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.
Galef wrote: at one point in 40K history, this was the standard because the only "detachment" available was the Force Organization Chart, which limited you to 3 Elite/Fast/Heavy choices period, not just duplicates.
It made games feel more varied because of the variety of targets and being able to know you would never face more than 3 of anything non-Troop
-
While true, it's also worth noting that the same period had a much greater number of rules that modified the FOC, most often by turning certain units into Troops or allowing you to take multiple units in a single slot. 8e, for all its issues with army building, has largely dropped this pretense of hard boundaries in favor of wielding Command Points as "soft" pressure; if you want to build a Biel-Tan Swordwind packed with elite Aspect Warriors who are, well, Elites, then go ahead. You don't need to pick a Biel-Tan Special Character with a rule that lets you take Banshees as Troops, anymore.
The problem 40k always had with a standardized FOC is that it was really made for Warhammer Fantasy, which split up units by rarity: Lord/Hero, Core, Special, and Rare. This meant you could find light cavalry in the same "slot" as heavy infantry or even monsters, and the FOC literally represented the "common makeup" of those armies. It therefore made sense to limit the number of units in rarer slots, and it was simple to represent specialized forces like all-cavalry Bretonnian armies: cavalry were core to Bretonnia.
40k, on the other hand, splits its units by Battlefield Role: HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. This is more coherent as an in-universe concept, but it means that specialized armies - which are also more common in 40k - run into immediate problems. That Armoured Tank Division you read about and wanted to play, or the all-bike armies supposedly rife amongst Eldar and White Scars, or the Berserker warbands of the World Eaters, are impossible if you're limited to three bikes and three tanks and three elites and a set of mandatory footsloggers. Hence why most such factions had rules that went "uh, I guess your bikes are Troops now", thereby ditching the in-universe/tactical grounding that was the only benefit to Battlefield Roles in the first place.
A more elegant solution would be to accept that this was going to happen and lean into the strengths of Battlefield Roles by presenting alternate FOCs. Sure, a standard army might have X Troops and no more than three of each other role, but a fast scouting force might have no Heavy Support at all and a minimum number of Fast Attack with a higher cap! The ghost of this thought process can be found in the Detachment system, which sets up all these alternate frameworks for your army that are, in practice, loose enough to drive a Wartrukk through, and uses Command Points to reward you for taking the one with the most Troops.
Rule Of Three is a completely different issue, and is basically a crude collar on WAAC. No-one accidentally takes the same unit more than three times - if nothing else, it'd be boring to paint - and even if they did, there are so many variants nowadays that a three-unit limit can be meaningless. If I want a Terminator army, I can take three units each of Termies, Assault Termies, Cataphractii Termies, and Tartaros Termies. Imperial Guard have so many tanks and tank variants that I can fill up a 2000-point list with nothing but Leman Russ tanks without hitting Rule of Three or including any Forge World. This means the only way you're likely to run afoul of these rules is if you hit on an option so specific and so good that if you want nothing but to win you should spam it to outperform the entire rest of your army. Which is more a problem of writing than a problem with the concept of taking the same unit a lot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/01 19:22:54
Galef wrote: at one point in 40K history, this was the standard because the only "detachment" available was the Force Organization Chart, which limited you to 3 Elite/Fast/Heavy choices period, not just duplicates.
It made games feel more varied because of the variety of targets and being able to know you would never face more than 3 of anything non-Troop
-
While true, it's also worth noting that the same period had a much greater number of rules that modified the FOC, most often by turning certain units into Troops or allowing you to take multiple units in a single slot. 8e, for all its issues with army building, has largely dropped this pretense of hard boundaries in favor of wielding Command Points as "soft" pressure; if you want to build a Biel-Tan Swordwind packed with elite Aspect Warriors who are, well, Elites, then go ahead. You don't need to pick a Biel-Tan Special Character with a rule that lets you take Banshees as Troops, anymore.
