Limit of 3 exemptions

[MARK0SIAN]

I thought I would ask the community for help with this.

 

Some friends and I are trying to create some house rules for our matches where we keep the limit of three in general but make some specific exemptions for certain units, for example we have decided to exempt Company Commanders in Astra Militarum armies as we don’t think they’re overly powerful and it really cripples some Astra Militarum builds to only allow three of them.

 

Now we don’t know every Codex brilliantly so I thought I would ask for help compiling a list of those that you think should be exempt from the limit. I will edit this first post to make the list.

 

Please use the thread to suggest any models you think we should exempt and, if you’re willing, give a brief explanation as to why. We’ve tried to make sure the models we exempt meet at least one of the following criteria (although meeting them doesn’t guarantee it will make the list):

 

1) The unit is the only unit available for that faction in a particular slot

2) More than three is required for the army to build a decent (but not overpowered) list

3) The unit’s are not overly powerful

4) A faction may have other options in a slot but they are terrible or hugely overcosted.

5) It goes against the lore of an army in a huge way to limit them to just three.

 

We’ve tried to be objective with our list but obviously, it’s a hugely subjective area so any input is much appreciated. Thanks in advance :)

 

+Adeptus Custodes+

 

+Adeptus Mechanicus+

 

Onagers

 

+Adeptus Ministorum+

 

Hospitaler/Imagifier

 

+Blood Angels+

 

+Chaos Daemons+

 

+Chaos Marines+

 

+Dark Angels+

 

+Drukhari+

 

+Deathguard+

 

+Deathwatch+

 

+Harlequins+

 

+Aeldari+

 

+Genestealer Cults+

 

+Grey Knights+

 

Interceptors

 

+Astra Militarum+

 

Company or platoon Commanders

Tempestor Primes (pure scion army only)

 

+Knights/Renegade Knights+

 

Pure Knight armies

 

+Necrons+

 

Destroyers possibly

 

+Orks+

 

+Space Marines+

 

Legion of the damned

 

+Space Wolves+

 

+Tau+

 

Drone clarification

 

+Thousand Sons+

 

+Tyranids+

 

+Agents of the Emperor+

 

Sisters of Silence

[Kinstryfe]

I think the exemptions needed are, in no particular order:

 

Any army list or effective sub list (ex, Sisters of Battle, Drukhari mono-faction armies) with only 1 HQ choice, making multiple batallions difficult or impossible.

 

Certain low cost or low power options may we worth an exemption, after some examination. Alternately deeming 1 HQ in some armies as exempt, preferrably one meant to be the vanilla choice (Guard Company Commanders, Space Marine Captains, Daemon Heralds, Custodes Shield-Captains on foot, stuff like that).

 

Any scenario where the Ro3 would lead to Detachment slots being unable to be filled because the army list does not have enough units in that slot to fill the empty slots.

[Leif Bearclaw]

If it's just House Rules why bother with specific exceptions for unit XYZ? Just limit the number of detachments (so everyone just has one battalion, for example), or just go back to the classic FOC, and let the inbuilt limits do the job for you.

[MARK0SIAN]

If it's just House Rules why bother with specific exceptions for unit XYZ? Just limit the number of detachments (so everyone just has one battalion, for example), or just go back to the classic FOC, and let the inbuilt limits do the job for you.

We still want people to be able to play their preferred detachments with as much freedom as possible and generally the rule of three isn’t bad. We just want the specific examples, particularly from codexes we are less familiar with, so that people have got a clear idea about whether a unit is ok as more than three or if it should be limited.

[Wargamer]

Damned Legionaries should be exempt, as their only unit is an Elite choice.

[Mileposter]

The premise seems rather skewed. I support helping out Codices and factions that can't comply with the rule of 3 at larger point values, but trying to support "I can take other valid HQ options but don't want to" is a step in the wrong direction, to my way of thinking.

[Wargamer]

Also, something to keep in mind is that the "Rule of 3" is only up to 2,000 points - above that, a "Rule of 4" applies. So do keep that in mind; if it's easy to sidestep the restriction by playing a slightly larger game, it might not be worth changing it.

[Soder]

GK interceptors are the only fast attack option in the codex. They get a one time use shunt, 12” movement and they can move over models and terrain but do not have the fly keyword.

[Montford]

For Adeptus Ministorum I would exempt Hospitallers and Imagifiers. Thy are very thematic, useful, but not OP.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

Necrons should have destroyers exempted, and maybe Canoptek units (scarabs and possibly wraiths). The Canoptek units are described as a chittering horde most of the time (though why someone would need more than 4 units of wraiths is a tad confusing), and destroyer cult is a fluffy but not OP way of playing destroyers.

 

Beyond that I can't think of any for crons. All the ctan are unique, prices start to get prohibitive for pretty much all the other units to take in numbers greater than minsized units of three, let alone large ones (hi there Lychguard), and we have enough HQ variety that its not an issue. Now, I could bring five units of Lychguard, but why would i want to? A decently sized unit of Lychguard is costly enough that i could bring a full warrior block and maybe some scarabs (though I am ballparking here). I can get more firepower from an extra block of warriors than an extra block of Lychguard (slots permitting, OFC).

 

Perhaps a rule like the old captain on a bike made bikers troops could be brought back? e.g. "Any detachment which includes a destroyer lord may include units of Destroyers as troops instead of fast attack." (not heavy destroyer units though, they can stay in heavy support). Fluffy but not gamebreaking, IMHO.

