Too much of a good thing? - Judging the Rule of 3

[@terrysaunders7107]

GW consulted the holy book and divined that "Three shall be the number that players will count to. Not two, not four, and five is out of the question. Three.". Competitive player's, "One,two,FIVE...I mean three!"

[@stevenwalsh6179]

Five...is RIGHT OUT

[@after_alec]

five is right out

[@Harakiri404]

The issue with any restriction of this kind is that it only works under the assumption that all armies are created equal. While Space Marines and Eldar might be able to substitute with the next OP unit, Grey Knights might not.

[@jeffreymonsell659]

They addressed that exact point. Perhaps optimistically, they said that Rule of 2 would give bad armies with a couple good units worse winrates, thus causing GW to balance the army overall instead of letting them coast on a couple good units.

[@FadingClarity]

@@jeffreymonsell659 unless you're a harlequin or world eater player in which case you can't play the game with a rule of 2

[@olafwilsing5166]

@@FadingClarity ahhh, tis not that bad, WE have way enough datasheets for rule of 2 plus Battelline exemptions.

[@jeffreymonsell659]

@@FadingClarity They also talked about an exemption of some sort for battleline units. I literally own a World Eater army that happens to follow the rule of 2 with the battleline exception. It's probably not an optimal army, but it's perfectly possible. Besides, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the rule of 2, but I thought the original comment was silly for raising an argument that was addressed in the video/podcast.

[@jeffreymonsell659]

@@FadingClarity Harlequins are indeed in a death spiral though.

[@VaSoapman]

I like that you guys don't always chase the trends of the hot big new thing. Keeps the content mostly evergreen. Its nice for newer guys like me to go back and watch some of the older stuff.

[@thepoorhammerpodcast]

We're debating two topics for next week's episode we're recording tonight, one of them would make you immediately eat those words. Though, yes typically we prefer not chasing "This week in Warhammer" type content as A. our turnaround time is too slow and B. we just generally prefer talking about topics at a deeper level than reacting to this week's big news or scandal. Sometimes our drive to talk about a hot topic outweighs that though. On the plus side that means at least if you see some topical episode from us it's probably going to be emotionally driven and we'll have strong opinions.

[@madisonkung8390]

@@thepoorhammerpodcast Just my personal input, I don't personally mind you talking about current events either. I'm not really here for specific topics, I just like watching the hosts shoot the shit about Warhammer.

[@jellydamgood]

Non stop focus on the wraithknights tells me this is a reactionary topic.

[@theotv5522]

@@jellydamgood Makes it more organic in my personal opinion. Most podcasts out there just have people reading off a prompt at best and at worst, a script.

[@LordCrate-du8zm]

Rule of Two: *"Always two there are, no more, no less"*

[@tjburnett1191]

One to embody the power, the other to crave it

[@B1-997]

“Always a master, and an apprentice, there are.”

[@veanoob95]

“This is getting out of hand! Now there are two of them!”

[@erbgorre]

@@B1-997 but which was destroyed, the master or the apprentice?

[@Eddy_Grimm]

@@erbgorre The answer. Yes.

[@stephenschiller331]

I've always liked warmachine's solution to this, which that each unit has a stat for unit allocation which is just the maximum number of a unit you can take. I think it's a nice way to limit and adjust for specific models without accidently affecting other units, though that would by a lot more work for GW to go through and decide for each model.

[@Aluc1d]

I also commented this but for the squad based game Infinity. Very similar system that I’m really surprised hasn’t been implemented in 40k given they now restrict squad sizes.

[@Grubnar]

We had that in Warhammer also. When I started playing, at the start of 3rd edition, some units had built-in restrictions. 0-1, or 1+, or 0-2. and that was on top of the Force organization chart.

[@ruas4721]

Like Grabnar said, GW used this system too. But back than the game was not such a mess of broken shit flying around everywhere.

[@nathanthom8176]

Yep and it stops them trying to stop spam by just increasing points. I would be happy if they limited the Sanguinary Guard to two maximum if they kept the points reasonable (hell make them cheap enough and I would be happy if all I could take is one full unit if them). They are ridiculous at the moment considering they don't have an invulnerable save and can't even have a Sanguinary Priest join them and it is because they were spammed in Arks of Omen so GW seemed to have over-reacted.

[@ruas4721]

@@nathanthom8176 Well, people which cry about SG dont even know the real bad melee units in the game. Compared to them, SG is still powerful.

[@chrisjones6792]

As an old crusty player, my frustration with rule of 3 is not that its too restrictive, but that it is yet another rule that had to be reinvented after GW threw out everything that had be solved for decades. The Force Organization chart was good, it made an army feel coherent and thematic for casual players, and kept competitive players from bringing too much shit.

