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.

If you’re running 9th company, you’re playing more for narrative and thus ro3 doesn’t apply to you.

Also, as one of the Reserve Companies, the 9th would very rarely be fielded as a whole battlefield entity, so using it as an example of fluff justification to get rid of a (optional) rule is a bit of a weird one.

Kdash wrote:

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

If I were to play where Ro3 was enforced I'd have a tough time fielding my Ultra-Marine 9th Co.

Interesting.

What is in the 9th Company? Isn’t it the Dreadnought and Fire Support one?

In which case, I could argue that 3 units of Hellblasters, 3 units of Devestators and 3 units of Aggressors alongside several Dreadnoughts, a Captain and 2 Lieutenants. However, I will admit that if you’re not running Primaris, then it becomes a lot harder (Unless you want to run 1000 points of Dreadnoughts and transports) as the only option you have is 3 10-man Devestator squads.

I’m curious to know what else might be slightly missed cos of it.

The 9th is a marine chapters heavy weapons reserve company. In the current codex for the UM it's listed as a 1 Captain, 2 Lts, 10 fire support squads (devs), & 7 Dreadnoughts. It doesn't specify or indicate any Primaris hellblasters (or other primaris). I suppose I could see it including centurian armor (wich is doled out from the armory along with vehicles) as it talks about those who don it coming from either the close or fire support companies....

But! this particular collection, MY UM 9th, will never include Primaris or centurians models. Not even Guillemen. Because I specifically built & limited it to using only RT era metals & plastics. And I'm not breaking my theme.

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

If I were to play where Ro3 was enforced I'd have a tough time fielding my Ultra-Marine 9th Co.

Interesting.

What is in the 9th Company? Isn’t it the Dreadnought and Fire Support one?

In which case, I could argue that 3 units of Hellblasters, 3 units of Devestators and 3 units of Aggressors alongside several Dreadnoughts, a Captain and 2 Lieutenants. However, I will admit that if you’re not running Primaris, then it becomes a lot harder (Unless you want to run 1000 points of Dreadnoughts and transports) as the only option you have is 3 10-man Devestator squads.

I’m curious to know what else might be slightly missed cos of it.

The 9th is a marine chapters heavy weapons reserve company. In the current codex for the UM it's listed as a 1 Captain, 2 Lts, 10 fire support squads (devs), & 7 Dreadnoughts. It doesn't specify or indicate any Primaris hellblasters (or other primaris). I suppose I could see it including centurian armor (wich is doled out from the armory along with vehicles) as it talks about those who don it coming from either the close or fire support companies....

But! this particular collection, MY UM 9th, will never include Primaris or centurians models. Not even Guillemen. Because I specifically built & limited it to using only RT era metals & plastics. And I'm not breaking my theme.

One could field 3 dev squads, 3 squads of long fangs and 3 5 man tactical squads (representing combat squadded devs), 4 squads of deathwatch veterans with missile launchers hand heavy bolters, along with another 4x5 tactical squads. This would give you the same models as 10 devastator units, with roughly the same rules, all you would need is a couple of HQs to make the formations legal.

secretForge wrote:

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:

ccs wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I personally disagree that the rule of 3 hurts “fluff” armies, especially in 1000-2000 point games. (After 2000, it becomes rule of 4 don’t forget!)

What units, in “fluff” armies, that you can’t currently take more than 3 of, do you guys want to see/use?

Guard Tank forces can still exist. Eldar Jetbike/Saim-Hann fast moving armies still exist. Dreadnought armies can still exist. Wraith armies, Necron armies focused around 3 huge blobs of Flayed Ones etc etc.

All the rule of 3 makes you do, if you want to spam a lot of the same type of model, is to increase the squad size instead of just taking more min squads.

If I were to play where Ro3 was enforced I'd have a tough time fielding my Ultra-Marine 9th Co.

Interesting.

What is in the 9th Company? Isn’t it the Dreadnought and Fire Support one?

In which case, I could argue that 3 units of Hellblasters, 3 units of Devestators and 3 units of Aggressors alongside several Dreadnoughts, a Captain and 2 Lieutenants. However, I will admit that if you’re not running Primaris, then it becomes a lot harder (Unless you want to run 1000 points of Dreadnoughts and transports) as the only option you have is 3 10-man Devestator squads.

I’m curious to know what else might be slightly missed cos of it.

