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.

And like all things GW, rather than fixing the core issue, they just swung the pendulum as hard as they could to the other side.

The rule of three has done way more good than bad for the game.

Most negative impact was on narrative play, and crusade is completely missing any limitation on datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I really wish that the rule of three wasn't around, or at least had more exceptions. If I want to front an Iron Warriors army with nothing but Plague Marines, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to.

You aren't allowed to field all plague marine iron warriors for the same reason you aren't allowed to field an army containing Gulliman, Mortarion, Magnus, The Silent King and Thrakka. This is a game where you are limited what you can field as one army, and not being limited to 3 of each non-troops choice is just one of them. If you want IW plague marines, just play silver-painted DG.

Some edge case of someone spamming a single datasheet for their personal enjoyment is simply not worth make the game less enjoyable for everyone else.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I really wish that the rule of three wasn't around, or at least had more exceptions. If I want to front an Iron Warriors army with nothing but Plague Marines, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to.

Why don't you play your Plague Marines in a DG detachment and your Obliterators, Vindicator and whatever Iron Warriors units you want to add in CSM detachment?
The rule of three overall is not that oppressive, even with Nightlords you could have 30 Raptors, 30 Warp Talons, 3 Heldrake, and whatever else you consider fitting. And that's if you're doing matched play, in a usual Narrative scenario you'll find other ways.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
But please don't waste time on the utterly masturbatory process of re-sculpting the umpteenth iteration of Berserkers or Noise Marines.

Berzerkers are still the models released in about 1999 iirc.

Fear them!

That was the first box of 40k I ever picked up, knowing nothing about it. I just liked them the most. Good old times.

Just waiting for a refresh along of codex World Eaters to start them again...

Jidmah wrote:The rule of three has done way more good than bad for the game.

Most negative impact was on narrative play, and crusade is completely missing any limitation on datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I really wish that the rule of three wasn't around, or at least had more exceptions. If I want to front an Iron Warriors army with nothing but Plague Marines, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to.

You aren't allowed to field all plague marine iron warriors for the same reason you aren't allowed to field an army containing Gulliman, Mortarion, Magnus, The Silent King and Thrakka. This is a game where you are limited what you can field as one army, and not being limited to 3 of each non-troops choice is just one of them. If you want IW plague marines, just play silver-painted DG.

Some edge case of someone spamming a single datasheet for their personal enjoyment is simply not worth make the game less enjoyable for everyone else.

Your example isn't comparable since none of the units you mentioned share any common keywords, while Iron Warriors share the keywords of Chaos, Heretic Astartes, and Nurgle (if you give that mark to any no PM units). I do agree that spam of OP units should be avoided, so maybe the rule could be limited to certain units and keywords instead of being a blanket rule.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Your example isn't comparable since none of the units you mentioned share any common keywords, while Iron Warriors share the keywords of Chaos, Heretic Astartes, and Nurgle (if you give that mark to any no PM units). I do agree that spam of OP units should be avoided, so maybe the rule could be limited to certain units and keywords instead of being a blanket rule.

2 problems, the detachment system helped facilitate spam and the other one, limiting units requires thought and could hurt GW's bottomline,

Late to the part, but I gotta point out that the OP answered his own question

"Greatest champion's grand plan successfully destroyed the world, plunged the universe into a millennia of total Chaos dominance"

Yeah.. people hated it when this happened if you recall..

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Your example isn't comparable since none of the units you mentioned share any common keywords, while Iron Warriors share the keywords of Chaos, Heretic Astartes, and Nurgle (if you give that mark to any no PM units). I do agree that spam of OP units should be avoided, so maybe the rule could be limited to certain units and keywords instead of being a blanket rule.

But again if you want a full Plague Marine IW army just paint them silver and use DG rules? I LIKE fluffy rules and restrictions and no one bar DG should be able to spam Plague Marines all day, every day. Rule of 3 was a acceptable compromise for me even if I personally dislike it as well. But that mostly has to do with SM avoiding it whereas CSM can't. I can only field 3 Hellbrutes despite loving walkers but SM can make almost an entire army out of them because they have 7 (ish?) slightly different Dreadnought datasheets.

 footfoe wrote:
Late to the part, but I gotta point out that the OP answered his own question

"Greatest champion's grand plan successfully destroyed the world, plunged the universe into a millennia of total Chaos dominance"

Yeah.. people hated it when this happened if you recall..

