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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"Bold of you to assume an army of one-of-each unit even looks good on the table."
Depends on the army.
An Aspect Host of mostly just one Aspect? Ugly. Stupid. Unfluffy. Unfun to play or play against. And terrible now, fortunately.
An Aspect Host of one of each Aspect? Beautiful. Brilliant. Fluffy. Fun to play or play against.

Silver Tide? Beautiful. Just one Warrior, Immortal, Scarab, etc squad? Not as beautiful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Like you literally forget that you would only have 3 squads of Windriders, which isn't something Hann would lack on."
That was the central premise to his post. Wouldn't 3 Windriders, 2 Spears, an Autarch and Farseer on bike, 2 Guardian squads in Serpents, a DA squad in a Falcon, three Vyper squads, and a Fire Prism? That'd be a perfectly fluffy Sam-Hann list.

"Then you have people that were doing Deathwing and Ravenwing (as bad as the former is), the Necron Bone Kingdom, etc."
I agree that there are fluffy lists it would hurt. Just look upthread. Just cleaning up the findings a bit.

Sorry but one-of-each Aspect looks like garbage on a table and I have no clue why you would defend that.

A: That's your opinion.
B: Paint them better.
C: It's how GW tended to originally field them in Battle Reports, since that's what they had at the studio.

It isn't my problem if the studio is too lazy to make more models for more battle reports. Also what does that have to do with painting? At all?

^It's only your problem if you don't like it.

Painting can make diverse models more cohesive.

"It isn't my problem if the studio is too lazy to make more models for more battle reports."
What cause is there to believe the reason for it was they didn't make more models? Especially when, in most images I see from GW, they make multiples of the same units for most forces? If the norm is to make duplicates, then isn't the lack of duplicates on this specific subset suggestive that it's intentional for reasons beyond laziness?

A single tank doesn't wander off to support a company of infantry.

Tanks go together, as a platoon or a company, to support a company of infantry.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A single tank doesn't wander off to support a company of infantry.

Tanks go together, as a platoon, to support a company of infantry.

Depends on the era of warfare you're talking about
(But I get what you're saying, too)

I tend to think a lot of 40K battles can be explained away with the idea that these are emergency/dire circumstances, and/or there's been some attrition on the way. The other supporting tanks have been disabled/destroyed, and there's just no way to reinforce in time for the fight, etc.

(Edit) Even two equally matched forces winding up squaring off against each other is a huge stretch to begin with.

Bharring wrote:
"One-of-everything is NOT cohesive. It never was."
Which is more cohesive: a football team with a QB, RB, and 6 linemen, or a football team with 8 QBs?

I know almost nothing about football, but the team with 8 QB won't be cohesive at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"It LOOKS stupid"
Purely subjective. I think it looks stupid to not do it.

" and plays stupid because of a lack in redundancy."
Fire Dragons, Spears, Spectres, and Reapers provide a little redundancy to each other. Dire Avengers, Hawks, and Scorps provide a little redundancy to each other. Scorps, Banshees, Spears, and Autarchs provide a little redunancy to eachother. It only lacks redundancy if you can't figure out the relative strengths of the units vs their second-favorite-targets and such.

Similarly, a Tac squad with PG/HB, anotehr with MG/LC, and another with GG/GC provide redundancy. The diversity helps fill in eachothers' gaps. Currently, not all those are viable, but if each choice were viable, there's no reason why having everoyne kit the same would necessarily be better.

"It's diversity for the sake of diversity."
Well, diversity for the sake of diverse options for both players is *certainly* a big upside. But is certainly not the only reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and:
"Marine models are mostly interchangeable"
A standard Bolter Marine can be a Dev, Tac, Sternie, or Vet depending on paint scheme (although paint scheme should differentiate them - if not, it's not WYSIWYG). But an ASM and VV are only interchangeable with chainsword/bolt pistol. Other loadouts aren't. And that's assming they're underpainted.

Marine kits are almost all interchangeable. But any model that has character is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note that a modern combat unit *is* "diverse" in this manner:
-Within a squad, not everyone carries the same weapon. Usually one "heavy", and most have basic line weapons.
-Within an engagement, a squad is better supported by a vehicle or air support or artillery or just about anything *other* than another identical squad. Two squads are still better than one, but give less capability.