[@leadpaintchips9461]

Pretty much this. Ya, it could use some tweaks from back in 2nd or 3rd ed, but it was solid for the compromise between casual and competitive.

[@avlaenamnell6994]

i like it for eldar, it means i can actually take aspect warriors and my wraithlords, them all being elite and only having 3 elite slots sucked.

[@chrisjones6792]

@@avlaenamnell6994 I would like to see the Horus Heresy expanded into a full edition of 40k. It's a pipe dream, but I think Eldar especially could have very cool reactions, and making special units into troops is like 75% of Rites of War.

[@ruas4721]

@@avlaenamnell6994 I dont know third or second edition, but since 4th edition Aspects and Wraiths are vell divided between Troops, Elite, Fast Attack and Support

[@avlaenamnell6994]

@@ruas4721 i mean in 9th most aspects were elite, and all wraiths were also elite ;p

[@UnciaAmethice]

I think as you say the reason was originally rule of three was due to force org charts since those used to be up to 2 hq, 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 fast attack 3 heavy support, so as you said many older players may have had triples in their collections from that while more than three was a lot more rare (since that'd require multiple force org charts in play so it only happened in truly giant games)

[@Ms.Whiskertoria]

I was about to mention this

[@EmperorSigismund]

Meanwhile old Guard players just collected everything in a giant bucket. "1 HQ and 2 troops? Sorry I can only do about 2000 points with that."

[@MechaEmperor7000]

So in earlier editions of Warhammer, they actually implimented some of the stuff you mentioned. These were the "1+" restriction, "0-1" restriction, and "Changing Battlefield Role". So for example in Tau, Fire Warriors were 1+ in 3rd edition. This meant that no matter what your army composition is, you *must* field at least one unit of Fire Warriors. Since Fire Warriors were also troops, this fulfilled one of your two minimum troop choices. On the other hand, Ethereals were 0-1, meaning you could only have up to one of them in your army. On top of this, special characters counted towards this (although at the time the only named Ethereal was Aun'Shi; Aun'Va didn't exist as a model yet). This was the Warhammer equivallent of singleton/highlander/No Nut November. Then there was the "Change Battlefield Role" things. This was technically there in 3rd but formally introduced as a game mechanic in late 4th. Basically, through some special rules or characters, a certain unit would change battlefield roles. This often changed something to Troops to allow you to field them as compulsory choices, but also some changed slots to let you field more without being compulsory (like Carnifexes becoming Elites if they're under 115 points. See my other comment about Hive Fleet Moloch and why they're insane). As for the problems with spam, this was what the original FoC was designed to do (and something still very few people realize) the Hard limit of 3 choices in each slot meant that spam is harder to do, while the "Troop tax" was intentionally meant to siphon your point costs. However it was a poor system for scaling up because you always had to buy exactly 2 troop choices, so bigger size games were more prone to imbalances. Ironically, this meant that at the time the game was balanced for 1500 points, rather than the 2k we are comfortable with now. Fantasy, and by extension AoS, had a better mechanic where they divided units into broad categories and had minimum and maximum point limits for each one, which I really want 40k to impliment. They can kinda do this with Battleline (25% minimum on Battleline) and characters (no more than 50% of your points on Characters) but there's no way to fix it for anything else since they got rid of the Elites/HS/FA/Fliers/LoW designation. Me and my friend are going to attempt this to see how well it goes after we had a normal game of 10th edition and my Keeper of Secrets made a bitch of his entire blueberry army with her whip.

[@charlesfisher-kh5sw]

tyranid warriors in 3rd had theb ability to be taken as either HQ or elite, and you could custom evollve new nids which sometimes changed their place on their force organisation chart

[@blissfulbadger]

Sitting here crying over my 60 genestealers. They were troops! I was well within my limits...

[@JasonM69]

I have the same problem, but all 2nd edition plastic ones. Gonna split them up across my 2nd and 3rd Tyranid armies and Genestealer cult. That way, I have a reason to buy more.

[@theotv5522]

Facing 7 Hive Tyrants is just POV: You're being invaded by a Hive Fleet in lore.

[@Speknoz]

Given enough time, people will optimize the fun out of anything.

[@foxnut13]

Everytime 🤣

[@Unknown-qj9sm]

I do wonder how harlequins would even make an army, they can’t reach 3k currently and they honestly only take roughly like a 465 point hit for characters, 1 voidweaver, 1 group of 4 Skyweavers, and 1 Starweaver becuase the character limit went down. Which would make it so they can barley get over. I desperately hope they get a dual kit when the codex comes out that gives them more options.

[@willtomgames]

harlequins didnt get an index, you are very optimistic if you think theyre getting a codex, at best theyre gonna have a section in the aeldari codex that lets you run some harlequins in an aeldari army

[@Unknown-qj9sm]

@@willtomgames I am aware. I’ll keep my copium stash though since I like them as an army.