True enough, but you could alternatively have had Archaon be beaten at the end by the combined powers of all of the major heroes in a battle which kills them all (or most of them) off. He'd have still ravaged the world beyond recognition in many places and you can always pull some Sauron-esque shenanigans to have him return later down the line if you so wished.

What makes Archaon more successful and threatening than Abaddon is that he didn't launch 13 attempts to conquer the mortal realms before he succeeded in anything. He tried in Strom of Chaos, was defeated and then built up his forces and tried again, much more successfully.

Wasn't Storm of Chaos completely retconned and the events of the End Times is the "same" event, but with a wholly different outcome?

At least they kept Grimgor 'eadbuttin' Archaon in the End Times. It would be... odd? If they did that same thing twice.

IIRC they also had to find Valten, etc, in the End Times, which they presumably wouldn't have to do if Storm of Chaos had happened.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 footfoe wrote:
Late to the part, but I gotta point out that the OP answered his own question

"Greatest champion's grand plan successfully destroyed the world, plunged the universe into a millennia of total Chaos dominance"

Yeah.. people hated it when this happened if you recall..

True enough, but you could alternatively have had Archaon be beaten at the end by the combined powers of all of the major heroes in a battle which kills them all (or most of them) off. He'd have still ravaged the world beyond recognition in many places and you can always pull some Sauron-esque shenanigans to have him return later down the line if you so wished.

What makes Archaon more successful and threatening than Abaddon is that he didn't launch 13 attempts to conquer the mortal realms before he succeeded in anything. He tried in Strom of Chaos, was defeated and then built up his forces and tried again, much more successfully.

the "!3 failures" is a internet meme. they've eitablished that each of the 13th black crusades was fought for specific opbjectives. not "lol yoloing terra.. again"

BrianDavion wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 footfoe wrote:
Late to the part, but I gotta point out that the OP answered his own question

"Greatest champion's grand plan successfully destroyed the world, plunged the universe into a millennia of total Chaos dominance"

Yeah.. people hated it when this happened if you recall..

True enough, but you could alternatively have had Archaon be beaten at the end by the combined powers of all of the major heroes in a battle which kills them all (or most of them) off. He'd have still ravaged the world beyond recognition in many places and you can always pull some Sauron-esque shenanigans to have him return later down the line if you so wished.

What makes Archaon more successful and threatening than Abaddon is that he didn't launch 13 attempts to conquer the mortal realms before he succeeded in anything. He tried in Strom of Chaos, was defeated and then built up his forces and tried again, much more successfully.

the "!3 failures" is a internet meme. they've eitablished that each of the 13th black crusades was fought for specific opbjectives. not "lol yoloing terra.. again"

That logic never sat with me. Even if all the 13 black crusades were part of one giant scheme with secret objectives (and at the least, if I remember correctly, the first one wasn't even intentional), there a very RTS logic to it where "well, even if I slammed thousands of my men into a wall, I got all the checkmarks I need and therefore win!".

Logistically, Abbadon would have been in serious problems after the men he'd had lost if Cadia made it as hard as it did for the last two crusades. This isn't to say Abbadon is bad, I think he's probably the most competent generals in 40k to have done so well with the garbage he has to deal with (even warbosses don't have to deal with this many zoggin' gits!). It's more that GW tends to waaay too often rely on Chaos having some nefarious second objective revealed at the last second that "totally" makes up for them getting the stuffing kicked out of them up and down the freeway whenever they show up as an antagonist

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

That logic never sat with me. Even if all the 13 black crusades were part of one giant scheme with secret objectives (and at the least, if I remember correctly, the first one wasn't even intentional), there a very RTS logic to it where "well, even if I slammed thousands of my men into a wall, I got all the checkmarks I need and therefore win!".