1. Too much going on looks gaudy and tacky. So yeah it looks bad when you have that many colors and pieces of equipment.
2. Except none of those units provide redundancy to each other and that's why you would take more than one squad of Fire Dragons (assuming they were viable in this scenario of course) for AT, rather than a squad each of Dragons, Reapers, and Spectres. It would look silly and doesn't make the army look like it's focused to take down certain targets, and won't do that either!
3. The schizo loadouts for Tactical Marines is actually part of why they don't perform well. I've explained that theory multiple times. You would at minimum NEED two squads of each of those loadouts, as not only would you not be able to accomplish that unit's task, but ALSO because just one squad of Plasma Marines kinda looks silly compared to everyone else.
4. If forced diversity makes someone's list less capable, I don't want to fight it. Two good looking/performing armies is what you would want, but above all to get a good game the opponent's army needs to provide a challenge. I would almost request my opponent use proxy weapons for those Tactical Marines so it's a better fight.
5. WYSIWYG doesn't apply when it comes to paint, as otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to paint your Calgar with a slightly different variation of even just his shoulder pads.
6. Power Weapon packs exist. You buy the cheaper Assault Marines and you got several power weapons ready to rock, assuming that's what you're going for (which for the current iteration nah).
7. The only character in the army are the actual characters. Feel free to make them foofooey all you want. I did that for my HQ dudes. They would stand out once painted (though I'm not looking to make them gaudy. No conclusive paint scheme has been determined).

A single Fire Prism supports a Warhost.

A single Falcon drops off a single Aspect Warrior squad at the right place and right time.

A single Predator supports a battle Company.

A single Hammerhead can support a T'au cadre.

A single IG tank is less likely to support an IG force, that's true. It can be explained away by battle damage or confusion. Or the whole "take a unit of 3". Or just taking 3, as that's allowed.

My point is IG fluff isn't the same as some of the other armies.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A single tank doesn't wander off to support a company of infantry.

Tanks go together, as a platoon, to support a company of infantry.


40k is approximately a company of scale, so support elements should be showing up by platoon, not the individual.

So bring a platoon of tanks! 3 vehicles plus a command vehicle (e.g. 3 Preds and a Land Raider or the like) is totally possible. 3 is a Squadron/Platoon in GW's thinking after all.

(For clarity, that's a qualified agreement with your statement, Inquisitor, with a qualified refutation. So agree in some cases.)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A single tank doesn't wander off to support a company of infantry.

Tanks go together, as a platoon or a company, to support a company of infantry.

Ding ding we have a winner!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"It isn't my problem if the studio is too lazy to make more models for more battle reports."
What cause is there to believe the reason for it was they didn't make more models? Especially when, in most images I see from GW, they make multiples of the same units for most forces? If the norm is to make duplicates, then isn't the lack of duplicates on this specific subset suggestive that it's intentional for reasons beyond laziness?

Beats me. You think I want to read those GW battle reports? All the feedback I've seen has been terrible for them, with them using badly put together lists and sometimes doing dumb things in the game for "fun". That's a waste of my time.

I am hoping that Plague Marines (most Marines, actually) get a slight points reduction. It's a little ridiculous that most armies barely have any of the core units.

"1. Too much going on looks gaudy and tacky. So yeah it looks bad when you have that many colors and pieces of equipment."
Agreed. That's why there's typically some consistency between units. For Aspect Warriors, it's actually a squad where only one model varies (the Exarch), but each squad varies more from others. You can make them consistent while being different colors. For Marines, each squad is the same overall colors, with different heraldry in small specific places, but a couple individuals within each squad usually have different weaponry. Too barroque, and it doesn't fit toghether. Too identical, and you have no character.

Consider a painting: a solid square of one color edge-to-edge is dumb. A square where each 1mm square is a random color with no rhime or reason is stupid. Where something falls in between is meaningful to it's purpose: more vibrant and varied for enery, more restricted palettes and less variance for coldness.

"2. Except none of those units provide redundancy to each other and that's why you would take more than one squad of Fire Dragons (assuming they were viable in this scenario of course) for AT, rather than a squad each of Dragons, Reapers, and Spectres. It would look silly and doesn't make the army look like it's focused to take down certain targets, and won't do that either! "
The "looks silly" is refuted elsewhere. If you take 3 Fire Dragon squads and 3 Banshee squads, even assuming all Aspects are equally viable, then you're hosed when you run up against things you need Spectres, Reapers, Scorps, DAs, Spiders, or Hawks for. You certainly don't have points for 3 units to cover each threat type. So you take one of each, and learn how Hawks can maybe shave a HP off a LR in a pinch, or how DAs can help vs Hordes when neccessary, or whatnot.

