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 it's 3 per detachment take multiple detachments, if it's 3 per army than yeah it could be an issue but as others have said no army in existence right now is "invalid" because you can't take 9 of the same unit in a detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 00:35:00
alextroy wrote: Your thematic choices within the confines of your Codex should not dictate the rules for a tournament.
A tournament having gakky, unnecessary, and poorly balanced house rules that make me unable to play my list is well worthy of criticism.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote: *shrug* If they won't let me play my Sisters list because "rule of three, yo!" and I only have one generic and no named characters that aren't tied to a different order, then frankly the tournament is trash, the tournament organizer is a trash-tier human being, and I have no desire to participate in their trashy tournament.
But you know, this isn't a new problem, considering it's a problem that Mechanicus faced for a while, too, so if you haven't adjusted your rules yet you're a disgrace of a tournament organizer.
Rule of 3 is a GW thing. So.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jivardi wrote: Is the rule of "3" per detachment or per army?
If it's 3 per detachment take multiple detachments, if it's 3 per army than yeah it could be an issue but as others have said no army in existence right now is "invalid" because you can't take 9 of the same unit in a detachment.
3 per army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 00:40:16
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
jivardi wrote: Is the rule of "3" per detachment or per army?
If it's 3 per detachment take multiple detachments, if it's 3 per army than yeah it could be an issue but as others have said no army in existence right now is "invalid" because you can't take 9 of the same unit in a detachment.
The suggested rule scales based on army size.
So at 1000 points, you'd have 2 Canonesses, 2 Missionaries, Taddeus, Junith, Celestine and a Triumph to choose from.
At 2000 points (most common) you'd have 3 Canonesses, 3 Missionaries, Taddeus, Junith, Celestine and a Triumph.
At 3000 points, you'd have 4 Canonesses, 4 Missionaries, Taddeus, Junith, Celestine and a Triumph.
Because of the scaling, it really only prevents exceptionally hard skews.
Only adding 2 characters per 1,000 would start being more of a limit at 4000+ points, but at that point it tends to be more "bring what you have" and you'd probably be adding Uriah and Kyrinov back into the mix too.
No it's not. It's a "suggested house rule" that GW itself doesn't even push any more. It's similar to the DnD 5th edition "Flanking" optional rule, which I've seen players throw a fit over DMs choosing not to use it, heh.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 00:50:52
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Right. America is only place in the world where competive games happen. All games in uk are just casual open games. No competive game in sight.
Lol. Then again this from guy who thinks flayed ones(using illegal things) and deathmarks pre ca were awesome units. Credibility: zero.
Did...someone ever say it was the only place competitive 40k existed. Never heard anyone say it. Maelstrom as competitive got mentioned though. So that was fun.
In other news, Europeans also play ITC. Shocking. I know.
That aside, I proved myself in competitive play. With this army. I have the proof I need to back what I say up. You being a jerk wont change that.
You misquoting me flat out on deathmarks, and trying to PRETEND like I was "wrong" about flayed ones is your right. Its just false.
The scoreboard never lies. Opinions are great. Results are better.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
davidgr33n wrote: I’m hoping and have a feeling Repressors will get back in the Codex in some form in future Sisters additions.
Same here. It'd really be nice of Sisters to have more tanks, even if they're transports.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
No it's not. It's a "suggested house rule" that GW itself doesn't even push any more. It's similar to the DnD 5th edition "Flanking" optional rule, which I've seen players throw a fit over DMs choosing not to use it, heh.
Umm...no. its literally in the BIG FAQ. Matched Play. Its not an ITC thing. Its a matched play thing. So. Yeah.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Right. America is only place in the world where competive games happen. All games in uk are just casual open games. No competive game in sight.
Lol. Then again this from guy who thinks flayed ones(using illegal things) and deathmarks pre ca were awesome units. Credibility: zero.
