40k - Making 7ed playable in tournaments. (TO's Guide Updated with Nova and BAO format in OP)

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.

**Tomb King**

I have been reading and contemplating the new 7ed rulebook and obviously it isnt fit to be played consistently in tournament play without a few adjustments to avoid imbalance issues that will rise.

Feel free to suggest rules that should be added to the list of suggested rules for warhammer 40k Tournament Organisers in order to help them facilitate fun and friendly environments were the rules wont be abused into nauseam.

This is a living document. Please feel free to comment on why or why not a suggestion should be on or off the list.

Current list of suggested rules modifications for standard tournament play:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Any suggestion for bringing the psychic phase down some. Current balance issues: (massive psyker spam can both null the phase for one and make it impossible for you to stop the other, invisibility, Daemonology/Summoning)
Maelstrom cards (Not recommended for serious tournament play; although these are fun they are to random for a competitive environment; visualize scouring in 6th that was widely modified for tournament play)

The way the BAO has currently ruled their tournament format:

Spoiler:

The Nova Open has currently decided on the following rules for their tournaments:

Spoiler:

**jy2**

Curb the re-rollable 2+ shenanigans.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Useless Tactical Objectives - the ones where you have no chance to get at all - can be immediately discarded and replaced.

Example - getting the Tactical Card for killing flyers against an army without any flyers.

It'll prevent situations like this:

You start off with 3 cards: kill enemy flyers, kill enemy fortification and kill enemy psyker. Your opponent has no flyers, no fortifications and no psykers.

He then draw his 3 cards: Secure Objectives 1, 2 and 3 which his troops are already on.

You're instantly down 0-3 without even having done anything in the game.

**Hulksmash**

No suggestions. We should just go ahead and play 6th edition again since that's pretty much what your suggestions boil down to

But seriously, the Unbound isn't a rule change. Battle Forge only is completely within the rules so I'd like it if people stopped referring to it as a change.

No Double Force Org removes Marine/Rakuan and other, Eldar/Iyanden, Tau/Farsight, and CSM/Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter. You can't ally with same factions anymore. So you're literally taking armies away from people, ones that people have been playing. And double force org isn't nearly as bad as it seems anymore. The real deal breaker on that one was Flamer/Screamer daemons.

I'd say no come the apocalypse allies, not no desperate, but that's due to fluff on my part, not actual game play. Also several AoC went to desperate so I think they need still be on the table. I think the penalties are fine since we all know how important deployment is in a game.

Limiting the number of warpcharges limits the ability to stop things like 2+ rerollables. But yeah, let's totally keep that going while making the tools we used to use to fight it way, way less effective. You do know that mathmatically the psychic phase actually got worse right?

The rules actually solve the 2+ reroll problem for the most part. The only one left will be the screamerstar but that took a hit due to UNITS not being able to do the same power. So only 1 summons, 1 flickering, 1 boost to invul, and so forth.

And eldar, because the powers that make it 2++ are on the warlocks, have to use enough dice to make sure you can't cancel it while trying not to die from perils since they don't haev a ghost helm.

I have no experience with the tactical cards yet since I haven't opened the ones I got but I'd assume that due to their grossly random nature those won't be used by most tournaments.

**Fxeni**

I like Jy2's tactical card suggestions. Furthermore, I'd really like to make them work, because they make the game more fun when it runs turn to turn (at least, in my humble opinion).

Daemonology needs to be limited somehow. I would suggest that every army only be allowed to have one of each power from the Daemonology table, period - but that's an initial suggestion.

I would suggest 2 sources for an army. Furthermore, you can ally to yourself- that way it doesn't feth over Tau/Tau, SM/SM, or Nids/Nids. THAT, or allow a second FOC from the same army as your second "source".

I haven't tested against come the apoc allies yet, so I'll reserve judgement on that.

Also reserve judgement on limiting warp charges.

**Thud**

You can still ally with yourself. You can do it within the same detachment.

**Peregrine**

Two things I'd want to see:

1) Remove the objective cards. Even if you find a clumsy solution to the worst problems of getting objectives that are literally impossible to accomplish because of your opponent's army choices there's still the huge problem of random objectives having a lot of potential to ruin games with rolls that strongly favor one player. Mission objectives need to be symmetrical, and they need to be clearly stated before the game begins.