The 9th is a marine chapters heavy weapons reserve company. In the current codex for the UM it's listed as a 1 Captain, 2 Lts, 10 fire support squads (devs), & 7 Dreadnoughts. It doesn't specify or indicate any Primaris hellblasters (or other primaris). I suppose I could see it including centurian armor (wich is doled out from the armory along with vehicles) as it talks about those who don it coming from either the close or fire support companies....

But! this particular collection, MY UM 9th, will never include Primaris or centurians models. Not even Guillemen. Because I specifically built & limited it to using only RT era metals & plastics. And I'm not breaking my theme.

One could field 3 dev squads, 3 squads of long fangs and 3 5 man tactical squads (representing combat squadded devs), 4 squads of deathwatch veterans with missile launchers hand heavy bolters, along with another 4x5 tactical squads. This would give you the same models as 10 devastator units, with roughly the same rules, all you would need is a couple of HQs to make the formations legal.

And need 3 different codices, and make you play armies that aren't even yours.

Yeah no, people shouldn't be required to do this kind of gak just to make their lists work.

Dakkanauts are against the rule of 3?

Well, if you ever needed a sign that it worked, pissing off everyone here is the best you could hope for.

Hooray for the rule of 3.

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

I play harlequins as my main army and since we have only 2 hq i can only use 3 battalions (or 6 outrider/spearhead/etc) which restricts harleqs a lot in big-point games

 Dol Guldur wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

I play harlequins as my main army and since we have only 2 hq i can only use 3 battalions (or 6 outrider/spearhead/etc) which restricts harleqs a lot in big-point games

I can undestand that there is a limitation, but 6HQs at 2000 and 8 at 3000 are quite a lot.

I mean 6th FOC for Tyranids, THAT was a restriction. You easily filled each and every slot of the FOC and you were still far away from 2000 points.

 Dol Guldur wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

I play harlequins as my main army and since we have only 2 hq i can only use 3 battalions (or 6 outrider/spearhead/etc) which restricts harleqs a lot in big-point games

Except if your playing 2001 points to 3000 it's rule of 4 not 3 and scales accordingly. At 1000 or less it's rule of 2.

Really wish people would actually read the FAQ's completely instead of taking a lot of the internet boo hoo this breaks my army at face value, as half of it is people not reading the FAQ's in full.

Side note, some armies were never MEANT to be fully fledge huge armies. Harlies, for example, were just a SINGLE unit entry less than 5 years ago in both the Eldar and DE Codices.
I like that they've been fleshed out, but they still shouldn't "feel" like a full military force. So the Rule of 3 makes them play closer to their fluff.

Which is actually another good point about the Rule of 3. With *some* exceptions, it makes MOST lists look more fluffy. Tyranids, for example, don't show up with 7 Tyrants.
There's usually ONE leading a mass of gribblies.
It's not a perfect fix and some units sneak past it (DPs, IG tank squads, etc) but it patches a huge amount of others.

And I'll always remind everyone that when I started playing 40k, everyone had to fit their ENTIRE army into a single FOC, which only allowed 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Eliite, Fast and/or Heavy and that was it. Troops were the only unit you could have more than 3 of. It was like this for several editions.
The Rule of 3 is just a return to form.

And trust me, it's far better than what they could have done, which might have been using percentages like older versions on Fantasy. 25% minimum points had to be spent on Core (Troops) with no more than 50% spent on Specials (Elites, Fast and Heavy). That would be a nightmare to balance with detachments.

-

ok, but this means an army that has 2-3 options that are good will dominate other armies no matter what GW does to a single unit. Eldar have seers, warlocks and autarchs as valid HQs, and both foot and jetbike ones are ok. On the hand there are armies with 2-3 units per army that are worth taking, sometimes not even that. And those get penalised, because supposed fixs to eldar power. Only the FAQ and errata happen, eldar still keep winning and placing high at events, but we don't suddenly see and uprise in DW or GK wins.

Fix forgeworld, fix forgeworld.... one last time, fix forgeworld.

So many units that are just no playable or in some cases (Corsairs) just disappeared!

Crisis suits- Most iconic unit for Tau.... sucks....

Figure out how to keep all of these rules together for each update! I should not have to buy two update books a year to keep up with the codex I already bought this year.... I want plastic crack not a dozen books that are worthless after a year...

 Galef wrote:
Side note, some armies were never MEANT to be fully fledge huge armies. Harlies, for example, were just a SINGLE unit entry less than 5 years ago in both the Eldar and DE Codices.
I like that they've been fleshed out, but they still shouldn't "feel" like a full military force. So the Rule of 3 makes them play closer to their fluff.

