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.
2019/08/25 18:58:10
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Ice_can wrote: 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.
Sure, I will agree that the CP system is a broken mess (and should be removed from the game entirely IMO), but that's not the point. The point is that people claim that they need exceptions to the RO3 or that the RO3 is a bad rule because it prevents them from playing thematic armies, often while claiming that the RO3 advocates are WAAC ITC fanboys trying to bully everyone into playing nothing but ITC. But in reality virtually all of these complaints fall into one of two categories:
1) There's nothing preventing them from using that theme and building a RO3-legal list, but the list wouldn't be as powerful as they want and they demand an exception to the RO3 so they can have a better chance of winning. It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
or
2) The general theme is perfectly viable, but they insist on using a single specific army list with no possible modifications allowed. Trade a veteran squad for an infantry squad to make the army RO3-legal? Unacceptable, it is absolute law that every army from their headcanon regiment has exactly four veteran squads at all times and asking them to take anything else is like demanding that a space marine player sell their army and buy orks. Who cares if this matches the fluff published by GW, their special snowflake is sacred and everything else about the game must adapt to make room for it.
Neither case deserves any sympathy whatsoever, and neither justifies the hysterical complaints that "RO3 makes it impossible to play my army".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2019/08/25 19:02:08
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Ice_can wrote: 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.
Sure, I will agree that the CP system is a broken mess (and should be removed from the game entirely IMO), but that's not the point. The point is that people claim that they need exceptions to the RO3 or that the RO3 is a bad rule because it prevents them from playing thematic armies, often while claiming that the RO3 advocates are WAAC ITC fanboys trying to bully everyone into playing nothing but ITC. But in reality virtually all of these complaints fall into one of two categories:
1) There's nothing preventing them from using that theme and building a RO3-legal list, but the list wouldn't be as powerful as they want and they demand an exception to the RO3 so they can have a better chance of winning. It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
or
2) The general theme is perfectly viable, but they insist on using a single specific army list with no possible modifications allowed. Trade a veteran squad for an infantry squad to make the army RO3-legal? Unacceptable, it is absolute law that every army from their headcanon regiment has exactly four veteran squads at all times and asking them to take anything else is like demanding that a space marine player sell their army and buy orks. Who cares if this matches the fluff published by GW, their special snowflake is sacred and everything else about the game must adapt to make room for it.
Neither case deserves any sympathy whatsoever, and neither justifies the hysterical complaints that "RO3 makes it impossible to play my army".
And completely ignoring that not everyone has models that he just can switch out?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/25 19:04:36
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Not Online!!! wrote: And completely ignoring that not everyone has models that he just can switch out?
If you have exactly the models to play a 2000 point game by ignoring RO3 and no other models at all, an incredibly unlikely situation given the fact that most newbies end up with a random mix of stuff and it's veteran players who have enough copies of the same unit to spam it 4+ times, you can play a 1500 point game following the RO3.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/25 19:05:16
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2019/08/25 19:10:38
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Ice_can wrote: 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.
Sure, I will agree that the CP system is a broken mess (and should be removed from the game entirely IMO), but that's not the point. The point is that people claim that they need exceptions to the RO3 or that the RO3 is a bad rule because it prevents them from playing thematic armies, often while claiming that the RO3 advocates are WAAC ITC fanboys trying to bully everyone into playing nothing but ITC. But in reality virtually all of these complaints fall into one of two categories:
1) There's nothing preventing them from using that theme and building a RO3-legal list, but the list wouldn't be as powerful as they want and they demand an exception to the RO3 so they can have a better chance of winning. It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
or
2) The general theme is perfectly viable, but they insist on using a single specific army list with no possible modifications allowed. Trade a veteran squad for an infantry squad to make the army RO3-legal? Unacceptable, it is absolute law that every army from their headcanon regiment has exactly four veteran squads at all times and asking them to take anything else is like demanding that a space marine player sell their army and buy orks. Who cares if this matches the fluff published by GW, their special snowflake is sacred and everything else about the game must adapt to make room for it.
Neither case deserves any sympathy whatsoever, and neither justifies the hysterical complaints that "RO3 makes it impossible to play my army".
See now your jumping the shark.
Your jumping from it's a problem because of CP being generated in a busted manor vrs it actually being a RO3 problem.
To removing CP which only helps Guard.
And saying just bring another unit. We don't all have interchangeable models between troops and other slots.
While it's not the game breaking issue some claim, I do think your being too dismissive about people complaints that it bars them form fielding a "competitive list" ie having enough acess to CP and hence strategums to have a balanced game.
2019/08/25 20:57:37
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2019/08/25 23:46:45
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
I've seen a lot of people say they hate the rule and it's unfair and they can't play X fluffy list thats not a power list which is 90% of the time not true they can play it just in a super sub optimal way like 3 10 dude units instead of 6 5 man units.
Or I can't play pure fast attack army, you can most of the time it's just super trash because its maximum CP is 6 while taking a single battalion would jump that to 10 and double battalions take you to 14.