2) Remove the demon summoning powers entirely. These are just stupid in every way, they're blatantly unfluffy and arguably overpowered to the point that they break the game. I can't think of a single good argument for including them besides "GW published them", and any solution besides complete removal (like limiting warp charge or unit spam) is probably going to be an awkward mess that screws up a bunch of other stuff as a side effect.

Tomb King wrote:
No unbound armies

Disagree with this. It's part of the game now, whether we like it or not, and people are going to start building unbound armies. Until we see a clear reason to ban it (so far the hypothetical unbound abuse is not very impressive) this rule is just excluding people for no good reason. Same with other limits on double FOC/etc, before reflexively proposing rules that are effectively "go back to 5th edition" I think the proposal needs to be accompanied by a list of exactly what game-breaking armies exist that require such a dramatic solution.

No desperate allies

Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.

**jy2**

Peregrine wrote:

No desperate allies

Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.

I'm thinking TK actually meant to say....No Come the Apocalypse allies.

**Dakkamite**

Really, really not impressed with random objectives, especially ones that give you "d3" victory points.

Its like they said in that team zero comp batrep - the victory points gained by each player seemed to have very little to do with what actually happened on the table.

**Thud**

There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.

**jy2**

Dakkamite wrote:
Really, really not impressed with random objectives, especially ones that give you "d3" victory points.

Its like they said in that team zero comp batrep - the victory points gained by each player seemed to have very little to do with what actually happened on the table.

I actually like the Maelstrom of War missions. While it isn't completely fair, what it does do is to add some fun variety to the game.

If you want to play a standard game, you can always play the normal Eternal War missions (Crusade, Purge, Scouring, etc.). This type of mission is more suited for tournament player as each player knows what to expect.

The Maelstrom of War scenarios are more like beer & pretzel scenarios for casual games (at least to me). You get the objective and then you react to it. It's more appropriate for players who enjoy playing card games. I have no problems playing this in competitive play as long as the randomness can be mitigated to a certain extent (as per my examples above). As long as both players have the possibility to score points each turn, I'm actually ok with it.

**Peregrine**

Thud wrote:
There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.

But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.

Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.

**Swastakowey**

I also suggest putting a cap on power dice.

**DarthDiggler**

Hulksmash wrote:
No suggestions. We should just go ahead and play 6th edition again since that's pretty much what your suggestions boil down to

Ditto

**Tomb King**

Lol oops was a typo. I meant no comes the apocalypse allies. Desperate allies are fine. So fixing that now.

**Jimsolo**

Peregrine wrote:
Thud wrote:
There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.

But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.

Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.

So you think that every tournament should be completely equal? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were one of the people who believes in inherent inequalities between the codexes. Does that mean we should ban Eldar or Tau armies in order to prevent someone from having a supposed advantage? If that's the reasoning we're using, I'm just curious where we draw the line at.

Personally, I'd like it if we try to incorporate at least SOME of the composition changes of 7th edition. I think that if a TO told me they weren't allowing allies, weren't allowing Daemonology, weren't allowing multiple force orgs, and were restricting the number of psykers, I'd be pretty irate. It's okay to prefer to play the game a certain way, but I don't think it's okay to force everyone else to play that way. If you've got one or two things you've got an issue with that's fine, but let's try to curb our bloodlust as organizers. I may toy around with restricting the use of EITHER superheavies/gargantuan creatures OR D-weapons, but not both.

I don't think every tourney needs to be Unbound, but I'd sure like to see a couple of them! If running, I would probably specify if the tournament is allowing Unbound lists, although I think I might toy with some mechanic to reward Battle Forged lists. (An extra VP for every game?)

I think that removing Daemonology is punitive to some armies more than others, and is akin to not allowing transport vehicles, or not allowing template weapons.

I haven't had a chance to look at the tactical cards yet, so I can't weigh in. I don't even understand the mechanics behind them at this point. (Specifically, I thought they were only available during certain missions. If that's the case though, we wouldn't even be talking about this, would we? TOs who didn't want to use them would just use standard missions...or am I misunderstanding?)

Restricting the number of force orgs isn't a tournament restriction I'd have a problem with, really. It's a blanket thing that would affect all armies the same, so there's no unfairness there. It's another change though, so I would personally be careful before adding it in with a bunch of other restrictions.