Which is actually another good point about the Rule of 3. With *some* exceptions, it makes MOST lists look more fluffy. Tyranids, for example, don't show up with 7 Tyrants.
There's usually ONE leading a mass of gribblies.
It's not a perfect fix and some units sneak past it (DPs, IG tank squads, etc) but it patches a huge amount of others.

And I'll always remind everyone that when I started playing 40k, everyone had to fit their ENTIRE army into a single FOC, which only allowed 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Eliite, Fast and/or Heavy and that was it. Troops were the only unit you could have more than 3 of. It was like this for several editions.
The Rule of 3 is just a return to form.
all
And trust me, it's far better than what they could have done, which might have been using percentages like older versions on Fantasy. 25% minimum points had to be spent on Core (Troops) with no more than 50% spent on Specials (Elites, Fast and Heavy). That would be a nightmare to balance with detachments.

-

Remove detachments, bam that's balanced. That's how it should be done, and then you can have 'Rites of War' (the idea was shamelessly stolen from 30k) that change around slots and restrict things for fluffy lists (Like a Biker list that changes Bike units to core, but you can't take tactical squads). Cp should be generated by HQs, with most 'auras' changed to LD buffs, and in turn making morale more meaningful. (Make it 2d6, giving it a curve and adjust ld stats as needed).

"And those get penalised, because supposed fixs to eldar power."
Ro3 was *NOT* intended to curb CWE power. That's what the other changes were for. The way CWE works inherently makes it inadviseable to spam in this edition - they need 1 or maybe 2 deathstars + varied support.

Further, if you doubled the points of all CWE models, you wouldn't see noticeably more DW or GK units. They'd still get demolished by just about everyone else.

 Galef wrote:
Side note, some armies were never MEANT to be fully fledge huge armies. Harlies, for example, were just a SINGLE unit entry less than 5 years ago in both the Eldar and DE Codices.
I like that they've been fleshed out, but they still shouldn't "feel" like a full military force. So the Rule of 3 makes them play closer to their fluff.

Which is actually another good point about the Rule of 3. With *some* exceptions, it makes MOST lists look more fluffy. Tyranids, for example, don't show up with 7 Tyrants.
There's usually ONE leading a mass of gribblies.
It's not a perfect fix and some units sneak past it (DPs, IG tank squads, etc) but it patches a huge amount of others.

And I'll always remind everyone that when I started playing 40k, everyone had to fit their ENTIRE army into a single FOC, which only allowed 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Eliite, Fast and/or Heavy and that was it. Troops were the only unit you could have more than 3 of. It was like this for several editions.
The Rule of 3 is just a return to form.

And trust me, it's far better than what they could have done, which might have been using percentages like older versions on Fantasy. 25% minimum points had to be spent on Core (Troops) with no more than 50% spent on Specials (Elites, Fast and Heavy). That would be a nightmare to balance with detachments.

-

But, as I already said, troops actually did a thing then. Nowadays it's just troops-as-a-tax for the things that are cool.

Karol wrote:
ok, but this means an army that has 2-3 options that are good will dominate other armies no matter what GW does to a single unit. Eldar have seers, warlocks and autarchs as valid HQs, and both foot and jetbike ones are ok. On the hand there are armies with 2-3 units per army that are worth taking, sometimes not even that. And those get penalised, because supposed fixs to eldar power. Only the FAQ and errata happen, eldar still keep winning and placing high at events, but we don't suddenly see and uprise in DW or GK wins.

They way I see it, the Rule of 3 can be used to identify those units that are "the only good options in a Codex" and through Chapter Approved, adjust points of those units that show up too often in organized events and those that do not show up at all.
Given the rumours for CA so far, it looks like GW is taking steps to do just this: Slightly bump points costs of units that seem to always be "auto-take", while also lowering the cost of units that seem to be "never-take"

This is a far better approach to balance than I've ever seen GW do and I like it. They're using a scalpel on many units, rather than a sledge hammer on just a few.
Chapter Approved each year allows them to do this in a way they've never been able to before.
I didn't buy CA'17, but I'll probably get this one

-

Karol wrote:
ok, but this means an army that has 2-3 options that are good will dominate other armies no matter what GW does to a single unit. Eldar have seers, warlocks and autarchs as valid HQs, and both foot and jetbike ones are ok. On the hand there are armies with 2-3 units per army that are worth taking, sometimes not even that. And those get penalised, because supposed fixs to eldar power.

