Bear with me

I think now that we're on our third actual codex of 7th and have seen how the armies and books are being formatted it's time to take a genuine look at the source limit again. This is from a playability, competitive, and having a good time standpoint.

Most of the people on this forum probably knew I was in favor of throw it all out there when 7th landed. I'll admit that I hadn't considered the helstorm template or massive blast AP2's that ignored cover on several of the LoW and bow to the decision to avoid letting things like that or the transcedant C'tan run around like gangbusters. However I'm still of the opinion that source limits shouldn't be applied to armies.

Let's start with the fact that 6th/7th edition are not the first times we've had multiple sources in an army. Granted, sometimes those multiple sources have been units but I remember needing 3-4 articles/books to play one of my Codex: Daemonhunter armies back in 3rd edition. That was in 3rd/4th edition where there used to be a long list on GW's website for the "Chapter Approved" units/army lists. We actually haven't had an edition that didn't include "allies" of some type. Though the last 2 years of 5th were as close as we've ever come to single source 40k.

Next we're going on book #3 in 7th edition. Orks, Space Wolves, and now Grey Knights. Every one of these books has a seperate force org chart unique from the CAD. Orks and Space Wolves have followed up initial releases with an army supplement and have campaign supplements that provide additional units to both. It's possible we might see GK formations in the second Sanctus Reach campaign supplement as well. I'm going to leave out Tyranids because even though they feel like they are meant to work with formations they were not released after 7th dropped.

Starting with Orks we have 3 different detachments available after the supplement release. We have the CAD, the Ork Horde, and the Ghaz one. We also have no less than 10 formations so far. Some good, some meh, some bad but quite a few none the less. Some of the formations are excellent for competitive gamers (Blitz Brigade or Bully Boyz). Some of them are amazing for fielding a themed force (Snikrots Commando's doing the ground work for a Dreadmob). None of them are broken or can be used in my opinion to create a broken army but why are we limiting individual formations or the numbers that can be taken?

Moving onto Space Wolves we've got an army that unlike Nids or Orks probably is going to stand up fine under the two source requirement. We're looking at a number of formations in the next few weeks for Space Wolves (some came out yesterday) but honestly it's a solid stand alone book that doesn't push it's owner into multiple sources like Orks (and Tyranids).

Then there are the Grey Knights. While the book isn't out yet we know quite a few things now. It is now entirely possible that a Grey Knight player from 5th edition would need 3 sources for his army to even be legal. That player that used an inquisitor (coteaz or the inquisitor in terminator armor w/psycannon being the most common), a vindicare, and grey knight units simply would not be able to use his army. I use 5th as the example because it was from before allied forces entered the picture. Now you'd need Codex: Grey Knights, Codex: Inquisition, and Dataslate: Officio Assassinorum. Which would be illegal at almost every major GT so far (or maybe all of them, haven't checked them all).

Whether we like it or not GW is splitting rules around. Grey Knights were the easiest to do this with as they really did have 3 different "armies" crammed into their book. And while I realize we are going to have people who try to "break" the game to win I don't see why that should impact people's ability to play their army the way the codex has allowed it since it came out (CH). I don't see why we should arbitrarily limit people's imaginations or fun because we're trying to keep people from breaking 40k. I honestly can't see how anything someone can come up with in a battle forged format could be less fun to play against that FMC Circus (6th Edition), Screamstar (6th Edition), Centurion Stars, Beastpack, or Seerstar for your average player.

Honestly I think it's time to take a second look at source limits in general and really consider the direction we're headed right now with releases from GW.

What we get out of open source:

-Diversity (already increasing but increasing further)
-Better evolving meta as more options are available to counter the new "hotness"
-More modeling opportunities
-More flexibility within your chosen codex if you don't want to branch out into other armies
-More army equality for armies that don't have battle brothers

I'm sure there are more but that's off the top of my head.

Thoughts everybody (and please keep any comments regarding GW Financials in the appropriate threads).

We don't put restrictions on sources at Game Empire Pasadena. The only exception is we limit which LoW you can take, we use the BAO list, and we say that if your army has a LoW it can't have a Knight or Knight formation etc.

So far no problems.

This is the format we use. The key to this format working is highlighted in red.

This event will be played at the 1750 point level, with three rounds of play.

Armies can be built with the following restricitons:

- Any number of detachments allowed.
- Unbound armies allowed (Unbound lists must be submitted for approval in advance of the event, no exceptions)
- 0-1 Lord of War
(from the following list:
All of the Baneblade chassis vehicles except for the Hellhammer (and Traitor’s Bane variant) and Stormsword, which are not allowed for the BAO 2014.
Crassus Armored Assault Transport
Gorgon Heavy Transporter
Minotaur Artillery Tank
All Macharius chassis vehicles.
All Malcador chassis vehicles except the Malcador Infernus which is not allowed for the BAO 2014
Valdor Tank Hunter
Marauder Bomber (may not take Hellstorm bombs)
Maurader Destroyer
Fellblade
Cereberus Heavy Tank Destroyer
Thunderhawk Transporter
Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
Obelisk
Ghazgkull Thraka
Stompa
Gargantuan Squiggoth
Kustom Battle Fortress
Kill Krusha Tank
Kill Blasta
Cobra
Scorpion
Lynx with Pulsar (but not with Sonic Lance)
Tiger Shark (Escalation version)
Orca Dropship
Barbed Hierodule)
- Forge World is allowed.

The missions will be a mix of Maelstrom and Eternal War.

2:20 minute rounds. Players must complete four full game rounds or their game counts as a double loss.

Prizes for the tournament Champion, Best Imperial, Best Non-Imperial, Best Army, and Best Sportsman.

I think using the Maelstrom missions is key to allowing 7th to actually work. Excluding them or bastardizing them just doesn't work, the Maelstrom missions are actually quite good.

Your mileage may vary and it will depend on where you are. Also, more than ever before, GW has created a game that generates enormous strife, division, and insult between players and player types, by having it so very wide open and uncontrolled. You take the very same arguers and drop them in a game like Malifaux or a more controlled/pre-set 40K environment and everything is super peachy keen ... put them in full-and-open 40K and it becomes nothing but "you're too WAAC" or "you're too casual" etc. etc.

I think by this time next year, many or most places will use Battle-Forged and Forgeworld without further restriction (except maybe tweaking the big ignores cover AP1 lords of war weaponry). I think some of the lists in the Narrative (open, battle-forged) and Trios (unbound) for NOVA this year, as I see them coming in, are already far "worse" than is typically proferred and argued as why they're "OK after all."

So ... I think in time you'll find that most events will move toward "take whatever." I also think the game will be extremely power-gamery in that environment. It is important to note that *most* of the more hardcore powergamers / tournament competitors have NOT been fielding these lists or spending much time building to break the game in Unbound/BF-only in any significant way or heavily investing in them yet because the two most widely-used GT formats in the US are still running 2-detachment. If and when that changes, you'll see a lot more people "breaking" things, especially in conjunction with ongoing releases.

In terms of "breakage," also, I think it's important to note that there are always a wide variety of things that are broken, but not always a wide variety of things that are unpleasant to play with or against (we've seen some of this with 2+ re-roll armies, some variations of knight-intensive armies, the aforementioned tranny c'tan, etc.).

I'm not sure how fun it really is to face (whether it's "good" or "bad" is a debate that's always had and never very effectively made online), for example, a tranny c'tan and a dozen squads of 3 wraiths. But that's the very sort of thing you'll see, and a million other iterations. Mine is not the only group that in apoc games has had to install barriers on how many of single-model units you can take, for instance, because it grew quickly insane when people were fielding 40 single rokkit buggies or (back when IC's couldn't be targeted if they weren't the closest in 4th edition) nothing but solo shokk attack formations w/ extra grots. This is more true in this edition, where straight Kill Points is only 1/12 the missions, so unless you artificially fake your way to a KP-density of mission occurrence that's more like 5th edition, you aren't going to find any real detriment to spamming as many super small units as humanly possible.

Fortunately, with NOVA set and around the corner, and the "restrictions" of the GT being wide enough that there are few if any people running up against 'oh crap I've filled my 3/4/8/4/4 FOC and have so many points left!' ... this is something I'm happy to become more of a conversationalist in and less of a rules-setter. We'll see how the different formats (unbound in the extreme, battle-forged w/ FW, and BAO/NOVA constructed in the GT) look and what sorts of armies pan out as an early sneak peak, and then - for us at least - have a full year to let things evolve.

I do have to disagree about Maelstrom missions, btw. Just my opinion (and what else could it be at this point), but unmodified I don't find any enjoyment in their randomization or play mechanics. Most of my games are casual ones with buddies, and I much prefer basic book missions or mission catalog missions for actually enjoying my way through a game. As with many, when playing Maelstrom, we end up just fudging a bunch when they BS-up the game anyway, and that's one of many signs of poor base mission design (harkens back to 4th ed. and others when you'd just throw out certain mission rolls in pick-up games b/c no one wanted to play them).

To be fair we do modify the Maelstrom missions in 1 way.

If you draw a card that is impossible to score, at any point in the game, you are allowed to discard it.

For example you draw the "Destroy a flyer" card but your opponent has no flyers in their list at all. You can discard it.

MVBrandt wrote:
Your mileage may vary and it will depend on where you are. Also, more than ever before, GW has created a game that generates enormous strife, division, and insult between players and player types, by having it so very wide open and uncontrolled. You take the very same arguers and drop them in a game like Malifaux or a more controlled/pre-set 40K environment and everything is super peachy keen ... put them in full-and-open 40K and it becomes nothing but "you're too WAAC" or "you're too casual" etc. etc.

Absolutely it depends on where you are and who games locally.

I think we create divisiveness by not adhering to the way the 40k rulebook is printed. I think the drive to "limit" and "adjust" 40k is actually what causes the issues to begin with. Then everybody has an idea on how to "fix" the game and divides the hobby more than just saying to hell with it, play how the rules read. That said I think outside of some extreme individuals most people are 100% onboard with limited LoW. Especially with classic HQ's shifting to LoW.

I think by this time next year, many or most places will use Battle-Forged and Forgeworld without further restriction (except maybe tweaking the big ignores cover AP1 lords of war weaponry). I think some of the lists in the Narrative (open, battle-forged) and Trios (unbound) for NOVA this year, as I see them coming in, are already far "worse" than is typically proferred and argued as why they're "OK after all."

I'd be interested in what "broken" lists you're finding in the open-battleforged event. I can easily see unbound being an issue but that's not what I'm advocating and the rulebook gives an out for Battleforge only play.

So ... I think in time you'll find that most events will move toward "take whatever." I also think the game will be extremely power-gamery in that environment. It is important to note that *most* of the more hardcore powergamers / tournament competitors have NOT been fielding these lists or spending much time building to break the game in Unbound/BF-only in any significant way or heavily investing in them yet because the two most widely-used GT formats in the US are still running 2-detachment. If and when that changes, you'll see a lot more people "breaking" things, especially in conjunction with ongoing releases.

While I can agree that most of your more hardcore power gamers aren't investing in breaking the system because they can't use it in the big events right now I'm not sold like you are on breaking 40k at 1850pts in rulebook battle forged. I'm not saying they aren't going to find ridiculous combo's. They will. I'm not saying all of them will be fun to play against for everyone. They won't. That has been the case since I started going to GT's in 3rd edition. Breaking 40k as a whole is different than finding a broken combo. I think 6th very nearly "Broke" 40k. As in the game. As in people enjoyment and drive to play. Deathstar hammer where nothing happens is not fun for anyone. But I don't think that open battle forge looks like that in anyway.

In terms of "breakage," also, I think it's important to note that there are always a wide variety of things that are broken, but not always a wide variety of things that are unpleasant to play with or against (we've seen some of this with 2+ re-roll armies, some variations of knight-intensive armies, the aforementioned tranny c'tan, etc.).

Agreed. There is a difference between unpleasant to play and actually broken. Something over lap (2++ rerolls) and some fall into one category or the other. My concern is always with unpleasant to play against and not the actual game mechanics. 90% of tournament attendees probably don't go thinking they have a shot at winning. So it's the games that matter. They know they are likely to lose a couple of games. It's how those losses go that really effect 40k as a system. If they get to play and participate losses don't really matter. If they just sit there and pick up models then it breaks 40k.

I'm not sure how fun it really is to face (whether it's "good" or "bad" is a debate that's always had and never very effectively made online), for example, a tranny c'tan and a dozen squads of 3 wraiths. But that's the very sort of thing you'll see, and a million other iterations. Mine is not the only group that in apoc games has had to install barriers on how many of single-model units you can take, for instance, because it grew quickly insane when people were fielding 40 single rokkit buggies or (back when IC's couldn't be targeted if they weren't the closest in 4th edition) nothing but solo shokk attack formations w/ extra grots. This is more true in this edition, where straight Kill Points is only 1/12 the missions, so unless you artificially fake your way to a KP-density of mission occurrence that's more like 5th edition, you aren't going to find any real detriment to spamming as many super small units as humanly possible.

This seems more related to Apoc or unbound than open battle forged. Which makes the above understandable. I don't see it as a large issue with Battleforged. Let's be real. Most people aren't going to clear 4 sources before running out of points. The largest I could see would be orks with no joke 10 detachments w/200 grots, 10 Big Meks, and 30 individual buggies. Silly but not really a problem outside of finishing on time. An ugly one is Necrons w/3 Detachments each having 1 Lord on Barge w/Scythe, 2x5 Warriors, 3 Anni-Barges (so 3, 6, 9 total). Ugly but relatively limited and time limited because people have to know that a nerf is coming for their mindshackles and tesla. So who invests in it?

Fortunately, with NOVA set and around the corner, and the "restrictions" of the GT being wide enough that there are few if any people running up against 'oh crap I've filled my 3/4/8/4/4 FOC and have so many points left!' ... this is something I'm happy to become more of a conversationalist in and less of a rules-setter. We'll see how the different formats (unbound in the extreme, battle-forged w/ FW, and BAO/NOVA constructed in the GT) look and what sorts of armies pan out as an early sneak peak, and then - for us at least - have a full year to let things evolve.

