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.

Was watching a game today and this came up....

Guy was playing Guard, and he started to put down 3 units of mortars ( 9 teams total, 3 units of 3 teams).

His opponent tells him a new ruling on the rule of 3 means he can only have 3 teams of mortars, not 3 units.

The guy goes oh, and they agree to mark 1 unit as heavy bolters and the other as autocannons.

Where is this change?

Opponent was wrong. It’s 3 units, not models. 3 units of 3 is just fine.

(Link to img isn’t working. Here’s a website that shows the rule. It’s printed right in the rule book I believe)

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/04/40k-faq-the-rule-of-three.html

Your opponents version doesn't exist. Its 3 units of the same datasheet. I think there's been some clarification that 3 sorcerers are 3 sorcerers regardless of which datasheet they come from, something like that. 9 mortars... while not fun, perfectly legal.

For the 1000th time, there is no rule of 3. Yes, its in the rules, but its a suggestion for organized play, which means you dont have to follow it, its not an actual rule.

ORGANISED EVENTS
If you are using matched play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below.

You can still use the same datasheet as many times as you want.

And for the 1000th time in return, an optional rule is STILL a rule if you're using it in your game, which the default for most pick up games is to follow the rule of 3.

Please,just stop it.

A suggested rule for organized play, such as a tournament, is not a default for most pick up games at home, or at a game store. That would be a house rule.

 p5freak wrote:
A suggested rule for organized play, such as a tournament, is not a default for most pick up games at home, or at a game store. That would be a house rule.

Incorrect. It's not just about what's on the page, it's about what people actually do.

Look, it's fine to mention that it's a technically a suggestion. But going off on one every time someone calls it a rule just comes across as childish. People call it the rule of 3, and it has become the default for games in stores. Accept that, or just stop bringing it up where it doesnt belong.

 Stux wrote:

Incorrect. It's not just about what's on the page, it's about what people actually do.

If people do it differently, its a house rule, which is fine.

 Stux wrote:

Look, it's fine to mention that it's a technically a suggestion. But going off on one every time someone calls it a rule just comes across as childish. People call it the rule of 3, and it has become the default for games in stores. Accept that, or just stop bringing it up where it doesnt belong.

Wow, you know the default for all stores across the world ? Its not a default in my store, you are wrong.

I'd argue that a pick up game is the very opposite of "organised play".

It's clear from the OP that they are playing with the rule p5freak.

There's really no need to bring your agenda into every thread that talks about the rule of 3. Just leave it alone if it annoys you.

To be fair p5freak is actually in the right here. To use Organised Play rules in a pick up game is pretty much the ur-example of a house rule.

But to answer the OP's question: Assuming the rule is in play, it applies to Units/Datasheets, not individual models. You can take 3 units of 3 mortar teams just fine.

Why are people arguing about house rules?
The OP clearly states that it’s being used, so debating the legality and use of it is simply pointless.

In terms of using it, it’s per sheet, so 9 would work fine as long as it’s 3 units of 3.
If it were the case as the other player had stated, many units with a unit size starting at 5 or more wouldn’t be useable.

Jackal90 wrote:
Why are people arguing about house rules?
The OP clearly states that it’s being used, so debating the legality and use of it is simply pointless.

Agreed. I really dont see why p5freak needs to bring this whole debate up every time the rule is mentioned. It's clear the OP was using the rule, that's all there is to it.

 Stux wrote:
It's clear from the OP that they are playing with the rule p5freak.

There's really no need to bring your agenda into every thread that talks about the rule of 3. Just leave it alone if it annoys you.

I dont see anything in the OPs post that they agreed to use the "rule of 3". One player told the other that he cant do that, because of the "rule of 3", which isnt a matched play rule. The player saying he cant do that may have heard that there is a "rule of 3", but thats incorrect. Its people like you spreading false formation, that leads to situations like the OP described.

Stop this futile derail. It’s irrelevant to the OP.

An optional rule is a rule if you’re using it in your game.

There’s nothing more complicated to it than that.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's clear from the OP that they are playing with the rule p5freak.

There's really no need to bring your agenda into every thread that talks about the rule of 3. Just leave it alone if it annoys you.

I dont see anything in the OPs post that they agreed to use the "rule of 3". One player told the other that he cant do that, because of the "rule of 3", which isnt a matched play rule. The player saying he cant do that may have heard that there is a "rule of 3", but thats incorrect. Its people like you spreading false formation, that leads to situations like the OP described.

The fact that the other player changed said units shows agreement to use this rule, even if in this case, it was used wrong.
He could say no and pack up, in which case, there would be no agreement.

Your comment though is simply pointless as this was established in the opening post.
Twist and interpret how you will, but you can’t change the original post to suit a narrative or agenda.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's clear from the OP that they are playing with the rule p5freak.

There's really no need to bring your agenda into every thread that talks about the rule of 3. Just leave it alone if it annoys you.

I dont see anything in the OPs post that they agreed to use the "rule of 3". One player told the other that he cant do that, because of the "rule of 3", which isnt a matched play rule. The player saying he cant do that may have heard that there is a "rule of 3", but thats incorrect. Its people like you spreading false formation, that leads to situations like the OP described.

Context is important here, as is actually reading the situation described.

First, the OP was not one of the players, and therefore would not necessarily know what was agreed. So there is every chance the players had explicitly agreed to use the Rule of 3, even if the OP was not present for that agreement.

Second, the Guard player agreed to change what he had on the basis of a (supposed) new ruling on the Rule of 3, not just because of the Rule of 3 itself. This implies that the players understood that the Rule of 3 was in being used for the game, whether because it was explicitly agreed or because it's the standard rule for the shop / club / whatever.