Yep. It also makes soup more attractive. A limit of three units is not such a big deal if you can choose from several codices. I am an avid soup supporter, but this is a stupid nerf to the monoarmies.

Furthermore, now that rules that moved some units to troops are gone, this makes certain thematic forces such as bike, terminator or wraith armies more difficult to field, and none of those were really dominating.

Rule of three is a lazy, bad fix for the issue that some units are just too good for their points; fix the problem units instead.

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rule of 3 was a godsend. Fluff armies were not even affected since 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS are still a lot. Many units also have small variants (like Battlewagons and Bonebreakas) or can be take in squadrons.

Flyrants spam was something like 5-7 of them. Imagine 6+ ravagers with diss cannons. While they are still very powerful just 3 of them cannot bring a knight down. I remember also plasma scions and malefic lords spam which was pure nonsense as well.

6x3 reaver jetbikes with the cult of red grief bonus were also silly but people that own lots of bikes can still bring up to 36 of them in a 2000 points list.

Am not sure that the argument of disintagrators being undercosted and OP, is a valid one, if the the only thing in favour of it, is the fact that at some time in the game people could take more of them. Everyone knows that already prior FAQ Inari players moved away from running 6 reaper squads to, running 2-3 larger squads. If we go by that the fix makes no sense. Unless of course the FAQ was done only to help eldar match ups by killing their hard counter in form of tyranids.

Ravagers and reapers are different examples. You can't take more than 3 ravagers, which aren't that OP in this numbers like some people may think, while you can take the same number of reapers than before, just condensed in bigger squads. 3 units are not a spam, they make a thematic army.

So what you're saying is that it would be okay for a Ravager to cost just 50 points if you could only take one or two?

 Galef wrote:
It's not a perfect fix and some units sneak past it (DPs, IG tank squads, etc) but it patches a huge amount of others.

That is good. Do you know how unbelievably stupid it would be if you couldn't play an IG armored company? Rule of three actually hurts army diversity in a way because it forces everyone to be a combined arms detachment. I get that it stops overpowered units from being spammed but it also stops people from running interesting themed lists like bikers, or an IG veteran list.

Rule of three is a lazy band-aid.

w1zard wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It's not a perfect fix and some units sneak past it (DPs, IG tank squads, etc) but it patches a huge amount of others.

That is good. Do you know how unbelievably stupid it would be if you couldn't play an IG armored company? Rule of three actually hurts army diversity in a way because it forces everyone to be a combined arms detachment. I get that it stops overpowered units from being spammed but it also stops people from running interesting themed lists like bikers, or an IG veteran list.

Rule of three is a lazy band-aid.

Bold of you to assume that a list themed around playing the same unit over and over until you have 2000 points is interesting...

"So what you're saying is that it would be okay for a Ravager to cost just 50 points if you could only take one or two?"
Look at it the other way around: If they dropped the Ravager to 50 points, what would that do to the game?

Without Rule of 3, you're now seeing 30 Ravagers in a DE army, shooting everything off the board.

With Rule of 3, DE armies get maybe another unit or something.

Either way, such a mistake hurts the game. But where the change destroys the game without Rule of 3, it only hurts it marginally with Rule of 3.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bold of you to assume that a list themed around playing the same unit over and over until you have 2000 points is interesting...

Who said it was the same unit over and over until 2k points? Just more than 3...

Besides, even if I wanted to play an army with the same unit over and over until 2K points, why is that a big issue for you unless they are overpowered units? Is running an IG tank company or a Marine biker list somehow "bad"?

Wizard,
I believe your point is that the diversity between armies decreases with the Rule of 3, not that the diversity within an army decreases with the Rule of 3?

w1zard wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It's not a perfect fix and some units sneak past it (DPs, IG tank squads, etc) but it patches a huge amount of others.

That is good. Do you know how unbelievably stupid it would be if you couldn't play an IG armored company? Rule of three actually hurts army diversity in a way because it forces everyone to be a combined arms detachment. I get that it stops overpowered units from being spammed but it also stops people from running interesting themed lists like bikers, or an IG veteran list.

Rule of three is a lazy band-aid.

It helps a lot more than it hurts. Save the thematic lists for narrative play. Without it, a unit will always be spammed by someone in competitive play, it actually makes most armies seen un-thematic a lot more than it punishes thematic.

w1zard wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bold of you to assume that a list themed around playing the same unit over and over until you have 2000 points is interesting...

Who said it was the same unit over and over until 2k points? Just more than 3...