I'm looking forward to the results too. And it's not that 3/4/8/4/4 is horribly restrictive. It's more than enough slots for many armies. But it's the formation limit for non-bb armies. It's the GK's not being able to reasonable field their army they've been able to field for 4 editions legally in a GT after Saturday. I'd be inclined as the next step being 2 detachment limit (any detachments) with no limit on formations. Keeps that pesky 10 detachment grot/buggie army out of it but allows armies like CSM to field their dreadnought formations with allied daemons or orks to run snikrot & da vulcha or tyranids to take living artillery and a monster mash formation.

Either way I figured with the releases since 7th it might not be a bad time to bring it up again. Especially with the GK codex going the way it seems to be. Thanks for the discourse guys!

Unlimited sources. No unbound

This kind of discussion, unfortunately, makes it hard for people like me who need time to get their armies up to current edition standards. I had just figured or what to take with self-allying allowed or formations; if it becomes multiple CAD I'll have to go through this process again.

I know that doesn't have a ton of bearing on the decision of format, but just saying how it affects me personally. Whatever the choice, I just wish I had a crystal ball and could know what it would end up as next year, so I could build accordingly.

 RiTides wrote:
This kind of discussion, unfortunately, makes it hard for people like me who need time to get their armies up to current edition standards. I had just figured or what to take with self-allying allowed or formations; if it becomes multiple CAD I'll have to go through this process again.

I know that doesn't have a ton of bearing on the decision of format, but just saying how it affects me personally. Whatever the choice, I just wish I had a crystal ball and could know what it would end up as next year, so I could build accordingly.

That's an interesting thought. Another counterpoint I think would have to be multiple CAD would make getting into tournaments for newer players even harder. The current way GW has of organizing, or you know not organizing, how lists are built is confusing enough to some of the veteran players not to mention a big deterrent in getting new players. Has anyone actually had a conversation with a new player in how armies are built in 7th? "Deer in headlights" doesn't due the look on their face justice.

I would just LOVE to see 34 point inquisitors in everyones armies again, that was so much fun knowing that armies could invest 34 points to counter their biggest weaknesses.

After adepticon last year and as much as I have to redo my armies I don't mind the limited sources, as a imperial player it limits the shenanigans I can get away with and I am fine with that. Also forces me to think a bit more instead of just cherry picking the no brainers.

Also I dont really care, most tournaments seem to agree mostly on one ally, one cad, can self ally and so there is only so many changes I need to make based on each tournament(outside of adjustments for missions)

I'm linking the rule of 2 format (though with the new codex formation requiring one detachment to be CAD is becoming problematic, though not letting 2 CADs should stand). Per RiTides comment, it lets players anticipate what a tournament scene looks like and prepare accordingly.

Friendly play means people will use what they want anyway, tournaments should have some restrictions so that everyone is at least thinking about lists on the same level.

Presently we have been playing:

Primary Detachment: 1 CAD max, w/formations and data slates
Allies Detachment: 1 CAD max, w/formations and data slates

Presenty LoW has been restricted to ones in codex's such as Orks and SW's. Now that GK include them we will open that up.

Personally i believe there will be a greater move twards allowing restricted LoW's in club and Tournament play and i werlcome it.

As the game stands i dont see why we arent allowing formations and dataslates to be included in lists under there parent codex or (if no parent codex) there appropriate faction without restriction.

Nids, Orks, CSM, Demons and Tau would benefit from this due to there limited BB allies in there factions. More and more formations have been coming out that could help these codexs, yet the 2 source limit is ham stringing them.

@RiTides

Fair enough. Honestly there isn't really an answer to this. It's fairly similar to building an army you like and new codex coming out 2 months before the event and basically making your army invalid. I'd say it's safe to build around 2 full detachments if only because every army is coming out with a unique force org.

@Leth

That 34pt model invalidates 2 builds. Scouting Marines and Flesh Hound heavy builds. People seriously overstate it's usefulness. Especially in the new edition. Most armies biggest weakness isn't vs. scouts/infiltrators.

@Buddha

I don't mind limiting it to one CAD but if you start to allow multiple detachments then you are handicapping older codexes that only have a CAD. Which doesn't seem fair.

Maybe the next step is 2 detachments max and open formations?

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RiTides


@Leth

That 34pt model invalidates 2 builds. Scouting Marines and Flesh Hound heavy builds. People seriously overstate it's usefulness. Especially in the new edition. Most armies biggest weakness isn't vs. scouts/infiltrators.

Agreed as to right now. I dont mind the limits now that formations and dataslates and the like can be taken, in addition being able to self ally takes out a lot of the problems for a lot of books without BB allies. It forces you to make choices between multiple different viable builds and I like that we are seeing a variety of armies that I have not seen in a long LONG time. Different lists making it to the top tables than being expected etc.

Also you can get EVEN more obnoxious with daemon summoning armies/Flying Tyranids/douche canoes/barge spam with more open lists.

A lot of the problem lists have pretty cheap troop options so opening up additional cads to get the most efficient choices in the book is not difficult.

Hulk, actually local players were just telling me they didn't anticipate multiple CAD coming anytime soon, and to build towards self-ally or formation use, instead. Hence my reaction here- not saying people should or shouldn't embrace that format, just that I just figured out how to build towards the current popular ones.

zedsdead wrote:
Nids, Orks, CSM, Demons and Tau would benefit from this due to there limited BB allies in there factions. More and more formations have been coming out that could help these codexs, yet the 2 source limit is ham stringing them.

From everything I've looked at, it's nearly impossible to fit in multiple formations into an effective nids list. Again, not saying they should or shouldn't be allowed to take more, just that only one formation in an 1850 point list seems workable.

But I am not excited about playing where 6 flyrants with devourers and electroshock grubs, 6 units of deepstriking rippers, and 3 biovores makes up a tournament tyranid list. My friend recently said, if it's totally wide open, it takes some of the fun out of it. Even with multiple CADs allowed, is there a reason to allow more than two of them? Because if there is, 5-6 flyrant builds start looking like one of the more viable ones for tyranids... or even if that particular example doesn't hold up, just tons of the best unit from any 'dex... and it just seems like a bummer is all.

Again, not really pushing one way or the other, just trying to give my personal feeling / reaction to this kind of thing.

With all the various opinions, I've just built a single CAD army and play it wherever. This way it does not matter what event or even FLGS I can just play the game without anyone really able to complain or debate what I have. I really don't have the time or inclination to try and keep up with the Jones' of 40K.

One final point I'd say is that, as a casual player, unlimited CAD and Unbound don't seem that different. If you're going unlimited, what's the reasoning behind not going Unbound? All of this is restricted, really, and since much of the strategy in 40k comes at the list building stage I guess my gut reaction is just that unlimited doesn't seem that appealing... but if we're going unlimited, might as well open up the all dreadnought list or the like. But none of it sounds that fun compared to building a list for a more structured format :-/

 Hulksmash wrote:
But it's the formation limit for non-bb armies. It's the GK's not being able to reasonable field their army they've been able to field for 4 editions legally in a GT after Saturday. I'd be inclined as the next step being 2 detachment limit (any detachments) with no limit on formations. Keeps that pesky 10 detachment grot/buggie army out of it but allows armies like CSM to field their dreadnought formations with allied daemons or orks to run snikrot & da vulcha or tyranids to take living artillery and a monster mash formation.

I do not play Fantasy WH, but is it not often the convention in FWH tourneys to make specific bans and rulings right on a specific book, like M:tG tourneys do with individual cards and such?

So why not (have TOs) make this specific GK exception so that army can reasonably function with its 4 sources?

I do not have a GK army, so I dunno if your orange statement is merely because (here comes the sarcasm) you're butt-hurt about the Nerf-Bat of Damocles about to put your silvery, halberd wielding Psy-boyz into the bottom-tier doldrums.

With love, Hulk.

Seriously, the "line item" veto or exception ought to not be avoided.

 Brothererekose wrote:


I do not have a GK army, so I dunno if your orange statement is merely because (here comes the sarcasm) you're butt-hurt about the Nerf-Bat of Damocles about to put your silvery, halberd wielding Psy-boyz into the bottom-tier doldrums.

With love, Hulk.

I hate you!

I'm for keeping it simple. I don't mind a army specific veto (I don't actually care that much, while I use Inquisitors I don't use assassins) but I'm also for keeping it simple.

@RiTides

I wasn't speaking to dual CAD's. I was speaking to the detachment every codex has been getting that's CAD similar but not a CAD and that some events are already allowing as a separate source which means some codexes are already dual cadding. As for unlimited Battle Forge being the same as unbound. It's relatively similar but still requires a 200+pt investment for most armies per 0-3 other slots. Which means outside of Orks & Inquisition you're not getting much more than 3-4 Detachments (if that).

I'm not against limiting detachments to two. I'm against limiting detachments and formations to the same number. I'm even ok with no more than 1 CAD. I guess I'm just more against as more and more books come out limiting Formations (which don't really allow you to cherry pick).

One CAD with multiple formations allowed strikes me as better, personally (and now I see that's more what you're taking about). Formations tend to be expensive, and if you don't allow repeats you'll get diverse lists anyway, rather than just best unit spam from multiple CADs. So, I like the sound of that a lot more. With self-allying it allows a ton of diversity without the last straw of ultimate spam that multiple CADs leads to.

For example, facing an army with a CAD, an ally, and two formations would be more palatable to me than facing a 3 CAD army, personally. I could even see allowing 2 CAD. But beyond that I get mind blown from cheap unit spam and it just seems too open ended. Formations are much more restrictive and I don't really have a problem with seeing more of them- they certainly open up the variety of nid builds I can run (although 2 CAD does similarly).

Well I would just say 2 detachments. Limit it to one CAD if that makes people feel better but allow a CAD and the new detachments being released in codexes. You can't get insane spammy at that point but it does allow for diverse lists in combination with formations and such.

Plus two detachments (only one of which is CAD) and however many formations you may want. That way GK's can still run the army they've been running without fail since codex Daemonhunters came out.

This would be for those still worried about open ended battle forged.

 Hulksmash wrote:
What we get out of open source:

-Diversity (already increasing but increasing further).

Every time we have the discussion, this gets paraded around like it's gospel truth. I'm gonna call BS on this.

Look back to 6th when we had more 'diversity' with allies and the like. Look at Adepticon, where damn near every top army had the Skullquisitor and everything was some variation of a Battle Bro Deathstar. Look at things now where Knights are popping up like weeds. If you remove restrictions, it doesn't add variety. There's a reason we had a FOC in the first place. If you weren't limited, you wouldn't take Tactical Squads when you could just spend all your points on TFCs and Storm Talons. It's the same deal here. If anyone can take anything, why not just take the best of anything in a competitive environment?

Hulk, if you say "two detachments but one CAD" can older books make use of this? I don't think they can, but wasn't sure if I'm missing something (although giving older books self-ally is a nice gesture along those same lines).

 RiTides wrote:
One final point I'd say is that, as a casual player, unlimited CAD and Unbound don't seem that different. If you're going unlimited, what's the reasoning behind not going Unbound? All of this is restricted, really, and since much of the strategy in 40k comes at the list building stage I guess my gut reaction is just that unlimited doesn't seem that appealing... but if we're going unlimited, might as well open up the all dreadnought list or the like. But none of it sounds that fun compared to building a list for a more structured format :-/

Some armies are seriously restricted by being forced to take the HQ/troops to get multiple CADs. For example, dual Transcendent C'tan can't be done if you must take the 'tax'. 52 Warlocks rolling Daemonology can't be done. One big power of unbound is taking units of single models where you would normally be restricted by force org - eg, taking 6 individual broadsides instead of 2 squads of 3 to vastly reduce your overkill.
I agree that for most purposes it is the same - especially if you're building a more normal-style armies with decent troops like Eldar or Scythe necrons.


My experience with 7th ed so far is that the less restrictions you use, the more rock-scissors-paper the game gets. Certain army builds are nearly impossible to be beaten by a take-all-comers, and can go toe-to-toe with even their best 'hard counters'. Many of these games boil down to whoever goes and gets that lucky 6 on the destroyer table. It is incredibly one-dimensional.

Some armies lack the tools of other armies no matter how many restrictions you remove. Tau have limited access to Destroyer weapons - the forge world (apocalypse, non-escalation) tigershark and the Aquila Strongpoint are their only options, and both are relatively lacklustre. When you open up Lords of War to normal games, some armies get massive new threats (Revenant Titans) whereas others (Tau) don't really benefit much at all. Whatever is done, I think the viability of single source armies should be protected.


At a local tournament the other day, lists had to be submitted in advance. We used 1 CAD 1 Allies (+ you can ally with your own codex), with all Escalation/Stronghold Assault/Formations allowed. We were able to accurately pick 8 out of the top 10 placings solely based on the army lists. Revenant titan took out place 1 with 4 tabled opponents, as expected. The bottom 10 positions were all over the place - partly due to player skill, but partly due to the variance and take-all-comers style of the lists where you really couldn't tell which would win.


... rambling a bit here.
I mostly agree that source restrictions should be lowered. Certainly it should be freer than simply 2 source, as even stock-standard armies begin to become available that require allies and dataslates, like your Grey Knights example. However, I'm very wary about straying in to other realms as my experience so far is that it takes a lot away from the game.

(I think this is all a clever move on behalf of GW. Players resist using the Stronghold book but allow AEGIS lines - so they remove fortifications from the rulebook so people must use Stronghold for those at least, and then it becomes arbitrary to not use the other bits. Players resist using Lords of War, so they make the iconic heroes in to Lords of War and put them in to the main Codexes - and then it is not clearly delineated why Baneblades aren't allowed but Ghaz is. Players don't like D weapons or superheavies - so add an entire legit Codex of them.... its all to force people to play with everything and not have any clear lines that you can cut off why X is allowed but Y isn't. And the more we try to fight it, the more ways GW will find to force them on us.)

Trasvi wrote:


(I think this is all a clever move on behalf of GW. Players resist using the Stronghold book but allow AEGIS lines - so they remove fortifications from the rulebook so people must use Stronghold for those at least, and then it becomes arbitrary to not use the other bits. Players resist using Lords of War, so they make the iconic heroes in to Lords of War and put them in to the main Codexes - and then it is not clearly delineated why Baneblades aren't allowed but Ghaz is. Players don't like D weapons or superheavies - so add an entire legit Codex of them.... its all to force people to play with everything and not have any clear lines that you can cut off why X is allowed but Y isn't. And the more we try to fight it, the more ways GW will find to force them on us.)

