Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ghastli wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

This is where the logic against multiple CADs fails for me. It is somewhat new, since doubling the force org was around in 6th, but it is now just another part of the BRB. I wouldn't go telling someone, "No you can't cast invisibility. Why? Because I think it's cheesy," because hey, it is in the BRB.

I've always had this attitude. I really wish I could continue to have it in 7th, but at unbound, I just had to draw the line. The ridiculousness possible there isn't fun to play, isn't fluffy, doesn't look cool set up on the field, and more likely than not is really unbalanced. Either OP as hell by bringing max amounts of their OP gak, or underpowered by bringing a bunch of random gak and missing out on both objective secured and Warlord trait re-rolls. It's ridiculous to accept.

And now that this has been done, and GW pimping of the game to squeeze every last coin out of their customers has forced me to draw a line, I can't help but also draw it slightly further, and saying feth multiple CADs, since all the same issues I have are right there just to a lesser extent than unbound. Multiple CADs at 2k+ makes sense. Below, is once again a money grab, recognising they have released terribly balanced products and wisely deciding to roll with it by adding an outlet for tournament to cash in on allowing people to spam the worst balanced unit in their des.

I don't cross it out it because i feel like it will result in me losing more often. As you can see I main Tyranids, the ally less race, my army would probably benefit from it more than any other race in the game. With that in mind, I understand that it adds nothing sensible to what should be a game of units and counters and strategy and we'll thought list building and creative strategies. It instead takes the game just one further step in a direction nobody should be supporting.

I draw the line at CADs below 2000 pts, and unbound. GW can write all the gameplay rules as badly as they want and I'll soldier through them all, for the first time ever I'm going against the BRB just for these two terrible game structure implementations.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

Yeah coz God forbid people have legitimate likes and dislikes They must just be complaining instead of adapting. It's entirely not possible that people can adapt but simply don't like the change. /sarcasm

I think there is a little of column a and a little of column b going on when it comes to GW stuff and the internet. Yes people have their legitimate likes/dislikes but when put online most things are run to the far extremes with no middle ground. And sometimes I'm pretty sure people do just complain to complain.

QFT. Most people that dislike flyers or LoW either a.) haven't played against them, or b.) haven't been able to adapt. Usually its c.) people like to whine and moan about life.

I don't see the point in a FoC is there's nothing really limiting about it.

The whole idea behind the chart in 5th was that it limited what you could bring both in points and in number of slots per type. Now, there's no incentive to work around the chart and explore the codex to fill it out at higher or even mid level point games.

The chart and putting units into different slots is largely irrelevant now. If I want more of 'X', all I need to do is bring more troops I already need and HQs I could already use more of.

That's my problem with multiple CADs. Its lazy rules writing, creates far too many balance issues, and honestly doesn't offer much in the way of creating new, original and creative lists.

The game would have been far better off by offering the player different FoCs for different styles of army, similar to what the HH books do. Allows for more variety, but is easier to balance and still forces the player to make some real choices when list building.

The problem with Unbound is that some things you should be able to do, but can't without it. Perfect example: I want to do an army based around the idea of a 1st company strike force sent to seize a crucial objective in some battle; only the elite of the elite can undertake this mission since it's success will clinch a victory for the Imperium and there needs to be little or no chance of failure.

Without Unbound, how do I make an army consisting only of Sternguard, Vanguard and/or Terminators and related armory to represent this concept? Tactical Squads and Scouts have no place in my theme (they're off elsewhere in the battle), but the units that are are not Troops, so with the FOC i'd have an illegal army. Perhaps that should be on me, but I have a theme and want to run with it, so while overall I don't like Unbound I can appreciate the theme variety that it opens up, even if all the dregs come along with it.

Thing is for every douchebag who wants to abuse Unbound to take six Riptides, three Wraithknights, a couple of Heldrakes and a Titan (and LoW are another thing entirely as evidenced by the vehemence of certain people that they should be considered all the time) there's the person that wants to play something fluffy but can't within the FOC. And that's the biggest problem with Unbound; there's no restrictions so you can equally get the fluffy person or the d-bag, and the fluffy person might be considered guilty by association e.g. If you refuse to play Unbound because it's cheesy, do I have to beg and plead to get you to play my 1st Company Strike Force since it's not cheese but fluffy?

 Ghaz wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
You can get plenty of cheese with one CAD.

The wouldn't it stand to reason if you multiply the number of CADs you're also multiplying the cheese

Not as much as you'd think, because points still have to be spent on troops to make it a bound list (unless you're unbound, in which case this argument is useless), so basically the cheese will not become insanely multiplied, only marginally. Perhaps people don't want extra heavy support choices and are actually using their 2nd CAD for more troops or fast attack choices because they like them?

It's a slippery slope argument because when everyone has access to do it then it kind of becomes irrelevant if people do it.