[@crispin8212]

​@@Unknown-qj9sm Malal says hi.

[@viktorgabriel2554]

they are not designed to be pure Harlequins in the first place

[@soffren]

I want Harlequins to be my second army so badly, but that would require them to be an actual army....

[@craigthenurse5077]

I am just glad they have four types of infantry squads now, my IG army used to have 50 models in a single troop choice and I need the option back to field them.

[@Eddy_Grimm]

I was so happy when i heard rumours of platoons retuning going into 10th and was crunched when the indexes came out and they where not there.

[@Hoangapalooza]

Damn I wish some of these went on longer! I like listening to these on my very long drive home from work and it makes it feel like I'm shit talking Warhammer with the boys. Complementing new models while bashing each other's choice of faction is what the casual's and I do after a long work week haha! Keep it up you guys!

[@ForTehNguyen]

rule of 2 is far safer for a collection in case something gets nerfed or toned down. Live by the skew, die by the skew

[@rmcdaniel2424]

Exactly why I do only 1 of each unit.. minus some exceptions.

[@Dutchninja95]

It is safer for FUTURE collection. Unless they increase the size of units, like was mentioned in the video, or use some other lever to balance it people who have been collecting for a while especially those that collect one or two armies would see good chunks of their collections become unusable. Just look at poor WE players that have been playing for a while. They lost massive chunks of their collections as "playable options" for their factions. Sure there is an argument that when they lost the first wave they could "just play CSM instead" but that isn't an option for the large chunk of FW models that are no longer playable. I would forsee a similar thing happening if GW went to rule of 2.

[@khayon4364]

@@rmcdaniel2424 Bingo. For each of my armies I follow 1 of each, barring rare exceptions and battleline. Protects you from any big swings in the rules.

[@positivepaul8956]

I dont run 3 vindicators in iron warriors because it’s good

[@surrenderfleet]

Lictor kit probably isn't gonna be THAT much more expensive... though literally contains half as many lictors as the current kit to make up for it.

[@ravenRedwake]

Reminds me of that old Flashgitz video where they talk about putting in half the models for double the price so that the models are worth twice as much lol.

[@kiranturner8194]

wdym? the current lictor kit has one?

[@omoroburns2172]

There's only one lictor in the current kit and it's really old.

[@Speknoz]

@surrenderfleet You alright mate? Are you having a stroke? Half the Lictors?

[@surrenderfleet]

Clearly this joke didn't play out as well as I'd hoped lol...

[@alexanderpan98]

for the most part I agree with rule of 3, but man I love the new biovore/pyrovore and i wanted to do a list of all the big ticks

[@PeteOfDarkness]

If they are like current ones, you can run 18 of them.

[@alexanderpan98]

@@PeteOfDarkness that is the question I think they gave a much bigger base so rules may change

[@alexc4298]

As someone just getting into the hobby, I wish the force organization stuff wasn’t scrapped completely as it gave some idea of army structure. I was trying to find the guidelines for army building in 10th to plan my first army, and only having the rule of 3 leaves me having no idea where to even start. Pick an HQ and play what you like in a faction works well if you already know how to create a balanced force, but at this point I’m just kind of winging it and more structure would be helpful.

[@theotv5522]

As someone who just getting into the hobby, I just wish GW would stop sucking Space Marines's D and give more attention to other xenos. Right now they exist either as plot convinience or Space Marine's punching bag to show players how buffed Space Marines are.

[@willasplin8347]

GW could add a keyword like "Battleline X" where X is the max number of units you can have of that datasheet. Could go one step further with something like "Leman Russ X" where all datasheets sharing that keyword share that unit cap. With the new digital datacards, they could be changed pretty quickly on a per unit basis as/when skew lists popped up in tournaments.

[@DominatorLegend]

Speaking of the Nid stuff. I remember when you did the Faction's Knights and said Nids would've passed if given enough time. Indeed, the Emissary is a proper Nid Knight.

[@jerryjezzaberry5009]

Nah its still way smaller then a Knight, the reference image shows it with a wraithlord meaning it's like a have tyrant with some platform boots.

[@DominatorLegend]

​@@jerryjezzaberry5009I dunno. They picked smaller stuff for other factions too. Remember it had to be big enough and have that high Timmy factor. I think the Emissary passes quite well.

[@jerryjezzaberry5009]

@DominatorLegend yeah I think it's a *big* model but not Knight sized the proportions don't work out for it to be that large or comparable. I'm guessing it's closer to the avatar of khaine of maybe great unclean one rather then an actual knight

[@DominatorLegend]

@@jerryjezzaberry5009 Well, the GUO was used as the Knight equivalent for Demons.