I guess it's a judgment call, but I think that when it comes to making house rules for tourneys (beyond clarifying grey areas within the rules) I'd err on the side of caution.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Peregrine wrote:
Thud wrote:
There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.

But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.

Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.

There are already advantages and disadvantages inherent in the game though. A Tyranid list going up against Dark Eldar is going to be disadvantaged before the game even starts. To use a Magic: the Gathering example, if I keep drawing starting hands of nothing but lands, that doesn't make the game bad.

**Thud**

Peregrine wrote:
Thud wrote:
There are still interesting ways of using the cards, though. For example, both players could pick three each at the beginning of the game and those three would be the primary mission in the game. By not having to disclose which cards were picked, you could get some interesting mind games going on.

But that still doesn't fix the problem of having unequal objectives that favor one player before the game even begins. Let's say I draw "hold objective 1", "hold objective 2", and "kill the enemy HQ", and objectives 1 and 2 are the ones in my deployment zone. Oh, and I'm playing gunline Tau. Then you draw "kill a psyker", "destroy a flyer", and "hold objective 1". My army has no flyers or psykers so you've got two dead cards, and you're going to have a hard time taking my objective away from me while I can just camp there and get easy VP. Even if you allow re-draws on impossible objectives it still leaves very difficult ones. For example, I might have a single flyer that spends most of the game in reserve until your AA is all dead, or you might replace the psyker card with another card that requires you to capture one of my objectives.

Now, this is fine for a silly casual game between players who like random surprises, but it's completely inappropriate for a tournament. Tournament missions need to be symmetrical and balanced so that neither player starts the game with an advantage.

If you're incapable of picking the objectives best suited to your army, and your opponent is capable of that, the maybe you deserve to lose? Or did you miss the part where I said "pick"?

Just spitballing, though. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better solution.

**PanzerLeader**

I think we're all in over react mode right now. I'm only 2 games into 7th, but I think the randomness of psychic powers will make itself apparent quickly. Summoning is nice, but it also detracts from your damage output. Horrors are shooting or summoning. A warp charge three power needs six dice to cast with a semblance of reliability. So the average circus summons about three units a turn (assuming Belakor, Fatey, two level 3 psykers and two units of horrors to start for 16+d6 dice) but does so at the cost of casting any buffs and witch fires. I think most competitive armies can drop at least the summoned units (who'll have no protection really) to keep dice more or less level. And again, no buffs or damage spells if you're going all out on summoning.

As for the maelstrom missions, they were a lot of fun. The randomness of the cards can make it a little frustrating and I'm not sure id use them for a tourney but the fact that you discard each objective after completing it actually forces decisions on gun line armies. They might get the one easy card to start, but they can't necessarily win camping on just objectives like they do in eternal war missions.

Let's give it a week and play some more games. I've had a lot of fun so far, especially with the quick reference card opening divination up to SM and CSM.

**Breng77**

Peregrine wrote:
Two things I'd want to see:

1) Remove the objective cards. Even if you find a clumsy solution to the worst problems of getting objectives that are literally impossible to accomplish because of your opponent's army choices there's still the huge problem of random objectives having a lot of potential to ruin games with rolls that strongly favor one player. Mission objectives need to be symmetrical, and they need to be clearly stated before the game begins.

2) Remove the demon summoning powers entirely. These are just stupid in every way, they're blatantly unfluffy and arguably overpowered to the point that they break the game. I can't think of a single good argument for including them besides "GW published them", and any solution besides complete removal (like limiting warp charge or unit spam) is probably going to be an awkward mess that screws up a bunch of other stuff as a side effect.

Tomb King wrote:
No unbound armies

Disagree with this. It's part of the game now, whether we like it or not, and people are going to start building unbound armies. Until we see a clear reason to ban it (so far the hypothetical unbound abuse is not very impressive) this rule is just excluding people for no good reason. Same with other limits on double FOC/etc, before reflexively proposing rules that are effectively "go back to 5th edition" I think the proposal needs to be accompanied by a list of exactly what game-breaking armies exist that require such a dramatic solution.

No desperate allies

Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.

Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.

In general I'm for letting things play our a bit before jumping to conclusions. However my thoughts off the top are

No unbound
2 detachment max

I think that if the summoning powers become a problem the easy if is to institute fantasy rule of no more than one of each spell in your army, then make an exemption for spell focus primaris powers.