Did...someone ever say it was the only place competitive 40k existed. Never heard anyone say it. Maelstrom as competitive got mentioned though. So that was fun.
In other news, Europeans also play ITC. Shocking. I know.
That aside, I proved myself in competitive play. With this army. I have the proof I need to back what I say up. You being a jerk wont change that.
You misquoting me flat out on deathmarks, and trying to PRETEND like I was "wrong" about flayed ones is your right. Its just false.
The scoreboard never lies. Opinions are great. Results are better.
You had them at 4 attacks. Ignoring everything else, that’s just flat out wrong.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
As an optional rule that you may or may not want to implement for ranked play.
I quote:
Games Workshop wrote:Of course, if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc.
In other words: "This is just an optional house rule we made to try to quickly fix the problem of spamming super powerful units, change it to suit your needs."
But this is really getting off topic at this point, and I feel I've proved my point. So I'm more interested in the Legends discussion at this point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 01:03:18
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I'll mostly be using Kyrinov as a generic Missionary (already cleared the substitution with my local TO) - but I do look forward to bonking Primaris Marines with the giant mace when I do the opportunity.
alextroy wrote: Your thematic choices within the confines of your Codex should not dictate the rules for a tournament.
A tournament having gakky, unnecessary, and poorly balanced house rules that make me unable to play my list is well worthy of criticism.
You go up against 11 nightspinners then.
Or 60 eliminators.
I'm not a big fan of the rule of 3 either, but GW has been writing their book with it in mind for 2ish years now and has officially given up trying to not to make busted spammable units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 01:58:01
legend was created fdor roughly the same reasons ro3 was, to prevent ass hats from spamming OP units, Ala IH Relic Chaplain Dreads. Which was a literal thing until ITC stepped in and stated you will be disqualified if you use this( Not in so many words)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: legend was created fdor roughly the same reasons ro3 was, to prevent ass hats from spamming OP units, Ala IH Relic Chaplain Dreads. Which was a literal thing until ITC stepped in and stated you will be disqualified if you use this( Not in so many words)
umm no thats not the case at all. For a start chaplain dreads aren't legends.
Legends is just a catagory for things where the mini's are no longer produced by GW, and thus not play tested for, but they've got a rules repository for so you can keep using them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 02:23:16
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Anybody thinking of using the sanctum in their games?
In an infantry only VH list it might be competitive to place 3 units of melta Rets on a placable terrain for 2+ with a Stoic Imagifier for the ignores (1 and 2) AP, plus maybe a Canoness with Indomitable Belief for a 5++ and reroll 1s. That would make them 2+/5++/6+++.
And the sanctum gives 1 extra MD per turn. The Ld boost is meh but can only help.
davidgr33n wrote: Anybody thinking of using the sanctum in their games?
In an infantry only VH list it might be competitive to place 3 units of melta Rets on a placable terrain for 2+ with a Stoic Imagifier for the ignores (1 and 2) AP, plus maybe a Canoness with Indomitable Belief for a 5++ and reroll 1s. That would make them 2+/5++/6+++.
And the sanctum gives 1 extra MD per turn. The Ld boost is meh but can only help.
Sanctum is a great option. Best terrain piece in the game. Amazing for VH especiall.
Also take Celestine in that setup so even if they are AP-3 they still bounce off the 4++.
davidgr33n wrote: Anybody thinking of using the sanctum in their games?
In an infantry only VH list it might be competitive to place 3 units of melta Rets on a placable terrain for 2+ with a Stoic Imagifier for the ignores (1 and 2) AP, plus maybe a Canoness with Indomitable Belief for a 5++ and reroll 1s. That would make them 2+/5++/6+++.
And the sanctum gives 1 extra MD per turn. The Ld boost is meh but can only help.
Sanctum is a great option. Best terrain piece in the game. Amazing for VH especiall.
Also take Celestine in that setup so even if they are AP-3 they still bounce off the 4++.
I’ve considered Celestine in the list but just to keep her there as a buff seems pricey.