[@jerryjezzaberry5009]

@DominatorLegend yeah in statline but actual size ? Nah it's a rotund model but nowhere near as impressive as a Knight. The only chaos deamons who get close to the scale and wow factor of the Knight are the Lord of change and bloodthirster.

[@Brickfrog427]

I remember a few months ago seeing this Beastmen (Beasts of Chaos) army list that was pretty much, "Oops, all Chaos Spawn!" Like, except for one or two characters, it was all units of Chaos Spawn. But the player had actually individually named the Chaos Spawn with whimsical names, it was great!

[@Tortle-Man]

That sounds like a based as hell list wow.

[@NikitaLapshov-k4f]

AoS has different rules, which limit spamming without the rule of 3 or 2, you have a minimum amount of battleline, and then you have a maximum number of Heroes, Behemots and Artillery, so only if you want to really spam the same unit, youll have to spam battleline, which is ok with most people

[@KAKADOUJACK]

I really dislike the new fixed squad size, but I definitely feel what you said about a faction not feeling healthy despite a high win rate. I play Adeptus Mechanicus, and I really hated that time in 9th when AdMech was utterly broken because I didn't want to play 40 vanguards with the Irradiated Forge World rule and enriched rounds. That's unsurvivable for basically anything you shoot at, and it isn't fun, or flavorful. Not to mention, I started playing with Kill Team, because AdMech is damn expensive to collect and I don't really want to buy 4 boxes or scrounge from eBay to get 40 vanguards.

[@Eddy_Grimm]

I think variable squad sizes/point per model will return with the codexes/end of year points changes. the tournament scene will cry havoc otherwise and we all know that's who james listens to the most

[@ruas4721]

@@Eddy_Grimm not only the competitive scene, many normal players hate it too.

[@KRdHaene]

@@Eddy_Grimm I don't think PPM is coming back anytime soon. Unit size interacts with Leaders, Blast, transports, and Reserves too closely now. It's a lever to balance. For example, in a 2000pt game I cannot place a max sized Scarab Occult unit with a Sorc Terminator in Deep Strike. It's about 10 or so points over the 500pt reserves limit. If there was PMM then I'd drop a model and could, but it clearly seems to be pointed specifically to either take a min size with leader into DS or footslog/transport a max size.

[@Eddy_Grimm]

@@KRdHaene the fact that you cant put the deep strike unit in deep strike shows how stupid it is. though i do believe that although strategic reserves are 25%, deep strike is general reserves which (i believe) is 50%. (page 43)

[@KRdHaene]

@@Eddy_Grimm I stand corrected on the percentage of points allowed in Reserves v. Strategic Reserves. I internalized the 25% since I have not looked at the Leviathan mission pack where the 50% rule for all Reserves is stated. I still stand by the argument that fixed unit sizes are a major balance lever, both for how armies are constructed and the level of power each unit has. I don't believe it is going anywhere anytime soon.

[@KmcK]

I really appreciate how level-headed you two are. You actually approach these things with an open mind, and an effort to look at the merits and reasoning behind things. While still keeping it entertaining, too!

[@deifiedtitan]

I miss the old 3rd Ed Force Org. No nonsense: 1 HQ & 2 Troops minimum. Max of 2 HQ, 3 Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, 6 Troops. Same for every standard army. If a unit was unique or powerful, it would have its own limit of 0-1, 0-2, etc. If you had a specific chapter, hive fleet, craftworld, etc. then it usually gave you a trade-off, so Biel-Tan had all your Aspect Warriors becoming troops but pretty much everything else became an elite choice. Extremely simple to grok.

[@iancastleman306]

I was wondering if there was someone here who remembered that, or if I had simply imagined that or misunderstood the force org back in 3rd. Imagine a petulant 14 year old (me) deciding to take 3 looted basilisks for an ork army with indirect fire…

[@pdthepowerdragon5412]

It perfectly encapsulates my feelings as an AoS player about Slant lists. Playing against an army that’s just nothing but one unit just makes me bored. It feels like there’s not much tactics but instead I’m just beaten by stat sticks.

[@TheHutcharmy]

On the topic of AOS, we don’t have as much of a spam problem because Battleline does the job, plus we’re only allowed to “reinforce” a unit beyond minimum 4 times. So the only way to, say, spam Stegadons in Seraphon is to take the sub faction that makes them battleline, and then GW can balance around that, plus you don’t get a ton else in that subfaction. Much cleaner IMO but it comes with the battleline tax that some people don’t like because then they have to run generic troops

[@shuwan4games]

on top of that alot of armies what to get one drops to have a choice on who goes first or second which also limits how the army is made

[@TheHutcharmy]

@@shuwan4games Good point, I forgot about how much of a success Core Battalions are. 40K 9th detachments but you don’t have to take them unless you want their specific bonuses. It’s the exact right way to do that imo.