Logistically, Abbadon would have been in serious problems after the men he'd had lost if Cadia made it as hard as it did for the last two crusades. This isn't to say Abbadon is bad, I think he's probably the most competent generals in 40k to have done so well with the garbage he has to deal with (even warbosses don't have to deal with this many zoggin' gits!). It's more that GW tends to waaay too often rely on Chaos having some nefarious second objective revealed at the last second that "totally" makes up for them getting the stuffing kicked out of them up and down the freeway whenever they show up as an antagonist

It's less they're all part of one super scheme and more just that each one had a specific goal in mind for either boosting Abaddon's forces or hampering the defences around the Eye to the point where it seems like its one big super scheme. Obviously Abaddon wants to topple the Emperor but each Black Crusade is a rung on the ladder rather than the first and final charge.
For example, the 1st was to claim Drach'nyen to solidify his position as Warmaster of Chaos. His main enemy wasn't even the Imperium but rather a rival Lord named Daravek who commanded a vast army of the Legions, then Sigismund and the Templars rock up to start breaking things. Cadia's destruction isn't the endgame for any bar the 13th purely because it's not necessary until that point in time.
Also, it's the Imperium that denotes them as Black Crusades since it's a general classification for mass movements of Chaos forces. Abaddon's are just notably more unified and have a specific goal in mind rather than just abject slaughter which combined with their frequency gives them the distinction of being numbered.

It did seem like a ret-con though.

"No, he really meant to do all these other things, in this sequence, for his ultimate goal!"

It's a bit like the ass-pull with the Blackstone Fortress during the final battle over Cadia.

"Yes! I meant for my virtually unique Blackstone Fortress to be destroyed, because I planned all along to crash it into Cadia! I'm so smart!"

Dooby's Black Crusades all being parts of a giant master plan that no one saw coming reminds me of when Bart Simpson changed all the F Minuses on his report card to A Pluses. Homer remarks that an F turns into a B far more easily, and that Bart just got greedy.

They could have easily changed the previous 12 Black Crusades to show Dooby's development as a leader, showing that the first few were disasters, and how hard it was to rally the forces of Chaos behind him, and then slowly he began to garner more and more success, until everyone was behind him by the time of the 13th.

That'd be more interesting.

People see retcons where I see GW actually filling out these supposedly colossal events. Until Gathering Storm and then 8th Edition naff all was said about most of the 13 Black Crusades beyond "The Black Legion breaks things, Chaos forces splinter and are routed by prepared Imperials". The Crusades all now being just more instances of "Me Chaos, me kill Imperium" is much better.
As for more specific points.
The Blackstone crash wasn't "just as planned" it was "I need this fight to end now and the Fortress is borked anyway best to still use it while I can".
The early Black Crusades pretty much only have Abaddon commanding the forces of his own Legion and it isn't until the 9th Black Crusade that Abaddon actively allies with other CSM forces during the Antecanis Massacre which is only filled out due to the Apocalpyse book giving an example of an Apocalypse size Chaos army. The 5th is the one exception where Abaddon allies with Doombreed but only because he promises Doombreed the skulls of two Chapters, and bargaining with Daemons is easier than CSM especially when it comes to Khorne.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It did seem like a ret-con though.

"No, he really meant to do all these other things, in this sequence, for his ultimate goal!"

It's a bit like the ass-pull with the Blackstone Fortress during the final battle over Cadia.

"Yes! I meant for my virtually unique Blackstone Fortress to be destroyed, because I planned all along to crash it into Cadia! I'm so smart!"

Dooby's Black Crusades all being parts of a giant master plan that no one saw coming reminds me of when Bart Simpson changed all the F Minuses on his report card to A Pluses. Homer remarks that an F turns into a B far more easily, and that Bart just got greedy.

They could have easily changed the previous 12 Black Crusades to show Dooby's development as a leader, showing that the first few were disasters, and how hard it was to rally the forces of Chaos behind him, and then slowly he began to garner more and more success, until everyone was behind him by the time of the 13th.

That'd be more interesting.

why does it have to be eaither or? Abaddon's not a fething idiot. the idea that he'd be yoloing to terra isn't one that's gonna make sense period. my guess is he had a number of goals, some he met others he didn't. of course there was likely a degree of Xanatos gambiting during the black crusades

BrianDavion wrote:
why does it have to be eaither or? Abaddon's not a fething idiot. the idea that he'd be yoloing to terra isn't one that's gonna make sense period. my guess is he had a number of goals, some he met others he didn't. of course there was likely a degree of Xanatos gambiting during the black crusades

What I said specifically wasn't an either/or, but a gradual build up. And I said nothing about "yoloing to terra".

