Ruling on the 'Rule of 3' FAQ

[Mileposter]

Part of the Big FAQ released was an addition to the restrictions in Organized Play. However, it's sparked a bit of a debate in other locations as to the 'correct' implementation, and I thought I'd seek out opinions here.

 

The column added to the 'Organized Events' chart states a limit to the number of times a Datasheet can be included. However, in the description of that chart, the discussion about the intent of that chart, and in the Live Stream talking about that chart the designers use the term 'unit' instead.

 

The debate, then, has been over this chart's interaction with units that become their own separate units after deployment. Examples including Leman Russes, Carnifexes, Eldar Support Weapons, and Tau Drones. Is the spirit of this chart to say only three Carnifexes or Russes on the field?

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

What? I can't take four Noise Marine squads?

 

What absolute twaddle.

[Charlo]

What? I can't take four Noise Marine squads?

 

What absolute twaddle.

 

If they are troops (which they are in EC) there is no restriction.

[BlackTriton]

The restriction is on the number of time a certain entry may figure in your list.

It is irrelevent that one entry may be split into multiple unit on the table.

Similarly to how faction keyword becomes the same as regular keyword once the game begin.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

 

What? I can't take four Noise Marine squads?

 

What absolute twaddle.

 

If they are troops (which they are in EC) there is no restriction.

 

 

I see. So it doesn't actually stop any of the spamming issues in reality, but it does stop me taking five Hellflayers. 

 

Still absolute twaddle.

[Mileposter]

 

 

What? I can't take four Noise Marine squads?

 

What absolute twaddle.

 

If they are troops (which they are in EC) there is no restriction.

 

 

I see. So it doesn't actually stop any of the spamming issues in reality, but it does stop me taking five Hellflayers. 

 

Still absolute twaddle.

 

That's not what this topic is about.

 

 

The restriction is on the number of time a certain entry may figure in your list.

It is irrelevent that one entry may be split into multiple unit on the table.

Similarly to how faction keyword becomes the same as regular keyword once the game begin.

I'm looking for more support on the rules side of things one way or the other.

 

The argument being made in opposition is that all discussion says 'units' and 'cannot be included in your army'. After the deployment of 2 Squadrons of 3 Armigers, you now have 6 Armigers included in your army - the argument is that this is illegal.

 

The argument being made in support is that it lists 'datasheet' included in your army, and since you only have 2 uses of the datasheet which allows 3 Armigers, it is legal.

[Soldier of Dorn]

The argument being made in opposition is that all discussion says 'units' and 'cannot be included in your army'. After the deployment of 2 Squadrons of 3 Armigers, you now have 6 Armigers included in your army - the argument is that this is illegal.

 

The argument being made in support is that it lists 'datasheet' included in your army, and since you only have 2 uses of the datasheet which allows 3 Armigers, it is legal.

 

I think you answered your own question here.

 

Yes, discussion surrounding the rules says 'units', but people paraphrase often. In the majority of cases, units and datasheets are effectively synonymous, and when speaking colloquially, as people are wont to do, they may use one for the other as a generalization.

 

The rule itself says three datasheets. When it comes down the the specifics of language in a rule, we should look to the rule itself rather than commentary, and use commentary to logically interpret from the written rule rather than to replace or supersede it, and (in my opinion) the rule is too explicit in its terminology to allow for the units thing to be inferred from it.

[ThomasEll]

The FAQ says datasheets.

 

A datasheet is an entry in a codex/index.

 

On a datasheet you may include up to the maximum number of models that that datasheet lists (+1 for x points, +2 for y points, etc). 

 

Under this rule you can include a particular datasheet up to 3 times in your army.

 

Some datasheets that allow for additional models to split into separate units after they have been deployed, not before.

[Eddie Orlock]

The FAQ says datasheets.

...

Under this rule you can include a particular datasheet up to 3 times in your army.

Indeed, with these things, the pundits can blow smoke until they're blue in the face, but the first thing that really matters in the published text. The text does not say 'unit', it says 'datasheet'.

 

Now, if we ever get 'meta-datasheets' that reference other datasheets this could become a strange issue, but we don't have any of those. Yet.

 

Also, point of order, there are three lines to the published chart. Which means, that yes, you can have four non-troop squads of Noise Marines in a force, but the army limit needs to be at least 2001 points to qualify for this band.

[facmanpob]

Here's an example which may (or may not) help.

 

In the Dark Angels codex I can take Attack Bikes as a part of a Bike squad (P110), or as a separate unit (P109). If I look at the Bike squad datasheet it allows me to add an attack bike to the bike squad, and gives me all of the stats and wargear options for the attack bike in the bike squad datasheet. So including an attack bike as part of a bike squad does not use up one of my uses of the Attack Bike datasheet (P109), just one of my uses of the Bike Squad datasheet.

 

Let's say I now want to include an attack bike squad (P109) as well. The datasheet allows me to take up to 3 attack bikes as part of a single squad, and taking this would use up one of my 3 uses of the AB datasheet.