Another benefit is on the top floor no dreads or mechs can get to them.
That is a really good list, Lammia! I was surprised to see that all of that actually fit into a 2,000-points list. Tell us how it works for you!
Two points:
1.: I'm glad to see that someone else is using 2x4 Repentia. It just seems so much better than 1x8, seeing as you gain an extra MD for the death of both squads and that obviously two squads are more difficult to remove than one, e.g. through overwatch fire. But how do you think two small squads will impact the effectiveness of stratagems, be it Final Redemption, Desperate for Redemption, Holy Rage or any other stratagem?
2.: One thing I haven't seen people do, however, is outfit their BSS with a single combi-melta on the Superiors, instead of a meltagun on a regular sister. For only 1 extra point you basically gain an additional ablative wound for the melta (and an additional bolter, for what it's worth). Whenever I want cheap BSS, I just take 5 with a combi-melta on the Superior, maybe with a Simulacrum for the guaranteed chance to use a MD on them. That's what, 60/65 points?
Repentia don't live long enough to use Desperate for Redemption in my experience and the need for Holy Rage is theoretically replaced by the Rhino and the charge rerolls. The usefulness of Final Redemption takes a hit, but it's more 'amusing' than 'impactful' at the best of times?
Combi-meltas are probably the better way to go but the idea was to follow general design ideas and still have the Geminae Superia offer something in 'being cheap'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I just threw it together. Two points is a Storm Bolter somewhere and the Superiors don't have a Chainsword...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 03:34:21
alextroy wrote: You might be right if the limitation made your faction unplayable, but it doesn't even come close. Three Canonesses is enough for either a Bridage or a Battalion and 1 HQ detachment. That doesn't even take not account there is a second generic HQ available to you, even if you don't want to use it.
Therefore, leaving the Rule of 3 in Place for a 2K Tournament doesn't make them trash. It just means you want them to cater their tournament rules to your specific army list. Not to be mean, but that reflects worst on you then them.
Actually, the rule of X is garbage for two reasons.
1. most units aren't problematic, but rather than fix the problematic units GW ham fisted this "Rule of X" for tournament play that is blanket to everything that isn't a DT or troops choice. Even though it's a suggestion for matched play, you know as well as I do that TO's automatically take these suggested rules as gospel. Legends is going to be like that as well because, let's face it, is a canoness with a combi-weapon they've been armed with for 20+ years or a superior with a storm bolter really that unbalancing?
2. Rule of X doesn't address the fact there's something like ten different datasheets for "Space Marine Captain", each of which a player is permitted X of while armies like Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Harlequins have at most 2-3 generic HQs and/or units for other slots total.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jivardi wrote: Is the rule of "3" per detachment or per army?
If it's 3 per detachment take multiple detachments, if it's 3 per army than yeah it could be an issue but as others have said no army in existence right now is "invalid" because you can't take 9 of the same unit in a detachment.
At 1000 points or lower, a player is permitted at most 2 of each data sheet in their entire army that is neither a Troops choice nor has the Dedicated Transport role.
For every band of 1000 points above that, the maximum increases by 1.
It's called Rule of 3 because most games, especially competitive, run 1500-2000 points, which limits players to 3 of each data sheet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: legend was created fdor roughly the same reasons ro3 was, to prevent ass hats from spamming OP units, Ala IH Relic Chaplain Dreads. Which was a literal thing until ITC stepped in and stated you will be disqualified if you use this( Not in so many words)
Chaplain Dreads are Forgeworld, not Legends, meaning they're not restricted from tournaments that ban Legends units.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 05:19:18
alextroy wrote: You might be right if the limitation made your faction unplayable, but it doesn't even come close. Three Canonesses is enough for either a Bridage or a Battalion and 1 HQ detachment. That doesn't even take not account there is a second generic HQ available to you, even if you don't want to use it.