I think this is quite right,

if going forward the tournament scene (and mainly the TOs for their sins) want to keep restricting things they are going to have to do it on a much more individual basis rather than just banning sources (forge world), books (stronghold assault) or number of sources

they are going to have to ask which individual units or combination of units (or weapons on those units) are a problem and take them out of the game in a more surgical way. A lot more work, but doing so would actually lead to a more fun game for everybody

Yeah, I think the more I think about this, it's really the second CAD that gets me, not other sources.

I could run 4 flyrants, 6 deepstriking rippers, and 4 Crones (or 4 deepstriking rippers and 5 Mawlocs). It just becomes so open that it doesn't seem to resemble what I think of as army building anymore. So I agree that letting GK run an army they used to is good, but hopefully not at the expense of making every other top army not look like an army anymore. To me, that implies allowing in these new sources but not more CADs.

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, I think the more I think about this, it's really the second CAD that gets me, not other sources.

I could run 4 flyrants, 6 deepstriking rippers, and 4 Crones (or 4 deepstriking rippers and 5 Mawlocs). It just becomes so open that it doesn't seem to resemble what I think of as army building anymore. So I agree that letting GK run an army they used to is good, but hopefully not at the expense of making every other top army not look like an army anymore. To me, that implies allowing in these new sources but not more CADs.

Honestly 2 CAD's would probably be fine. There isn't much you can do with a second CAD you can't do reasonably with self allying. In the examples above you can basically does those lists with 1 less flyrant or 1 less Mawloc. Is it really the 4th flying FMC that breaks the bank? When we've got an army that can do 5 of them pretty easily? And by CAD do you mean a force org that gives obsec to it's troops or simply a force org that has the full selection of slots similar to the CAD in the rulebook?

I think maybe limiting "Detachments" to 2 and not putting a limit on formations might be the next best step. I'd be hesitant to say only one CAD but that's because only 3 books have additional force orgs at this point and it wouldn't be fair to those who haven't been updated with a 7th codex yet.

So not completely open battleforged but essentially open source since you could then take 2-3 formations if you choose too on top of your detachments.

For the record, I have little to no sympathy for letting someone run an army they used to be able to run. That's I think not a major subject for this discussion. The REASON I have little sympathy is not because I'm a jerk, but because GW has been forcing people to completely alter their armies with new codex releases for decades. The GK one being blown up is no different than many other similar instances, including in part when the current GK dex came out (Which forced entirely different builds upon people). "I can't run the army I was running before that dropped" is not a new phrase, nor one made real by army design structures instituted by TO's; GW wants you to have to invest in a new army every time. Big surprise.

It also does continue to bear discussion that the game is not balanced, and that balance worsens in a Battle Bro legal environment where Imperial dexes can all sync up with each other and share rides and the like, but the other half of the codex spread cannot. Limitless CAD or detachments does not fix this problem, it arguably exacerbates it.

Mixed feelings, at any rate. I think the problem that has to be surmounted is - if you don't have a more limited construction process for armies in the all-comers type of events at Tournaments, you either have to institute some kind of social engineering around what constitutes an acceptable army list (i.e., comp scoring by opponents) or you have to accept that more fluffy or casual players will be further pushed out (Exactly the kind of thing asymmetrical missions and more limited army construction try to solve).

It also is true that you won't see more variety, to the point made above. You might see cases where someone who is basically playing the same hardcore badass netlist has more freedom to add his tiny morsel of beautiful snowflake, but those who want to run truly different lists just for the sake of it do so in almost any construction environment, whereas some of the higher tier gamers who wish to remain "beautiful snowflakes" with their list really do so by taking the brass tacks baller stuff and then creatively adding a few tweaks. This can be done either way, but from the 50,000 foot level isn't really "Variety" at all.

I'll even call myself out on this one, as a good example; in 5th, I ran straken assault veterans and a lot of outflanking, and it was a different army list, but it's not as if my veterans weren't riding in chimeras and toting meltaguns, and it's not as if I didn't have 3 vendettas. The more open it is, the more you'll see those "duh I'm going to spam a lot of this particular unit type or that one" ... even if people use a fraction of their points to make it seem "different."

And Brad - you may respond with "Well MY lists actually are different!" even if they have centurions and guard units with inquisitors or space marine IC's in them ... and they quite can be, you are creative both with how you model/paint and list design ... but nothing has ever stopped you from being creative in the past. Opening it up so you can continue to be creative (which you can be anyway) isn't going to make everyone else suddenly stop spamming guardian jetbike squads or dropping seercouncils on the table or ... you know, pick your poison.

I guess my larger issue with opening things up is it requires players to make fewer choices to some extent. If I am limited to 1 FOC (as we were in 5th) or 1 + allies (6th for the most part) at some point you needed to make a choice about what units to take based on what slots you had available. I feel that formations are their own detachment (why limit armies with no formations, vs those with formations.)

Maybe that is because I don't really like free for all 40k (I ran 2 CAD at my event in july, only one player abused it, but I heard plenty of gripes about his list, despite the fact that it fit into self ally anyway.)

The more I play the more I think I prefered NO allies 40k (yeah Daemonhunters were a thing, and I mostly did not like those either.)

I hate my computer....For the second time, slightly more concise (internet ate the first one)....

@Mike

I feel that there is a difference between changing your army because something isn't good anymore and not being allowed to change your army to include units that have been in it because of it's spread across to many sources. It would be one thing if a unit is deleted but simply shifting to another source isn't nearly on the same page. Another example would be the likely removal of Legion of the Damned from the SM book in the next iteration.

Additionally I would prefer if you dropped the "You're pushing it for your special snowflake armies" angle. Would I like more options for modeling? Yep. Is that a drive for me? Nope. I'll build lists in the format of events and have a good time. Sometimes they'll be a template with personality tacked on and other times they'll be just silly but work decently.

Just so we're 100% clear on where on stand on this:

-I am in favor of open Battleforge
-I understand open Battleforge makes some people cringe
-I understand I am currently in the minority in my views
-I am OK with structure for list building for events
-I am OK with detachment limitations (i.e. 2 Detachments with only 1 CAD)
-I am in favor of no limits on Formations
-I am going to win 80% of my games across this edition no matter the format

I think 7th has the most potential for diversity at the top tables of any edition we've seen so far. Even with people being people. I just felt it was time to revisit source limits (not detachment limits per se) based on the first 3 releases for 7th. Formation numbers have increased and of the armies arguably designed for 7th (Nids forward) we've got two imperial armies that stand fine without formations and two non-imperial/BB armies that seem designed to function better with formations.

Initial limitations were put on based on 6th edition. Which is fine. I just felt it was time to revisit based on what we're seeing now.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I hate my computer....For the second time, slightly more concise (internet ate the first one)....

@Mike

I feel that there is a difference between changing your army because something isn't good anymore and not being allowed to change your army to include units that have been in it because of it's spread across to many sources. It would be one thing if a unit is deleted but simply shifting to another source isn't nearly on the same page. Another example would be the likely removal of Legion of the Damned from the SM book in the next iteration.

Additionally I would prefer if you dropped the "You're pushing it for your special snowflake armies" angle. Would I like more options for modeling? Yep. Is that a drive for me? Nope. I'll build lists in the format of events and have a good time. Sometimes they'll be a template with personality tacked on and other times they'll be just silly but work decently.

Just so we're 100% clear on where on stand on this:

-I am in favor of open Battleforge
-I understand open Battleforge makes some people cringe
-I understand I am currently in the minority in my views
-I am OK with structure for list building for events
-I am OK with detachment limitations (i.e. 2 Detachments with only 1 CAD)
-I am in favor of no limits on Formations
-I am going to win 80% of my games across this edition no matter the format

I think 7th has the most potential for diversity at the top tables of any edition we've seen so far. Even with people being people. I just felt it was time to revisit source limits (not detachment limits per se) based on the first 3 releases for 7th. Formation numbers have increased and of the armies arguably designed for 7th (Nids forward) we've got two imperial armies that stand fine without formations and two non-imperial/BB armies that seem designed to function better with formations.

Initial limitations were put on based on 6th edition. Which is fine. I just felt it was time to revisit based on what we're seeing now.

These are good stance clarifications, and I apologize, genuinely, for misinterpreting some of your motivation as wanting to run a specific army.

Also, given that every event is allowing at least some multi-detachment choice, isn't it better if a unit is sent to another source than simply deleted (as has often been the case, and is increasingly the case)? Hell, Tyranids lost several units for - as far as we know - ever. Like my lovingly painted and converted Parasite of Mortrex, which is gone. :( ... I'd love for him to be in a Formation aside from the dex instead.

Malestorm missions as taken from the book are wholly unsuited for tournament play. The closest analogy I can think of is playing a football ball game where you randomly determine from which yard marker each team gets to start its drive from. One team might consistently get the ball within the other teams 50 yard line, while the other team may have to start each drive close to their own end zone.

Two sources has a lot of positives. For less competitive people it narrows down the meta they have to prepare for. It eliminates the aforementioned 34 point Inquisition which ruins a few different builds (remember anyone taking Ahriman, Huron, or going for the infiltrate warlord trait is thwarted by a simple 34 point invest that also give LD 10 to a unit and stubborn. It also stops cherry picking of relic wargear like SM getting 2 EW Chapter Masters for a 60 point scout investment (which is obsec) and slapping it into their favorite TWC Deathstar or other shenanigans. Some people might feel restricted by this common sense limitation but there is still a huge amount of list building options there. Tyranids and Orks may suffer but a bad book is still going to be a bad book. Allow people to cherry pick a FOC slot to spam 2-3 options from their book really doesnt make the game more enjoyable.

This has come up a few times, could someone explain to me how tyranids suffer from limiting the number of sources?

I can only ever fit in one formation. Maybe self-allying and one formation. But every list I've tried to cram two formations into, it has not looked competitive at all. So, I don't personally think nids are limited by a cap on the number of sources, as long as everything is allowed in (including forgeworld units). If I'm wrong on that, I'd love to get a link to something showing how/why a tyranid list with two formations makes them stronger than just one. But it seems at that point, you can't fill up the key slots of a normal FOC anyway, so the second formation is not needed/helpful.

I think there is a bit of a disconnect that I'm probably responsible for. Sources does not equal detachments. Sources also include things like dataslate (such as the upcoming officio assasinorum) and formations.

@Mike

Oh, I'm far happier it got shifted instead of deleted. Don't get me wrong on that count I'm just saying that since it didn't get deleted it needs to be looked at differently if it still exists but TO rules prevent an army from being run the it has been. Think of it as a TO saying you can can only use 2 of the following 3: Librarians, Scouts, Space Marines Tanks. A silly example I acknowledge but I'm just trying to get the point across

@Glocknall

All of the positives still hold with limited detachments and unlimited formations. There are no additional negatives by opening up formations/dataslates that don't already exist in the current format.

@RiTides

Honestly I'd be tempted as Nid player to run pretty much exclusively formations But with seriousness you can pretty easily fit a normal if small FOC with living artillery and bio blast for example.

Example of a list i'd consider without the force org: 2 Incubator Broods, 1-2 Living Artillery Broods, and depending on flavor or points skyblight or bio-blast.

@Hulk

I'm pretty sure that the BRB defines formations as a type of detachment. So a 2 detachment limit would limit them unless you declare them seperate from other types of detachments it seems odd to only have formations be an unlimited detachment type.

Beyond that I'm not sure any TO (that I know of) is counting dataslate units (like Be'lakor or cypher) as a second source. Which is one of the reasons I was always against the "2 source language" as I believe it causes confusion.

From everything I have seen no one is saying that dataslates use up one of your slots.

So belakor, cypher, and now assassins are still fine to add into a army without limiting yourself.

I agree that the language in the BRB for detachment includes formations. Here is how I see it though:

We are already having to use language to explain the difference between CAD's and the new codex detachments and allied detachments. What I would honestly recommend is a 0-2 limit on FOC Detachments. i.e. any detachment that has an FOC attached to it (supplement FOC's or Codex: Inquisition) or a codex force (Imperial Knights) or the allied detachment.

The reason for unlimited formations is that they don't allow for cherry picking of the best units (the only spectacular one is the 3-Knight one) which is most people's issue with open source and it seems like non-bb armies seem to work better with them. Is there a good reason to limit formations? (Honest question, no snark or sarcasm implied which I have to type cause this is the stupid internet )

Spamming out the Firebase Cadre is pretty boss. Being able to put that much twin linked, Tank Hunters firepower without a troops tax is really good. Also it would be more fun to punch yourself in the nuts then play against it.

The minimum cost for the Cadre is 570pts with zero upgrades. You can't really spam it. You could, in theory, take 3 of them and have 140pts left over without upgrades. More reasonably you could take 2. Awesome. Even with a cad full of other units 650pts isn't much to make a list out of to support those units.

And a lot of armies are going to be making you pick up those units with the shift back to AP 2 weapons for anti-tank. All in all it's a pretty poor example of a "broken" formation.

My reason to say limit formations at the moment is that not every army has formations at the moment. SO if there is not limit we are essentially adding extra FOC slots to armies that have formations and not to those that don't unless we are saying that you can take whatever formations you want from all books (so Skyblight, plus knights, plus Firebase....)

 Hulksmash wrote:
The minimum cost for the Cadre is 570pts with zero upgrades. You can't really spam it. You could, in theory, take 3 of them and have 140pts left over without upgrades. More reasonably you could take 2. Awesome. Even with a cad full of other units 650pts isn't much to make a list out of to support those units.

And a lot of armies are going to be making you pick up those units with the shift back to AP 2 weapons for anti-tank. All in all it's a pretty poor example of a "broken" formation.

I think you are grossly underestimating that formation. . Free Tank Hunters and preferred enemy space marines with skyfire or interceptors on the 'sides makes it extremely formidable. Other than marines which armies will be spamming AP2? Necrons can't, Eldar don't have too, Daemons are incapable. Guard are the only other well played army with consistent ranged AP2. Not to mention deploying in cover.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I hate my computer....For the second time, slightly more concise (internet ate the first one)....

@Mike

I feel that there is a difference between changing your army because something isn't good anymore and not being allowed to change your army to include units that have been in it because of it's spread across to many sources. It would be one thing if a unit is deleted but simply shifting to another source isn't nearly on the same page. Another example would be the likely removal of Legion of the Damned from the SM book in the next iteration.