[@aaronmeehan8161]

Could be cool for armies having unique keyword restrictions like the one commander per detachment thing but instead be "five dreadnought keyword units per army" something like that.

[@RagnellAvalon]

They've already experimented with that with Lucius the Eternal in CSM, which turns Noise Marines into Battleline so you can just. Bring six squads of Noise Marines

[@theotv5522]

@@RagnellAvalon Turning the battlefield into a Skrillex concert.

[@TheRealElThang]

Here's my big brain idea: You know those nice, once page detachment rules that outline the fighting style of your particular force? Put a force org chart on them. They've already suggested a similar thing with changing battleline on those cards, why not go all the way?

[@hendrikrasmus]

As a person who likes to cast a wide net when starting a new army (unless I only like 1 part of it). The main reason I end up bringing multiple of the same unit is game speed. I have not commited every data sheet to memory. Shuffling papers takes time that adds up. Also every data sheet is another sheet that gets shuffled every time so the time waste is exponential.

[@tibi423]

Failure? Your podcasts are great, man!

[@efffvss]

This really felt like the obvious solution is just to go back to the more restrictive force org charts of previous (imo better) editions. It solves all the issues, limits the ability to spam OP stuff, can naturally force more opportunity cost into lists (say, if 2 tanks are both really good, you have to split your 3 HS picks between them, rather than just taking 3 (or even 2) of both), doesn't penalise limited ranges quite as much (because everyone is slot limited) and more easily lends itself to the 'visually balanced' lists you're advocating for in this video. You can even do specific, themed slant lists by allowing units to change slots under certain circumstances (this was most obviously done with pure Raven/Deathwing armies back in the day).

[@owenhughes5781]

A simple solution to increase variety and reduce skew lists would be bringing back 0-1 and 0-2 restrictions. It would be easy enough to add in a couple of extra categories to go with battle line, like adding 'rare' and 'uncommon' designations for things you can only have 1 or 2 of in a list.

[@SumsieBun]

This rule is really interesting as a swarm tyranid player. I really enjoy having a teeming mass of hormagaunts that blankets the board and even 60 termies feels over limited. I agree with the big guys though that makes sense

[@sartrisbt]

"Buying seven of the same kit is borderline mental" *Sweats nervously over nine broadsides*

[@SolarComms]

Shouting out the Editor AGAIN. Dude... you are making the rest of us look bad. On a 40K Podcast that has a shoestring budget. Props to you dude.

[@crashstarr6531]

This must be something that changes drastically based on your playgroup lol. 3 has always felt about right to me, in that I've never really had a unit that I would even want more than 3 of, but I have played other games more competitively and could see how a sweaty player could break things if they wanted to. Still, I would be very sad if they went down to 2.

[@siremilcrane]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="342">5:42</a> Actual old nerds like me will know you were limited to 2 HQ choices anyway under the old force org chart 2 HQ 3 Elites, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Heavy Support

[@ironknight132]

I really like Bolt Action's army building. Makes armies play and feel more like functional units.

[@theotv5522]

I mean 7 Hive Tyrants is just POV: You're being invaded by a Hive fleet and you're a guardsmen.

[@ssephi]

Just a memory about Leman Russ tanks - Back in 2nd edition a guy called Spud that went to my local gw used to run a Leman Russ with 3 battle cannons (turret + 2 sponsons) - It was completely legal at the time (the demolisher model didn't exist yet) but entirely not-fun to fight against

[@Typhoonatlas]

Spot on with the lictor pricing in the first 30seconds haha

[@nonya1366]

I admit I'm not involved in the actual tabletop, just something to listen to. But my gut reaction was "Oh you take three whole guardsmen." Because Killteam has shifted my outlook. Which, got me thinking: You could have the point limit be what determines what you can bring. Pulling points out of the aether with no bearing for an example: 200 points means you can only bring like, one leman russ while being unable to bring a titan that magically costed less than 200 points. So larger point sized games means you could bring out your "lol 7 carnifexes" Or whatever.

[@JRedMage]

"Looks nervously at the pile of 18 Sentinals"

[@Kerberus262]

Here's a wild thought: Now that we have an army-building page of the datasheet, why not put unit limits on there? "You can include 2 of this unit in your army, or 4 if your Warlord is a *Warpsmith*."

[@hugorikken2993]

So AOS also had problems with this. in the last year we had stuff like nurgle fly spam where it was just a lord on a fly and as many other flies you can fit in the list or currently soulblight zombie spam/Gitz squig herd, but it happens less. I feel like one of the reasons why AOS has less problems with this is because in AOS, stuff is usually more expensive. There are many models that are 750 points in AOS that see regular play. Teclis, Archaon (Nagash if you are a mad man, he was 965 for along time, he just dropped to 900 and there is a FEC list where he is good). Daemons are more expensive. 3 flamers are 170 points. Kairos is 440. This means that you are just naturally going to see less units on the field. Tzaangor twice as expensive. This all together means that even in a slant list, you are naturally going to have less of the same unit on the board. going above 3x any warscoll almost never happens.