Therefore, leaving the Rule of 3 in Place for a 2K Tournament doesn't make them trash. It just means you want them to cater their tournament rules to your specific army list. Not to be mean, but that reflects worst on you then them.
Actually, the rule of X is garbage for two reasons.
1. most units aren't problematic, but rather than fix the problematic units GW ham fisted this "Rule of X" for tournament play that is blanket to everything that isn't a DT or troops choice. Even though it's a suggestion for matched play, you know as well as I do that TO's automatically take these suggested rules as gospel. Legends is going to be like that as well because, let's face it, is a canoness with a combi-weapon they've been armed with for 20+ years or a superior with a storm bolter really that unbalancing?
2. Rule of X doesn't address the fact there's something like ten different datasheets for "Space Marine Captain", each of which a player is permitted X of while armies like Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Harlequins have at most 2-3 generic HQs and/or units for other slots total.
And yet I don't think I've ever seen a Space Marine Captain spam list. They could definitely improve the rule by adding a number of Keywords for units that count as the same think, much like they did with the various Chaos Daemon Princes, but that doesn't mean the rule does fulfill it's purpose successfully.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: legend was created fdor roughly the same reasons ro3 was, to prevent ass hats from spamming OP units, Ala IH Relic Chaplain Dreads. Which was a literal thing until ITC stepped in and stated you will be disqualified if you use this( Not in so many words)
Chaplain Dreads are Forgeworld, not Legends, meaning they're not restricted from tournaments that ban Legends units.
Chaplain Dreads are a particular miss on GW's part. They haven't done Legends to FW units because they are still working on the new FW Books to give rules to the models in production. Add to that a CA Price Reduction along with adding Litanies to them via the FAQ and we had an OK unit (who even hurt of Chaplain Dreads before the IH Supplement was released?) buffed into the sky.
But this is all not really SOB related. The point is a rule enforced on all players isn't a bad rule because it doesn't allow you to field the army you want. Tournament play requires compromises. You are free to use whatever models you want when playing with your friends, but as things get more organized, limits happen. Some you will like, some you won't. Doesn't make the rule or the enforcers bad.
Question: What's the point in discussing tactics as a tactics discussion thread if you're going to impose artificial narrative restrictions and/or assume you're playing in a way that's anything other than competitive? Apart from turning up something new and different against conventional wisdom for further refinement, what value does noncompetitive play have towards deriving optimal and high-efficiency strategies and tactics?
Kinnay wrote:
That is a really good list, Lammia! I was surprised to see that all of that actually fit into a 2,000-points list. Tell us how it works for you!
Two points:
1.: I'm glad to see that someone else is using 2x4 Repentia. It just seems so much better than 1x8, seeing as you gain an extra MD for the death of both squads and that obviously two squads are more difficult to remove than one, e.g. through overwatch fire. But how do you think two small squads will impact the effectiveness of stratagems, be it Final Redemption, Desperate for Redemption, Holy Rage or any other stratagem?
2.: One thing I haven't seen people do, however, is outfit their BSS with a single combi-melta on the Superiors, instead of a meltagun on a regular sister. For only 1 extra point you basically gain an additional ablative wound for the melta (and an additional bolter, for what it's worth). Whenever I want cheap BSS, I just take 5 with a combi-melta on the Superior, maybe with a Simulacrum for the guaranteed chance to use a MD on them. That's what, 60/65 points?
I am doing 2x4 Repentia. 4 BR Repentia basically kill anything they touch as is, especially with CP investment. Pin down the overwatch with a Basilisk or Thunderfire gun [or the rhino, or whatever], then charge with 4 while leaving the other 4 in the Rhino for charging in the next turn. That said, I've made the mistake of sending in both together sometimes, and I need to remember not to do that.
I haven't really settled in on a list that I like yet, because I've been kind of unhappy with all of them that I've turned up. So far, I've mostly been using variations on a theme of 3x Exorcists, Repentia in a Rhino, some Seraphim, and a bunch of BSS with or without special weapons.