Additionally I would prefer if you dropped the "You're pushing it for your special snowflake armies" angle. Would I like more options for modeling? Yep. Is that a drive for me? Nope. I'll build lists in the format of events and have a good time. Sometimes they'll be a template with personality tacked on and other times they'll be just silly but work decently.

Just so we're 100% clear on where on stand on this:

-I am in favor of open Battleforge
-I understand open Battleforge makes some people cringe
-I understand I am currently in the minority in my views
-I am OK with structure for list building for events
-I am OK with detachment limitations (i.e. 2 Detachments with only 1 CAD)
-I am in favor of no limits on Formations
-I am going to win 80% of my games across this edition no matter the format

I think 7th has the most potential for diversity at the top tables of any edition we've seen so far. Even with people being people. I just felt it was time to revisit source limits (not detachment limits per se) based on the first 3 releases for 7th. Formation numbers have increased and of the armies arguably designed for 7th (Nids forward) we've got two imperial armies that stand fine without formations and two non-imperial/BB armies that seem designed to function better with formations.

Initial limitations were put on based on 6th edition. Which is fine. I just felt it was time to revisit based on what we're seeing now.

These are good stance clarifications, and I apologize, genuinely, for misinterpreting some of your motivation as wanting to run a specific army.

Also, given that every event is allowing at least some multi-detachment choice, isn't it better if a unit is sent to another source than simply deleted (as has often been the case, and is increasingly the case)? Hell, Tyranids lost several units for - as far as we know - ever. Like my lovingly painted and converted Parasite of Mortrex, which is gone. :( ... I'd love for him to be in a Formation aside from the dex instead.

Diversity is fun, but then some Tourns decided to restrict CtA because of... reasons, possibly fear of rebuttal with the rules being so fresh, where the recompense is; well you can take more of the same!

It looks like armies may start to split up more. Some models are only going to appear in a specific source where as before they were included in the codex, this may come more of a issue as it opens up, if the Tourns don't open up the source.

7th Ed has been out for a while now, people have gotten over the changes and it should open up, little by little.

Glocknall wrote:
Malestorm missions as taken from the book are wholly unsuited for tournament play. The closest analogy I can think of is playing a football ball game where you randomly determine from which yard marker each team gets to start its drive from. One team might consistently get the ball within the other teams 50 yard line, while the other team may have to start each drive close to their own end zone.

Two sources has a lot of positives. For less competitive people it narrows down the meta they have to prepare for. It eliminates the aforementioned 34 point Inquisition which ruins a few different builds (remember anyone taking Ahriman, Huron, or going for the infiltrate warlord trait is thwarted by a simple 34 point invest that also give LD 10 to a unit and stubborn. It also stops cherry picking of relic wargear like SM getting 2 EW Chapter Masters for a 60 point scout investment (which is obsec) and slapping it into their favorite TWC Deathstar or other shenanigans. Some people might feel restricted by this common sense limitation but there is still a huge amount of list building options there. Tyranids and Orks may suffer but a bad book is still going to be a bad book. Allow people to cherry pick a FOC slot to spam 2-3 options from their book really doesnt make the game more enjoyable.

What about the analogy of changing battlefield? Which is pretty much the simulation, Maelstrom missions simulate a changing in object as and when your going along in the game, it does inspire different list building though, you have to handle being able to get across the board to cap and some plan for every eventuality. In cases where you lack in some ability to meet the objective you should be able to stay fluid capping some to gain others, meanwhile with exclusion of the relic, EW you just have to pick some durable (Not even troops now) scorers, different guns and sit there, not dying and only asses threats / etc. I would argue it's easier to just spam 1 dimensional lists for EW rather than Maelstrom, as you need much less diverse lists going into those missions. ObSec is not the best choice in all armies as means of capping a Ob far away for example, there are much better means depending on your army composition, position etc etc. I have done fine with these missions in 7th with Tyranids & DE allied (Just a Duke & some Warriors in Raiders hah).

The majority of fears that came with 7th have dissipated in a poof of 'not as bad as I thought'. Daemon summoning spam is so ill adept at it's job you'll struggle to find decent lists or tactics anywhere, relies too much on luck, the points limit does its job (In the most part) regardless of detachment numbers, source type or alliance type.

 Hulksmash wrote:
The minimum cost for the Cadre is 570pts with zero upgrades. You can't really spam it. You could, in theory, take 3 of them and have 140pts left over without upgrades. More reasonably you could take 2. Awesome. Even with a cad full of other units 650pts isn't much to make a list out of to support those units.

And a lot of armies are going to be making you pick up those units with the shift back to AP 2 weapons for anti-tank. All in all it's a pretty poor example of a "broken" formation.

That was my argument about the tyranids formations, though. I think the cheapest one is 390 for Living Artillery, but BioBlast is like what, 725? I could see taking those two (I have often tried to work up lists involving both, actually but always seem to be too short on points for the rest) and so wouldn't really mind if a second formation were allowed. But as you say, once you get past two it becomes hard to make effective lists, anyway.

I hadn't actually considered running a list without the force org, and only formations... didn't even really know that could be a possibility, to be honest

Glocknall wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
The minimum cost for the Cadre is 570pts with zero upgrades. You can't really spam it. You could, in theory, take 3 of them and have 140pts left over without upgrades. More reasonably you could take 2. Awesome. Even with a cad full of other units 650pts isn't much to make a list out of to support those units.

And a lot of armies are going to be making you pick up those units with the shift back to AP 2 weapons for anti-tank. All in all it's a pretty poor example of a "broken" formation.

I think you are grossly underestimating that formation. . Free Tank Hunters and preferred enemy space marines with skyfire or interceptors on the 'sides makes it extremely formidable. Other than marines which armies will be spamming AP2? Necrons can't, Eldar don't have too, Daemons are incapable. Guard are the only other well played army with consistent ranged AP2. Not to mention deploying in cover.

I don't think I am though. You can already bring one. Bringing a second and having 650pts left for the rest of an army isn't that great. And you'll have less if you take interceptor/skyfire/target locks and so forth. It lacks AP2 so 2+ armies will give it fits. It lacks pyschic defense in the form of stopping other powers. It lacks the ability to capture objectives. The list gets long.

It's an instant lose to armies most marine armies that go drop pod or bike heavy. It's an instant lose to having AV14 on the table. Eldar will make it sad because of range. Dark Eldar same. Orks w/Battlewagons make it sad. The list that breaks that open is pretty long. It's actually a worse Tau list which I'm ok with

@RiTides

And yeah, all formations could work Cost is going to prohibit more than 2 formations generally if you're also taking a force org of some type.

Actually bringing two and having six fifty left is a very big deal. With genuine love, Brad, I think you overstate some things (I recognize this as a trait I share at times lol). Example is brushing off inquisition servo plugs as "only" invalidating two builds. Not only are more than two invalidated, marine bikers are a popular army that lots of people own. There's a reason so many people at adepticon took them, and it isn't "oh there's barely any Nick builds this invalidates lol." Suggesting there's nothing meaningful that six fifty points can add to a double fire base is similarly brush-off-ish. And you know I love ya, not trying to target.

I think the larger issue is not the "i'll spam 2 of said formation." But instead, I'll take a CAD + allies, then this other formation. At which point we are not really limiting things all that much. Only the best formations will get taken, and because they won't be limited odds are we will see more of them.

I'm not saying it is necessarily broken (haven't tested it.) but what stops in your scenario. Knights + IG + fire cadre for example. Whereas with a 2 detachment limit on all detachments you are only getting 2 of those things.

I've yet to see old armies invalidated (if assasins are a data slate and not a formation you could still run inquisition + GK + assassins.)

I think the biggest 'problem' with the Firebase as a formation is that there isn't really a tax to get it. You just take the army that you normally would and get tank hunters for free. Some/many other formations require you to take more of a unit than you normally would (be that 1 instead of 0 or 3 instead of 2) or some other such method that you have to design your army around.
People won't necessarily spam 2-3 of the Firebase cadre... yet they will consistently take one because they probably were already anyway.


Warmachine has the same thing with some of the tier lists, which function a little like formations. Some casters force you to make tough choices and give up good units to receive the tier bonuses (in my experience, most of the Troll tier lists), whereas other forces you build the army as normal and then find out you have 2-3 additional bonuses for free (most of the cyris tiers).

Formations would be a reasonable thing if they were say part of the FOC. SO if you take these themed units in your FOC, you get X bonus. Now Firebase would still be good in that scenario, but as it is now you could take 3 Skyrays, and 2 Broadside teams instead of a total of 3 of both (assuming we are not going double CAD), and without paying troop/HQ tax for the additional slot.

@Mike

Adepticon is a horrible example of the excessive taking of Inquisitors. They allowed characters w/infiltrate to confer the ability. That right there meant that instead of 2 builds at the time there were a ton of infiltrating Ovesastars, Centstars & Beastpacks also out there. Quite a difference from just scouting bikes and dogs.

Name me a relevant army currently negated servo-skulls that isn't khorne dog rush (might not even be relevent) and/or scouting marines (bike or rhino). As an outside to the current discussion since we've already determined I'm not against a FOC Detachment restriction, just a source restriction

@Travsi

But were people really already taking those units. Riptide I'll give you. But I don't see many broadsides and if I do it's one unit. So is it really "free abilities". They are not putting 200-400pts of new units into their army. That has to come from somewhere.

@Breng77

Nothing stops it. But who cares if they bring IG/Knigths/Fireblade.Taking almost 600pts out of an army of IG supporting knights (or vice versa) isn't that easy to find. The only real concern I see here is fluff for people. But in game there doesn't seem to be an issue.

Yes, the best formations will be taken. That's a given. And yes, they might get tacked on top of a CAD & other detachment. But the vast majority are a) expensive and b) contain units that aren't optimal or at an optimal number in exchange for some awesome rules.

I think I went through and the cheapest formation available is the Ork HQ one with 3 Big Meks, a Warboss, and a Pain Boss. And even that is closing on 200pts. The minimum seems much closer to 300 and rises steeply from there. They generally aren't cheap enough to just slot in.

As for formations being "unreasonable" what's unreasonable about them? Not paying an HQ/Troop tax? See above. You do pay in that most formations don't include models you would normally take in the quantities they require or with the equipment they require (Adamentine Lance being an exception). You are paying for those additional rules because you probably weren't going to bring that 5th Battlewagon or 5-Man MAN squads or that Tyranid Warrior Brood.

Well I would also add the chance of getting the strategic warlord trait that gives infiltrate.

Yeah, which when they get it is a huge boost for nids, obviously- getting up close immediately with a lot of big bugs.

What are the top teir armies in seventh?

I have said this before, but I will say it again. If there were still soft scores around for things like (in this specific case) comp, you would not be struggling with this issue (as much). The game of 40k will never be the air tight ruleset for competitive play that Warmahoards or XWA are. The newest set of rules has simply shined a bright light on that issue. You guys tried to push the format one way and GW actually actively worked to make the format worse. Start implementing soft scores if you want to play anything other than simple force org armies or you will be revisiting this issue until 8th (or GW finally collapses under its own hubris).

lliu wrote:
What are the top teir armies in seventh?

Check mortetvie's thread and/or Torrent of Fire for the BAO stats. Especially Torrent of Fire.

 Phazael wrote:
I have said this before, but I will say it again. If there were still soft scores around for things like (in this specific case) comp, you would not be struggling with this issue (as much). The game of 40k will never be the air tight ruleset for competitive play that Warmahoards or XWA are. The newest set of rules has simply shined a bright light on that issue. You guys tried to push the format one way and GW actually actively worked to make the format worse. Start implementing soft scores if you want to play anything other than simple force org armies or you will be revisiting this issue until 8th (or GW finally collapses under its own hubris).

+1

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
I have said this before, but I will say it again. If there were still soft scores around for things like (in this specific case) comp, you would not be struggling with this issue (as much). The game of 40k will never be the air tight ruleset for competitive play that Warmahoards or XWA are. The newest set of rules has simply shined a bright light on that issue. You guys tried to push the format one way and GW actually actively worked to make the format worse. Start implementing soft scores if you want to play anything other than simple force org armies or you will be revisiting this issue until 8th (or GW finally collapses under its own hubris).

+1

+2

I was a huge proponent for getting rid of soft scores back in 5th. That really isn't a good option anymore imo.

 Phazael wrote:
I have said this before, but I will say it again. If there were still soft scores around for things like (in this specific case) comp, you would not be struggling with this issue (as much).

You're right, you wouldn't, but only because you'd be dealing with the much worse issue of soft score abuse making the game unplayable.

Meh, it's not what this thread is about but yeah....Comp scores might not be a bad move.

As much as I pushed to get rid of comp scores that was because 5th edition didn't need them. The end of 6th certainly did and I'm thinking 7th is in the same spot.

Especially if soft scores make people more open to opening up force organization

 RiTides wrote:
This has come up a few times, could someone explain to me how tyranids suffer from limiting the number of sources?

I can only ever fit in one formation. Maybe self-allying and one formation. But every list I've tried to cram two formations into, it has not looked competitive at all. So, I don't personally think nids are limited by a cap on the number of sources, as long as everything is allowed in (including forgeworld units). If I'm wrong on that, I'd love to get a link to something showing how/why a tyranid list with two formations makes them stronger than just one. But it seems at that point, you can't fill up the key slots of a normal FOC anyway, so the second formation is not needed/helpful.

nids work a lot better with cad/cad, cad/formation, cad/self ally (like with BAO rules) than being just straight up limited to a single CAD which is how it often is. a lot of places, until recently, weren't allowing formations, weren't allowing CtA allies, and weren't allowing double CAD (therefor limiting them, by default, to a single CAD). generally (at least when this comes up on thetyranidhive) this is what we're talking about when limiting # of sources comes up.

there are a couple of extreme builds i can think of but not many (CAD/bioblast/bioblast off the top of my head) that would use 3+ sources, aside from just going CAD/CAD/CAD with nothing but flyrants, rippers, malanthropes and dakkafexes.

sorry for multiple edits, realized i wasn't being clear.

Also something to consider for those saying that formations get special rules for free. I'd point out that all detachments now get special rules for free. Combined Arms & Ally Detachments get Objective Secured. The new Space Wolf Detachment allows units to outflank on a certain roll. The new GK Supplement allows units to deepstrike on turn one. None of these armies are paying for these abilities in the classic sense. They are free abilities for the detachment. Much like the abilities that come with formations.