It wouldn't change the game vastly at all.

13045273 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
You can get plenty of cheese with one CAD.

The wouldn't it stand to reason if you multiply the number of CADs you're also multiplying the cheese

Not as much as you'd think, because points still have to be spent on troops to make it a bound list (unless you're unbound, in which case this argument is useless), so basically the cheese will not become insanely multiplied, only marginally. Perhaps people don't want extra heavy support choices and are actually using their 2nd CAD for more troops or fast attack choices because they like them?

I could run sentinels of terra with 4 mininum tac squads and 12 units of grav cents. That's 140 point troop tax to get access to 6 more cent squads. Is that really what kind of lists you want to see? If you take 2 minimum squads of troops for any army, it's a relatively small point tax to then be able to spam all kinds of ridiculous stuff while still getting re rolls on the warlord table and objective secured.

If you're building your list to win, then by all means splurge out grav cents all over the table. You'll lose all your friends but at least you'd win.

It definitely depends on how much you exploit the extra CAD whether your opponents have a real problem with it. For example, Toofast would probably get a lot of people refusing to play his unimaginative list (although I for one would like to try and take this on)

Personally, I don't have an issue with multi-CAD. I want to soon be able to field this little number...

HQs: 380
Tyranid Prime w/ Flesh Hooks
Tyranid Prime
Tyranid Prime

Elites: 840
Haruspex
Haruspex
Haruspex
3x Pyrovores
3x Pyrovores
3x Pyrovores

Troops: 780
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers
5x Rippers

In my local meta we have trip tide, serpent spam and adamantium lances running around so I don't think anyone would bat an eye. I've seen a guy bring nothing but tranny c'tans and not be turned down.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To give you a mild example, an IG army running 2 HQ's and 4 troops with 1 CAD has access to 3 HS slots, but you can split that into 2 CAD's and run 6 HS slots, giving you access to more heavy tanks or allowing you to run the same number of heavy tanks more effectively as you won't have to squadron them.

This is literally exactly what the OP of this thread is doing.

Riddle me this: why do squadrons exist? Why does someone deserve to run more than 3 HS tanks without squadronning? Just because 7E says you can? What would people have done in 6E? Why not just squadron instead of cheesing in a fourth tank? This is from the army that already gets platoons.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To give you a mild example, an IG army running 2 HQ's and 4 troops with 1 CAD has access to 3 HS slots, but you can split that into 2 CAD's and run 6 HS slots, giving you access to more heavy tanks or allowing you to run the same number of heavy tanks more effectively as you won't have to squadron them.

This is literally exactly what the OP of this thread is doing.

Riddle me this: why do squadrons exist? Why does someone deserve to run more than 3 HS tanks without squadronning? Just because 7E says you can? What would people have done in 6E? Why not just squadron instead of cheesing in a fourth tank? This is from the army that already gets platoons.

Who cares? Honestly as it's legal (and everything is thanks to unbound) then its fair. Just because someone can take that extra tank doesn't mean it's unbeatable.

I think the point is you shouldn't be able to run a list that's basically unbound list construction but still get the benefits of being battle forged.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To give you a mild example, an IG army running 2 HQ's and 4 troops with 1 CAD has access to 3 HS slots, but you can split that into 2 CAD's and run 6 HS slots, giving you access to more heavy tanks or allowing you to run the same number of heavy tanks more effectively as you won't have to squadron them.

This is literally exactly what the OP of this thread is doing.

Riddle me this: why do squadrons exist? Why does someone deserve to run more than 3 HS tanks without squadronning? Just because 7E says you can? What would people have done in 6E? Why not just squadron instead of cheesing in a fourth tank? This is from the army that already gets platoons.

In a game where another army's dedicated transport can do what my heavy support choices do, for cheaper and from further away, I think I should be able to take just as many heavy support choices. Obviously I'm picking on wave serpents again, but they seem to fit my argument nicely.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

This is literally exactly what the OP of this thread is doing.

Riddle me this: why do squadrons exist? Why does someone deserve to run more than 3 HS tanks without squadronning? Just because 7E says you can? What would people have done in 6E? Why not just squadron instead of cheesing in a fourth tank? This is from the army that already gets platoons.

Squadrons exist to represent the ability of coordinated units of tanks to spread out damage results. They also exist to allow people to run armies that do not have the tactical flexibility to split their fire, such as armies modeled after mid World War 2 Soviet armored tactics.

Someone can run more than 3 HS tanks without squadroning because they wish to reflect/utilize more advanced tactics.

And you've been able to run a tank company without squadroned Leman Russes since third edition. First it was the Armored Company (3rd), then the Armored Company (4th), then the Armored Battlegroup (5th), then the Armored Battlegroup (6th-7th).

