Another solution in my case might be to ask my opponent to make it a 2,001-point game, which brings the unit cap up to 4.

But really, I would rather GW gave Drukhari another Kabal-compatible HQ option. Like, say, a Dracon (sub-Archon), or an Archon with wings, or a non-subfaction character such as a "super-Scourge".

.

 Crimson wrote:

No it hasn't. GW adjusts unit prices annually, sometimes more often than that. There is no reason they cannot address problem units this way. And if your argument is that Ro3 mitigates skew lists, that is hardly true. It is just changes who the winners and losers are. Under Ro3 the armies with large selection of nominally different datasheets or squadronable units are the winners, and can still build skew lists, while armies with limited unit selection can't. Whilst skew lists are non fun, allowing everyone to do it is in fact more balanced than allowing only some armies to do it.

Indeed, and beyond this, GW designs entire factions as skew lists as their entire fundamental schtick, that's how we get Knights & Custodes, Green Tide and allowances for Guard tank companies. Given the extensive effort GW goes to in order to facilitate skew lists and the number we see, it's hard to see where the Rule of 3 does much in that particular regard, at best it just shapes what they look like.

Ro3 makes it so you can't run an entire army of nothing but Tank Commanders, but it doesn't prevent one from running an entire army of Russ tanks that GW otherwise went out of their way to make possible. Ro3 puts the brakes on spamming a single undercosted unit, but doesn't really do squat about skew lists.

I don't think anyone has argued that it's a perfect solution, or that it doesn't have flaws. Those who support it have pretty much all said: "It's better than nothing". Which is a fair opinion to have, considering the top armies of the past. I think GW could do a lot more to improve the balance and fun of the game, but like the others I see merit in playing by Ro3 as opposed to not. Doesn't mean I won't make exceptions (or take exception of someone is running skew while avoiding Ro3), but, generally, I'll expect to be using it.

Yes, unless otherwise agreed beforehand.

I will always agree otherwise, however. I have more models than I can field of certain units otherwise, units I love and would love to run whole battlefields of.

-Guardsman- wrote:
I would allow case-by-case exceptions to the Rule of 3, mainly because my own army (Drukhari) could really do with an exception.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but currently, the Rule of 3 is making it really hard for Drukhari to field two Kabalite battalions. You need 4 HQ's, yet there is only one Kabalite HQ choice, the Archon. Using an HQ from another subfaction, such as a [wych cult] or [haemonculus coven] HQ, makes your ENTIRE detachment lose its Obsessions. Pretty much the only way to run two Kabalite battalions while abiding by the Rule of 3 is to include Drazhar, a non-subfaction HQ who is rather overpriced for what he does.

So I would very much like to run 4 Archons, but just for force organization purposes and not for spamming. Archons are pricey anyway, and widely considered as little more than a "tax".

Another solution in my case might be to ask my opponent to make it a 2,001-point game, which brings the unit cap up to 4.

But really, I would rather GW gave Drukhari another Kabal-compatible HQ option. Like, say, a Dracon (sub-Archon), or an Archon with wings, or a non-subfaction character such as a "super-Scourge".

.

So what you're saying is that your army is perfectly legal, it's just better at winning games if you don't have to take an HQ that is less ideal at winning games or take a single brigade instead of two battalions. This just demonstrates my point that the majority of the time it isn't that the poor narrative-focused player is unable to take a thematic army, it's that they're perfectly capable of taking a thematic army if theme is the primary goal but they want to ignore the RO3 so their army can be better at winning games.

To be fair GW could through a number of factions a bone and either expand their HW sections to have more variety. I know if I played dark eldar I wouldn't want to spam 3 or 4 archons since that isn't fluffy but if I want to play a pure Kabalite force, what choice do I have. I only have one HQ to fill out my slots.

Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

 Crimson wrote:
Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

Ynnari?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

Ynnari?

That is a bit of a special case.

 Crimson wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

Ynnari?

That is a bit of a special case.

Same issue though :

In my gaming community I fully expect my opponent on Saturday afternoon to follow the Rule of 3. Its the standard without prior arrangements (like a Narrative game or campaign). While some armies/lists are hurt by it and others have loopholes, its better than what we had without it. Nobody has ever asked for an exception to the Rule of 3 outside of that, but I suppose I would carry on and play in certain cases. If it was a brand new player who somehow worked five Whirlwinds into his first list then I would play and then gently tell him about the Rule of 3 and how pick-up games in my community are done under tournament conditions barring other arrangements.