"3. The schizo loadouts for Tactical Marines is actually part of why they don't perform well. I've explained that theory multiple times. You would at minimum NEED two squads of each of those loadouts, as not only would you not be able to accomplish that unit's task, but ALSO because just one squad of Plasma Marines kinda looks silly compared to everyone else. "
You're still asuming that only a Plasma Gun can hurt the things it hurts best, and a Melta is worthless for it. The PG should be better for elite infantry and the Melta for tanks (although PG is currently better for both), but if each were truly viable, you could take one PG unit and one Melta unit. The Melta still helps vs elites, and the PG still helps vs vehicles. But if you just took two PG units or two MG units, you're hosed if you run across Vehicle or Elite spam, respectively.

This game is supposed to be give and take. If you can take two units to accomplish one job and be certain they can, then there's no game; you're just unfolding the preordained result. Doubling or tripling up on anti-Elite weapons at the expense of not taking enough anti-horde or anti-vehicle is supposed to hurt you when you run up against horde or vehicle spam. Taking a little of each, and learning how they can fill other roles albeit not as well, when needed, makes you more flexible.

"4. If forced diversity makes someone's list less capable, I don't want to fight it. Two good looking/performing armies is what you would want, but above all to get a good game the opponent's army needs to provide a challenge. I would almost request my opponent use proxy weapons for those Tactical Marines so it's a better fight. "
"Forced diversity" in terms of "No, I don't want to face 7 Flyrants? I think that's good "forced diversity". Or do you enjoy stuff like ScatterBike spam or Grav Bikers. But mostly this point is a rehash of above: you believe that, if all options were equally viable, a list that spammed just one were stronger. I believe a list that mixed them up would be. I'll leave the rest of that where it's written elsewhere.

"5. WYSIWYG doesn't apply when it comes to paint, as otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to paint your Calgar with a slightly different variation of even just his shoulder pads. "
If What You Get is a Vanguard Veteran, and what you see is either an ASM or VV, with no indicator, then What You See is not What You Get.

"6. Power Weapon packs exist. You buy the cheaper Assault Marines and you got several power weapons ready to rock, assuming that's what you're going for (which for the current iteration nah). "
You're arguing a very different point. An ASM kit can be built as an ASM or VV. Most ASM could be ASM or VV before customizing/painting. Taking an ASM kit and giving them all Power Weapons is a great way to do VV - more diversity, less blingy, etc. Not the same thing as having VV and ASM be visually identical. on the table.

"7. The only character in the army are the actual characters. Feel free to make them foofooey all you want. I did that for my HQ dudes. They would stand out once painted (though I'm not looking to make them gaudy. No conclusive paint scheme has been determined)."
So a Sarge who's lost two fingers has no "character"? The Kroot who's taking a second to nibble on an arm ripped off a Guardian has no "character"? Any model can have character - "having character" and "having the character rule" or "being a character" are two very different things, and I think you misread me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Beats me."
So you can authoritatively show that something was only done because GW was lazy, but you have no idea what was done or why? Do you see why I have a problem with that logic?

On Tau - I can (vaguely) understand the frustration of having to take fire warriors - but if you take 6 5 man squads and say 3 five man pathfinders you have spent a grand total of 330 points and, barring 2 additional HQs (and its not as if cheap fire blades/ethereals set you back) you can have 3 commanders in 3 detachments.

If you can't double battalion its a bit more awkward - although not incredibly so.

I think armies can look messy if everything is painted in different colours but if its all the same then I find highlander lists can look fine. For army shots they can look a bit better if they are symmetrical - but on the table they won't be set up like this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Like you literally forget that you would only have 3 squads of Windriders, which isn't something Hann would lack on. Then you have people that were doing Deathwing and Ravenwing (as bad as the former is), the Necron Bone Kingdom, etc.

As someone who plays Ravenwing and collecting deathwing, you never need more than 3 of a particular unit....at all. Deathwing have Knights, Dreads, characters and land raiders which will all soak up points. heck, for the DW strat to be useful (ish), you want a large unit of terminators which is about a 1/4 of your army.

And as far as an Aspect Host looking terrible, how long have you been playing this game? That is literally how an Aspect host is supposed to look/work. Each aspect is a specialist which requires the support of other aspects to make a cohesive and workable battlegroup. It is about as fluffy as it gets and IMHO, looks fantastic on the table. Look back at GW BRs with Biel Tan Eldar, this is literally the way it is done.

Your tank didn't wander off alone to support the Guard Contingent. Your tank was the sole survivor.

