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.

IMO, the Rule of Three is fine for 2,000 pts games, but I really think it should be the Rule of Two in small games, and the Rule of Four in larger games. Just like in the previous edition:



.

-Guardsman- wrote:
IMO, the Rule of Three is fine for 2,000 pts games, but I really think it should be the Rule of Two in small games, and the Rule of Four in larger games. Just like in the previous edition:



.

You got the 10th rules early? You should share them, then!

I'm actually of the opinion that Rule Of 4 is fine for 2000 points.

I like the small board size we have now for Combat Patrol and Incursion games. It's the perfect size for smaller homes.

I keep going back and forth on the 4x4 table size. Sometimes (usually when I'm running melee units), it feels like a good fit for a couple units duking it out. Other times, I find myself wishing I was on a larger board so that there was room for fast units to utilize their mobility and for long-ranged units to use their range.

I think I probably prefer 4x4 for 750 points and lower and 6x4 for 1000 points.

I'm a big fan of bigger tables. I'd happily play on an 8x5 table if I had the space for it!

More maneuvring is better for tactics - with a lot of things having a 12" move, if they're in the middle, you can basically guarantee they're moving & charging anything not on the flank.

As for rule of 3, I agree that it should scale!

Because GW's general strategy for rules writing is to write the shortest amount of text that solves the immediate problem they're working on (Tau Commander/Flyrant/SM aircraft-spam, in the cast of the Rule of 3), without thinking about the consequences at all, and then nail themselves to the initial lazy band-aid patch with the zeal of a religious fanatic no matter how little sense it makes.