 Crimson wrote:
Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

But you aren't. You can take a single brigade (3 HQ choices, no special character required) instead of two battalions and the army will be perfectly functional. What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

But you aren't. You can take a single brigade (3 HQ choices, no special character required) instead of two battalions and the army will be perfectly functional. What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.

To be fair the 1 to 5CP for battalions is too much of a jump, it should have stayed 1 to 3 to 9 and battleforged CP should have been increased. That would have made people feel less forced into multiple battalion army lists.
But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that your army is perfectly legal, it's just better at winning games if you don't have to take an HQ that is less ideal at winning games or take a single brigade instead of two battalions. This just demonstrates my point that the majority of the time it isn't that the poor narrative-focused player is unable to take a thematic army, it's that they're perfectly capable of taking a thematic army if theme is the primary goal but they want to ignore the RO3 so their army can be better at winning games.

You're being unfair. Other armies, like Space Marines and Craftworlds, have a crapload of HQ datasheets to choose from, including minor variations on wargear such as "captain in terminator armor" and "farseer on a jetbike". If they need to abide by the RO3, they may indeed have to take an HQ that is, in your words, "less ideal at winning games". But the thing is, they have many such options, not just one.

It's not the RO3 itself that's the problem, but the way it conflicts with both the Drukhari's lack of different HQ datasheets and their faction's fragmentation into non-compatible subfactions. It's not "so my army can be better at winning games"; it's so I can field a legal and competitive army at all without being forced to take a special character who might clash with my army's fluff, theme or tactics; something that other factions have no trouble doing.

I don't want the RO3 to go away. I'm not even asking for a new model. All I want is

One.

More.

HQ.

Datasheet.

 Peregrine wrote:
What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.

What makes, say, Craftworlds good at "maximizing their CP generation and winning games" is purely the fact that they get more support from GW. That's it. The Drukhari problem is not a flaw inherent to the way their army was designed (such as very elite armies like Custodes finding it hard to field more than one battalion in 2000 pts), but purely a "meta" problem that is exacerbated by an in-game rule.

The in-game rule can stay. Just fix the meta problem.

Like I said: one more datasheet in the next Chapter Approved. That's it.

Ice_can wrote:
But your correct in that the issue isn't so much people not being able to play by it is that the CP system says you must play double battalion or get good.

Agreed, that's a problem too.

.

-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't want the RO3 to go away. I'm not even asking for a new model. All I want is

One.

More.

HQ.

Datasheet.

Is it just the Kabal branch of DE that's missing a second generic HQ character, or is it true for all three branches?

And would I be right in thinking you'd be after a Lt./Junior Officer sort of HQ, which could be represented with the same kit as the top tier version, so no new release required?

All three only have one HQ type and then one special character that works for army building purposes to give them a fourth unique choice. This is obviously very limiting in larger games if you wanted to run a pure army of one of the three branches.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Being forced to always take that one same special character to make your army functional is super lame.

But you aren't. You can take a single brigade (3 HQ choices, no special character required) instead of two battalions and the army will be perfectly functional. What you're actually saying is that it's lame that you can't maximize your CP generation in a particular way without that special character and your list wouldn't be as good at winning games.

Quelle horreur! People want their armies to be able to even somewehat fairly compete, at least in the casual setting. Double battalion at 2000 points is hardly getting into WAAC territory.

And of course you as well are arguing in favour of a format which gives your preferred army a better chance of winning. The Guard is one of the armies which is least affected competitively by Ro3, thus having that limitation in place makes your army relatively better.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
All three only have one HQ type and then one special character that works for army building purposes to give them a fourth unique choice. This is obviously very limiting in larger games if you wanted to run a pure army of one of the three branches.

But if you didn't have to force yourself into double battalions would it be such an issue? If it was 5 CP battle forged 3Cp for a battalion and 1 per special detachment would you still have such and issue with the limitations on multiples?

I'm interested as I really do wonder if GW has actually understood just what their CP system changes force people to play now?

The above is why I'd rather them either do something like kill team where you get so many Cp a turn or just peg it to point level.

Basing it entirely on how many cheap troops / HQ options a faction can spam creates a real disparity between various factions and give the game wonky balance issues.