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.

Well I am aware that the rule of 3 is just a suggestion, could I justify having more than 3 squads of veterans? This would be to demonstrate a more experienced detachment of AM infantry. Compared to standard infantry, they differ only slightly and with CA18 they only cost 1ppm more than a standard infantry unit. Could I justify this? Or least would this be something people would get upset over?

Entirely depends on your gaming group. Ask them not us.

I was hoping to get a general consensus on what the Dakka community thought.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Entirely depends on your gaming group. Ask them not us.

this really is it. if your gaming group is fine with it, or they are not fine with it, thats gonna be whats important, not what a buncha strangers on the internet say

I wouldn't care, but the people I play with would.

Ultimately you should build whatever you like to represent your dudespersons, but I would not count on being able to field four Veteran Squads if you play pick-up games against relative strangers.

You could always just run one as an extra Infantry Squad/Militia in the games where people get pissy.

Considering that 'rule of three' isn't a real rule, I would be fine with this.

There however are a lot of rude people who want to impose their houserule of using tournament suggestions outside tournaments on others.

Dont think people would be upset over it but you certainly wont be able to play competitively with it.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I was hoping to get a general consensus on what the Dakka community thought.

Why? The opinions that matter are those of the people you play with.

That said, my own opinion is that ignoring the Ro3 is just fine.

If you asked me "Can I take 9 Riptides in my Tau list?" I'd probably say no.

But you're asking about Veterans. Which are kinda poopy. So I'd be fine with it.

Again, to echo what's been said, ultimately what matters is your local players' opinions, not ours.

Doesn't the rule of 3 not include troop units? That's what I've heard.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Doesn't the rule of 3 not include troop units? That's what I've heard.

Veterans are no more troops.
They got moved into elite.

Thank GW for that.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I was hoping to get a general consensus on what the Dakka community thought.

I generally only play to practice for upcoming ITC events (since there are 2-3 of them per month within driving distance) so I'd want to play against a tournament legal army to test. So I'd say no.

I'm probably in the minority here though.

Ok, well, if you show up to my table with 15 Custard Jet Bikes, or 3 Gmans, or 6 Whateverbrokenunits, I'd instantly mark you as "that guy". If you are pulling that in a local gaming store, the question is more "how much do I care what people think of me?"

Personally, I would be fine with this for several reasons:

A) They USED to be Troops, which are not affected by Ro3. There are lots of unit like this that I would personally be fine with an opponent fielding 4-5 or so units of. Once you get to 6+ units, however, it gets boring but I'd still play.

B) The unit in question is far from OP, so having more of them should not affect the game too much

C) Because they are not Troops, you are less likely to have 2+ Battalions and therefore much fewer CPs.

D) In general I always discuss things with my opponent anyway, so I would be fully aware that you had 4+ Vet unit and could adjust my tactics accordingly

-

If you don't mind your opponents breaking the ro3 themselves I think it's fair.

Personally I'd prefer to play by all the rules that GW set, "optional" or otherwise.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Personally I'd prefer to play by all the rules that GW set, "optional" or otherwise.

Yeah, this is always my first assumption and therefore what I hold myself to. And because if this, it's always good to discuss any deviation from this with your opponent.
Most players are adult enough to be ok with case like the OP's

-

I guess it depends, there are units that got hit "unfairly" by the rule of three, units like veterans which even, as allready pointed out, were troops.

Possessed beeing another one, disciples, etc.

I personally think this is one of the issues many players have with the ro3, it hits the wrong units often times more then the ones it is meant to curb.
Also magically beeing able to switch dexes to get more of the same unit (cough Dp) gets incentiviced.

This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

For more then 3 veterans but you would also ignore the 4+ dp 's since they come from diffrent dexes?

I mean sure the rules the rules but this is a non mandatory one that is also just a bandaid and even at that it proves to be rather bad no?

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?

I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.

Can't see the issue. Ro3 is a good rule that should be followed by default, but OP is asking for an exception to make their army weaker. Shrug, if you like losing games go for it.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?

I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.

Exactly this.

And, it's my right to refuse games. I would also refuse to play a game with no terrain on the table. GW does not have a rule requiring terrain, yet we all kind of understand the game is better with it in there.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?

I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.

Exactly this.

And, it's my right to refuse games. I would also refuse to play a game with no terrain on the table. GW does not have a rule requiring terrain, yet we all kind of understand the game is better with it in there.

Now, I'm going to get skewered by BCB here, but let's bring up intent here.

The INTENT, as best I can tell, of the Rule of Three was to help make the game more balanced and less spammy.

Now, in a 2k game, I'd hardly consider four small Veterans squads spammy, but I will admit, that's subjective.
But is it unbalanced?

To which I would say... No. Hell no. If anything, it's making the army weaker.

Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

I do agree that it's the kind of thing you should tell your opponent beforehand, but it's a simple, easy, and not unfun exception.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I was hoping to get a general consensus on what the Dakka community thought.

If your question is "will dakka get upset about something," the answer is yes.

If your intention is to participate in/practice for tournament play, or to play mostly with people who are, then you should probably stick to the Ro3. If you're more of a narrative/casual player like me, then just make your army how you want it to be and be prepared to adjust it if someone really can't face the thought of playing against a whole extra squad of underpowered infantry.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is a hard no from me.

The rule of 3 is good for the game.

I would refuse a game with you.

So you refuse to play with people that don't want to use your houserules?

I sure would. Especially if said house rule was suggested by the people who made the game in the first place.

Exactly this.

And, it's my right to refuse games. I would also refuse to play a game with no terrain on the table. GW does not have a rule requiring terrain, yet we all kind of understand the game is better with it in there.

Now, I'm going to get skewered by BCB here, but let's bring up intent here.

The INTENT, as best I can tell, of the Rule of Three was to help make the game more balanced and less spammy.

Now, in a 2k game, I'd hardly consider four small Veterans squads spammy, but I will admit, that's subjective.
But is it unbalanced?

To which I would say... No. Hell no. If anything, it's making the army weaker.

Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

I do agree that it's the kind of thing you should tell your opponent beforehand, but it's a simple, easy, and not unfun exception.

Again, for him 4 dp 's are somehow great, 6 even better but god forbid you bring 4 terminators squads......

There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Again, for him 4 dp 's are somehow great, 6 even better but god forbid you bring 4 terminators squads......

Yeah. While I do agree that it breaks a commonly accepted rule, it's not breaking the reason it was implemented.

And it doesn't even fix the issue it was meant to that well to begin with!

 Marmatag wrote:
There is nothing wrong with having a standardized rule set from which the game is played.

If you want to play open or narrative, those game modes exist.

Ask for an open play game.

Would you then play him, if it was Open Play?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are you okay with someone bringing 12 Russ chassis (three squadrons of three each, and three commanders) but a fourth Veteran squad is suddenly a bridge too far?

To play devil's advocate, because one is following the rules and the other isn't. Sometimes it's just simpler to play by the rules and not argue over whether or not something is an acceptable change.

That's fair-but to blanket refuse it seems needlessly stubborn.

Especially since the rules are GW's. Who are not know for stellar rules writing.