Third, this thread is about whether or not a given ruling had been made on what the Rule of 3 means - and there is precedent for rulings to be made on that, specifically the ruling that all different types of Daemon Prince from codices count as the same datasheet for the purposes of the Rule of 3. So to say that the Rule of 3 isn't an inherent part of Matched Play is irrelevant to the question actually being asked.

Yes, the Rule of 3 is only a suggestion for organised play, and including it by default for pickup games is technically a house rule. That doesn't help answer the question being asked, and bringing it up in this context is more likely to cause confusion than help clarify things.

It was clear that “rule of 3” was being used based on the context of the first post. Arguing “it’s a house rule and isn’t used everywhere” is a clear example of being shallow, pedantic trolls. Rule of 3 may not be required at your store (it is followed at my local GW), but regardless of those examples, it WAS being followed in the game described. So if you don’t want to get called out for being a troll...then try not being a troll.

The bit I would make clear is that its 3 uses of the data sheet so changeing the guns doesn't allow you to take more than 3 units.


On the sidetrack issue a pick game is almost always played useing organised play rules because that way people come with balanced armies. I get a few players like to stomp people. I could bring my 27 mortar teams to a pick up game but if i did that my oppoent who built to rule of 3 is at a disadvantage.

Jackal90 wrote:

The fact that the other player changed said units shows agreement to use this rule, even if in this case, it was used wrong.
He could say no and pack up, in which case, there would be no agreement.

The player who agreed could have been a new player believing the more experienced player that there is a "rule of 3". The more experienced has probably read somewhere on the internet, or heard from someone, that there is a "rule of 3", when in fact, such a rule doesnt exist.

We dont know what the situation was. The truth is, there is no "rule of 3". You can use the same datasheet as many times as you wish, unless its a house rule, or both players agree to use it, or a TO decides to use it for his tournament.

EDIT

You know what, I cant bothered continuing this. The responses from everyone else are enough.

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

The fact that the other player changed said units shows agreement to use this rule, even if in this case, it was used wrong.
He could say no and pack up, in which case, there would be no agreement.

The player who agreed could have been a new player believing the more experienced player that there is a "rule of 3". The more experienced has probably read somewhere on the internet, or heard from someone, that there is a "rule of 3", when in fact, such a rule doesnt exist.

We dont know what the situation was. The truth is, there is no "rule of 3". You can use the same datasheet as many times as you wish, unless its a house rule, or both players agree to use it, or a TO decides to use it for his tournament.

Maybe, instead of speculating, and throwing in ifs and maybes, you could not throw in thread derails and tangents unless you’re sure? The situation seems patently clear to everyone else so at this point you’re just tilting at windmills.

The truth is there is a “rule of 3” that is suggested by GW for organised play and adopted for many gaming groups and many pickup games. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and unhelpful and dilutes the utility of this forum.

Context was abundantly clear from the opening post.

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

The fact that the other player changed said units shows agreement to use this rule, even if in this case, it was used wrong.
He could say no and pack up, in which case, there would be no agreement.

The player who agreed could have been a new player believing the more experienced player that there is a "rule of 3". The more experienced has probably read somewhere on the internet, or heard from someone, that there is a "rule of 3", when in fact, such a rule doesnt exist.

We dont know what the situation was. The truth is, there is no "rule of 3". You can use the same datasheet as many times as you wish, unless its a house rule, or both players agree to use it, or a TO decides to use it for his tournament.

“Could have been”
“Probably”
“We don’t know”

Pure speculation so a complete waste of time.

Both players agreed to use the rule of 3, that is a fact.
Try to contend that as much as you like, but speculation and opinion cannot change a fact.
All you are doing is trying to generate scenarios to fortify a ludicrous point at the moment.
The issue is, this point does not even stand as the second the players had agreed on using the rule of 3, your entire point became moot.

From page 15 of the Main Rulebook FAQ:

Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game?

A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game, meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.

Of course the FAQ also says "... if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc.".

I’m with p5freak on this. So much discussion about this “rule” fuels an assumption that it is a rule for pick up games and is used all the time. I think it’s a good idea to remind people that it isn’t a rule that must be followed in all games, or even all matched players games. It should be agreed upon first. Too often it is just assumed that it is in play. So keep bringing it up freak and stop the creep of tournament style play.

Except both players clearly agreed the “rule of 3” (as almost everyone calls it) was in play. So taking a stand on this particular matter in this thread is trolling at worst, and makes you Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons at best.

I mean, it's noise for the sake of noise from posters who are famous for making noise for the sake of noise.

Qu'est-que le dif?

Andykp wrote:
I’m with p5freak on this. So much discussion about this “rule” fuels an assumption that it is a rule for pick up games and is used all the time. I think it’s a good idea to remind people that it isn’t a rule that must be followed in all games, or even all matched players games. It should be agreed upon first. Too often it is just assumed that it is in play. So keep bringing it up freak and stop the creep of tournament style play.

And it would be, if of course, both players hadn’t already agreed to use it.
At which point, talking about the legality of it is completely moot.

As for it’s uses, I see it used more often than not in most non tournament games.

Jackal90 wrote:

Pure speculation so a complete waste of time.

Both players agreed to use the rule of 3, that is a fact.

That is not what has been described. Thats speculation on your part. Fact is, there is no "rule of 3".

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

Pure speculation so a complete waste of time.

Both players agreed to use the rule of 3, that is a fact.

That is not what has been described. Thats speculation on your part. Fact is, there is no "rule of 3".

Demonstrably false.