The problem 40k always had with a standardized FOC is that it was really made for Warhammer Fantasy, which split up units by rarity: Lord/Hero, Core, Special, and Rare. This meant you could find light cavalry in the same "slot" as heavy infantry or even monsters, and the FOC literally represented the "common makeup" of those armies. It therefore made sense to limit the number of units in rarer slots, and it was simple to represent specialized forces like all-cavalry Bretonnian armies: cavalry were core to Bretonnia.
40k, on the other hand, splits its units by Battlefield Role: HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. This is more coherent as an in-universe concept, but it means that specialized armies - which are also more common in 40k - run into immediate problems. That Armoured Tank Division you read about and wanted to play, or the all-bike armies supposedly rife amongst Eldar and White Scars, or the Berserker warbands of the World Eaters, are impossible if you're limited to three bikes and three tanks and three elites and a set of mandatory footsloggers. Hence why most such factions had rules that went "uh, I guess your bikes are Troops now", thereby ditching the in-universe/tactical grounding that was the only benefit to Battlefield Roles in the first place.
A more elegant solution would be to accept that this was going to happen and lean into the strengths of Battlefield Roles by presenting alternate FOCs. Sure, a standard army might have X Troops and no more than three of each other role, but a fast scouting force might have no Heavy Support at all and a minimum number of Fast Attack with a higher cap! The ghost of this thought process can be found in the Detachment system, which sets up all these alternate frameworks for your army that are, in practice, loose enough to drive a Wartrukk through, and uses Command Points to reward you for taking the one with the most Troops.
Rule Of Three is a completely different issue, and is basically a crude collar on WAAC. No-one accidentally takes the same unit more than three times - if nothing else, it'd be boring to paint - and even if they did, there are so many variants nowadays that a three-unit limit can be meaningless. If I want a Terminator army, I can take three units each of Termies, Assault Termies, Cataphractii Termies, and Tartaros Termies. Imperial Guard have so many tanks and tank variants that I can fill up a 2000-point list with nothing but Leman Russ tanks without hitting Rule of Three or including any Forge World. This means the only way you're likely to run afoul of these rules is if you hit on an option so specific and so good that if you want nothing but to win you should spam it to outperform the entire rest of your army. Which is more a problem of writing than a problem with the concept of taking the same unit a lot
.
All very good points, although FOC swapping Elites/Fast, etc to Troops isn't needed when Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider detachments exist. Troops are, in essence, no longer mandatory like they were in prior editions. Deathwing Terminators and Eldar Windrider need no longer be Troops to field their fluffy equivalent armies, nor do you need to take more than 3 of said units (because DW Knights, Shining Spears/Vypers exist to fill in the "fluffy" list)
Granted, you WANT Troops because of ObSec and Battalions generating more CPs, but that's another issue entirely that GW refuses to address (apparently)
While I do think Ro3 is intended to curb abuse, it has the side-affect of forcing players to take more variety of units, which is always good for the game.
As a Saim-Hann player (in theme at least) I can't just take the minimum Bike HQs and the rest all Windriders or Shining Spears. Ro3 forces me to take both to fill points, maybe even add some Vypers, Flyers or Tanks. This is good for both me (because I want those other units anyway) but also my opponent (who gets some target variety to maximize his options)
Brother Castor wrote: I have my first game against some thunder hammer-wielding Space Wolves on Friday so I'll let you know how it goes
So I played 2 games this evening against SW. The first was a draw but the second I won. I think my Renegade Armigers certainly make a stronger list than my Ultramarines, but the TH/SS thunderwolves were lethal in melee and killed my warlord with ease in game 1. I played much more tactically in game 2 and stayed out of charge range so I could wear them down with thermal spear and autocannon shots. My opponent used cover a lot more too, so it was all about manoeuvrability and putting out enough shots to overcome the cover and SS invulnerable saves when the opportunity arose.
I'll concede that game 2 was very one-sided, but that's mainly because my opponent's list was almost exclusively short range weapons and close combat specialists (to the point where even the Armigers with reaper chain cleavers were no match), and that forced me to use tactics that he had very little answer to. Against a list with heavy weapons, transports or deep strike units I think it will be a different story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Pure knights lists are way better than guard cheese.
