Does the rule of 3 need an update?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I think the rule of 3 has generally been a good thing, but it limits a lot of builds that wouldn’t be OP.

so could an adjustment be made to apply the rule of 3 to a per detachment basis, this way you can still take a lot of a single unit if you want but you’re paying the price in CP.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think that wouldn't work at all, doing that you may as well just throw the whole rule out. A lot of the detachment allotments are under three, except for troops, so it'd be really easy to spam whatever you want. It'd provide a minor inconvenience to how they make it all work to do that, but a soft inhibition may as well not be one.

[Captain Idaho]

I think with the reduction of CP down to 6 for most games, charging CP for additional choices above 3 could be fair.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I think that wouldn't work at all, doing that you may as well just throw the whole rule out. A lot of the detachment allotments are under three, except for troops, so it'd be really easy to spam whatever you want. It'd provide a minor inconvenience to how they make it all work to do that, but a soft inhibition may as well not be one.

I mean they could just charge more per additional detachment, and with the lower starting CP we have now that would be a pretty strong counter balance by taking away a lot of stratagem support for an army 

[tychobi]

Open play exists. Rule of 3 is a balancing tool that for now is very healthy for competitive play. Spam is abusable and if it's worth abusing it generally is bad for the game. For home games between pals sure go with 40 possessed or 5 Phobos captains or 30 sly marbos but over all the rule of 3 is good for the game 

[Rik Lightstar]

It would probably be better as ONE of each PLUS an additional ONE per full thousand points.

 

So for the "Standard 2000 Points Matched Play" it would remain at 3 but you'd be limited to 1 for Combat Patrol games, 2 for 1000-1999 and you'd get more scaling as you go from 3000 points upwards. Although realistically if you're playing a 4000+ point game then Matched Play rules aren't that suitable.

 

Rik

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, tychobi said:

Open play exists. Rule of 3 is a balancing tool that for now is very healthy for competitive play. Spam is abusable and if it's worth abusing it generally is bad for the game. For home games between pals sure go with 40 possessed or 5 Phobos captains or 30 sly marbos but over all the rule of 3 is good for the game 

There’s more than tournaments and playing with friends.

 

that’s where having uniform rules come into play.  Even then it might not be good enough for a pick up game.

 

had someone get butthurt about ‘unfair advantages’ using power rating instead of points, so good luck trying to break rule of 3 in a pick up game, or find randoms before hand that will be ok with throwing a rule meant for balance out the window for you.

[Emperor Ming]

One thing that's constantly brought up this edition is how absurdly broken some releases have been, to the point where gw take quicker direct action to curb the issues

 

If anything, there will prob be more restrictions/balance measures in 10th rather than less or revised

 

Can't see the rule of 3 going anywhere

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

If you think about some of the stuff that’s been nerfed, it was so good that it would’ve been worth taking pretty much any CP penalty to take several more of them because the units were just that good. The rule of 3 is healthy for game balance, even in fairly casual games. It’s also just healthier in terms of a fun game rather than forcing someone to play against spam lists.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

If you think about some of the stuff that’s been nerfed, it was so good that it would’ve been worth taking pretty much any CP penalty to take several more of them because the units were just that good. The rule of 3 is healthy for game balance, even in fairly casual games. It’s also just healthier in terms of a fun game rather than forcing someone to play against spam lists.

Then nerf the OP units so that’s not the case. That just seems like a better solution than saying you can’t have more than X of a unit.

[Khornestar]

3 of any given non-troops non-HQ unit seems pretty reasonable. For whatever scenarios where they aren’t, some narrative rules/open play situation seems like the best fit.

[Focslain]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Then nerf the OP units so that’s not the case. That just seems like a better solution than saying you can’t have more than X of a unit.

Limiting the number is the nerf. The unit might not be nearly as dangerous in small numbers, but multiple of the unit multiplies it's deadliness and there you go. 

 

Which is what happened to Aircraft and the newer ork buggies. It was the spamming that was the issue, not the unit itself.

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Then nerf the OP units so that’s not the case. That just seems like a better solution than saying you can’t have more than X of a unit.

As Focslain says, often it’s the spamming that’s the problem not just the unit. Take HH for example; currently dreads are very very strong but taking one or two in a 3k match isn’t an issue and people find it quite thematic. Take 7 or 8 dreads though and you’ll quickly run out of friends.
 

It also doesn’t solve the issue that spammy lists aren’t fun to play against most of the time. They’re either overbearing or ineffective to the point where it’s boring. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the rule of three is a good thing at the moment. While I agree that it limits some options that aren't OP, I think from a matched play perspective that's probably a necessary evil. They could switch to more of restricted list but I think that could get confusing.

 

At the end of the day most of people who are going to be fun to play against, won't care too much if your running more than 3 of a decent/bad unit. They might want you to make an exception for them but that's fair.

[Closet Skeleton]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

There’s more than tournaments and playing with friends.

 

that’s where having uniform rules come into play.  Even then it might not be good enough for a pick up game.

 

had someone get butthurt about ‘unfair advantages’ using power rating instead of points, so good luck trying to break rule of 3 in a pick up game, or find randoms before hand that will be ok with throwing a rule meant for balance out the window for you.