[@Jfund12]

Tau Riptides in 8th Edition exemplifies exactly what you were talking about with internal balance.

[@joshuawilson8804]

I know an idea of militaries are "one is none, two is one, three is some." Which is if you have a single specialized unit it can be wiped out before its even used. Two? You will at least have one. And three you will have something at the end.

[@conarbabbitt4795]

I did a slow grow highlander league for Aoo and it was amazing. We started with a character and a battleline unit and worked up one game at a time.

[@Eddy_Grimm]

I love this idea for crusade.

[@conarbabbitt4795]

@@Eddy_Grimm that's what it was. And it was absolutely wonderful, the lists that came out of that are some of the most creative I've seen

[@overweightactor]

Brad: "We'll probably bring our editor on the podcast when we hit 40k subscribers " Background visual: *Necron Overlord awakening* Hmmm...

[@SmolShorkess]

The main reason I don’t think rule of 2 is it would make thousand sons list be a pain to fill out without double squading and maxing scarabs and rubrics. Or at least the way I understand the rule.

[@Ravenwing8369]

As an example of having a detachment making something battleline… way back if you wanted to take 6 units of terminators for your deathwing you would take Belial who would allow them to be a troop choice. So back in 5th edition this was a thing that existed.

[@shadeofnod]

Rule of three I think was based off market research, but those results came to bc classic force orgs from 5th/6th was 3 of everything but troops and hqs I think they are on the right track but not small enough scale. Warmachine and Infinity each unit has an FA stat for Field Allowance. This give GW a dial to tune things up and down for representation and also make sense in fluff as each of these is on some way a regimented army with budgets and logistical concerns. They kind of touched on it with the rule of 1 for tau commanders.

[@jorgemontero6384]

You mention Magic, but forget the classic Rosewater design maxim: Your players will do anything, no matter so unfun it is, if it means winning more games. So a designer sould sure that your most fun ways to play are also the most effective. With abilities in every unit, there was a golden opportunity for this: Make sure that different kinds of units are what provides the strongest buffs. Want a slanted list? Great, it'll do worse damage, and possibly have fewer buff-based survivability features. We might have some attempts at this in Necrons: Want a deadly ball of endurance? You are going to bring some characters, a large infantry unit, and a couple of vehicles buffing regen. You can then shoot the reanimator, or assassinate someone, to try to break it down, instead of just hoping your army was blessed with d-cannons. A similar attempt happens in Tau, where a mech-only list is not going to have any use for the army rule, as you really want your infantry to be spotters, and the only infantry that does serious damage is probably going to be delivered in a vehicle. So go look at the top lists right now? Other than the necron brick being a little too bricky, we see very slanted lists of very efficient units that need little combined arms.

[@kookieslayer]

The rule of 3 wasn't necessary before detachment became a thing. You couldn't bring more than 3 elite/heavy support/fast attack choices in the oldschool army structure. Kinda miss that TBH.

[@joe_h_Redwire]

Singleton would be perfect for “We’re stranded on this planet” narrative games, and Rule of 2 for factions/subfactions that have been ‘cut off’ somehow. Celestial Lions cut off by the Inquisition, Fire Hawks falsely declared heretic by Custodes, Risen who haven’t been loyalist until recently, Lamenters who never get support because of course they don’t.

[@tomwhitmore4017]

I know I'm late to the party here, but my personal belief is that 3 was descided on because it matched the old force org charts. Since you used to be only able to take 3 fast attack units, 3 elites or 3 heavy support. Functionally, for a very long time, 3 was already the maximum of something you could take, outside of basic troops. So this would explain why people wouldn't own more than three of a single unit

[@mouthwide0pen]

"Even custodes go above 5 per squad" *YOU DID THIS*

[@kharnt.betrayer2946]

I don't understand what was wrong with the old force organisation chart, I started in 5th edition and it was simple. 2 HQs, 3 Elites, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack and 3 Heavies. I would adapt that slightly with the adapted detachments like Vanguard (elites), Outrider (fast attack) and Spearhead (heavy support), but the broad principle still works and I don't think they've gained much by messing radically with the formula.

[@GirlPainting]

I would advocate for a simple "Rule of K", meaning that the limitation depends on the size od the game. You play 1K points, your limit is 1, 2K=2 and so on. Also encoporating a Keyword into the datasheets like "Leman Russ Tank" for all variants or "redemptor dreadnought" "firstborn dreadnought" so you can´t exploit the system by just taking a different datasheet with a weapon variation.