**Leth**

I am in the wait and see camp for limiting power dice, etc. I think there are too many ways for the army to go wrong for it to be something to limit.

Same with eliminating malefic. Lets just wait and see.

The only real change I want is to redraw cards that there is no way for you to complete.

At that point it is punishing you for your opponents army comp more so than anything else

**djn**

Gw make no pretense to balance the game. Infact they have progressively (regressively?) moved towards more imbalance and an inelegant rule set.

The community needs to step in and adress this further for like minded players who enjoy the material but want a different experience than GW currently offer.

Psychic phase, missions and the FOC all need reviewing. My concern is there being a lack of consistency in changes and a splintered player base which is already very small.

**Tomb King**

djn wrote:
Gw make no pretense to balance the game. Infact they have progressively (regressively?) moved towards more imbalance and an inelegant rule set.

The community needs to step in and adress this further for like minded players who enjoy the material but want a different experience than GW currently offer.

Psychic phase, missions and the FOC all need reviewing. My concern is there being a lack of consistency in changes and a splintered player base which is already very small.

You hit the nail on the head for the reason this thread exist. Also please note these are all suggestions. TO's can always do what they want still. However, I would like to see an established norm if possible to avoid someone showing up to an event and see a completely different rule set being played.

**zedsdead**

even though the summoning power can be good i dont see it as broken. You need alot of dice to do it and building armies around that power are weak in other areas. Demons cant summon yet imperials get dirt cheap super scoring vehicals that are now harder to kill ?!

The FOC is my biggest concern. Not only due to the ridiculoius crap you can do with it but also consistancy in how we play it in Tournaments. The possibility for there to be 10 different FOC formats alone drive me nuts.

**MLKTH**

What I'm planning as a TO is a limit of two detachments (so you can either double-up on your primary, take an ally OR take a formation) and a limit on number of warp charges per list (something like 10). I think this would keep things sane enough. If 2++ rerollables are still a problem, that could additionally still be nerfed LVO-style.

I'd never use maelstrom of war missions in a tournament, because they're too random and I can't really expect everyone to have the deck, but I'd like to try and create scenarios that use some of the new elements.

**Brothererekose**

Tomb King wrote:
Feel free to suggest rules that should be added to the list of suggested rules for warhammer 40k Tournament Organisers in order to help them facilitate fun and friendly environments were the rules wont be abused into nauseam.

May I suggest some tourney mechanics / procedures, as opposed to rules changes / adjustments ?

If a TO is going to use Maelstrom Missions and the ToT table, she/he ought to be sure to provide players with a really clear score card (I know it sounds like a 'duh' item, but still).

"Turn 1 (the 3 dice result rolls or card pulled)" and an Achieved box to be X'd or checked. Lather, rinse, repeat for 6 more turns (yeah, yeah, the game has become slower again, and only speedy players or small armies will get to Turn 7 games.

).

**Crablezworth**

Breng77 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Two things I'd want to see:

1) Remove the objective cards. Even if you find a clumsy solution to the worst problems of getting objectives that are literally impossible to accomplish because of your opponent's army choices there's still the huge problem of random objectives having a lot of potential to ruin games with rolls that strongly favor one player. Mission objectives need to be symmetrical, and they need to be clearly stated before the game begins.

2) Remove the demon summoning powers entirely. These are just stupid in every way, they're blatantly unfluffy and arguably overpowered to the point that they break the game. I can't think of a single good argument for including them besides "GW published them", and any solution besides complete removal (like limiting warp charge or unit spam) is probably going to be an awkward mess that screws up a bunch of other stuff as a side effect.

Tomb King wrote:
No unbound armies

Disagree with this. It's part of the game now, whether we like it or not, and people are going to start building unbound armies. Until we see a clear reason to ban it (so far the hypothetical unbound abuse is not very impressive) this rule is just excluding people for no good reason. Same with other limits on double FOC/etc, before reflexively proposing rules that are effectively "go back to 5th edition" I think the proposal needs to be accompanied by a list of exactly what game-breaking armies exist that require such a dramatic solution.

No desperate allies

Absolutely not. Removing desperate allies after non-imperial armies all had their levels of alliance reduced skews allies even more in favor of the "we're battle brothers with everyone" imperial faction. If anything the level of alliance that needs nerfing is battle brothers, not desperate allies. IMO everyone should just be AOC with everyone.

Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.

In general I'm for letting things play our a bit before jumping to conclusions. However my thoughts off the top are

No unbound
2 detachment max

I think that if the summoning powers become a problem the easy if is to institute fantasy rule of no more than one of each spell in your army, then make an exemption for spell focus primaris powers.

Exalted

I love you peregrine but you;re equivocating a bit as breng has pointed out.

1 foc err detachment or whatever, all this talk of battle forged, it's like 75% as stupid as unbound. It's worse than double foc and it's at like any freakin point limit, it's just bad.

**Peregrine**

Jimsolo wrote:
So you think that every tournament should be completely equal? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were one of the people who believes in inherent inequalities between the codexes. Does that mean we should ban Eldar or Tau armies in order to prevent someone from having a supposed advantage? If that's the reasoning we're using, I'm just curious where we draw the line at.

No, that's not it at all. Mission design shouldn't favor players. Mission design that favors armies is entirely different. For example, it's completely fine if my army with no scoring units does poorly in a tournament with lots of objective-based missions. What I'm talking about is missions where one player gets an advantage, where both players can show up with the exact same army and one of them will have advantages because of the mission. For example, the previously-mentioned issue of drawing better objective cards from the random deck. That has nothing to do with strategic choices made in army construction, it just randomly gives one player an advantage over their opponent.

I think that removing Daemonology is punitive to some armies more than others, and is akin to not allowing transport vehicles, or not allowing template weapons.

I don't think it's at all the same. Transport vehicles and template weapons are an inherent part of lots of armies. Demonology isn't, no current army depends on being able to use it (since it didn't exist when those armies were made). And so far the only interest in it seems to be based on exploiting the balance mistakes GW made in creating it.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There are already advantages and disadvantages inherent in the game though. A Tyranid list going up against Dark Eldar is going to be disadvantaged before the game even starts. To use a Magic: the Gathering example, if I keep drawing starting hands of nothing but lands, that doesn't make the game bad.

See previous comment about advantages based on list construction being entirely different from advantages based on the mission favoring player A or player B completely at random.

Also, in MTG you can in theory draw nothing but land, but unless you suck at deckbuilding that's almost never going to happen. GW's random objectives, on the other hand, are a much more frequent problem.

Thud wrote:
If you're incapable of picking the objectives best suited to your army, and your opponent is capable of that, the maybe you deserve to lose? Or did you miss the part where I said "pick"?

Ok, if by "pick" you mean "choose" rather than "draw from the random deck" then that's a much better solution. I'm not sure it's a great idea since it means that you'll always take the easiest objectives for your army and never face the challenge of accomplishing a difficult goal (like you do in a tournament with good mission design).

Breng77 wrote:
Love the irony that daemon summoning needs to go, and Gw put it in the game is not a good enough reason....but that same reason is good enough for unbound armies....lol.

The difference is that demon summoning seems to have pretty clear balance issues, while most of the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" response to unbound lists seems to be based on wild speculation about spam lists that probably aren't anywhere near as good as the people posting them think. I think the default should be playing the game according to the standard rules, especially when it comes to army construction since making changes there means excluding people from your event entirely instead of maybe making one of their units a bit less effective. But that doesn't mean that the default of "play the game by the standard rules" is some kind of absolute law that we should blindly follow, even when there are good reasons to change something. If unbound lists turn out to be a balance issue (and no, "I don't like your fluff" isn't a balance issue) then I will support banning them. But so far that is far from certain.

**Crablezworth**

Peregrine, I'm kinda surprised that you're fine with battle forged as is, I am shocked good sir. Sell me on the absurdity.

**Peregrine**

Crablezworth wrote:
Peregrine, I'm kinda surprised that you're fine with battle forged as is, I am shocked good sir. Sell me on the absurdity.

I'm not at all fine with the new army construction rules. I think it's exceptionally poor design, even for a company as incompetent as GW. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of "I don't like your army" being a good enough reason to ban something. We need to recognize the fact that people are going to be making unbound lists and expecting to be allowed to use them, so unless there turns out to be a major balance problem that can't be solved by anything short of banning unbound armies entirely they need to be allowed.

**MasterSlowPoke**

Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.

For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.