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.

On page 114 of the dark elf codex we have the rule raiding force. If you have 3 durkari patrol detachments you get plus 4 comand points 6 or more you get plus 8."

But we can't actually use that rule becuase we can never bring 6 detachments, and its more efficent points wize to take 2 battalions and a specilist (outrider or spearhead) detachment.

Where does the restriction on detachments come from? Where does it apply? Is there any way around it?

I would love to run a double raiding force list. Or a single with a battalion and craftworld outriders in a big game.

Headlss wrote:
On page 114 of the dark elf codex we have the rule raiding force. If you have 3 durkari patrol detachments you get plus 4 comand points 6 or more you get plus 8."

But we can't actually use that rule becuase we can never bring 6 detachments, and its more efficent points wize to take 2 battalions and a specilist (outrider or spearhead) detachment.

Where does the restriction on detachments come from? Where does it apply? Is there any way around it?

I would love to run a double raiding force list. Or a single with a battalion and craftworld outriders in a big game.

We can use it in non matched play games. So yes you can use your 6 detachments in a agreed upon game - I would expect the opponents to be able to do the same.

Our Dark Eldar can function perfectly well as several patrol or indeed using a mix of other detachments - this is just an extra boost to the flexibility of the faction.

The 'detachment restriction' is a suggestion for organized events (i.e., tournaments) and is not a Matched play rule.

Indeed, you can use it in Matched Play games. “Rule Of 3” is a suggested rule for tournaments, not a general restriction.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed, you can use it in Matched Play games. “Rule Of 3” is a suggested rule for tournaments, not a general restriction.

True but many players will use it in pick up games.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed, you can use it in Matched Play games. “Rule Of 3” is a suggested rule for tournaments, not a general restriction.

True but many players will use it in pick up games.

True (we do), but that doesn’t make it a rule. That’s an optional extra rule, essentially a house rule.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed, you can use it in Matched Play games. “Rule Of 3” is a suggested rule for tournaments, not a general restriction.

True but many players will use it in pick up games.

True (we do), but that doesn’t make it a rule. That’s an optional extra rule, essentially a house rule.

GW sponsored house rule.

But still a house rule. There is no reason GW should not write rules for use in Open, Narrative, and Matched Play just because many player choose to apply Organized Play rules to their non-Organized Play games.

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed, you can use it in Matched Play games. “Rule Of 3” is a suggested rule for tournaments, not a general restriction.

True but many players will use it in pick up games.

True (we do), but that doesn’t make it a rule. That’s an optional extra rule, essentially a house rule.

GW sponsored house rule.

Still not a must-use rule. Nothing anyone posts can make it that.

True. Playing solitaire is always an option. Bit expensive to maintain 2 armies and can get boring I guess but yeah that's always an option.

A GW sponsored "house rule" for matched play, might not be a "rule" but its close enough. The league at my flags is using them, and if I want to bring 6 patrols which would be fun and fluffy and have fewer comand points and more Hq tax than 2 batalions and a spearhead, I have to negotiate.

No reason I can't do that. But thers also noreason I can't run A kight annd 6 Hive tyrants against, 90 hormagaunts and 90 imperial guardsmen. Maybe back it up with some green army men and transformers?

Headlss wrote:
A GW sponsored "house rule" for matched play, might not be a "rule" but its close enough. The league at my flags is using them, and if I want to bring 6 patrols which would be fun and fluffy and have fewer comand points and more Hq tax than 2 batalions and a spearhead, I have to negotiate.

No reason I can't do that. But thers also noreason I can't run A kight annd 6 Hive tyrants against, 90 hormagaunts and 90 imperial guardsmen. Maybe back it up with some green army men and transformers?

It's not a 'GW sponsored house rule' and I doubt GW uses it outside of what they state it is for. It's just a suggestion for tournaments where time and space constraints are often a factor.

From the Codex Drukhari FAQ:

Q: If I am playing a matched play organised event that has an upper limit of 3 Detachments per Battle-forged army, what is the maximum number of DRUKHARI Patrol Detachments I can include?

A: 3.

Whilst the Raiding Force ability in Codex: Drukhari mentions Battle-forged armies of 6 or more Detachments, this is designed for narrative play games, or for matched play games with larger (or no) limits on the number of Detachments you can include in your Battle-forged armies. Note that the guidelines provided for organised events in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook are just that, and the event organiser may wish to modify these guidelines to best suit their event’s needs.