 

So, it seems clear to me that I can take 3 Bike Squads AND 3 Attack Bike Squads as part of my army, without breaking the 3 datasheet rule, giving me as many as 12 Attack Bikes on the table at any one time.

 

It also seems straightforward to me that because the rule refers to uses of the datasheet, for examples in which vehicles can be taken as part of squadrons (e.g. Leman Russ), a single use of the datasheet allows for the purchase of that squadron.

 

 

Now, if we ever get 'meta-datasheets' that reference other datasheets this could become a strange issue, but we don't have any of those. Yet.

 

We do - Tau tactical drones. They can be taken as additional purchases for Commanders, XV8s etc, and the "parent" datasheet (e.g. Commander) directly refers you to the Tau Drone datasheet on P109 for rules/wargear options/stalines etc.

[Withershadow]

What? I can't take four Noise Marine squads?

 

What absolute twaddle.

You can if you are Emperor's Children, because then they would be troops.

 

Non-Emperor's Children warbands would indeed not be flush with Noise Marines.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Quite.

 

Utterly fails to explain why my five Hellflayers can't all go out to play at the same time, though.

[Withershadow]

Because spam is boring and has now been cut out of organized play, and organized play only?

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

It's a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Nobody has ever complained that fielding five glass-cannon Chariots is cheesy, or WAAC, or OP or anything. My list is crazy fluffy and my strategy is basically "run at it, shouting".

 

And you can't just hand-wave it away by saying well don't play matched then, 'cause I - and many others - simply don't have another option. Everybody else uses matched play so I use matched play or I don't play. 

 

There was absolutely no need to wade in like they did. And yeah, they killed Spam for sure, except it's still perfectly possible to take 360 Cultists in a single Detachment, so no they didn't. 

 

They brought in a stupid, overbroad rule in response to a minority issue, that doesn't address the mischief it is allegedly aimed at and which unjustifiably handcuffs everyone.

[Withershadow]

It's not matched play, it's organized play only.  I understand many groups do use organized play guidelines in matched play, and sympathize.  At the same time, it never hurts to just ask if you want to run a silly spam list.  If you're playing against people who are practicing for tournaments, you can't really demand they accommodate you.  Both parties must agree on the boundaries to the game. 

 

Overall, I like the rule, it solves several issues, and even when you have to play around it it leads to more diverse lists.  Also prevents something OP from sneaking through and dominating for a few months, before they get around to nerfing it.  Also prevents just creating "the new OP" with each round of nerfs as organized play gravitates towards the most point-efficient option.  And no, "all balance work must be perfect before product is released" is not a valid argument, because that is impossible.

 

---

 

Regarding the original question, we should play as written, which is dataslate.  It can be inferred that the community articles and open discussion that "unit" was just short-hand, since these venues are not new to incorrect information.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I think the problem they are trying to solve is that most people are not trying to spam under powered and fluffy units, but are instead trying to cram as many of the most powerful unit they have into their list.

 

And I don't see how they can restrict the latter without only preventing the former - so, if the spamming of powerful units is a problem in tournaments (I can't say, I don't play that crowd) this seems like a reasonable restriction.

 

And, yes, it doesn't prevent troops spam, but I don't see how they fairly could, not with some factions only having 1 or 2 valid troops choices.  Plus, the rational for such favouratism towards troop slot units has always been that troops units should be the most common.

 

I recall when I played back in third edition, many tournaments implemented rules that heavily favoured troops units (can't remember the exact change), which alterred the meta so that the armies that did best at tournaments were those that had the best troop slots (for example, Space Wolves suddenly became one of the best armies).  Hopefully that won't be what will occur here.

 

I think that you are being a bit hyperbolic - I can't see how limiting a person to 3 (or 4) of a given datasheet is "a handcuff" - its a restriction, certainly, but to the greater extent I don't see it limiting armies beyond the problem that GW is trying to address.

[Eddie Orlock]

Habitually I think our statement for what I think I've seen here is 'Asked, Answered, and Commentaried'.

 

The OR isn't the place to grouse about whether you philosophically agree with a rule or not, only to establish what we think the rule actually is. The B&C has a number of other places to host it depending on which flavour of that conversation you wish to have. If you think you can talk your locals into an alternate set of rules that better accommodates your vision of the setting that doesn't immediately require you to update your forces to GW's latest edicts you might try Homegrown Rules.

 

I would also like to generally caution users that I've generously refrained from bringing all the consequences allowed to quash off topic 'twaddle' to see if I can't avoid invoking 'a sledge hammer to crack a walnut'.

 

Naturally, as is my habitual custom, if you think I've erred, or for other reason you'd like this re-opened you're free to appeal by sending me a PM with your clear and well articulated case.

 

-----------

 

I would've preferred to drift into a conversation about whether or not the units of drones that accompany tau stuff are separate invocations of the drone datasheet or not, but that is now a topic for another time.