[@verbugterherrderdunkelheit6086]

Sounds fun at first, but it results in dumb stuff like Orks only being allowed to run 1 unit of Grots in 1000p matches.

[@GirlPainting]

@@verbugterherrderdunkelheit6086 yes, and? i don´t see the problem

[@verbugterherrderdunkelheit6086]

@@GirlPainting What I mean is that not every army works well with singletons at 1K, f.ex. basic Infantry heavy armies like Orks or Genestealer. They even talked about this in the Podcast that some smaller armies don't have enough options to make that work.

[@GirlPainting]

@@verbugterherrderdunkelheit6086 well, in case of core troups you can obviously have as much as you desire. the rule is basicly for anything else that can rhuin the game balance by spaming it, as stated in the video already.

[@cactus_judy3929]

They already solved this problem when I "played" as a kid. I distinctly remember some datasheets saying

[@trolleymouse]

My theory as to why they chose three: A detachment at the time required three of its associated non-HQ type, and some armies only had one FA or HS option.

[@MLee0584]

I have to admit, you made me rethink my list building. Once I found out I could essentially bring 4 Beastbosses on Squigosaur , I definitely have been strategizing around that. I’ll tone it back down😔

[@hansdeutsch1295]

"Even Custodes can go above 5 per squad" Oh, if only they knew. If only they knew..

[@jo_ken]

You can make the argument of GSC being a full army if GW just didn’t limit them so much in what brood brothers stuff they can take.

[@thebreadbaron2027]

> Poorhammer posts a video > I watch it. It's that simple really.

[@markus1351]

I really liked the old way of having HQ, Elite, Troops, Assault and Heavy Support Running more standard troops with according number of HQs rewarding more CP felt really great

[@bnd8469]

I like having 3 of some units, though thats mostly because I like the Idea of having 2 Identical ones and 0ne with different Armaments, to have him as a Leader for the other ones.

[@leXie1337_chan]

Scatter dice and templates were huge selling factors that got me into 40k.

[@Balevolt]

I would be fine with them bringing 0-1 options back with specific units

The current way of pointing units would make it possible to have something like "Rats: 5 models 50 points, 10 models 120 points"

[@Kaldris]

Sad Necron from the corner noises with their only 2 doomsday arks

[@daaaah_whoosh]

For most of the winning lists I've seen recently I think a rule of 2 with Battleline limit of 3 would be fine. Most armies have ways around it anyway, either by doubling up unit size or having multiple versions of the same unit. Like if you're T'au and you want Crisis Suits, currently you can run 21 of 'em at 1410 points (or a full 2k list if you have commanders running around on their own). With a 2-unit limit you could still field 14 of them for 940 points, that's much more reasonable. Similarly the Breacher+Devilfish combo is strong, but no one's going to be spending 1k points to field six of each.

[@Walpurgisnackt]

gw punished me decades for painting my nurgle army iron warriors because I liked the color scheme that did not have rules yet man I might have picked the worst era to start the game as chaos lmao

[@TheFoolishSage]

Complicated idea that doesn't really fix anything: Have progressive copies of a unit cost more points. One blade champion? 100 points. Two blade champions? 250 points. Three blade champions?? 450 points. It would mean you can field as many of something as you like.... but at a cost

[@MasterFustache]

Warmachine has a unique rule where each unit has a maximum number that can be taken. Usually 2 or 1.

[@TheCypher19]

EDH style armies would be awesome. The variety would be awesome

[@notarealfirstnamenotareall746]

Back in my day we could field 40,000 Warhounds behind an unassuming blade of grass with Creed and how dare GW take that away from me. I wonder if it would be okay if the rule of two/three could be broken, but doing it incurs increasingly negative effects on the units that break it for how far beyond it gets broken. An example of this might be there being a broken melee unit so someone only brings that unit to a game. Now maybe the penalty might be that specific melee unit when being shot against, the shooter gains a +1 to hit because thematically dudes running straight at you without cover fire are going to be easier to hit. It makes sense lore wise, allows anyone to play whatever they want for whatever reason, and curbs a list of a single unit twelve times because then it becomes competitivly less viable than a properly balanced army.

[@robinburt5735]

I got a stung when Eldar Warwalkers suddenly can't be in a squadron anymore and i owned 9 and now i can only field 3... Imperial Guard on the other hand can take 18 sentinels

[@Dirt1061]

I personally like the idea of unit or model limits per datasheet. This way a faction can have a unber unit, like an experimental type, and it would fit thematically and be okay for game balance. It would also allow for flavor, like Tau can only have 2 units of Breachers but Orks can have 6 units of Boys. It would also give tons of balancing options, like say Terminators are to popular/powerful, then you can only take 10 total over X amount of units, etc.