On one hand, it feels that BSS without special weapons are pretty lame for something I have so many of, on the other hand those special weapons are hideously expensive and take points away from units that might perform better. I advance a lot, so picking Argent Shroud over Valorous Heart or Bloody Rose might be worth considering.
Repentia usually do work and trade positively. They only need to kill one thing to make their cost back. I'm pretty happy with them, but have found myself dropping to 1x4 when I'm strapped for points despite them having pretty consistently solid performance.
I think Pengines are better than Mortifiers. I've tried both, and I'm struggling to see why I'd want a Mortifier over a Pengine considering they're virtually identical but the Pengine has 4+ re-rolling to hit & and 5+++ versus 3+ no-re-rolls and a 6+++.
I'm unhappy with Exorcists. I've run 2 classic 1 conflagration, 2 classic, and 3 classic. I'm unhappy with the performance of all three of the permutations, but I'm not comfortable dropping them and having no AT beyond 12". We've already had this discussion though, and I'm in the minority.
I want to run Zephyrim when they come out. I think they look very solid, however:
With Zephyrim and Seraphim, I don't know how many I want to run and in what squad size. On one hand, I can only effectively drop with 1 of each on turns 2 and 3. Seraphim require a stratagem, and Zephyrim require good Miracle Dice. I could also try to run both with Celestine running up the board with 4++ as a big horde of jump infantry, but it's a very expensive block no matter how you read it that won't be doing anything on turn 1 and still isn't very resilient. I think I want my Zerphyrim squads to be big and Seraphim squads to be small, but I'm not sure on that.
Theoretically, Rets look good, especially in a power armored foothorde. But I'm not confident in a power armored foothorde standing up to anything, much less a stiff breeze, given the state of the meta, and I'm not confident even a squad of 10 rets will survive past the enemy's first shooting phase. I'm also not confident in not having at least mid ranged antitank.
I'm also not really final or happy with picking doctrines. Valorous Heart feels strong, but also like it's only strong because of the meta, and that I'm giving up my choice of potentially offensive bonus to counter a kind of free property of the enemy army. Bloody Rose also feels strong, but only on a small subset of units, making me hesitant to take it for the whole army. Argent Shroud also feels like it would be good.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 06:36:14
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!
Right. America is only place in the world where competive games happen. All games in uk are just casual open games. No competive game in sight.
Lol. Then again this from guy who thinks flayed ones(using illegal things) and deathmarks pre ca were awesome units. Credibility: zero.
Did...someone ever say it was the only place competitive 40k existed. Never heard anyone say it. Maelstrom as competitive got mentioned though. So that was fun.
In other news, Europeans also play ITC. Shocking. I know.
That aside, I proved myself in competitive play. With this army. I have the proof I need to back what I say up. You being a jerk wont change that.
You misquoting me flat out on deathmarks, and trying to PRETEND like I was "wrong" about flayed ones is your right. Its just false.
The scoreboard never lies. Opinions are great. Results are better.
You had them at 4 attacks. Ignoring everything else, that’s just flat out wrong.
It isnt. It was explained to you with all the patience you deserved.
.
Take your entirely wrong answers back to the necron thread dude.
As an optional rule that you may or may not want to implement for ranked play.
I quote:
Games Workshop wrote:Of course, if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc.
In other words: "This is just an optional house rule we made to try to quickly fix the problem of spamming super powerful units, change it to suit your needs."
But this is really getting off topic at this point, and I feel I've proved my point. So I'm more interested in the Legends discussion at this point.
Literally any rule has this caveat. Lol. Anywho i think the evidence is pretty clearly understood by most. Wishing it werent so is a thing you can do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 06:20:06
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Melissia wrote: *shrug* If they won't let me play my Sisters list because "rule of three, yo!" and I only have one generic and no named characters that aren't tied to a different order, then frankly the tournament is trash, the tournament organizer is a trash-tier human being, and I have no desire to participate in their trashy tournament..