Bharring wrote:
"1. Too much going on looks gaudy and tacky. So yeah it looks bad when you have that many colors and pieces of equipment."
Agreed. That's why there's typically some consistency between units. For Aspect Warriors, it's actually a squad where only one model varies (the Exarch), but each squad varies more from others. You can make them consistent while being different colors. For Marines, each squad is the same overall colors, with different heraldry in small specific places, but a couple individuals within each squad usually have different weaponry. Too barroque, and it doesn't fit toghether. Too identical, and you have no character.

Consider a painting: a solid square of one color edge-to-edge is dumb. A square where each 1mm square is a random color with no rhime or reason is stupid. Where something falls in between is meaningful to it's purpose: more vibrant and varied for enery, more restricted palettes and less variance for coldness.

"2. Except none of those units provide redundancy to each other and that's why you would take more than one squad of Fire Dragons (assuming they were viable in this scenario of course) for AT, rather than a squad each of Dragons, Reapers, and Spectres. It would look silly and doesn't make the army look like it's focused to take down certain targets, and won't do that either! "
The "looks silly" is refuted elsewhere. If you take 3 Fire Dragon squads and 3 Banshee squads, even assuming all Aspects are equally viable, then you're hosed when you run up against things you need Spectres, Reapers, Scorps, DAs, Spiders, or Hawks for. You certainly don't have points for 3 units to cover each threat type. So you take one of each, and learn how Hawks can maybe shave a HP off a LR in a pinch, or how DAs can help vs Hordes when neccessary, or whatnot.

"3. The schizo loadouts for Tactical Marines is actually part of why they don't perform well. I've explained that theory multiple times. You would at minimum NEED two squads of each of those loadouts, as not only would you not be able to accomplish that unit's task, but ALSO because just one squad of Plasma Marines kinda looks silly compared to everyone else. "
You're still asuming that only a Plasma Gun can hurt the things it hurts best, and a Melta is worthless for it. The PG should be better for elite infantry and the Melta for tanks (although PG is currently better for both), but if each were truly viable, you could take one PG unit and one Melta unit. The Melta still helps vs elites, and the PG still helps vs vehicles. But if you just took two PG units or two MG units, you're hosed if you run across Vehicle or Elite spam, respectively.

This game is supposed to be give and take. If you can take two units to accomplish one job and be certain they can, then there's no game; you're just unfolding the preordained result. Doubling or tripling up on anti-Elite weapons at the expense of not taking enough anti-horde or anti-vehicle is supposed to hurt you when you run up against horde or vehicle spam. Taking a little of each, and learning how they can fill other roles albeit not as well, when needed, makes you more flexible.

"4. If forced diversity makes someone's list less capable, I don't want to fight it. Two good looking/performing armies is what you would want, but above all to get a good game the opponent's army needs to provide a challenge. I would almost request my opponent use proxy weapons for those Tactical Marines so it's a better fight. "
"Forced diversity" in terms of "No, I don't want to face 7 Flyrants? I think that's good "forced diversity". Or do you enjoy stuff like ScatterBike spam or Grav Bikers. But mostly this point is a rehash of above: you believe that, if all options were equally viable, a list that spammed just one were stronger. I believe a list that mixed them up would be. I'll leave the rest of that where it's written elsewhere.

"5. WYSIWYG doesn't apply when it comes to paint, as otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to paint your Calgar with a slightly different variation of even just his shoulder pads. "
If What You Get is a Vanguard Veteran, and what you see is either an ASM or VV, with no indicator, then What You See is not What You Get.

"6. Power Weapon packs exist. You buy the cheaper Assault Marines and you got several power weapons ready to rock, assuming that's what you're going for (which for the current iteration nah). "
You're arguing a very different point. An ASM kit can be built as an ASM or VV. Most ASM could be ASM or VV before customizing/painting. Taking an ASM kit and giving them all Power Weapons is a great way to do VV - more diversity, less blingy, etc. Not the same thing as having VV and ASM be visually identical. on the table.

"7. The only character in the army are the actual characters. Feel free to make them foofooey all you want. I did that for my HQ dudes. They would stand out once painted (though I'm not looking to make them gaudy. No conclusive paint scheme has been determined)."
So a Sarge who's lost two fingers has no "character"? The Kroot who's taking a second to nibble on an arm ripped off a Guardian has no "character"? Any model can have character - "having character" and "having the character rule" or "being a character" are two very different things, and I think you misread me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Beats me."
So you can authoritatively show that something was only done because GW was lazy, but you have no idea what was done or why? Do you see why I have a problem with that logic?