[@MekBoooooi]

I got 10 custom Deff Dreads but can only field 3, not enough!!

[@EmperorSigismund]

One silly thing about the rule of 3 is how even within one codex it can be completely unbalanced as to what it targets. Take the Guard, for example. Every one of the 7 Russ variants can be taken 3 times + 3 Tank Commanders. Meanwhile the heavy weapons squad which has 5 weapon options, can only be taken 3 times which is the same cost as the cheapest russ.

[@Ms.Whiskertoria]

As someone who collects and plays a thematic Leman Russ Tank Company. 3 Tank Commander's are barely enough of a spread of orders for 2k army as it is. I already have to pay through the nose for them on points.

[@simonmiller5351]

back in the best edition (3rd) units would have restrictions on numbers plus the force aug chart, eg for orks 1 warboss (you had to take a warboss), 0-1 looted vehicle, and 0-2 tankbustas. the draw back of changing the rule to 2 or 1 it would adversely afffect hordy armies guard, orks and nids

[@AlexJaneway]

Internal balance would help so much. I have collected Eldar since 1996, so I got at least 3 of almost everything some a lot more because of Apocalypse.

[@wolf40k]

There is an annual local charity tournament (Vancouver, BC, Canada) that does the Highlander rules. Us competitive crowd just treat it as a day of drinking and throwing models at each other

[@floating_through_space8985]

Rule of 2 scares all 4 Votann players, cause they couldn't make an army without 3 of everything

[@zdron07]

I appreciate being back scatter dice

[@kalslengulkdexa8692]

I think a good solution would be to add more keywords to models, some that say your allowed 1, some that allow 2, some that allow 3, ect ect. and that would be something that GW can change for balance. so if one model is getting out of hand and being taken too much they can reduce it.

[@135forte]

You are missing the obvious answer of individual unit allowances. At least in MkIII, Warmachine had everything from Force Allowance Character (one per army, full stop) to Force Allowance 1 (one per army per 'detachment') to Force Allowance Unlimited (any number per army, regardless). It would require GW to curate their rules and units though.

[@ryanhall6043]

Even in 7th most detachments enable you to take 3 of a specific units

[@Aluc1d]

I’m aware that a squad based game like Infinity is a vastly different beast but I always liked that in that game units (only one model but still) all have an availability or AVA in their stat block. Some units are AVA: total meaning you can field as many as you have points for, other units like big mechs might only have AVA 1 or 2 to compensate for their power when spammed.

[@korrul]

I do think there is... expression value in rule of 3. 1 being experiment/unique use, 2 being linchpin, 3 being spam/statement. Narratively, hobby and power wise, I think it's important for there to be granuality. I feel that Rule of 2 would hide a different problem than Rule of 3 does - rule of 3 hiding faction problem, rule of 2 hiding problem units. However, the whole discussion is very worthwhile, as it adjusts the perspective in a valuable way

[@bjornhjorvardssen2336]

Thanks for being the guys you are!

[@Alistarwormwood]

I'm not a competitive player, but You play to WIN. If it's broken, that's GW's fault, not the players. You can't fault the players for trying to WIN A GAME, that's the whole point.

[@Silverfishv9]

See the Spike and Jenny in my brain wants to accept the idea that these changes would be good for balance, but the Tammy is too upset by the prospect of "less than 3 big dinosaurs?" and tends to overpower the other two a bit. Ultimately the balance issues definitely need to be addressed, but it would be great if they could be dealt with without competitive players ruining the more "wacky one-off slant" ideas.

[@dmajor9982]

“It’s unlikely casuals would get 7 hive tyrants etc”. You greatly underestimate how competitive my friends are. Even tho they ‘only play for fun and don’t meta chase’.

[@communisticus191]

As a Tzeentch Daemon player, I wouldn't mind changing it to rule of 2 since it encourages more varied armies, and I personally want more fuffy armies. Though, if such a change were made, I would need to have more than 4 normal non-character units as well as more flexibility in unit sizes for it to work out(being locked to 10 and only 10 for 2 out of the 4 sucks). And that isn't a problem exclusive to mono god daemons (rule of 2 could make GW get off their ass and make new units for factions other than space marines though, so thats a plus).

[@icholi88]

Yall think rule of 3 is controversial? Man you're gonna hate my suggestion to make all epic heroes narrative play only.

[@tellumyort]

Potential Q&A episode in the future? Sounds Good

[@daciandoes6753]

You know what, a 1000pt highlander tournament sounds dope, pretty sure every faction could make a list that could be fun (if not either balanced or competitive), battleline would probably have to be allowed 2 units otherwise things like knights could struggle to fill the points effectively

[@ravenRedwake]

Honestly, I’d be okay with a rule of 2. As a personal policy, I changed how I collect and build units so that I only ever have 2 of any given kit.