Comp is still a bad option, because well executed comp is about as rare as a unicorn. You end up just changing the meta for each event individually, with some players deciding to put the effort into figuring out what is "busted" under the new set of rules, and some not.

If it were me, I'd go battleforged, come up with a specific ban list for lords of war for the truly imbalanced ones, and let all formations/dataslates otherwise we fair game, with the caveat that all are 0-1 (so no 4x tau fire cadre, you can have 1 among your slew of formations/other stuff). With it all being legal we can all expect to see any variety or combination of it on any given day at an event, all that would change is that you might see more of them together at once.

Gigasnail- To be clear, I love allowing formations (although I was used to just seeing one allowed) and self-allying. These can really help some weaker books, like nids, close the gap. It's the multiple CADs that makes my hair stand up on end, and which I didn't think people would be interested in playing anytime soon.

Target wrote:
Comp is still a bad option, because well executed comp is about as rare as a unicorn. You end up just changing the meta for each event individually, with some players deciding to put the effort into figuring out what is "busted" under the new set of rules, and some not.

If it were me, I'd go battleforged, come up with a specific ban list for lords of war for the truly imbalanced ones, and let all formations/dataslates otherwise we fair game, with the caveat that all are 0-1 (so no 4x tau fire cadre, you can have 1 among your slew of formations/other stuff). With it all being legal we can all expect to see any variety or combination of it on any given day at an event, all that would change is that you might see more of them together at once.

+1 its the direction i have wanted to see game play go withwhat GW has given us. However i still see it being a good thing to also limit CAD's to 0-1

Builds =
CAD 0-1
Formations = unique
Self Allies
Limited LoW = ban list

It is a good thing to limit CADs to 0-1, but if you don't also limit Allies ... well ... as fun as 12 guardian jetbike squads and a fearless "council" of 10 jetbike farseers rolling mostly on Malefic Daemonology sounds ...


Will be fun to see Daemon sales go up.

I think Target was saying unlimited detachments but everything is 0-1. CAD's, Allies, Codex/Supplement FoC Detachments, and Formations. Then limited Lords of War.

This is something that is simple, easy to institute, allows for 99% of the options in 7th.

I would actually say 0-2 Force Org. Detachments (CAD, Ally, Codex/Supplement) and unlimited other detachments (formations) all Unique. This way the 0-1 isn't gotten around by armies with lots of FoC Detachments down the line. Allows for consistency over the entire edition with just a growing list of non-approved Lords of War

MVBrandt wrote:
It is a good thing to limit CADs to 0-1, but if you don't also limit Allies ... well ... as fun as 12 guardian jetbike squads and a fearless "council" of 10 jetbike farseers rolling mostly on Malefic Daemonology sounds ...


Will be fun to see Daemon sales go up.

Allies would also be limited to 1 CAD as well

We should all stop using CAD as a term for detachment. It only leads to more confusion.

 Hulksmash wrote:

This way the 0-1 isn't gotten around by armies with lots of FoC Detachments down the line. Allows for consistency over the entire edition with just a growing list of non-approved Lords of War

But doesnt points cost and lack of ObjSec pretty much reduce the effectiveness of this ?

To a point. But it's a long term solution while also easing people's minds about unlimited FoC Detachments. Obsec isn't people's only concern with unlimited FoC's.

Highlander format is a fun style of comp that is gaining in popularity. Love to see more GT's adopt it for some of their events.

zedsdead wrote:

Target wrote:
Comp is still a bad option, because well executed comp is about as rare as a unicorn. You end up just changing the meta for each event individually, with some players deciding to put the effort into figuring out what is "busted" under the new set of rules, and some not.

If it were me, I'd go battleforged, come up with a specific ban list for lords of war for the truly imbalanced ones, and let all formations/dataslates otherwise we fair game, with the caveat that all are 0-1 (so no 4x tau fire cadre, you can have 1 among your slew of formations/other stuff). With it all being legal we can all expect to see any variety or combination of it on any given day at an event, all that would change is that you might see more of them together at once.

+1 its the direction i have wanted to see game play go withwhat GW has given us. However i still see it being a good thing to also limit CAD's to 0-1

Builds =
CAD 0-1
Formations = unique
Self Allies
Limited LoW = ban list

With your clarification that you're also limiting Allies to 0-1, I think this is perfect, personally.

I would say this is as close to perfect as you can get and keep everyone at least reasonably happy moving forward throughout 7th (assuming what we've seen so far in 7th holds)

Builds=
All Detachments Unique (Remember formations are Detachments as well which means all Formations and detachments are 0-1)
0-2 FoC Detachments (i.e. CAD, Allied, Champions of Fenris, Ork Horde Detachment, Codex: Legion of the Damned, Codex: Inquisition)
Formations
Limited LoW = Ban List

Following the rulebook rules with the cavaet that if your book hasn't got a 7th edition codex (i.e. alternative detachment) that you can self ally.

As self ally actually becomes better for avoiding additional unit taxes later on if you're only looking for 1 extra HS/Elite/FA

That would be totally fine by me- the "all detachments unique" line is the key one (and including the CAD as a unique type of detachment, but with the outlet that people can self-ally if they don't have other detachments available to them).

Muahahahaahahaha, I've brought over RiTides! Next, THE WORLD!

You will never get me!

I will die before i let unlimited formations in !

If they are 0-1 what is the issue with formations? C'mon, you know there isn't one

This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

i think I am on the same page as mike. It is just too earlier to start revisiting 2 Sources.

MVBrandt wrote:
This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

Not even really sure how to respond to this. Are we not supposed to make any adjustments based on information that we have consistantly represented by 3 releases now because of future unknown information? The biggest noted issue you seem to have is with open CAD for annoying, unfun to play armies. That's been curtailed. Formations, due to special rules now existing in normal detachments, are just very unit specific detachments. I'm failing to see your issue? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky or anything. Internet=Bad for tone )

With the new special detachments that each new Dex is bringing to the table, the two detachment model is going to quickly get dated as its primary use of reducing certain forms of spamming and abuse is going to be almost moot.

I feel 0-1 Unique Detachments is going to be an effective limitation and usable wish the caveat for older Codices to be able to Self Ally. Lists are still governed by points... until GW gives us permission to just ignore points costs or make up our own!

2 Detachments definitely had a crucial place at the beginning of 7th, but each new release is making its long term feasibility much more tenuous. We aren't going to have much choice.

Brad, you are slowing winning me over to the idea as well, and I was vehemently opposed to anything resembling a free for all 7th Ed with open detachments.

To be fair it isn't open detachments. It is limited. But I feel it's a good compromise that based on the first 3 releases of 7th and fits the direction of 7th while preventing major abuse (i.e. no more than currently happens under standard 2-source w/self allying).

That's why I'm open to it too, Zagman (and lol at the comment above regarding that Hulk ). I'm just really against seeing multiple CADs spammed. Seeing different types of detachments fielded doesn't really bother me at all (although I know it needs looking at from a balance perspective, it's just not raising my "spam-o-matic" hackles like allowing more than 1 CAD does). Making every detachment unique is a nice, simple rule to apply across the board... so it has some merit even based on that alone

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

Not even really sure how to respond to this. Are we not supposed to make any adjustments based on information that we have consistantly represented by 3 releases now because of future unknown information? The biggest noted issue you seem to have is with open CAD for annoying, unfun to play armies. That's been curtailed. Formations, due to special rules now existing in normal detachments, are just very unit specific detachments. I'm failing to see your issue? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky or anything. Internet=Bad for tone )

My first post in this thread acknowledged that eventually we'll be playing just full and open battle-forged. That I do not think right now is a fair time for 0-1 on all detachments does not mean it will not be. The trend is very obvious, but the present still finds most future formations absent, even though we know they will exist as books release. "Slow your roll" is not the same as "you're wrong forever!" I don't think you are. <3

Not sure why we're slowing our roll? Honestly why not put what would appear based on information available from 3 releases in this edition a system that seems to mostly embrace 7th army battleforge army construction with a simple adjustment to keep ridiculous spam in check? Then we're far more likely to not have to adjust things for a long, long time. Where as now it'll just keep coming up. The question is what is going to make that change required? I think most people in the future if you adopt this sort of system will not really buck it and open battleforged might never happen.

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

Not even really sure how to respond to this. Are we not supposed to make any adjustments based on information that we have consistantly represented by 3 releases now because of future unknown information? The biggest noted issue you seem to have is with open CAD for annoying, unfun to play armies. That's been curtailed. Formations, due to special rules now existing in normal detachments, are just very unit specific detachments. I'm failing to see your issue? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky or anything. Internet=Bad for tone )

like what he said above. it is too soon for this. Everyone knows you on the right track just not yet.

 RiTides wrote:
Gigasnail- To be clear, I love allowing formations (although I was used to just seeing one allowed) and self-allying. These can really help some weaker books, like nids, close the gap. It's the multiple CADs that makes my hair stand up on end, and which I didn't think people would be interested in playing anytime soon.

i can agree with this.

MVBrandt wrote:
My first post in this thread acknowledged that eventually we'll be playing just full and open battle-forged.

Ugh... I cannot disagree with this being a certainty more! I really dislike the idea of a slow, eventual slide into just "take everything". This is why I'm open to the ideas Hulk is presenting, although I'm totally fine if you think it's too early to implement them (Nova is set for a few weeks away, anyway ). But, I do not think it has to be inevitable that we eventually just say "open battleforged" and that's it...

I'm not saying everyone should do what Hulk is saying, or especially not do it immediately- but my original post in this thread actually has a lot of bearing on what you put above, MVBrandt: I think casual players want to know what sort of structure to build towards, hopefully one that will be in place for a few years. The idea that I'd build an army towards self-allying now, only to have 2 CADs allowed next year, is what has been a major deterrent to my updating my army to 7th edition. Knowing what to expect would be awesome... which is why the "all unique" detachments idea appeals to me (as does the current "2-soruce" to be honest).

I don't see why we eventually have to succumb to "take as many CADs as you like, full battle-forged, no restrictions". That's what "full and open battle-forged", as you typed, says to me. And if that also implies any LOW, any fortification, and as many CADs as you want... yeah, I don't see why we ever have to embrace that honestly. I am all for more inclusion, but the idea that we'll ever be playing totally unrestricted 7th edition, at least at most major events, strikes me as preposterous. This edition is crying out for some sort of structure/restriction... "all unique" does that, as does the current commonplace "2-source" that this thread started with. But the idea that we'll eventually just chuck all restrictions doesn't sound good at all.

Edit: To fix typo and just mention this should not be read as my being upset, just passionate that we don't have to ever just do "full and open battle-forged". I think much of the 40k player base is cringing even at reading that phrase...

I am happy with 2 detachment max atm.

Tbh i am more inclined to have 3 detachment approach (Not sourcebook limitation ) in the future. The splitting sources into many detachments that happened to gk happens to every army that might have to be inevitable.

Atm the 2 detachment approach is not really restrictive when you consider points cap, it allows more diversity in army building since it removes "must-take" additions to army.

I actually don't see a difference between Unbound and unlimited Battleforged, or unlimited formation even if they have a 0-1 limitation. I think they are too open-ended as what can be called as army building and might alienate some players before any other concern of mine takes place.

I'm pretty sure that if something like I presented got adopted it would never go to all out open battle forged. I think it would provide the flexibility people would want and answers most of the common questions with army building.

It seems like a reasonable compromise for hardcore everything in and more casual players that want consistency and structure.

 Leth wrote:
From everything I have seen no one is saying that dataslates use up one of your slots.

So belakor, cypher, and now assassins are still fine to add into a army without limiting yourself.

Looks like unlike Cypher and Belakor the Assassins are they're own detachments of a single elite choice. No just a unit added in. So they would require a 3rd source to use. Just throwing it out there.

I hope this new chop and sell approach wont expand to all faction. It will make even keeping up with the releases let alone attempt to regulate.

Two sources, what like Malifaux on Saturday and Infinity on Sunday? Good plan!



The laxer the core rules for 40k get, the more micromanagement the game requires. This then leaves TOs the hard job of saying "Yea" or "Nay" based upon what fills seats for their event. If two source does, then two source it is. But you're now bound, more than ever, to alienate players and their lists. The final straw for me was two source in that I couldn't run my modern take on Codex: Witchhunters even though it was fluffy at my local area events. The folks who run the events will always have the power to shape their local, and potentially national, meta, and from what I've heard listening to them on podcasts, it's not always a desired outcome. I do not favor their position in the least.

Just make sure you offer different games than GW stuff, that's the best way to appease everyone!

Personally, I think the conservative approach that Mike is taking is the way to go. For those that don't like it, Trios or Narrative offer a more open play environment. It'll be interesting to see what type of list combo prevails at Trios given the total lack of restrictions.

As for GTs going forward, I'm fine with single CAD, unlimited formations...but why not drop down to 1500? Feast is trying it, though their missions are a bit KP heavy to draw conclusions for NOVA-style events.

1500 doesn't just help with time management, it also limits the craziness a bit because if you do try and take multiple formations that are very strong, you'll completely lack support. If you try to take Adamantine Lance at 1500, you open yourself to RPS much more than at 1850. Not that AL is unbeatable or anything, but it gets real nasty when you have 4 Wave Serpents backing it up or 4 Night Scythes etc.

Thoughts?

A local tournament here in the Seattle area is coming up to cap off an escalation league we have been playing and we are trying out the 0-1 on all detachments. The local players liked the sound of it and it really dose not ham-string armies as much as you think.

 The Shrike wrote:
Personally, I think the conservative approach that Mike is taking is the way to go. For those that don't like it, Trios or Narrative offer a more open play environment. It'll be interesting to see what type of list combo prevails at Trios given the total lack of restrictions.

As for GTs going forward, I'm fine with single CAD, unlimited formations...but why not drop down to 1500? Feast is trying it, though their missions are a bit KP heavy to draw conclusions for NOVA-style events.

1500 doesn't just help with time management, it also limits the craziness a bit because if you do try and take multiple formations that are very strong, you'll completely lack support. If you try to take Adamantine Lance at 1500, you open yourself to RPS much more than at 1850. Not that AL is unbeatable or anything, but it gets real nasty when you have 4 Wave Serpents backing it up or 4 Night Scythes etc.

Thoughts?