Did you mean to quote someone else?

TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Berzerkers are still the models released in about 1999 iirc.

That seems fine to me, they're still the same unit they were in 1999 and the sculpts still hold up pretty well today. Newer, prettier berserkers will be just that and nothing else. Even if they release new Noise Marines, I'm keeping my Wu-Tang Noise Marines, because they're cool, and they're Wu-Tang, so by definition, you don't feth with them.

Do they "Bring DA Ruckus"?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
But please don't waste time on the utterly masturbatory process of re-sculpting the umpteenth iteration of Berserkers or Noise Marines.

Berzerkers are still the models released in about 1999 iirc.

Fear them!

Heh. That's the prior kit, like 1993 maybe? The ones still on the GW website were released at around the same time as 3rd ed I think. They're alright if treated to a nice scheme, and I have about 40 of them. But they're about as old as the plastic Cadians, Eldar Guardians, and the basic Ork Boyz.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What makes Archaon more successful and threatening than Abaddon is that he didn't launch 13 attempts to conquer the mortal realms before he succeeded in anything. He tried in Strom of Chaos, was defeated and then built up his forces and tried again, much more successfully.

I mean, let's be honest, what makes Archaon so successful is The End Times were written like skaven/Chaos fanboy-fiction.

When your objective is the complete annihilation of the setting, the only way you're allowed to win is by...annihilating the setting. It would be like if GW dumpstered 40k by saying the Tyranid Hive Fleets arrived in infinite numbers and everyone was eaten.

If WHFB hadn't been End Times'd, Archaon would either A) Be in the same position as Abbadon, being constantly punted around and losing or B) Already killed and replaced by the new hotness.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It did seem like a ret-con though.

"No, he really meant to do all these other things, in this sequence, for his ultimate goal!"

Except that the whole "each Black Crusade had a specific goal" thing came directly from the fluff for Battlefleet Gothic almost a decade earlier, which specifically stated that even though the Imperium "won" that particular Crusade, Abaddon achieved his actual goal of obtaining the Blackstones. It wasn't a new idea, it just wasn't one fully presented in the mainline 40K fluff.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It did seem like a ret-con though.

"No, he really meant to do all these other things, in this sequence, for his ultimate goal!"

Except that the whole "each Black Crusade had a specific goal" thing came directly from the fluff for Battlefleet Gothic almost a decade earlier, which specifically stated that even though the Imperium "won" that particular Crusade, Abaddon achieved his actual goal of obtaining the Blackstones. It wasn't a new idea, it just wasn't one fully presented in the mainline 40K fluff.

There there's the aspect of actual failure usually turning the Champion in to a Spawn... Hasn't happened yet, no matter what you think of any of the models.

 Charistoph wrote:

There there's the aspect of actual failure usually turning the Champion in to a Spawn... Hasn't happened yet, no matter what you think of any of the models.

Is it still canon that the chaos gods didn't want Horus to win and instead want humanity to continue on as the tastiest snack in the galaxy?

By that logic, Abby is succeeding by being a failure. Therefore, no spawnage. Given that being turned into a spawn can occur with too many gifts, it would be kind of funny that Abby isn't turned into a spawn because he's fulfilling his role, but he's still a loser so the Chaos gods don't give him any more gifts than the bear minimum to do his job.

Just wanted to come in to say that the background for the 13 Black Crusades is not from Gathering Storm but out of the Black Legion Codex in 6th Edition.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Just wanted to come in to say that the background for the 13 Black Crusades is not from Gathering Storm but out of the Black Legion Codex in 6th Edition.

IIRC Gathering storm has a great "ohh gak" moment when Cawl parses the data and realizes exactly what abaddon had been doing the past 12 black crusades

Altima wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What makes Archaon more successful and threatening than Abaddon is that he didn't launch 13 attempts to conquer the mortal realms before he succeeded in anything. He tried in Strom of Chaos, was defeated and then built up his forces and tried again, much more successfully.