Headlss wrote:
A GW sponsored "house rule" for matched play, might not be a "rule" but its close enough. The league at my flags is using them, and if I want to bring 6 patrols which would be fun and fluffy and have fewer comand points and more Hq tax than 2 batalions and a spearhead, I have to negotiate.

No reason I can't do that. But thers also noreason I can't run A kight annd 6 Hive tyrants against, 90 hormagaunts and 90 imperial guardsmen. Maybe back it up with some green army men and transformers?

Why the attempt to ridicule by that last line?

If your group decides to implement a suggested rule for tournaments into all your games that’s on them. It doesn’t make it a rule for all games.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Headlss wrote:
A GW sponsored "house rule" for matched play, might not be a "rule" but its close enough. The league at my flags is using them, and if I want to bring 6 patrols which would be fun and fluffy and have fewer comand points and more Hq tax than 2 batalions and a spearhead, I have to negotiate.

No reason I can't do that. But thers also noreason I can't run A kight annd 6 Hive tyrants against, 90 hormagaunts and 90 imperial guardsmen. Maybe back it up with some green army men and transformers?

Why the attempt to ridicule by that last line?

If your group decides to implement a suggested rule for tournaments into all your games that’s on them. It doesn’t make it a rule for all games.

There's rules an there's rules. If you dont' want to abide on this rule you are basically playing made up edition so could easily face against that kind of army. Or be forced to play solitaire. Great fun playing against yourself! At least you won't get into rules arguments...

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Headlss wrote:
A GW sponsored "house rule" for matched play, might not be a "rule" but its close enough. The league at my flags is using them, and if I want to bring 6 patrols which would be fun and fluffy and have fewer comand points and more Hq tax than 2 batalions and a spearhead, I have to negotiate.

No reason I can't do that. But thers also noreason I can't run A kight annd 6 Hive tyrants against, 90 hormagaunts and 90 imperial guardsmen. Maybe back it up with some green army men and transformers?

Why the attempt to ridicule by that last line?

If your group decides to implement a suggested rule for tournaments into all your games that’s on them. It doesn’t make it a rule for all games.

There's rules an there's rules. If you dont' want to abide on this rule you are basically playing made up edition so could easily face against that kind of army. Or be forced to play solitaire. Great fun playing against yourself! At least you won't get into rules arguments...

You keep mentioning Solitaire as if there's no other way to play 40k other than to use suggested organised event rules.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who actually play Narrative and Open Play rules, and even Matched Play without the suggested event rules. Those people are still playing by the rules, they just never agreed to use the additional suggested organised play rules.

Ghaz only brought this up to avoid the incorrect assumption that if you play Matched Play rules, then you must play using the 'Rule of 3'.

C’maan, tournament-style play is not some higher plane of existence. Pretending there’s only Tourney rules or no game evahhhh is pretty silly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
C’maan, tournament-style play is not some higher plane of existence. Pretending there’s only Tourney rules or no game evahhhh is pretty silly.

Honestly, even in casual the rule of three is a good addition. Frankly i don't like the blanket max 3 on all stuff, because bringing back good old restrictions on certain units would've certainly been a better solution then a blanket is it non troops = max three, but still.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
C’maan, tournament-style play is not some higher plane of existence. Pretending there’s only Tourney rules or no game evahhhh is pretty silly.

Honestly, even in casual the rule of three is a good addition. Frankly i don't like the blanket max 3 on all stuff, because bringing back good old restrictions on certain units would've certainly been a better solution then a blanket is it non troops = max three, but still.

Agreed, and as stated above my group use rule of three. Doesn’t make it a rule. It’s a suggested rule for tournaments, not a must-use rule.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
C’maan, tournament-style play is not some higher plane of existence. Pretending there’s only Tourney rules or no game evahhhh is pretty silly.

Honestly, even in casual the rule of three is a good addition. Frankly i don't like the blanket max 3 on all stuff, because bringing back good old restrictions on certain units would've certainly been a better solution then a blanket is it non troops = max three, but still.

Agreed, and as stated above my group use rule of three. Doesn’t make it a rule. It’s a suggested rule for tournaments, not a must-use rule.

INdeed, however the nature of certain armies, units makes it nearly impossible to not use it.
At the end of the day it is OP's decision but frankly i don't imagine playing aggainst 8x 10 marauder stalkers or similar units is a fun match.