This isn't just in regards to Nova. This is a general discussion. And the more I've discussed it with local's and others I do feel like something close to this really is the best way forward:

All Detachments are Unique (Remember Formations are detachments as well.)
0-2 On all FoC Detachments (Meaning Combine Arms, Allie, Wolves Unleashed, Inquisition, Imperial Knights, etc)
0+ Formations (Remember each is 0-1)
Limited Lords of War - Ban List (i.e. Transcendant C'tan or any unit that carries a weapon that fires a helstorm or blast over 5" that is AP2 and Ignores cover)
Limited Fortifications - Ban List (Networks and AV15 Fortifications)

Simple but fairly open. Shouldn't be any easier to abuse than the current system and has the advantage of being designed for what seems like 7th edition releases.

@Happygrunt

Are they limiting the number of FOC Detachments at all or is it just 0-1 so currently Orks could run 4 (CAD, Ally, Ghaz, Ork Horde), Wolves could do 4, and GK could do 3 while everyone else is restricted to CAD & Ally? Just curious.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 The Shrike wrote:
Personally, I think the conservative approach that Mike is taking is the way to go. For those that don't like it, Trios or Narrative offer a more open play environment. It'll be interesting to see what type of list combo prevails at Trios given the total lack of restrictions.

As for GTs going forward, I'm fine with single CAD, unlimited formations...but why not drop down to 1500? Feast is trying it, though their missions are a bit KP heavy to draw conclusions for NOVA-style events.

1500 doesn't just help with time management, it also limits the craziness a bit because if you do try and take multiple formations that are very strong, you'll completely lack support. If you try to take Adamantine Lance at 1500, you open yourself to RPS much more than at 1850. Not that AL is unbeatable or anything, but it gets real nasty when you have 4 Wave Serpents backing it up or 4 Night Scythes etc.

Thoughts?

This isn't just in regards to Nova. This is a general discussion. And the more I've discussed it with local's and others I do feel like something close to this really is the best way forward:

All Detachments are Unique (Remember Formations are detachments as well.)
0-2 On all FoC Detachments (Meaning Combine Arms, Allie, Wolves Unleashed, Inquisition, Imperial Knights, etc)
0+ Formations (Remember each is 0-1)
Limited Lords of War - Ban List (i.e. Transcendant C'tan or any unit that carries a weapon that fires a helstorm or blast over 5" that is AP2 and Ignores cover)
Limited Fortifications - Ban List (Networks and AV15 Fortifications)

Simple but fairly open. Shouldn't be any easier to abuse than the current system and has the advantage of being designed for what seems like 7th edition releases.

@Happygrunt

Are they limiting the number of FOC Detachments at all or is it just 0-1 so currently Orks could run 4 (CAD, Ally, Ghaz, Ork Horde), Wolves could do 4, and GK could do 3 while everyone else is restricted to CAD & Ally? Just curious.

I could ride with that; but what do you think about 1500?

I think point values are open for events to determine. I think if you have the ability to do 245-3 hours I prefer 1850. I like my toys

That said if you don't have the time then 1500 is fine.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think point values are open for events to determine. I think if you have the ability to do 245-3 hours I prefer 1850. I like my toys

That said if you don't have the time then 1500 is fine.

Except with codex point inflation 1500 today is closer to 1750/1850 back in 5th.

[rant] I still don't understand why people would rather play 4 turn games then have enough time for EVERY game to finish comfortably on time. Time management has more to do with winning most large formats then almost anything else.[/rant]

Otherwise I think the suggested restrictions are much truer to 7th then the arbitrary 2 source limit.

@RedCorsair

I would rather every game finish on time. That's why I threw out 2.75 or 3 hours requirements to play anything over 1500. That said, there need to be rules in place by the TO's regarding finishing your games. There should be a punishment, especially at the top tables, for not ending naturally.

But that's a personal pet peeve of mine.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RedCorsair

I would rather every game finish on time. That's why I threw out 2.75 or 3 hours requirements to play anything over 1500. That said, there need to be rules in place by the TO's regarding finishing your games. There should be a punishment, especially at the top tables, for not ending naturally.

But that's a personal pet peeve of mine.

You and me both, gaming the clock is WAY to common a thing currently. If players fail to reach a natural conclusion heavy penalties should follow.

I just thing 3 hours isn't enough for the average gamer so lowering points is an easier fix.

It didn't really hit me until reading this thread just how complicated it all can be. I would say that us older generation players have it worse than someone learning the game because before, there wasn't always a language to learn about the RESOURCES we used to build lists. Two sources used to mean two codex'? Now the big dirty word is DETATCHMENTS. Count up those pesky detatchments but don't go over two. The basic force org of 6th ed is now named a Combined Arms Detatchment in 7th (for all intents and purposes). Allies? yup, they are called Allied Detatchments. Formations? Yup, they too are detatchments. Sounds kinda easy once it's just spelled out for you. I guess the best way to understand it is by describing the exceptions to detatchments other than what IS a detatchment.

Some dataslates are detatchments, some aren't. That's about as far as I think I can remember after the brain freeze I get thinking about it.

So, IMO, to rethink changing things up, you pretty much have to start at the dirty word and to me, that's Detatchments. If we assume that TO's are going to start here to tweak their allowances on list building then we have to first ask if we want to allow more Detatchments. If yes, then a blanket +1 would be a good start to see how crazy it's going to get. If you want to add +1 Detatchment but limit it to one paticular type then that would further hemn in the potential for abusive lists. If you want to add another Detatchment (up to 3 total) but limit the number of sources you can field together, then that too would curb a bit of the craziness. Or...you could do all add another Detatchment and lower the point values. This is tricky as you could still see some craziness ensue and the abuse would really fall in favor of who could do it the cheapest.

To a more recent proposal of this thread, yeah, dropping the points to 1750 or even 1500 could do you some good as far as getting games in. I do feel that this just punishes Codex' like GK that have a pretty high CAD tax as it is. I think one of the reasons certain codex' have such a high winning percentage is the afordability of useful units. Spamming quality won't stop low cost codex's from stealing from other sources to further enhance weakness' within their parent codex. Big Tax codex's can't afford the 350pts cut since they already require those points to fulfill roles like AT or AA that their "taxed units" don't provide on their own.

An aside to this, I keep seeing 2k point lists popping up in the list's section of this website and I almost always roll my eyes. I assume people post lists to help judge their Competitiveness. Since 2k will hardly ever be a standard in tournaments (even you here are proposing 1500ish point levels) I don't know why people feel like they should even post the lists? My thinking is that you aren't going to use it in a competitive setting, nor are you using it to practise for a competitive event, so why care what you play at 2k? It's a funzy. Rock that double CAD T'Ctan x2 list, plop down those 9 void shields and Warhound, or field those x9 annibarges...the game is out of balance at that level already. Most TO's feel it's unbalanced at 1850 or they wouldn't hash out banned lists or detatchment caps on here. sorry if that read ranting, it kinda was but I just thought maybe you level headed people could assist me in seeing the light behind the goofy nature of 2k lists trying to emulate 1500pt. restrictions.

The game is horribly out of balance no matter what point level you play at. Some tournaments still play 2k. People always seem to say 1500 will be the answer to players not finishing games. Most likely it really won't be. Players are not likely to drop the things in their list that take a long time to play. The lower the points the more potent summoning style lists become, People put in detachment caps to limit stuff like 9 farseers and 18x 3 Jetbikes being an army. At 1500 is this really going to be hurt by instead being say 7 farseers and 14 Jebike squads? Now Hulk is still calling for limits, just different ones. What it comes down to is the game is broken, no matter what you choose to do it will favor some armies over others.

I don't think balance is the only issue, Breng77- as you say, no matter what you do, there will be something broken. But simplicity and having a structure for people to build armies towards is helpful, even if it doesn't achieve perfect balance. This is why people like the current 2-source, but as things continue to be released, I think making sources 0-1 (unique) with a limit of 2 FOC type sources is similarly helpful.

My response was more a response to the thinking that we don't need restrictions if we lower points, and that lowering the points somehow "fixes" things.

At the moment I really am not liking any of the formats. No matter what someone ends up annoyed with the choice. I agree that having a baseline helps, but in general 7th army construction has sucked alot of fun out of the game for me. Which is one reason I am currently on a break from playing (I haven't played since Connecticon) too much info coming out too fast, with too many options to sift through.

The game should allow multiple sources not limited to only two. Tournaments are really start to lag behind now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Painnen wrote:
It didn't really hit me until reading this thread just how complicated it all can be. I would say that us older generation players have it worse than someone learning the game because before, there wasn't always a language to learn about the RESOURCES we used to build lists. Two sources used to mean two codex'? Now the big dirty word is DETATCHMENTS. Count up those pesky detatchments but don't go over two. The basic force org of 6th ed is now named a Combined Arms Detatchment in 7th (for all intents and purposes). Allies? yup, they are called Allied Detatchments. Formations? Yup, they too are detatchments. Sounds kinda easy once it's just spelled out for you. I guess the best way to understand it is by describing the exceptions to detatchments other than what IS a detatchment.

Some dataslates are detatchments, some aren't. That's about as far as I think I can remember after the brain freeze I get thinking about it.

So, IMO, to rethink changing things up, you pretty much have to start at the dirty word and to me, that's Detatchments. If we assume that TO's are going to start here to tweak their allowances on list building then we have to first ask if we want to allow more Detatchments. If yes, then a blanket +1 would be a good start to see how crazy it's going to get. If you want to add +1 Detatchment but limit it to one paticular type then that would further hemn in the potential for abusive lists. If you want to add another Detatchment (up to 3 total) but limit the number of sources you can field together, then that too would curb a bit of the craziness. Or...you could do all add another Detatchment and lower the point values. This is tricky as you could still see some craziness ensue and the abuse would really fall in favor of who could do it the cheapest.

To a more recent proposal of this thread, yeah, dropping the points to 1750 or even 1500 could do you some good as far as getting games in. I do feel that this just punishes Codex' like GK that have a pretty high CAD tax as it is. I think one of the reasons certain codex' have such a high winning percentage is the afordability of useful units. Spamming quality won't stop low cost codex's from stealing from other sources to further enhance weakness' within their parent codex. Big Tax codex's can't afford the 350pts cut since they already require those points to fulfill roles like AT or AA that their "taxed units" don't provide on their own.

An aside to this, I keep seeing 2k point lists popping up in the list's section of this website and I almost always roll my eyes. I assume people post lists to help judge their Competitiveness. Since 2k will hardly ever be a standard in tournaments (even you here are proposing 1500ish point levels) I don't know why people feel like they should even post the lists? My thinking is that you aren't going to use it in a competitive setting, nor are you using it to practise for a competitive event, so why care what you play at 2k? It's a funzy. Rock that double CAD T'Ctan x2 list, plop down those 9 void shields and Warhound, or field those x9 annibarges...the game is out of balance at that level already. Most TO's feel it's unbalanced at 1850 or they wouldn't hash out banned lists or detatchment caps on here. sorry if that read ranting, it kinda was but I just thought maybe you level headed people could assist me in seeing the light behind the goofy nature of 2k lists trying to emulate 1500pt. restrictions.

Sad to say it is the vets holding back the game because they don't like any change. Really sucks.

I think people were panicking over the intitial idea. I think some structure is probably needed just to cater to the largest crowd. That said I think an expansion like I've mentioned is the right thing for it. And it could likely last the edition reasonably well and keep people from feeling to limited.

I have friends who quit because they said the older players are holding us back.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have friends who quit because they said the older players are holding us back.

Quit playing all together or quit playing in tournaments? Because if you have friends why aren't you guys playing how you want to play amongst yourselves? If you are talking about tournaments I don't think you can just say older players. I'd say attendees of events and worries about TO's costing themselves thousands of dollars has slowed the expansion. That said people are starting to calm down and as shown by this thread alone people are not as opposed to a wider structure. It just needs to be clearly outlined. I don't see events doing well with no-holds-barred unlimited detachments. But a more open system should work just fine.

We'll just have to see. Remember the biggest kid on the block (Adepticon) hasn't said how it's going to handle their big event. And another is on record in this thread thinking things will eventually go to a free for all (which I don't think it has to go that far ). I see a shift happening in the not to near future. But it's only been 3 months since the edition dropped. How fast did your buddies quit?

Tournaments in general. Casual play and campaigns are very popular here now. We can do as we please.

More than two sources is extra work for list checkers. Which, with current Formations and data slates is a nightmare already.

Also, more than two sources unfairly benefits Imperial players vastly more than others. Let me quickly build my Ultramarines list with Combat Squadding tacs in pods, an Invisible Tigurius Cent Star backed up by Draigo plus min Strike Squad, with Coteaz as well for first turn, a Knight for mid table and a Culexus assassin because f you Beast pack! Meanwhile Nids can just.... Take loads of Flyrants?

AlexRae, your examples almost all are FOC detachments, which Hulk was suggesting still be limited to 2, with each one being unique.

@Alexrae

Keeping track of formations and dataslates is actually pretty easy. They just need to check in at the top of this forum

As for your examples RiTides covered that. And if anything multiple formations (all still being unique) are more beneficial to non-Imperial Factions.

AlexRae wrote:
More than two sources is extra work for list checkers. Which, with current Formations and data slates is a nightmare already.

Also, more than two sources unfairly benefits Imperial players vastly more than others. Let me quickly build my Ultramarines list with Combat Squadding tacs in pods, an Invisible Tigurius Cent Star backed up by Draigo plus min Strike Squad, with Coteaz as well for first turn, a Knight for mid table and a Culexus assassin because f you Beast pack! Meanwhile Nids can just.... Take loads of Flyrants?

Oddly enough, that power armored bro fist you proposed is actually completely plausible @1850. Even more odd is that I wouldn't really care to face that or a swarm of flyrants. It's lists like that one that promotes lower point limits as they will have to cut something from it that none of the other parts can effectively perform.

Yeah, the "swarm of flyrants" idea was what put me off the idea of multiple CADs. Self-allying gets you one more, which is fine, but it feels like that fourth HQ just is too much! I've come round on the idea of making every formation unique, though- keeps people from spamming CADs, but lets them use the tools that 7th edition has made available.

Inquisition as a primary force org was squatted under the 1 CAD + 1 ally tournament restrictions. Nobody cared because they could just run Henchmen as GK in 7th.