1. They're grunts. They don't HAVE character.
2. And ultimately that's the challenge of creating a TAC list. The moment you run into even a slight skew you're at a disadvantage. That's why during list building you might decide to not take that Hawk and Banshee squad. Forcing you to challenge what you want in a list is a GOOD thing. In fact I love running into issues where I don't have points to fit in a squad I want as it's a puzzle to complete: how do I fit everything into a TAC list while ensuring I don't have a terrible time vs a skew list? It's fun.
3. I'm using that sentence under the assumption Melta was good in the first place. You're either deciding that one is more important than the other, or you take another squad. For example, I wouldn't have used Scouts in a LSS with wild loadouts. Those are all Melta dudes to throw at a vehicle. If I were camping, I would for fun use Sniper Rifles.
If I only had room for two squads, I look at the rest of the list and probably figure I have enough camping, so two suicide squads makes more sense. If I take one of each I just hamper the performance of that list.
In that specific case, I just look at what else I have and I would probably just do Plasma as I likely have Lascannons for example. If I didn't, it would be Melta. In your specific Eldar list, it was likely more important to have dragons handle the bigger stuff and banshees for the chaff. Assuming viability that's exactly what I would do.
4. Better Scatterbikes than Gladius, but at least those units/lists forced me to be on my A-Game. Also LOL at Grav Bikers even being listed as THAT good.
Also I'm annoyed that Windriders aren't troops anymore and that you can't take Marine Bikers as troops as well. The option was there for how long and then just taken away because.
5. They're both Marines with Jump Packs. Make sure the equipment is correctly represented and there's no issue. If you're using one of each (LOL) just tell me which one is which. Bam. Simple.
6. Fair point as thats a slightly different topic.
7. No I didn't misread you. I'm simply saying trying to create character comes from a cohesive force/idea first, modeling second after that. With Necrons, outside the bare necessities, I would create several lists and proxy them before putting the work into the models. I'm not wasting my money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Like you literally forget that you would only have 3 squads of Windriders, which isn't something Hann would lack on. Then you have people that were doing Deathwing and Ravenwing (as bad as the former is), the Necron Bone Kingdom, etc.

As someone who plays Ravenwing and collecting deathwing, you never need more than 3 of a particular unit....at all. Deathwing have Knights, Dreads, characters and land raiders which will all soak up points. heck, for the DW strat to be useful (ish), you want a large unit of terminators which is about a 1/4 of your army.

And as far as an Aspect Host looking terrible, how long have you been playing this game? That is literally how an Aspect host is supposed to look/work. Each aspect is a specialist which requires the support of other aspects to make a cohesive and workable battlegroup. It is about as fluffy as it gets and IMHO, looks fantastic on the table. Look back at GW BRs with Biel Tan Eldar, this is literally the way it is done.

You don't need more than three units of Ravenwing Bikers? You're not serious are you?

Wayniac wrote:
I am hoping that Plague Marines (most Marines, actually) get a slight points reduction. It's a little ridiculous that most armies barely have any of the core units.

There is essentially 0 reason to play an army like space wolves. Their exclusive units - Thunderwolf Cavalry, Wulfen - are very expensive, and melee focused, in a codex that does little to support melee, in general.

And once you start adding the shooting components, you realize you're better off with a shooting-focused codex. Like Ultramarines. And seriously, if you're going for assault suicide squads, Blood Angels are just flatly superior. +1 to wound is better than +1 to hit. Not to mention, Wolves can't fill troops with scouts, like other marines.

As badly as you think any faction might be hurting, just remember, that Wolves are performing worse than Necrons, and Grey Knights, overall.

Tyel wrote:
On Tau - I can (vaguely) understand the frustration of having to take fire warriors - but if you take 6 5 man squads and say 3 five man pathfinders you have spent a grand total of 330 points and, barring 2 additional HQs (and its not as if cheap fire blades/ethereals set you back) you can have 3 commanders in 3 detachments.

If you can't double battalion its a bit more awkward - although not incredibly so.

I think armies can look messy if everything is painted in different colours but if its all the same then I find highlander lists can look fine. For army shots they can look a bit better if they are symmetrical - but on the table they won't be set up like this.

I think the biggest issue with the 1 commander per detachment rule for tau is that it is does not really mean anything, just pairing it back to commanders count as the same rulesheet is sufficient. If you want to have more then 1 commander it's so easy to do as tau it is kinda pointless to restrict based on detachments, 90% of lists are either going to have tons of firewarriors, 3 riptides, 3 broadsides, 3 units of drones, etc. Basically, if the number of ways you can do one of the detachments without changing your army means that the rule is pointless then why bother?

