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.

You mean like some sort of granular fine-balanced points system?

 vipoid wrote:
How about a note on the dataslates?

e.g. if you want 2+ variants of the Leman Russ to all count as the same vehicle, give each of them a rule like:

"For the purposes of Rule of Three, this unit's Datasheet Name is treated as "Leman Russ"."

I like this. This is a better solution.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Orrrrr... every different Russ variant doesn't need to be it's own separate datasheet...

The number of Russ sheets could certainly be diminished, but again, the difficulty is if you've got one sheet, it means you've got one datacard rule and you're stuck with it whether it suits the weapon for the variant you've chosen or not. Others have suggested that when the datacard rule can be made to synergize with the load out, it does a better job of creating a role for the unit that a player can lean into,

But maybe there could be two or even three cards, instead of six or whatever.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
How about a note on the dataslates?

e.g. if you want 2+ variants of the Leman Russ to all count as the same vehicle, give each of them a rule like:

"For the purposes of Rule of Three, this unit's Datasheet Name is treated as "Leman Russ"."

I like this. This is a better solution.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Orrrrr... every different Russ variant doesn't need to be it's own separate datasheet...

The number of Russ sheets could certainly be diminished, but again, the difficulty is if you've got one sheet, it means you've got one datacard rule and you're stuck with it whether it suits the weapon for the variant you've chosen or not. Others have suggested that when the datacard rule can be made to synergize with the load out, it does a better job of creating a role for the unit that a player can lean into,

But maybe there could be two or even three cards, instead of six or whatever.

Hope you don't try applying that to Knights.

So, how many Amigers can I field? 3, Questoris Knights? 3. Dominus Knights 3?

Huh. Time to put my army on eBay then.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Hope you don't try applying that to Knights.

So, how many Amigers can I field? 3, Questoris Knights? 3. Dominus Knights 3?

Huh. Time to put my army on eBay then.

Yeah, that's why Vipoid's suggestion is better than mine; being a rule that's on the datasheet, you can choose which sheets to put it on and which not to. I proposed core rule solutions because it would be less work for GW, but updating sheets IS the better solution, because, as you point out some armies would be devastated by a clumsy core rule that tried to solve the problem with a sentence or two. Knights are definitely cards that wouldn't have the rule.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Hope you don't try applying that to Knights.

So, how many Amigers can I field? 3, Questoris Knights? 3. Dominus Knights 3?

Huh. Time to put my army on eBay then.

Yeah, that's why Vipoid's suggestion is better than mine; being a rule that's on the datasheet, you can choose which sheets to put it on and which not to. I proposed core rule solutions because it would be less work for GW, but updating sheets IS the better solution, because, as you point out some armies would be devastated by a clumsy core rule that tried to solve the problem with a sentence or two. Knights are definitely cards that wouldn't have the rule.

Makes sense then.

I do see caveats as a possible issue though, as a lot of players get upset when a rule applies to their army and not others. (I'm guilty of this too.)

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but we also could just not invalidate people's armies because
a) running 9 leman russ isn't exactly a winning strategy, and therefore not played often. Most tournament lists have 2-3, if any.
b) 3 rogal dorn, 3 LRBT and a baneblade is pretty much the same thing, but somehow perfectly fine because the tanks look different enough?

I'd also like to point out that so far there have been exactly zero example of a doubled-up datasheet which is causing problems in real life. You guys are trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist outside of your imagination and are willing to sacrifice other people's collections and models for that.

 Jidmah wrote:
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but we also could just not invalidate people's armies because

GW does that all the time.

I'd also like to point out that so far there have been exactly zero example of a doubled-up datasheet which is causing problems in real life. You guys are trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist outside of your imagination and are willing to sacrifice other people's collections and models for that.

I think it's more a case of perception of fairness in which armies get to double up on cool toys versus those who don't simply because of how their datasheets are divided up. This is mostly a consequence of how GW is trying to price upgrades these days. You know stuff like there are two kinds of Wraithknights now or how Eldar support weapons got separated out into three different sheets.

 Jidmah wrote:
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but we also could just not invalidate people's armies because
a) running 9 leman russ isn't exactly a winning strategy, and therefore not played often. Most tournament lists have 2-3, if any.
b) 3 rogal dorn, 3 LRBT and a baneblade is pretty much the same thing, but somehow perfectly fine because the tanks look different enough?

I'd also like to point out that so far there have been exactly zero example of a doubled-up datasheet which is causing problems in real life. You guys are trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist outside of your imagination and are willing to sacrifice other people's collections and models for that.

Honestly, I think this is a big reason why Rule of 3 is important. Regardless of how necessary it is, it creates a guard rail on players buying too much of something and having it invalidated later. Personally, I wish it was Rule of 2 in that regard (and I'm super happy they changed it for 1k). Overall though I agree. This seems to be a topic looking for a problem that doesn't really exist.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but we also could just not invalidate people's armies because

GW does that all the time.

Except GW doesn't do it without reason. People might not like the reason, but they do have one. Whether it's NMNR, shutting down FW40k, axing metal and finecast models or discontinuing trueborn marines without primaris replacement, it's always the same reason. Reduce costs, improve profits, gain new customers. Money.

I think it's more a case of perception of fairness in which armies get to double up on cool toys versus those who don't simply because of how their datasheets are divided up. This is mostly a consequence of how GW is trying to price upgrades these days. You know stuff like there are two kinds of Wraithknights now or how Eldar support weapons got separated out into three different sheets.