[Dracos]

Uh no. With all due respect Necron Destroyers are one of the best units in all of 40k.

[KhorneHunter57x]

Leman Russ Battle Tanks in a Spearhead Detachment.

 

Under your criteria, I think it would fit #5 - "It goes against the lore of an army in a huge way to limit them to just three."

 

I could go deeper into the lore reasoning behind why massed Leman Russes is a part of the lore for the Imperial Guard, but whether that alone would justify an exception is open to interpretation and debate.

 

However, my main argument is that they specifically get Defenders of Humanity, aka Objective Secured. This comes across to me as clear intent that Leman Russ tanks are intended to be a viable option for the backbone of an IG army, and I think that is justification for an exception to the 'Rule of Three'. Otherwise, they stand as one of the rare units that have ObSec and yet are restricted by the 'Rule'.

[Panzer]

Leman Russ Battle Tanks in a Spearhead Detachment.

 

Under your criteria, I think it would fit #5 - "It goes against the lore of an army in a huge way to limit them to just three."

 

I could go deeper into the lore reasoning behind why massed Leman Russes is a part of the lore for the Imperial Guard, but whether that alone would justify an exception is open to interpretation and debate.

 

However, my main argument is that they specifically get Defenders of Humanity, aka Objective Secured. This comes across to me as clear intent that Leman Russ tanks are intended to be a viable option for the backbone of an IG army, and I think that is justification for an exception to the 'Rule of Three'. Otherwise, they stand as one of the rare units that have ObSec and yet are restricted by the 'Rule'.

 

Leman Russ have the Vehicle Squadron rule so you can actually play 3x3 with the rule of 3 still.

[KhorneHunter57x]

Leman Russ have the Vehicle Squadron rule so you can actually play 3x3 with the rule of 3 still.

Well, silly me.

[justicarius6]

There should be no "fluffy" or "lore-related" reasons why any units from the Rule of Three should be exempt. Remember these rules are mainly for balancing tournament play, any other kinds of games and house rules you can just play it as you wish.

[facmanpob]

Tau drones that come as additions to other codex entries, such as gun drones accompanying Stealth suits. Makes no sense to limit them to 3 uses of the drone datasheet in my opinion.

[MARK0SIAN]

There should be no "fluffy" or "lore-related" reasons why any units from the Rule of Three should be exempt. Remember these rules are mainly for balancing tournament play, any other kinds of games and house rules you can just play it as you wish.

And this is how we are using house rules to play as we wish.

[Panzer]

Tau drones that come as additions to other codex entries, such as gun drones accompanying Stealth suits. Makes no sense to limit them to 3 uses of the drone datasheet in my opinion.

 

Well to be fair, they don't use the Drone Datasheet in your Armylist. When you 'buy' those Drones you buy them together with their parentunit. So those should definitely not fall under the limit of 3 restriction unless you buy them seperately.

[Xenith]

All units are exempt unless it is an organised play game, i.e. tournament.

 

RTFR: Read the full rules 

[facmanpob]

 

Tau drones that come as additions to other codex entries, such as gun drones accompanying Stealth suits. Makes no sense to limit them to 3 uses of the drone datasheet in my opinion.

 

Well to be fair, they don't use the Drone Datasheet in your Armylist. When you 'buy' those Drones you buy them together with their parentunit. So those should definitely not fall under the limit of 3 restriction unless you buy them seperately.

 

The issue is that when you purchase the models as part of the list, you are referred to the drone datasheet for the rules etc, so RAW you do have to use the datasheet. Rebember the rule says '...is restricted, as is the number of times a player’s army can include a particular datasheet'. Clearly in order to have the drones in your army list you have to include the drone datasheet, so it counts as one use. Its one area that should have been obvious to GW that it would cause confusion, but clearly they didn't consult a Tau player! :P

[Panzer]

Eh, I don't see the confusion unless someone just wants to tell a T'au player that he can't play his army at all. In that case I'd make the decision to not even want to play against that person anyway. ^^

[DanPesci]

Admech Onagers

 

for some reason they are one of the only imperium vehicles/tanks that cant be taken in squadrons, (and where their different weapon options don't count as different subtypes).

 

ie If someone can field 9 leman russ tanks at 2k points, id expect to be able to field 4 onagers :D

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

All units are exempt unless it is an organised play game, i.e. tournament.

 

RTFR: Read the full rules 

What, and risk straining ourselves?

[MARK0SIAN]

All units are exempt unless it is an organised play game, i.e. tournament.

 

RTFR: Read the full rules

As specified in the original post, we like the limit of three in general, we just just want to create a list of models that may need to be exempt for our games.

 

It has nothing to do with reading the full rules/not understanding them/straining ourselves. We just want to make sure we haven’t missed any units simply because we are less familiar with their codexes.

[Major_Gilbear]

 

As specified in the original post, we like the limit of three in general, we just just want to create a list of models that may need to be exempt for our games.

 

It has nothing to do with reading the full rules/not understanding them/straining ourselves. We just want to make sure we haven’t missed any units simply because we are less familiar with their codexes.

 

I may be misunderstanding here, so apologies in advance.

 

You and your friends already play some armies between you, yes? So why is the list in your first post totally blank?

 

Secondly, if neither you or your friends play certain armies, why would you need to house-rule for them?