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I am hoping that Plague Marines (most Marines, actually) get a slight points reduction. It's a little ridiculous that most armies barely have any of the core units.

There is essentially 0 reason to play an army like space wolves. Their exclusive units - Thunderwolf Cavalry, Wulfen - are very expensive, and melee focused, in a codex that does little to support melee, in general.

And once you start adding the shooting components, you realize you're better off with a shooting-focused codex. Like Ultramarines. And seriously, if you're going for assault suicide squads, Blood Angels are just flatly superior. +1 to wound is better than +1 to hit. Not to mention, Wolves can't fill troops with scouts, like other marines.

As badly as you think any faction might be hurting, just remember, that Wolves are performing worse than Necrons, and Grey Knights, overall.

I think Wulfen are better than anything in BA.

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I am hoping that Plague Marines (most Marines, actually) get a slight points reduction. It's a little ridiculous that most armies barely have any of the core units.

There is essentially 0 reason to play an army like space wolves. Their exclusive units - Thunderwolf Cavalry, Wulfen - are very expensive, and melee focused, in a codex that does little to support melee, in general.

And once you start adding the shooting components, you realize you're better off with a shooting-focused codex. Like Ultramarines. And seriously, if you're going for assault suicide squads, Blood Angels are just flatly superior. +1 to wound is better than +1 to hit. Not to mention, Wolves can't fill troops with scouts, like other marines.

As badly as you think any faction might be hurting, just remember, that Wolves are performing worse than Necrons, and Grey Knights, overall.

I mean their codex didn't come out that long ago. Just a couple more tournaments and you'll see them a lot more, especially with GW killing CP farming and therefore killing Blood Angels who actually depended on it.

Some of the lists people are suggesting as "fluffy themed lists that cant be made with Ro3" are outright BS.

Tau battlesuits? 3 full squads of crisis suits alone can be 3000 points...
Nidzilla? Carnifexes alone can total over 2000 points of a list, disregarding the 9+ other monstrous creatures in the codex
SM Bikers? 3 squads is nearly 1000 points, plus HQ's can take bikes
Terminators? 1400p with just the base unit, not including HQ or Assault Terminators.

The rule of 3 is inconvenient when you want to make a spammy list. The rule of 3 can be overly limiting in some specific edge case scenarios.
The rule of 3 is NOT ANYTHING NEW. The rule of 3 WILL NOT prevent a themed list in mached play.
If you ever want to play a list of nothing but Bikers, or nothing but hive tyrants (no matter the extent of fluff massacre), play Narrative, play Open, or house rule it.

Rockfish wrote:

Tyel wrote:
On Tau - I can (vaguely) understand the frustration of having to take fire warriors - but if you take 6 5 man squads and say 3 five man pathfinders you have spent a grand total of 330 points and, barring 2 additional HQs (and its not as if cheap fire blades/ethereals set you back) you can have 3 commanders in 3 detachments.

If you can't double battalion its a bit more awkward - although not incredibly so.

I think armies can look messy if everything is painted in different colours but if its all the same then I find highlander lists can look fine. For army shots they can look a bit better if they are symmetrical - but on the table they won't be set up like this.

I think the biggest issue with the 1 commander per detachment rule for tau is that it is does not really mean anything, just pairing it back to commanders count as the same rulesheet is sufficient. If you want to have more then 1 commander it's so easy to do as tau it is kinda pointless to restrict based on detachments, 90% of lists are either going to have tons of firewarriors, 3 riptides, 3 broadsides, 3 units of drones, etc. Basically, if the number of ways you can do one of the detachments without changing your army means that the rule is pointless then why bother?

I'm actually glad that the pure suit Tau list are no longer the default as it wasn't really fluffy. The problem that I have with the codex is that it's almost built on you spending unsustainable levels of CP per turn to actually function as a competitive codex.
The 1 comander per detachment is more just annoying as it runs into some really annoying situations where you need a detachment to be X subfaction but you realy want your comander to be Y subfaction for a warlord trait or relic which you can't use, but no other codex got such a heavy handed rule.

1. Maybe your units don't have character. I like my Battle Company's First Squad to have a slightly different character than my Battle Company's Second Squad. They're both Tac Squads, but they aren't the same squad. Same color scheme, mostly the same heraldry (one squad has `I` on the shoulder, the other has `II`), so they look extremely coheseive. While also having different character, and slightly different optimal roles.