 

Tournament games are pick up games, they basically follow all the same social rules other than a rank at the end.

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Closet Skeleton said:

Tournament games are pick up games, they basically follow all the same social rules other than a rank at the end.

I'd add two addendums to this in defining tournament games. 1) Both players have optimised their lists to the best of their abilities, and 2) both players will value the 'smart' action over the 'fun' action.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Focslain said:

Limiting the number is the nerf. The unit might not be nearly as dangerous in small numbers, but multiple of the unit multiplies it's deadliness and there you go. 

 

Which is what happened to Aircraft and the newer ork buggies. It was the spamming that was the issue, not the unit itself.

That’s not a nerf to the unit. A nerf makes a unit less effective.

 

the rule of 3 is a lazy half assed method of fixing a problem.

 

3 hours ago, Closet Skeleton said:

 

Tournament games are pick up games, they basically follow all the same social rules other than a rank at the end.

They’re a subsect of pickup game sure I’m not going to argue they aren’t but you know that’s not what people mean when they talk about a pick up game.

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Then nerf the OP units so that’s not the case. That just seems like a better solution than saying you can’t have more than X of a unit.

 

The rule of 3 is also a useful catch-all for future units that might be too strong when fielded in multiples. Recent codices like Votann have shown that GW can't reliably produce rules that are balanced against everything else out there with the amount of playtesting they do. Rule of 3 puts a cap on the amount of abuse that can be dished out unril GW brandish the nerf bat.

[Emperor Ming]

Exactly and people who want to spam units are probably xenos sympathisers anyway!

 

Booo

 

[tychobi]

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

I'd add two addendums to this in defining tournament games. 1) Both players have optimised their lists to the best of their abilities, and 2) both players will value the 'smart' action over the 'fun' action.

You would be wrong about your assumptions if you came to our local tournaments. There is a large spread of folks with varying skills and intentions and ways to enjoy enjoy the hobby. If one person is less interested in optimal play they have a good time showing off their paint and don't begrudge the folks who have fun playing the game. 

 

I think I am reacting to the reference to the "smart" play not being the "fun" play. Narrative play is great but it's not a contest. If there are rules and a winner how I am supposed to not play to win? How do I know what the "fun" move is? Do I just move where you tell me the "fun" zone is? Not to mention I have fun seeing an optimal move, one that surprised me even better. I want to improve and be a better general for having played a game. My fun is seeing smart play that challenges me to play better. I want to know more about what your fun is because I am confused. 

[jaxom]

Understandable. Perhaps a better way to put it would have been valued the action that leads to a win over an action that is narrative. For example, if I'm not in a tournament and the difference between a win and lose is whether I hide my Captain behind a wall versus charge the enemy warlord, I'm charging the warlord.

[MegaVolt87]

Controversial opinion - elimination of rule of three for comp play would make the meta chaotic and I think that's great. Weaker codexes could punch up above their weight with the option to spam. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 minute ago, MegaVolt87 said:

Controversial opinion - elimination of rule of three for comp play would make the meta chaotic and I think that's great. Weaker codexes could punch up above their weight with the option to spam. 

For competitive or matched? Matched play would affect everything down to your pickup games, where spam would definitely not be good for the overall health of most players.

 

I don't mind kicking the proverbial anthill, but that weaker codices would be able to punch above their weight isn't given. Just as easily, or perhaps even most likely, the better books could gain an even larger advantage if they have the spare command points to spend on another detachment, or have better units to spam.

[Xenith]

On 11/29/2022 at 6:24 PM, Focslain said:

It was the spamming that was the issue, not the unit itself.

 

But that's a symptom of compounding the effects of a very efficient unit several times, to make an exceptionally efficient army. The whole reason the points system is there is so that theoretically I could take 1000pts of terminators against 1000pts of termagants and have a roughly equal match - if termagants are more 'point efficient' than terminators, then it's a one way street when they get spammed. And that's the only reason those units get spammed in the first place -they're more efficient for their points than other units. A simple point increase would redress the balance and remove the entire issue of spam lists. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Xenith

[Closet Skeleton]

17 hours ago, jaxom said:

I'd add two addendums to this in defining tournament games. 1) Both players have optimised their lists to the best of their abilities, and 2) both players will value the 'smart' action over the 'fun' action.

 

This just isn't true as a rule for either tournament or pick up matches. Some people go to tournaments to win Best Army and have aesthetically rather than gameplay optimised lists. From the fact that people post pick up game lists on forums for advice its clear that some people want lists optimised beyond the best of their ability.

14 hours ago, jaxom said:

Understandable. Perhaps a better way to put it would have been valued the action that leads to a win over an action that is narrative. For example, if I'm not in a tournament and the difference between a win and lose is whether I hide my Captain behind a wall versus charge the enemy warlord, I'm charging the warlord.

 

Except that in a tournament the option might be between a safe 70 point win if the Captain hides and 30% chance of a 90 point win and a 70% chance of a 60 point loss if he charges, in which case you're never going to get to the top tables if you take the 70 point win.