Face/plane mating (3 mates) vs Edge mating (2 mates), better?

I have been using SW for 7 years now and today I learned something that I should have thought of trying many, many years ago. I had
learned and always done a common 3 mate approach when constraining parts in an assembly, mate a top face/plane to a top face/plane, a right face/plane to a right face/plane, mate a front face/plane to a front face/plane.
But this morning I tried something else, I mated a horizontal edge to a horizontal edge and vertical edge to a vertical edge fully constraining a part, 2 mates instead of my typical 3.
Who else is using this technique? Advantages, disadvantages? My only worry is that there may be some unforeseen errors in my future, naaaa, when does that ever happen?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Sloppy wrote:

Will your method work (all mates satisfied) if you substitute another part for the original one? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. Try mating the primary planes in your part with planes in your assembly. The primary planes are always present in a part, therefore, a substitution should give you mates that are always satisfied.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do that occasionally, but avoid using model edges if it's reasonable to do so. My model templates have the 3 main axes added. I'm more likely to use those when doing this sort of mate scheme.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yeah, model edges are too easily changed. I would only use this method in rare instances.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.