With the removal of henchmen from the GK codex they just got squatted as a primary force org under the current 1 CAD + 1 ally tournament restrictions.

Henchmen as a primary army are now unplayable under the 1 CAD + ally restriction.

We are not even 3 months into the new edition and still the majority of vocal opponents I personally know have not even played a game without restrictions, instead they have had their impressions from forums and blogs. The amount of fear-mongering that goes on by TO's and players alike about broken units, ban lists, or other restrictions far outnumber the posts about what is good in the new edition.

Let's start with the Combined Arms Detachment (CAD). Even before the Ork codex, I never read that to be "this is the basic way to play Battle Forged". Instead, I read the whole section on Choosing Your Army and saw the info about Command Benefits and how they would be added in future releases. Objective Secured is not an essential part of an army - it is a buff to armies that do not have 7th edition releases! Sure Ob-Sec is great but it will die out as other publications come along.

7th edition releases... Let's play 7th edition now, not "wait until all armies have new rules then allow them to play". If we go that route, we will not play 7th until 8th comes out. We have NEVER seen a point in the history of the game where there was a push to not allow basic elements of the rulebook and codex like we do today. Sure there was always a big push against Forge World but not Citadel Journal, White Dwarf, Chapter Approved or other sources of new ways to play with your collection. There is a ton of great stuff out there to enjoy.

Multiple Detachments - Take a look at the points of some of the detachments you can take now. Inquisition can be less than 100, an Officio Assassinorum detachment is under 150, Formations from Sanctus Reach can be under 250. To limit players to only 2 detachments is just silly. What needs to be done is for players to get info about what is available and not just scare tactics by frequent posters. Show players how to build a list in 7th (showing which detachment a unit belongs in and who is the warlord). Get players to bookmark their rules sources and have them readily available to their opponent. Finally, make sure you have more time to play a round now as the game is a little more complex.

Formations - Look at the Sanctus Reach campaign books! You can take very small forces and legally add them to any army now. No longer do you have to buy, build, and paint a Force Org chart's worth of models to be able to add them into your games. Sure the books have a price but you only need the books for the forces you want to use.

Information overload - I feel the biggest problem with how we all interpret the game right now is that there is too much info and very few people have a handle on it all. I have been trying to create some really cool tools for players to use to get a better grasp on what is available now. 19 Factions, 36 Army Lists, 63 Publications, 11 non-CAD Detachments, 60 Formations, 13 Datasheets, and 70 Lords of War (these numbers are up to date except for IA4:2e which is on its way here). This is overwhelming to say the least. Let's get more discussions like Hulksmash's Formation & Dataslate Unit List stickied at the top of this sub-forum.

Changing the rules - it is far easier to just change the rules based on incorrect interpretations than to really get to know what the new edition means. This is an entirely new game and everything you knew before is out of date. We have warbands of all shapes and sizes (detachments and formations) teaming up to form an army (battle-forged). This kind of list building has not been present since the Realm of Chaos hardback books and I love that is has returned.

Getting your teeth kicked in - matchups are not going to be balanced and you will lose games. Your "elitecombo_04" army probably cannot win 70% of the time anymore. Get over it. The game is not a sport, we are not athletes, and there is no way to provide a truly even playing field with your HouseHammer rulings unless everyone brings the exact same army.

Modeling, Painting and Playing Games - This is fun stuff and we need to spend more time enjoying it.

I agree that there is a fundamental confusion about army composition in 7th transitioning from 6th.

I have seen rulings where a CAD is obligatory (can be replaced by a large formation in any of the new books), but second Formations are banned. Yet Inquisition and LotD books are allowed. That doesn't actually work!

Things will continue to evolve as the game itself does. Games Workshop has given a set of very broad guidelines about what's what, and unfortunately that's caused a lot of angst within the hobby.

It was perhaps not intended, but many of the posts on this very page highlight the fact that still many players - when given the freedom to stake a claim - are of the opinion that their way is the ONLY way to play this game, and that's the sort of position that can only be come about when rules and restrictions are too vague to be clearly understood and acted upon.

I like to compare to Malifaux 2nd Edition, as I play both, where players who are fundamentally "competitive" and "casual" and "hobbyist" and all the rest by self-definition and the definition of others in 40k all come together and play without any issue or conflict in games of Malifaux.

The more wide open and rules-free / barely contained you make a game, the easier it is for the harsher sides of our nature as people to come out and start taking partisan positions.

To the point of what Tironum said but a little bit twisted, "Modeling, Painting, and Playing Games" is absolutely what the hobby is about ... but if a large number of people want to play with even just 1 CAD as the only thing allowed, that's completely OK. It's OK by the very rules of the game, and it's OK because it *is* a game.

Also, for better or worse, there's a lot of very reasonable fear to unbridled army construction (i.e., the 60 warp charge daemon summoning eldar farseer council of doom coupled w/ bajillions of jetbikes) anyway ... a lot of people like to say they haven't playtested anything, or that if you just did you'd realize it's all fine, but it's not. Not everyone LIKES a game that is so unbalanced that "70% of your games you'll lose" on things like matchup. I can't imagine wanting to play that very often.

It's really not about winning and losing specifically, either, or rather about only wanting to win. I can't remember a time where a player brought a knife to a gunfight and went "wow I'm just so excited to spend the next couple hours getting tabled while doing nothing to you!" Balance can be helped by TO consideration when it is not provided by game design, and balance does to a degree help reduce the quantity of games that feel like that.

I can't imagine ANYONE who advocates fun having a problem with trying to make sure it's easy for a bunch of strangers meeting for the first time to more readily have fun. The easy or callous thing to do is respond that the REAL problem are just those WAAC jerks who don't know what fun really is! But that's about as emotionally WAAC a comment as it gets, and it's far too common in our hobby. Branding the "other guys" as being obviously just in the wrong and not doing it right is about as valid as Liberals idiotically decrying Fascist Republicans or Conservatives idiotically decrying Commie Democrats.

MVBrandt wrote:

Epic Speach.

Hear hear

Breng77 wrote:
My response was more a response to the thinking that we don't need restrictions if we lower points, and that lowering the points somehow "fixes" things.

Which of course no one said.

What was suggested was limits AND lower of points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
Things will continue to evolve as the game itself does. Games Workshop has given a set of very broad guidelines about what's what, and unfortunately that's caused a lot of angst within the hobby.

It was perhaps not intended, but many of the posts on this very page highlight the fact that still many players - when given the freedom to stake a claim - are of the opinion that their way is the ONLY way to play this game, and that's the sort of position that can only be come about when rules and restrictions are too vague to be clearly understood and acted upon.

I like to compare to Malifaux 2nd Edition, as I play both, where players who are fundamentally "competitive" and "casual" and "hobbyist" and all the rest by self-definition and the definition of others in 40k all come together and play without any issue or conflict in games of Malifaux.

The more wide open and rules-free / barely contained you make a game, the easier it is for the harsher sides of our nature as people to come out and start taking partisan positions.

To the point of what Tironum said but a little bit twisted, "Modeling, Painting, and Playing Games" is absolutely what the hobby is about ... but if a large number of people want to play with even just 1 CAD as the only thing allowed, that's completely OK. It's OK by the very rules of the game, and it's OK because it *is* a game.

Also, for better or worse, there's a lot of very reasonable fear to unbridled army construction (i.e., the 60 warp charge daemon summoning eldar farseer council of doom coupled w/ bajillions of jetbikes) anyway ... a lot of people like to say they haven't playtested anything, or that if you just did you'd realize it's all fine, but it's not. Not everyone LIKES a game that is so unbalanced that "70% of your games you'll lose" on things like matchup. I can't imagine wanting to play that very often.

It's really not about winning and losing specifically, either, or rather about only wanting to win. I can't remember a time where a player brought a knife to a gunfight and went "wow I'm just so excited to spend the next couple hours getting tabled while doing nothing to you!" Balance can be helped by TO consideration when it is not provided by game design, and balance does to a degree help reduce the quantity of games that feel like that.

I can't imagine ANYONE who advocates fun having a problem with trying to make sure it's easy for a bunch of strangers meeting for the first time to more readily have fun. The easy or callous thing to do is respond that the REAL problem are just those WAAC jerks who don't know what fun really is! But that's about as emotionally WAAC a comment as it gets, and it's far too common in our hobby. Branding the "other guys" as being obviously just in the wrong and not doing it right is about as valid as Liberals idiotically decrying Fascist Republicans or Conservatives idiotically decrying Commie Democrats.

Which IMHO is why it would be nice for tournaments to continue to grow games like infinity and malifaux since they are much better (more balanced) tournament games.

I love 40k but it is in a very strange state as of late. I am not sure we will ever hear the end of all the noise regarding sources until something dire happens with the game by it's designers.

 Tironum wrote:
We are not even 3 months into the new edition and still the majority of vocal opponents I personally know have not even played a game without restrictions, instead they have had their impressions from forums and blogs. The amount of fear-mongering that goes on by TO's and players alike about broken units, ban lists, or other restrictions far outnumber the posts about what is good in the new edition.

So, you have a problem with people cramping your style? You know what will help? Ignore their arguments entirely, and call them fear-mongerers and whiners! Nothing like a good ad hominem argument to make everyone else see how right you are. Plus, it has the added benefit of uniting the community.

7th edition releases... Let's play 7th edition now, not "wait until all armies have new rules then allow them to play". If we go that route, we will not play 7th until 8th comes out. We have NEVER seen a point in the history of the game where there was a push to not allow basic elements of the rulebook and codex like we do today. Sure there was always a big push against Forge World but not Citadel Journal, White Dwarf, Chapter Approved or other sources of new ways to play with your collection. There is a ton of great stuff out there to enjoy.

Let's play 7th edition? OK. But why? If I, in November 2013, had said "hey, let's just take an unlimited number of detachments, with super-heavies, everyone can ally with anyone and still score, Farseers can create Daemonettes, you can have more than one ally, actually, you know what, screw it, you can take whatever you want from any army and mash it together, and it will all be scoring! Two Flyrants, some Centurions, a Revenant, and four Heralds to create an army! That should totally be allowed!"

How many people would have replied "yeah, Thud, that sounds awesome!"? Would you have? I'm not a betting man, but my money would be on "no."

So now GW has gone ahead and done it. What's the difference? Do you have any other arguments beyond "get with the times, whiners"?

You say there is a ton of stuff out there to enjoy, and you're right. But there's also a ton of stuff that's flat out unenjoyable. Subjective opinions are subjective, but unrestricted 7th edition is not the game I want to play (even though I'm probably on the liberal side of the spectrum of what should be allowed) so I won't play unrestricted 7th.

Multiple Detachments - Take a look at the points of some of the detachments you can take now. Inquisition can be less than 100, an Officio Assassinorum detachment is under 150, Formations from Sanctus Reach can be under 250. To limit players to only 2 detachments is just silly. What needs to be done is for players to get info about what is available and not just scare tactics by frequent posters. Show players how to build a list in 7th (showing which detachment a unit belongs in and who is the warlord). Get players to bookmark their rules sources and have them readily available to their opponent. Finally, make sure you have more time to play a round now as the game is a little more complex.

Formations - Look at the Sanctus Reach campaign books! You can take very small forces and legally add them to any army now. No longer do you have to buy, build, and paint a Force Org chart's worth of models to be able to add them into your games. Sure the books have a price but you only need the books for the forces you want to use.

But the problem isn't lack of ability to build a good army. It's not the case that all these fear-mongerers and whiners are just thick imbeciles who need their hands held so they can compete with the big boys. It's the people who throughout 6th had been balancing on a knife's edge with a combination of the army they wanted to play and something that was actually good. You want to play an actual Dark Angels army? You know, a real one without Inquisitors and Space Wolves and Daemon summoners? Congrats, you just went from probably losing a lot to definitely getting tabled most of the time.

You talk as if the new regime is a liberal utopia with newfound freedoms. If all you care about is listbuilding and combo-breaking (which is fine, btw) it is, but if you want a pure army, you're just screwed.

Information overload - I feel the biggest problem with how we all interpret the game right now is that there is too much info and very few people have a handle on it all. I have been trying to create some really cool tools for players to use to get a better grasp on what is available now. 19 Factions, 36 Army Lists, 63 Publications, 11 non-CAD Detachments, 60 Formations, 13 Datasheets, and 70 Lords of War (these numbers are up to date except for IA4:2e which is on its way here). This is overwhelming to say the least. Let's get more discussions like Hulksmash's Formation & Dataslate Unit List stickied at the top of this sub-forum.

Changing the rules - it is far easier to just change the rules based on incorrect interpretations than to really get to know what the new edition means. This is an entirely new game and everything you knew before is out of date. We have warbands of all shapes and sizes (detachments and formations) teaming up to form an army (battle-forged). This kind of list building has not been present since the Realm of Chaos hardback books and I love that is has returned.

And that's good for you. Me too, by the way. At least to begin with. I like list-building. I like finding new combos, trying new things, and making changes to play my armies very differently.

Most people don't, though. At least in my experience (having lived and played 40k in four countries across the world) most people pick an army they like, try to make it fairly good, and then know very little about anything else in the game (except their mate's army that they play against every weekend).

Good thing our hobby isn't a niche thing as it is, though. If that were the case, making tournaments alien to most 40k players might be unsustainable.

Getting your teeth kicked in - matchups are not going to be balanced and you will lose games. Your "elitecombo_04" army probably cannot win 70% of the time anymore. Get over it. The game is not a sport, we are not athletes, and there is no way to provide a truly even playing field with your HouseHammer rulings unless everyone brings the exact same army.

And we've come full circle. I don't really know what you're hoping to achieve with your logical fallacies. Surely you can't expect to post it on a fairly big internet forum without *anyone* wisening up to what you're doing?

Modeling, Painting and Playing Games - This is fun stuff and we need to spend more time enjoying it.

Just to be clear I'm not pushing for an open season on battle forged. After discussing here and with a lot of people locally I think it would hurt tournament attendance. However, everyone I've shared Target's modified idea with has been in total agreement that they either like it or it wouldn't prevent attending an event.

I did push for open season at the beginning of 7th. I still don't think it would suck as bad as others. That said the majority seem to want some solid structure in place. I can understand and support this. I think the idea we worked out here is probably the best compromise for 7th as it currently stands. In fact if there aren't any major shifts it's something that could stand the test of 7th as an easy and understandable format for army building.