Most of the time it's not that they can't actually legally play the model's it's just a really bad army.
Also while I wouldn't want to play it if it's truly an issue narrative and open play is a thing, maybe extremely fringe but some people do play it.
2019/08/26 00:06:56
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
All Factions have good builds and bad builds, Rule of 3 or no. I'm sure there's plenty of folks out there who would LOVE to field a Stompa Mob, or Tau Allies, or any kind of GK list. Removing Ro3 helps a few, niche armies out, sure, but it doesn't fix the inherent balance issues with the game that GW can't seem to figure out a solution for. So, really that rule isn't the problem at all. If you really care about people fielding the armies they want to field, we (as a community) should either learn to accommodate the other players, or (alternatively) pressure GW in some way to fix the actual issues with the game.
2019/08/26 00:57:07
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Most of the time it's not that they can't actually legally play the model's it's just a really bad army.
Yes. Sometimes it indeed is that. People want to just play the sort of army they like and it not to be utterly crap. Completely understandable.
Also while I wouldn't want to play it if it's truly an issue narrative and open play is a thing, maybe extremely fringe but some people do play it.
Yes. And playing by the normal matched play rules is also a thing. You know, the ones which do not include the tournament suggestions.
You remove the expectation of that rule from pick up games and someone will bring back the 9DP list and etc.
If you want to bring a sub optimal narative army just tell people so they can play down to it do not bring it along to a pick up game, much like don't bring the latest tournament winning net list.
You can complain about people refusing game that arn't compliant with the rule of 3 when people stop saying it's ok to blanket reject a game against any list with FW or knights etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 00:58:06
2019/08/26 02:44:58
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Ice_can wrote: Your jumping from it's a problem because of CP being generated in a busted manor vrs it actually being a RO3 problem.
Uh, no. In fact I specifically said that CP being broken (and a bad mechanic) is unrelated to the argument I'm making. I simply agreed with you that yes, the CP system is broken so that you wouldn't think that I'm defending it.
To removing CP which only helps Guard.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
And saying just bring another unit. We don't all have interchangeable models between troops and other slots.
So interchange troops and elites, or fast attack and heavy support, or whatever you want. I sincerely doubt there are many people who have only the exact models required to make a single non-RO3-legal list and nothing else. Newbies don't go out and buy 4+ copies of a single unit, and veterans have extra models in their collections. And, as I said, you can always play at a lower point level.
While it's not the game breaking issue some claim, I do think your being too dismissive about people complaints that it bars them form fielding a "competitive list" ie having enough acess to CP and hence strategums to have a balanced game.
IOW, "I want my army to be better at winning games, can we change the rules so it wins more". If that's the issue then at least admit it and stop hiding behind this idea that the RO3 makes it impossible to play thematic lists.
Peregrine wrote: It's blatantly about choosing the basic structure of the game to give themselves an advantage, textbook WAAC behavior.
Just like you are doing.
Hardly. I play IG, it would be great for my chances of winning if I could spam an unlimited number of mortar HWS, tank commanders, etc. RO3 is good for the game as a whole and I want it to be enforced no matter whose list it helps. Contrast this with many of the RO3 opponents who openly admit that they want to get rid of it because it would make their army more powerful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 02:46:42
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2019/08/26 07:04:20
Subject: Re:Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 08:00:19
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Well hopefully they keep adding in things to incentive mono army builds, straighten out this CP mess and mabe then it'll feel a bit better. I'd love for soup to be more of a rarely seen novelty than the coin of the realm.
2019/08/26 08:03:38
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
AngryAngel80 wrote: Well hopefully they keep adding in things to incentive mono army builds, straighten out this CP mess and mabe then it'll feel a bit better. I'd love for soup to be more of a rarely seen novelty than the coin of the realm.
Hardly, considering the bottom line of GW.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 08:07:13
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Well, I think the Doctrines are the Dekurions of 8th. Every codex that gets made from now on will have a similar rule, except CSM because they were the first codex to get a 8.1 version.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2019/08/26 08:08:23
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Jidmah wrote: Well, I think the Doctrines are the Dekurions of 8th. Every codex that gets made from now on will have a similar rule, except CSM because they were the first codex to get a 8.1 version.
And consequently can go feth themselves, because coordination within the rules writers is for the weak, as is sanity
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 08:35:30
Subject: Re:Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
2019/08/26 08:37:51
Subject: Re:Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one. The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
No, the stratagems , even compared to the underwhelming ones in the CSM dex (nt cacophony or Votwl,) are just bad. Add to that that Guard literally drowns in CP and well, you get the picture why everyone in the IoM likes guardsmen suddenly whilest guardsmen themselves wonder about their leaders capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW , if we 'd remove stratagems and CP, then a lot of the issues with allies would drop, aswell as alot of units could finally be priced propperly and not in their best case scenario.
Which would help certain subfactions a lot. I mean A LOT.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 09:06:34
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 09:00:57
Subject: Re:Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
No, the stratagems , even compared to the underwhelming ones in the CSM dex (nt cacophony or Votwl,) are just bad.