2. But what you're describing is making a skew list of your own. If all your doods have the same loadouts, then all your doods have the same strengths and weaknesses. So isn't it a skew list? As for the challenge of fitting together the right pieces at the points level, I don't see how that varies. You need to decide which squads you can fit into an army whether they're Tacs or Aspect Warriors. You don't have enough points to bring *everything*. And a spam list has far fewer options: instead of how many of each A, B, or C, spam lists are more about how many of one choice you can fit in.

3. But what if you need a backfield camper for one isolated CP, and also a meltacide unit to threaten so they need to bubblewrap/prioritize? Two of one won't always be better than one of each.
(And yes, safe to assume all these discussions are "if each option were viable".)
You might look at your list and say you have a few Lascannons, but also some PlasCannons - so you're kinda split on anti-elite and anti-vehicle. If that's the case, do you skew anti-tank (MG) or anti-elite (PG)? Or do you split the difference, so you can threaten either?
Where this applies to the Eldar list, if I have a list with no real anti-tank, but everything I took is primarily something else but passably anti-tank, I might need to add some anti-chaff (Banshees aren't anti-chaff, btw) instead of anti-tank.
4. I'd rather Gladius than ScatterBikes. No real options fighting ScatterBikes. Everything you're shooting at is the same. At least vs Gladius, you had options. And the opponent had to make more decisions. But that could just be flavor.
5. Sure, you can tell me which models are ASM and which are VV. You could also tell me which set of poker chips are ASM and which are VV. It's just a choice of how WYSIWYG you want to be. I'd rather a unit explain itself. That isn't always viable, but there are very clear ways to differentiate ASM and VV - mostly by paint scheme, though.
7. Everything and anything you do creates character. Silver Tide creates character by being a sea of identical evil robot aliens. Green Tide creates character by being a sea of random giant green soccer hooligans. Putting a cigar in one guy's mouth adds character to that one guy. Having a Kroot wear an SM sholderpad as a helmet adds character to that one guy. The loadouts, the poses, the wargear, the embellishements, the other models in the list - they all, together, determine the character.

You might proxy every possible Necron list you want to play before committing to building it. I might build one unit at a time and field a force selected from the models I have. If I built the units one at a time in the same vein as my original concept for the army, consistently evoking unity, my list isn't necessarily less cohesive than yours (or vicea-versa). We play this game for different reasons. We enjoy very different parts of it. My enjoyment isn't of no value just because it's not yours. Maybe no value to you, but the value you derive isn't inherently the One True Way.

Talinsin wrote:
Some of the lists people are suggesting as "fluffy themed lists that cant be made with Ro3" are outright BS.

Tau battlesuits? 3 full squads of crisis suits alone can be 3000 points...
Nidzilla? Carnifexes alone can total over 2000 points of a list, disregarding the 9+ other monstrous creatures in the codex
SM Bikers? 3 squads is nearly 1000 points, plus HQ's can take bikes
Terminators? 1400p with just the base unit, not including HQ or Assault Terminators.

The rule of 3 is inconvenient when you want to make a spammy list. The rule of 3 can be overly limiting in some specific edge case scenarios.
The rule of 3 is NOT ANYTHING NEW. The rule of 3 WILL NOT prevent a themed list in mached play.
If you ever want to play a list of nothing but Bikers, or nothing but hive tyrants (no matter the extent of fluff massacre), play Narrative, play Open, or house rule it.

It won't prevent the majority of themed lists in matched play, just yunno...the cheap ones. Like if you wanted to run a Sisters of battle seraphim wing, that used to be a very good list core. Now it's pointless because you literally CANNOT bring more than 500pts of them. Three units of retributors with their absolute most expensive(and totally useless) loadout is 531pts.

You cherry picked extremely expensive units in armies known for having expensive non-troop units. The rule of 3 absolutely does stop theme lists built around any non-troop unit that maxes out at less than 275 or so points, which is not so few units that they constitute 'specific edge case scenarios'. If you think the rule of 3 isn't overly restrictive or bad for the game, that's fine(you're wrong but it's fine) but pretending that it doesn't do ANYTHING to constrict theme lists is ridiculous.

This thread exemplifies how narrow a version of 40K so many people are playing.

If people really really really hate the rule of three because they just love running themed lists why don't you simply not play an official match play game? When my group is just playing at home having fun we make custom scenarios all the time. Im sure 99% of players looking for a pickup game wouldn't mind if you let them know in advance.

IMO i love the rule of 3. It stops the most boring spam lists that were beginning to become the norm at tournaments before the release of the rule of three.

ERJAK wrote:

Talinsin wrote:
Some of the lists people are suggesting as "fluffy themed lists that cant be made with Ro3" are outright BS.