Currently we've seen a step toward that format with the Michigan GT who kept 2 max detachments but just changed it to any two detachments and all detachments are unique. Nova was also doing this for all intensive purposes but it's good to see other events adjusting as 7th rolls.

I don't think we'll ever see open battle-forge for the major events. They have to much on the line. And since major events won't do it most smaller events won't either. But we'll just have to wait and see

I seem to have hit a nerve for some people. The follow up posts have some great info to add but where does the other stuff come from? I understand that it is easy to misinterpret someone's writing from what they meant but some of the stuff is way out there.

As I stated in the beginning of my post - there are few positive posts about the game and many have their facts wrong or think the use of hyperbole adds to the discussion. I would like to see more positive and accurate information about the new edition.

My push is for people to learn how the game has changed and try it for themselves.

 Tironum wrote:
I seem to have hit a nerve for some people. The follow up posts have some great info to add but where does the other stuff come from? I understand that it is easy to misinterpret someone's writing from what they meant but some of the stuff is way out there.

As I stated in the beginning of my post - there are few positive posts about the game and many have their facts wrong or think the use of hyperbole adds to the discussion. I would like to see more positive and accurate information about the new edition.

My push is for people to learn how the game has changed and try it for themselves.

I'm not sure you really hit a nerve. I just think there's counterpoints. There are plenty of us who have tried the full game unfettered, in all its variations (From unbound to open battleforged to various restriction levels), and yeah .. have to say Thud makes a point. Just openly c hanging it doesn't make it good, and it doesn't always pan out unfettered, because some people and some player groups DO find it FUN to mega-break whatever they can ... and who's to hate on 'em for it? The game IS more unbalanced at the wide open level (not to say it's rainbows and unicorns at 2-detach or whatever either!), and so you open up more potential for the major issue I was pointing out - everyone plays the game differently if they can have it exactly how they want it, so the more divergent the game and army lists are capable of being, the more angst and upsetness and facecrushing you're likely to find.

That may be how you feel, but some of us have, and it's not good. Heck I ran my GT with 2 CAD...only one player used it to what ammounted to little more that self allying and everyone there complained about that army. How 2 CAD was broken, how things should be more limited etc. That was not even unrestricted at all...and people balked at it.

I think a lot of what it comes down to is that for 14 years people played with essentially 1 FOC (Daemonhunters and Witchhunters being the exception and allies were pretty limited). Then when 6th hit allies were added, and we all went with it because it was in the BrB. Then GW added formations, and escalation and people started to be like Woah woah...things are getting crazy here...I have this one army/faciton I really like and now it cannot compete at all unless I add a whole buch of other non-faction stuff.

You say for people to have fun, but they simply don't when faced with OP nonsense possible in this game.

Then 7th hit and said "Hey do whatever the heck you want". Problem is people (IME) don't want to just bring whatever to the table. They want to play a faction, maybe with allies (interestingly I see more "hardcore" gamers bringing allies for game reasons, than lower table players who have nicely painted armies belonging to 1 book).

What Brendan said.

I think Thud said it best, and I'll rearticulate.

If last year a tournament was like "LET'S JUST LET EVERYONE TAKE UNLIMITED FORCE ORGS AT ANY POINT LEVEL!" people would have broadly said "that's ridiculous, no." It might have gained purchase with a small handful or as a zany thing to do.

You could have said the same thing right before 7th dropped, with tons of new formations already out, and people still would have laughed at it.

It's very easy to throw out a half-hearted "oh it's fine you should just try it," but to Brendan's point a lot of people have. If you're in a gaming group where everyone exists within an understanding of what is and isn't "too much," fine, great, you're awesome. If you're not, if you're showing up to a big event with international attendance in the hundreds, you're going to have a lot of people frustrated at what kind of peashooter they brought to the table. Since that's a major risk to attendance, the really big events that drive a lot of the local RTT and meta situations aren't going to take major risks that they know aren't popular or safe for some of their attendees.

So while it's easy to say "OH TRY IT, IT'S FINE," that kinda comment has no real weight. Because the facts don't bear it out across the width and breadth of the hobby as a whole.

Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


Builds=
All Detachments Unique (Remember formations are Detachments as well which means all Formations and detachments are 0-1)
0-2 FoC Detachments (i.e. CAD, Allied, Champions of Fenris, Ork Horde Detachment, Codex: Legion of the Damned, Codex: Inquisition)
0+ Formations
Limited LoW = Ban List

Following the rulebook rules with the cavaet that if your book hasn't got a 7th edition codex (i.e. alternative detachment) that you can self ally.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


Builds=
All Detachments Unique (Remember formations are Detachments as well which means all Formations and detachments are 0-1)
0-2 FoC Detachments (i.e. CAD, Allied, Champions of Fenris, Ork Horde Detachment, Codex: Legion of the Damned, Codex: Inquisition)
0+ Formations
Limited LoW = Ban List

Following the rulebook rules with the cavaet that if your book hasn't got a 7th edition codex (i.e. alternative detachment) that you can self ally.

Inquisition is a pint sized detachment. If I field my 6 units of henchmen I won't have any FOC detachments left and my entire FOC available will be limited to 4 HQ, 6 troops, 0 fast attack, 0 elite, and 0 heavy. It wasn't a big deal when I could do 6 units of GK henchmen +IG, but now my army is squated under those restrictions.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


Builds=
All Detachments Unique (Remember formations are Detachments as well which means all Formations and detachments are 0-1)
0-2 FoC Detachments (i.e. CAD, Allied, Champions of Fenris, Ork Horde Detachment, Codex: Legion of the Damned, Codex: Inquisition)
0+ Formations
Limited LoW = Ban List

Following the rulebook rules with the cavaet that if your book hasn't got a 7th edition codex (i.e. alternative detachment) that you can self ally.

Inquisition is a pint sized detachment. If I field my 6 units of henchmen I won't have any FOC detachments left and my entire FOC available will be limited to 4 HQ, 6 troops, 0 fast attack, 0 elite, and 0 heavy. It wasn't a big deal when I could do 6 units of GK henchmen +IG, but now my army is squated under those restrictions.

Inquisition isn't a Combined Arms Detachment, so you'd be free to run Inquisition + any CAD + any allied detach + any formation. You wouldn't be able to spam out a million inquisitorial units, true, but is it really as bad as saying squatted? Serious question!

Rare variants builds of armies have been squatted before (i.e. armies designed around moving stuff from another category to troops). It's crappy but thems the breaks.

You could take 3 henchmen units and IG in the above. Then take Steelhost Formation, Stormwing Formation and other items to fill in what you were looking for.

There are options for building a force in the above restrictions. When all is said and done you lost the ability to field 3 henchmen units. Total, full stop. I don't think that's being squatted.

@Brandt

The allied detachment wouldn't exist in your example. It's two FoC detachments in the above. So a Inquisition Detachment and any other detachment (Allied, CAD, Rando Codex Detachment) and any formation"S"

For what it is worth, I think the idea of Unique Detachments would be fun.

MVBrandt,

My comments were not half hearted, they were genuine and factual. Retorting with exaggerations and misrepresenting what I said does not help.

You have been pushing your own way to play the game for a long time. Lots of people like it but not everyone.

I said my peace, have fun.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Rare variants builds of armies have been squatted before (i.e. armies designed around moving stuff from another category to troops). It's crappy but thems the breaks.

You could take 3 henchmen units and IG in the above. Then take Steelhost Formation, Stormwing Formation and other items to fill in what you were looking for.

There are options for building a force in the above restrictions. When all is said and done you lost the ability to field 3 henchmen units. Total, full stop. I don't think that's being squatted.

@Brandt

The allied detachment wouldn't exist in your example. It's two FoC detachments in the above. So a Inquisition Detachment and any other detachment (Allied, CAD, Rando Codex Detachment) and any formation"S"

Ah, I gotya Brad!

Tony - we all push our way of playing the game, to include you! I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and closing your mind to other views is certainly not something I want to come off as doing or encouraging. Heck, in our very early years, things like the Mechanicon's sideboards and sweet terrain are what helped inspire us to have sideboards for every table at every NOVA game, and to put out our own world-class terrain across all our different events. There's a lot to be learned from everyone, and that's why conversations like this are great.

 Tironum wrote:
For what it is worth, I think the idea of Unique Detachments would be fun.

MVBrandt,

My comments were not half hearted, they were genuine and factual. Retorting with exaggerations and misrepresenting what I said does not help.

You have been pushing your own way to play the game for a long time. Lots of people like it but not everyone.

I said my peace, have fun.

While perhaps not half hearted, saying things like

Getting your teeth kicked in - matchups are not going to be balanced and you will lose games. Your "elitecombo_04" army probably cannot win 70% of the time anymore. Get over it. The game is not a sport, we are not athletes, and there is no way to provide a truly even playing field with your HouseHammer rulings unless everyone brings the exact same army.

Makes huge assumptions about why people want to restrict certain things (here's a hint, it is not for the power gamers.)

Every event can do things it's own way and the public will speak to what they want. Recently for me (in part due to lack of structure) that has been playing other games. I wish you luck with the unlimited battle forged, but I expect you'll see some armies that people won't like very much.

Humm making all detachments "unique" sounds like a simple fix (no double CAD or min maxing the same detachment over and over). I like it.

Still need a small ban list of certain LoW but that seems like an easy way to move forward for 7th tournies.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


Builds=
All Detachments Unique (Remember formations are Detachments as well which means all Formations and detachments are 0-1)
0-2 FoC Detachments (i.e. CAD, Allied, Champions of Fenris, Ork Horde Detachment, Codex: Legion of the Damned, Codex: Inquisition)
0+ Formations
Limited LoW = Ban List

Following the rulebook rules with the cavaet that if your book hasn't got a 7th edition codex (i.e. alternative detachment) that you can self ally.

I like this. Right now there are books of main line armies who can not compete - I'm looking at you chaos - with other main line armies. I'm not as much interested in keeping it fair for fringe armies, but the main core army factions of 40k should have a chance against each other.

I fully agree with what Tinorum said. There are lots of older gamers that want to keep playing 4th and 5th edition style. Often they say it's too hard for them to keep up now. :( We need to embrace 7th edition. I know a lot of newer players too who are put off by the older gamers that want to hold back the game. Many of the vets have left 40k which is fine... Win win scenario.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I fully agree with what Tinorum said. There are lots of older gamers that want to keep playing 4th and 5th edition style. Often they say it's too hard for them to keep up now. :( We need to embrace 7th edition. I know a lot of newer players too who are put off by the older gamers that want to hold back the game. Many of the vets have left 40k which is fine... Win win scenario.

Whoa, hold the phone. Vets leaving is a bad thing. The game has a stupid high barrier to entry. The motivation of a crowd of veteran opponents is a good thing to encourage growth. GW is seeing and reporting shrinkage, not growth. That's bad. And 7th edition, as written, is hot street trash. The reason why people pine for 5th us because armies were the armies, not voltron win dispensers. There was a poll on the 40k general discussion that showed a massive affinity for 4E/5E. Supporting a strong competitive edition is good for everyone, not this "fluffy bunny" edition that's obviously lead to just more in fighting of the player base (blame the company, not the players).


It's why I play all other games now. If I can save the dollars to go to NOVA, I'll play Malifaux or Infinity because I know I'm in for something Wyrd or that the ITS format is the same everywhere. I don't want to play Brandt-40k, Robbins-40k, etc. Not a slight to the TOs small and large, its just the game is a mess. My local meta adoption killed two of my armies (and GW helped with the new terrible GK book) and even went as far to ban al digital releases, p include my previous SoB army. Neat!

So the vets piling out of this slipshod edition isn't a good thing and the imperative to fix it is on GW as any solution created by an event manager will only cater to X crowd; you'll alienate Y and Z. The latter two were smaller subsets in a tighter edition like 5E, but now you're carving swaths with 7E as if this discussion being repeated for every tournament small and large isn't proof enough of that point.

So no matter the resolution, there are some of us Vets who will be eating the market away from GW actively by offering a game with none of this bickering and just playing. And that's a lovely, refreshing change of pace. Plus its way easier flying with a few crews and a 300pt infinity list than 1850 of 40k.

Wow wow wow... That is so opinionated it really doesn't carry any weight in my opinion. What I said though is fact based upon my many discussions with other gamers across the country. You though are a good example of the people trying to restrain 7th edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow wow wow... That is so opinionated it really doesn't carry any weight in my opinion. What I said though is fact based upon my many discussions with other gamers across the country. You though are a good example of the people trying to restrain 7th edition.

Funny how my "opinion" is supported by facts, my own nationwide experience over the past four years/three editions, and GWs own business actions and financial reports.

And being a good example of restraint? Good games have in built checks and balances on army construction. Every other game expresses this. The very notion of take whatever you want is sloppy is and poor design.

So unless you care to elaborate, your claim is baseless. And when 40k implodes because of GWs poor business decisions, it won't matter. The game is sick, and the discussion of "how to fix it," as evidence by this thread alone and it being necessary for every form of organized play, whether it be a tacit understanding between friends or a TO rules packet, is just more. No other game community has this level of in fighting on how to build an operational system to have a fair chance at competition. To even suggest otherwise is a mighty fine rose tinted outlook.

GW will never implode... people have been saying that for years. Anyways go ahead and NR.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
GW will never implode... people have been saying that for years. Anyways go ahead and NR.

When was the last time their financial numbers backed up the people saying that? Have you read the "future of games day" series or the financial report?


Back to the topic, I believe the tournaments are doing just fine with house rules. They're giving us enough freedom to build good lists without being totally broken. Nobody wants to see multiple CAD lists in a tournament because it benefits some armies far more than others. For every player who just wants to run the same list they used to run, there will be 3 players finding a way to break the meta with a multiple CAD list. Playing lists like that for kicks with your friends is fine but I think you will find very few people who actually attend large tournaments that would be in favor of unlimited CADs, or just wide open list building rules. As usual, it seems like the people who don't even attend these events are the ones screaming the loudest about how they should be run.

Back on topic, please. There are lots of other topics to discuss GW's financials, but this section/thread is not devoted to that. We all need a respite from that somewhere, and this area is just for tourney discussions.

Thanks!

Another reason why it's bad that vets are leaving: how does GW advertise? Through word of mouth. Now all those vets are telling people not to play GW. Their only source of advertising has now turned negative. FYI that's not a good thing for GW.