I mean, let's be honest, what makes Archaon so successful is The End Times were written like skaven/Chaos fanboy-fiction.

When your objective is the complete annihilation of the setting, the only way you're allowed to win is by...annihilating the setting. It would be like if GW dumpstered 40k by saying the Tyranid Hive Fleets arrived in infinite numbers and everyone was eaten.

If WHFB hadn't been End Times'd, Archaon would either A) Be in the same position as Abbadon, being constantly punted around and losing or B) Already killed and replaced by the new hotness.

Archaon also just looks cooler. Compare his phenomenal fantasy minis to the old Abaddon one.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The rule of three has done way more good than bad for the game.

Most negative impact was on narrative play, and crusade is completely missing any limitation on datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I really wish that the rule of three wasn't around, or at least had more exceptions. If I want to front an Iron Warriors army with nothing but Plague Marines, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to.

You aren't allowed to field all plague marine iron warriors for the same reason you aren't allowed to field an army containing Gulliman, Mortarion, Magnus, The Silent King and Thrakka. This is a game where you are limited what you can field as one army, and not being limited to 3 of each non-troops choice is just one of them. If you want IW plague marines, just play silver-painted DG.

Some edge case of someone spamming a single datasheet for their personal enjoyment is simply not worth make the game less enjoyable for everyone else.

Your example isn't comparable since none of the units you mentioned share any common keywords, while Iron Warriors share the keywords of Chaos, Heretic Astartes, and Nurgle (if you give that mark to any no PM units). I do agree that spam of OP units should be avoided, so maybe the rule could be limited to certain units and keywords instead of being a blanket rule.

My example is comparable because that keyword limitation is just as arbitrary as the rule of 3. Fluff wise nothing should prevent you from building an army consisting of ultramarines, ynnari, sisters of silence, necrons, fallen and admech, because there is whole figgin novel series where exactly that happened. Yet you can't do it on the tabletop.

The reason for the rule of 3 is that GW has sufficiently proven over the course of over three decades that they will never, ever be able to catch every OP unit that can be spammed and finally implemented a fail safe.
Every other successful game which allows you to freely pick your gaming pieces has limits on them, for good reason. Every other way of handling this is doomed to fail.

And just for some anecdotal evidence - there is a GW store here which did not adapt the rule of three for their competitive league. Attendance dropped over the course of a year to a point where only two people showed up on their league evenings, because the entire meta had devolved into spam to skew. People were simply sick of having to face ten blight drones or detachments full of tank commanders or other stupid armies consisting of just one unit plus support.

Bottom line, spam of ALL units should be avoided because makes it for a better game. You spamming one unit still sucks for your opponent because they are facing a stupid boring skew army, no matter strong it is. Three units of plague marines and some nurgle marked CSM, havocs and chosen should be plenty for whatever you are trying to portrait. Or you just play a DG army that counts as IW.

Without the rule of three boards would be flooded with obsec canoptek scarabs right now, and that's just an example from the army I'm personally most familiar with. There's probably something more stupid you could do with the top tier armies.

 Galas wrote:

Altima wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What makes Archaon more successful and threatening than Abaddon is that he didn't launch 13 attempts to conquer the mortal realms before he succeeded in anything. He tried in Strom of Chaos, was defeated and then built up his forces and tried again, much more successfully.

I mean, let's be honest, what makes Archaon so successful is The End Times were written like skaven/Chaos fanboy-fiction.

When your objective is the complete annihilation of the setting, the only way you're allowed to win is by...annihilating the setting. It would be like if GW dumpstered 40k by saying the Tyranid Hive Fleets arrived in infinite numbers and everyone was eaten.

If WHFB hadn't been End Times'd, Archaon would either A) Be in the same position as Abbadon, being constantly punted around and losing or B) Already killed and replaced by the new hotness.

Archaon also just looks cooler. Compare his phenomenal fantasy minis to the old Abaddon one.

Now, let's be fair here. Both the original Archaon and Abby were released at roughly the same time in 1996(ish). Brian Nelson's awesome redo did not come till later along the line in 2000/2001.