Tau battlesuits? 3 full squads of crisis suits alone can be 3000 points...
Nidzilla? Carnifexes alone can total over 2000 points of a list, disregarding the 9+ other monstrous creatures in the codex
SM Bikers? 3 squads is nearly 1000 points, plus HQ's can take bikes
Terminators? 1400p with just the base unit, not including HQ or Assault Terminators.

The rule of 3 is inconvenient when you want to make a spammy list. The rule of 3 can be overly limiting in some specific edge case scenarios.
The rule of 3 is NOT ANYTHING NEW. The rule of 3 WILL NOT prevent a themed list in mached play.
If you ever want to play a list of nothing but Bikers, or nothing but hive tyrants (no matter the extent of fluff massacre), play Narrative, play Open, or house rule it.

It won't prevent the majority of themed lists in matched play, just yunno...the cheap ones. Like if you wanted to run a Sisters of battle seraphim wing, that used to be a very good list core. Now it's pointless because you literally CANNOT bring more than 500pts of them. Three units of retributors with their absolute most expensive(and totally useless) loadout is 531pts.

You cherry picked extremely expensive units in armies known for having expensive non-troop units. The rule of 3 absolutely does stop theme lists built around any non-troop unit that maxes out at less than 275 or so points, which is not so few units that they constitute 'specific edge case scenarios'. If you think the rule of 3 isn't overly restrictive or bad for the game, that's fine(you're wrong but it's fine) but pretending that it doesn't do ANYTHING to constrict theme lists is ridiculous.

Rule of three does some damage to potential fluff lists (like the 9th Company Devastator lists), this is true. But likewise, Force Org also does damage to potential fluff lists. (Are you against any force org?)

We make some compromises for the sake of balance and expectations. I'd argue having the rule of 3 is still better for matched play than not having it.

You can always agree with your opponent to break a convention or two if you desire. I routinely see two Telemon Dreadnoughts in an army at the local store just because someone wants to bring two and nobody really minds it.

Is "I want to take 1000 points of this one really good unit" really a theme army, though?

ERJAK wrote:

Talinsin wrote:
Some of the lists people are suggesting as "fluffy themed lists that cant be made with Ro3" are outright BS.

Tau battlesuits? 3 full squads of crisis suits alone can be 3000 points...
Nidzilla? Carnifexes alone can total over 2000 points of a list, disregarding the 9+ other monstrous creatures in the codex
SM Bikers? 3 squads is nearly 1000 points, plus HQ's can take bikes
Terminators? 1400p with just the base unit, not including HQ or Assault Terminators.

The rule of 3 is inconvenient when you want to make a spammy list. The rule of 3 can be overly limiting in some specific edge case scenarios.
The rule of 3 is NOT ANYTHING NEW. The rule of 3 WILL NOT prevent a themed list in mached play.
If you ever want to play a list of nothing but Bikers, or nothing but hive tyrants (no matter the extent of fluff massacre), play Narrative, play Open, or house rule it.

It won't prevent the majority of themed lists in matched play, just yunno...the cheap ones. Like if you wanted to run a Sisters of battle seraphim wing, that used to be a very good list core. Now it's pointless because you literally CANNOT bring more than 500pts of them. Three units of retributors with their absolute most expensive(and totally useless) loadout is 531pts.

You cherry picked extremely expensive units in armies known for having expensive non-troop units. The rule of 3 absolutely does stop theme lists built around any non-troop unit that maxes out at less than 275 or so points, which is not so few units that they constitute 'specific edge case scenarios'. If you think the rule of 3 isn't overly restrictive or bad for the game, that's fine(you're wrong but it's fine) but pretending that it doesn't do ANYTHING to constrict theme lists is ridiculous.

What units are:
a) Super cheap, even maxed out
b) Not troops
c) Fluffy to spam
?

Bharring wrote:
What units are:
a) Super cheap, even maxed out
b) Not troops
c) Fluffy to spam
?

Scarab Swarms.
By lore they function in *massive* Swarms as the primary defence of a Tombworld.
I run 3 full units for only 351 in almost every list.
Yes a 3,000 point game, with 4 full units, and at the end only one had been killed outright. My 6 Spyders keep pumping out new bases.
If I could run 6 smaller units I totally would, backed by a full complement of Spyders...it's a key description of the earliest stages of an awakening tomb, and I've been trying to play it since 3rd. With the Detachment system, I can get as close as ive ever been able to. Outriders, Spearheads and the odd Vanguard are my go to.
I've already got 39 bases worth, 2 units of 7 and 4 of 6, backed by 3 x 3 Spyders, fun times all around!