Agreed. As I don't have any TITANIC units I don't get any CP for my super-heavy detachment so I only get 3 CP to last me the whole game. I think both games I used that for 1 command reroll and 2 rotate ion shields.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/04 07:02:52
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I think you're out of luck if you want 3 squadrons of the same Armiger.
However, you could go 2x Armiger Helverin, 2x Armiger Helverin, 2x Armiger Warglaive.
I am running both, but this is a renegade knights list - both loadouts are the same datasheet in Index: Renegade Knights...
Drager wrote:If playing with rule of 2 I think you're stuck there.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:In our 1000points "tournament" (4player Group ) we used the rule of 2 and didn't have problems. But as others have said, this rule is merely a suggestion, so best to ask your group instead of us
We don't play rule of 2 (or 3) - I just wondered how many people would have a problem with it.
If you're not running any non-knight stuff, you should probably just be using the IK book normally. The only reason renegade knights matters is so that you can include them with other Chaos armies.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: If you're not running any non-knight stuff, you should probably just be using the IK book normally. The only reason renegade knights matters is so that you can include them with other Chaos armies.
Yes it would certainly get around the rule of 2 issue at 1000 points. At 1500 points however, Renegade Knights allows me to deploy the 6 Armigers in 3 vehicle squadrons with the 2 Helverin equivalents in separate LOW slots which is nice. I also really like the idea of running a non-Imperial list as my other army is Ultramarines.
That 1500 point list is the long term aim anyway, and on that subject I just picked up a Knight Warden (new in box on eBay for £50) to allow me to field a Renegade Knight alongside the Armigers at that points level
Everyone I play with uses the “recommended organized event rules” as if they were hard copy real rules for any match play game. I like it this way. It’s only better practice for when I want to enter a tournament. Also was designed to keep the game more balanced, fair, and competitive so I don’t really see why GW doesn’t make these set in stone rules instead of just recommended. When they use terms like “recommended” it causes issues where you have one person who wants to use them in a regular match play game and another person who can argue they don’t have too because they are just recommended and not real rules they have to follow.
Best way to solve this is to agree with your opponent before the game starts. You are probably going to find that the majority of players want to use the organized event rules regardless if it is a tournament game or not as long as it is a matched play game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/05 16:17:18
Now I have a Renegade Knight as well as 6 Armigers I can easily put a list together at 1000 points and at 1500 points that adheres to the recommended organized event rules. Of course talking to your opponent is always the best option, especially as they may rather face 3 Armiger vehicle squadrons at 1000 points than 2 Armiger vehicle squadrons and a Renegade Knight...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/05 16:41:45
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: If you're not running any non-knight stuff, you should probably just be using the IK book normally. The only reason renegade knights matters is so that you can include them with other Chaos armies.
Yes it would certainly get around the rule of 2 issue at 1000 points. At 1500 points however, Renegade Knights allows me to deploy the 6 Armigers in 3 vehicle squadrons with the 2 Helverin equivalents in separate LOW slots which is nice. I also really like the idea of running a non-Imperial list as my other army is Ultramarines.
That 1500 point list is the long term aim anyway, and on that subject I just picked up a Knight Warden (new in box on eBay for £50) to allow me to field a Renegade Knight alongside the Armigers at that points level
Yeah, but if you're only knights, the higher-level keywords don't matter. The upper-level keyword is only relevant for allying with people, so mono-knights can [and should] use the IK book and be dressed up with spikes.
The real reason you'd be renegade knights as monoknights is to get double avenger cannons, which is a compelling reason, but you lose a bunch of other buffs.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
I'm going to keep the loadouts IK-compatible, but stick with Renegade knights for now - purely because I like the idea of playing daemonic knights
List-wise I think I'll use a Crusader loadout (avenger gattling cannon and thermal cannon) for my Renegade Knight. That will keep me just under 1500 points with the 6 Armigers (2 Helverin loadouts and 4 Warglaive loadouts).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/05 21:32:47
[1,800] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
) we used the rule of 2 and didn't have problems. But as others have said, this rule is merely a suggestion, so best to ask your group instead of us 