Perception of fairness is very much just an euphemism for "a problem that doesn't exist outside of your imagination" though

And yes, the reason for doubling up datasheets is mostly done to keep each datasheet simple and make it fit one card. It's not just done for upgrade, but also to give units different abilities if their load-out changes their role. It's probably not the most elegant way to do it, but it works?
GW never does it to enable people to spam the same model over and over - and frankly has done a good job so far to discourage people from doing so.

In the end, gorkanauts and morkanauts also build from the same box, but had different datasheets since forever. The wraith knights is pretty much the same thing now.

I think the thing to understand is that Ro3 isn't meant to replace FOC; it isn't a guideline for building a list and it isn't making a statement on the "fairness" of 9 Land Raiders v. 3 Hammerheads or anything like that.

It's as Polonius said, a last-resort fallback mechanism for when GW gets drunk and releases some terrible datasheet. Ro3 limits the damage from it while imposing minimal consequences on most people's lists, and it's trivial to memorize.

So I think from a practical standpoint it does that job well enough. Putting in special exceptions would do more harm than good, because whenever the specifics of those exceptions changed it would invalidate models.

What are your thoughts on the 1,000 point/Incursion rule of 2? (4 battleline)

I think it makes sense; I guess it could suck for someone who only plays 1000 games and had a 3 hammerhead list but that isn't common, most people could at least still use their 3rd model at 2000.

It should probably be 4/8 for 3000 too, if it isn't already.

Almost all army games that have unit limits (outside of named characters) tend to have a sweet spot for the limits to work.

For 40K that's around 2K points.
Go down to 1K and yeah you want to shift to rule of 2
Go up to 3K and its fine; but beyond that and you might well find you'll slip into taking multiple "armies" so you might say that 4-6K Counts as "2 armies" so you get "Rule of 6" etc...

Eventually at both ends things entirely break. 40K at 500 points or 10,000 points has to be tweaked to work well. That's why combat patrols and kill teams have been pushed hard for the lower point level games and why Apoc was brought out for the other end of the game

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What are your thoughts on the 1,000 point/Incursion rule of 2? (4 battleline)

Outside of tourney play we ignore it.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What are your thoughts on the 1,000 point/Incursion rule of 2? (4 battleline)

Probably a good change, it prevents people of having more than half their army made up of a unit that is just a bit too efficient for 1k points games - stuff like redemptors, LR demolishers or tankbustas come to mind. I reigns in that one player who mistakes our crusade campaign as a personal stomping ground and has zero effect on everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Almost all army games that have unit limits (outside of named characters) tend to have a sweet spot for the limits to work.

For 40K that's around 2K points.
Go down to 1K and yeah you want to shift to rule of 2
Go up to 3K and its fine; but beyond that and you might well find you'll slip into taking multiple "armies" so you might say that 4-6K Counts as "2 armies" so you get "Rule of 6" etc...

Eventually at both ends things entirely break. 40K at 500 points or 10,000 points has to be tweaked to work well. That's why combat patrols and kill teams have been pushed hard for the lower point level games and why Apoc was brought out for the other end of the game

Agree, though most people don't have more than three of most units anyways or they prefer to bring out all the things they haven't used in a long time instead of just playing more of the things they always play.

Beyond 4k points I see no reason to enforce any limit, but rather resort to good old dreadsocking if someone tries to sabotage such a big game with some shady BS.

I feel the game starts to collapse towards 1000 points, never mind lower.

I don't know for example if Combat Patrol has taken off in schools etc - but I suspect the functional rock/paper/scissors imbalance makes it not especially fun.

I mean being able to take 2 200+ point tanks/monsters that functionally won't die except to some dedicated anti-large stuff feels obnoxious in a 1000 point game, in a way that bringing three 75 point infantry units wouldn't be. But I guess this just comes back to the idea more "basic infantry" should probably be battleline in terms of the RO3.

 Jidmah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Almost all army games that have unit limits (outside of named characters) tend to have a sweet spot for the limits to work.

For 40K that's around 2K points.
Go down to 1K and yeah you want to shift to rule of 2
Go up to 3K and its fine; but beyond that and you might well find you'll slip into taking multiple "armies" so you might say that 4-6K Counts as "2 armies" so you get "Rule of 6" etc...

Eventually at both ends things entirely break. 40K at 500 points or 10,000 points has to be tweaked to work well. That's why combat patrols and kill teams have been pushed hard for the lower point level games and why Apoc was brought out for the other end of the game

Agree, though most people don't have more than three of most units anyways or they prefer to bring out all the things they haven't used in a long time instead of just playing more of the things they always play.

Beyond 4k points I see no reason to enforce any limit, but rather resort to good old dreadsocking if someone tries to sabotage such a big game with some shady BS.

Indeed; once you hit very high points games the focus shifts and it is often a case of bringing all your toys to the table instead of a select block. There will always be a handful who have a dozen hive crones that they bought cause they love the model etc...; but by and large yes most will have only a limited selection of models. Heck if they've used magnets they might have even fewer of some combinations because they never fielded them all at the same time (due to restrictions, points and balance)

A lot of GK players have 6 identical Nemezis Dreadnoughts.

That's why they're getting a new upgrade sprue

Personally, I prefer 1k games to 2k handidly, but I'm very glad its now getting objective layout tweaks because it can definitely suffer from the table being too big.