Add to that that Guard literally drowns in CP and well, you get the picture why everyone in the IoM likes guardsmen suddenly whilest guardsmen themselves wonder about their leaders capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW , if we 'd remove stratagems and CP, then a lot of the issues with allies would drop, aswell as alot of units could finally be priced propperly and not in their best case scenario.
Which would help certain subfactions alot.
I mean ALOT.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2019/08/26 09:03:45
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
At the end of the day, GW propose the organised play rules to improve fairness, so it's no surprise that people expect to use them in all matched play games by default.
Brother Castor wrote: At the end of the day, GW propose the organised play rules to improve fairness, so it's no surprise that people expect to use them in all matched play games by default.
Where is that stated? To improve fairness, that bit.
Lolwut. IG are supposedly broken because of how easy it is to farm CP, but IG would also be broken if CP didn't exist? Make up your mind.
Considering in the general quality of IG stratagems i am with Peregrine on that one.
The real issue is imo that you still can happily add allies without draw back, except marines.
Think you got that backwards as their strategums are so terrible removing CP and hence strategums woild affect them far less than other factions.
No, the stratagems , even compared to the underwhelming ones in the CSM dex (nt cacophony or Votwl,) are just bad.
Add to that that Guard literally drowns in CP and well, you get the picture why everyone in the IoM likes guardsmen suddenly whilest guardsmen themselves wonder about their leaders capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW , if we 'd remove stratagems and CP, then a lot of the issues with allies would drop, aswell as alot of units could finally be priced propperly and not in their best case scenario.
Which would help certain subfactions alot.
I mean ALOT.
No, you mean "a lot".
There, happy mister Grammer Gestapo?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 09:06:57
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 09:13:14
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Brother Castor wrote: At the end of the day, GW propose the organised play rules to improve fairness, so it's no surprise that people expect to use them in all matched play games by default.
Where is that stated? To improve fairness, that bit.
Their exact statement was that they create "more dynamic and enjoyable games for everyone", so of course people are going to want that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 09:13:45
Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 10:18:29
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
Because as we've stated over and over, it was in response to spam lists dominating tournaments. I know it's sefondary to points for some armies like R&H but for the vast majority of other armies it was not fun to play against 18 culexus, 8 hive tyrants, 10 malefic lords or 20 fw hellhounds.
2019/08/26 11:18:38
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
The forged narrative goes like this: The first March Spring FAQ was postponed to not interfere with a major tournament right on the release day (IIRC it was adepticon). The developers were dragged out of their ivory tower to attend that tournament and see their rules in actions. According to spectators, the devs were shocked to see everyone spamming PBC, Tau commanders and hive tyrants, something they never had anticipated. This resulted in the FAQ getting postponed even further and then getting released some weeks late (with the usual rage everywhere) but with the current rule of 3.
And everybody lived grimdark ever after.
Before that there were multiple attempts to specifically target offending units, but GW is a slow giant who sucks at whack-a-mole.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 11:21:39
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2019/08/26 11:30:34
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
Because as we've stated over and over, it was in response to spam lists dominating tournaments. I know it's sefondary to points for some armies like R&H but for the vast majority of other armies it was not fun to play against 18 culexus, 8 hive tyrants, 10 malefic lords or 20 fw hellhounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fair enough , altough one wonders, they allready had that issue before, why not implement the rule propperly at the start of 8th?
The forged narrative goes like this: The first March Spring FAQ was postponed to not interfere with a major tournament right on the release day (IIRC it was adepticon). The developers were dragged out of their ivory tower to attend that tournament and see their rules in actions. According to spectators, the devs were shocked to see everyone spamming PBC, Tau commanders and hive tyrants, something they never had anticipated. This resulted in the FAQ getting postponed even further and then getting released some weeks late (with the usual rage everywhere) but with the current rule of 3.
And everybody lived grimdark ever after.
Before that there were multiple attempts to specifically target offending units, but GW is a slow giant who sucks at whack-a-mole.
Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 11:31:39
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/08/26 11:56:46
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Are you asking why GW is incompetent at balance and rules writing? That might be a question better directed at the development team. Their inability to see blatant problems isn't exactly new to this edition.
2019/08/26 12:05:59
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Not Online!!! wrote: Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
Game developers and designers are not the same thing. Designers come up with ideas, developers make them work. As far as I'm concerned, 8th edition is the first edition ever to show signs of game development.
They simply had no clue those kind of armies ever existed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 12:07:17
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2019/08/26 12:15:57
Subject: Do you expect your opponent to follow the rule of 3?
Not Online!!! wrote: Remind me, what did they do when they actually design the game when they had instances for multiple editions of one CSM army domination excactly like that :
2 Lash princes,9 obliterators and 2 5 man squads with plasma in rhinos.
Game developers and designers are not the same thing. Designers come up with ideas, developers make them work.
As far as I'm concerned, 8th edition is the first edition ever to show signs of game development.
They simply had no clue those kind of armies ever existed.
Or lack the basic capability to be developers and designers in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 12:18:22
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
[1,750] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