Besides, even if I wanted to play an army with the same unit over and over until 2K points, why is that a big issue for you unless they are overpowered units? Is running an IG tank company or a Marine biker list somehow "bad"?

You can still run an all IG tank army up to like 3 K or such and that's before even going near LOW's. So not sure IG armoured company was a good example.

Bharring wrote:
Wizard,
I believe your point is that the diversity between armies decreases with the Rule of 3, not that the diversity within an army decreases with the Rule of 3?

My point is that the rule of three drastically limits army diversity across all factions by limiting the amount of units you can bring of a particular type. Armies are more "diverse" in that the rule of three forces you to take multiple types of units, but LESS diverse in that every army becomes a boring combined arms force.

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Bold of you to assume that a list themed around playing the same unit over and over until you have 2000 points is interesting...

Who said it was the same unit over and over until 2k points? Just more than 3...

Besides, even if I wanted to play an army with the same unit over and over until 2K points, why is that a big issue for you unless they are overpowered units? Is running an IG tank company or a Marine biker list somehow "bad"?

You can still run an all IG tank army up to like 3 K or such and that's before even going near LOW's. So not sure IG armoured company was a good example.

He was saying that "Bold of you to assume that a list themed around playing the same unit over and over until you have 2000 points is interesting..." I was asking him if wanting to run an IG tank company is a bad thing?

It does not limit army diversity though – not by much.

So far, the only counter to my “what fluffy armies are restricted by the rule of 3”, has been that you can no longer run a full 9th Company of Ultramarines (pre-Primaris) at 2000 points (though, that said I still think you could depending on which Dreadnoughts you chose).

The only reason that 90% of all competitive Imperium lists look the same, is because competitive players play the units that are competitive.

If every single unit was balanced against every other unit, then, you will get more diversity in the “combined arms” forces, but, that’s just not going to fully happen.

Just because people don’t play some units, or that some other units/combinations are way more common is simply just down to their rules and points and has nothing to do with the rule of 3.

2000 points is a fair amount of points, but, even with using the rule of 3 you can still make all kinds of specialised lists before you have to worry about getting that 4th unit.

Kdash wrote:
It does not limit army diversity though – not by much.

So far, the only counter to my “what fluffy armies are restricted by the rule of 3”, has been that you can no longer run a full 9th Company of Ultramarines (pre-Primaris) at 2000 points (though, that said I still think you could depending on which Dreadnoughts you chose).

The only reason that 90% of all competitive Imperium lists look the same, is because competitive players play the units that are competitive.

If every single unit was balanced against every other unit, then, you will get more diversity in the “combined arms” forces, but, that’s just not going to fully happen.

Just because people don’t play some units, or that some other units/combinations are way more common is simply just down to their rules and points and has nothing to do with the rule of 3.

2000 points is a fair amount of points, but, even with using the rule of 3 you can still make all kinds of specialised lists before you have to worry about getting that 4th unit.

There are plenty of themed lists that get hurt and are more difficult or impossible to play by the rule of three.

Just off the top of my head:
-Nidzilla
-Ork Meganobs
-Ork Bikers
-IG Veterans
-SM Bikers
-IG Aircav
-IG Tempestus
-IG Heavy Weapons Battallion
-Eldar lists that focus on one particular form of aspect warrior
-Tau Battlesuits
-SM Terminators

etc...

Windrider Warhosts: you can only have 3 units. And if you want to do a bunch of gangs, you want MSU (or at least 5mans or less). So that's not a lot of windriders.

White Scars Bikes: Really, any Marine force of Bikes. Typically the Assault reserve company, so many of the same arguments as the Dev company. But RavenWing is a different story.

TerminatorWing: Deathwing or 1st Company. 1st Company is frequently distributed, but Deathwing isn't.


Corsairs: Well, they're boned either way. But still.

Kabals, Covens, and Cults: If you want to play *one* of those, you're limited to one generic HQ choice - so a max of 3 HQs, maybe 4 if you want the relevant HQ. At 2k points, that's not a lot - so they must soup.

I think I'm on the same page as you, Kdash, but there are some "fluffy" armies that are impacted. I still think the bandaid is worth it, though.

In a perfect world GW would go through each and every option and tick off the units which are a problem and the units which are not (although that would in itself tend to be an admission that these units are good for their points and those which are not a problem are bad). Just like they would go through points and endeavour to make units no more efficient than any other (or at least not egregiously so).

I can appreciate the complaints of "why can't I spam this bad unit if I want to, its hardly hurting anyone".

But at the same time I consider that downside to be one worth paying. Spam is really bad for the game.