There's 2 special characters(and sisters at that) that aren't tied to different order. Triump and Celestine. So even if you have some silly house rule of no missionaries you can still get brigade+battalion easily. Only triple battalion is out of you.
alextroy wrote: Your thematic choices within the confines of your Codex should not dictate the rules for a tournament.
A tournament having gakky, unnecessary, and poorly balanced house rules that make me unable to play my list is well worthy of criticism.
It's no more bad than player himself having own house rules making army unplayable. Like certain dakkadakka poster who had house rule of fielding only tactical marines with missile launcher and flamer and expecting to win with nothing but those. That's up to player. Not for tournament organizer. If player makes silly artificial limitations that's his issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: legend was created fdor roughly the same reasons ro3 was, to prevent ass hats from spamming OP units, Ala IH Relic Chaplain Dreads. Which was a literal thing until ITC stepped in and stated you will be disqualified if you use this( Not in so many words)
Uh what you are saying? ITC did not say such thing. They said to check conversions before hand. And even if you didn't you weren't disqualified. Model just could not be used.
And chaplain dreads aren't in legends to begin with...Might want to check up on what legends are actually before you claim what it was for.
edit: Also if issue is "they are males in all women army" then that's even extra silly seeing missionaries and preachers are both women and men. "These men and women serve as the front line of the Ministorum, guiding the newest followers of the God-Emperor in their day-to-day prayers and observances.".
So you have both male and women missionary/preachers in same organization. So limiting them is about as sensible as me saying "canoness does not fit my headcannon. Release another generic HQ or I can't play! Your tournament rules suck!"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 07:57:26
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Question: What's the point in discussing tactics as a tactics discussion thread if you're going to impose artificial narrative restrictions and/or assume you're playing in a way that's anything other than competitive? Apart from turning up something new and different against conventional wisdom for further refinement, what value does noncompetitive play have towards deriving optimal and high-efficiency strategies and tactics?
Because not everyone wants to use the same lists forever? Same reason no faction thread starts with "Here is The Most Optimised List you can make. There is to be no deviation from The Optimised List. The Optimised List is not to be questioned. Deviation from The Optimised List will result in mockery, derision and disregarding of opinions. All hail The Optimised List."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 10:17:04
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Question: What's the point in discussing tactics as a tactics discussion thread if you're going to impose artificial narrative restrictions and/or assume you're playing in a way that's anything other than competitive? Apart from turning up something new and different against conventional wisdom for further refinement, what value does noncompetitive play have towards deriving optimal and high-efficiency strategies and tactics?
Because not everyone wants to use the same lists forever? Same reason no faction thread starts with "Here is The Most Optimised List you can make. There is to be no deviation from The Optimised List. The Optimised List is not to be questioned. Deviation from The Optimised List will result in mockery, derision and disregarding of opinions. All hail The Optimised List."
Don't start complaining about tournament rules then because of your limitations
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Question: What's the point in discussing tactics as a tactics discussion thread if you're going to impose artificial narrative restrictions and/or assume you're playing in a way that's anything other than competitive? Apart from turning up something new and different against conventional wisdom for further refinement, what value does noncompetitive play have towards deriving optimal and high-efficiency strategies and tactics?
Because not everyone wants to use the same lists forever? Same reason no faction thread starts with "Here is The Most Optimised List you can make. There is to be no deviation from The Optimised List. The Optimised List is not to be questioned. Deviation from The Optimised List will result in mockery, derision and disregarding of opinions. All hail The Optimised List."
Don't start complaining about tournament rules then because of your limitations
I do think TBH the missionary restriction of 1 per detachment is a bit odd, as far as I knowno one codex has that limiter for any of their HQs (even though GW created the rule of 3 specificly because some items damn well fething SHOULD have that limit) and it's not like an army with 3 missionaries as the only HQ will break the game.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