I've never squadroned my Leman Russes in over a decade of playing the game, and I always run ten.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To give you a mild example, an IG army running 2 HQ's and 4 troops with 1 CAD has access to 3 HS slots, but you can split that into 2 CAD's and run 6 HS slots, giving you access to more heavy tanks or allowing you to run the same number of heavy tanks more effectively as you won't have to squadron them.

This is literally exactly what the OP of this thread is doing.

Sort of yeah.

Riddle me this: why do squadrons exist?

Originally they only were used for lighter vehicles, stuff like Speeders and War Walkers and Sentinels in 3E and 4E, it wasn't until part way through 5E that they introduced heavier vehicles so people could still sort of play Armored Company armies after they removed the old list from usage, before FW came back out with a fixed Armored Battlegroup list.

Why does someone deserve to run more than 3 HS tanks without squadronning? Just because 7E says you can?

Basically yeah. That said, one could make the same case of Land Raiders as dedicated Transports...

What would people have done in 6E? Why not just squadron instead of cheesing in a fourth tank?

Probably because the squadron rules suck That said, the Armored Company rules and IA Armored Battlegroup rules have allowed for fielding large non-squadroned tank armies for years.

This is from the army that already gets platoons.

...when have platoons ever been anything remotely abuseable or cheesy or anything of the sort?

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem with Unbound is that some things you should be able to do, but can't without it. Perfect example: I want to do an army based around the idea of a 1st company strike force sent to seize a crucial objective in some battle; only the elite of the elite can undertake this mission since it's success will clinch a victory for the Imperium and there needs to be little or no chance of failure.

Without Unbound, how do I make an army consisting only of Sternguard, Vanguard and/or Terminators and related armory to represent this concept? Tactical Squads and Scouts have no place in my theme (they're off elsewhere in the battle), but the units that are are not Troops, so with the FOC i'd have an illegal army. Perhaps that should be on me, but I have a theme and want to run with it, so while overall I don't like Unbound I can appreciate the theme variety that it opens up, even if all the dregs come along with it.

Thing is for every douchebag who wants to abuse Unbound to take six Riptides, three Wraithknights, a couple of Heldrakes and a Titan (and LoW are another thing entirely as evidenced by the vehemence of certain people that they should be considered all the time) there's the person that wants to play something fluffy but can't within the FOC. And that's the biggest problem with Unbound; there's no restrictions so you can equally get the fluffy person or the d-bag, and the fluffy person might be considered guilty by association e.g. If you refuse to play Unbound because it's cheesy, do I have to beg and plead to get you to play my 1st Company Strike Force since it's not cheese but fluffy?

But that's blaming GW for player douchebaggery. The problem is, fluff players want the ability to make those odd army builds that combine multiple armies into one task force (see pretty much any Imperium fluff build), so GW gave them Unbound and multiple CADs. This is a win-win for GW, it gives their target audience the flexibility to do whatever they want, and that encourages sales because a Space Marine player might want to field a small AM contingent with his existing army without having to go whole hog. But lo and behold, the d-bag players see what was given and think, "Sweet, I can field completely broken armies of 6 Riptides and 6 Wraithknights to make my opponent cry like a little girl". So the common answer is to limit the fluff player so that the d-bag doesn't get the ability to break the game further? Doesn't really seem fair to the fluff player. A more sensible approach would be to simply ask to see the army list, if it looks like a d-bag list, don't play against it. The community needs to take some responsibility for the meta instead of just blaming GW for giving us options.

If Games Workshop hadn't split the codex's like they did, this wouldnt even be a discussion. All the options would be IN the codex proper and then we'd have no NEED of multiple CAD'S etc...

But they did. Denying it is like denying we need mney to live. GW further wanted to reinforce the idea of Formations on us. So whether we WOULD choose to build lists with mulitple detachments and/or Formations or not, there seems very legitimate reasons for players to now NEED the Multiple Detachments, just to play their NORMAL list. Likewise, there are reasons, which we didn't cause but that are now manifest, to need formations. Not sure how much longer we can deny that truth even if we dont like it.

So in the end, this isnt about players being "iffy". It's now about that this is the new landscape of list construction and its going to continue.

So TO's are going to have tough decisions because at the price GW products are at, can we in good consciounce tell people to go spend $300 more to try and make their current list conform or are we going to live in the now? Tough call.

As it is, the TO's are adopting incorrect guidelines knowingly in order to stop munchkins. The rules pretty clearly tell you that allies, for example, cant come from your own Book. Yet for my Ambassadorial Tournament and others, they are using some LVO/BAO guidelines that are directly contradictory to the rules. in the case of mine its for a pretty good reason (see the website for details) but most are doing it because they just like it.

I think TO's for NORMAL tournies are going to have to loosen up on this. The game has changed, 85% of it for the better and although its definitely going to take time for ME to adjust and gauge the munchkinism in the local meta here as a TO, I think we might have to let the rules play as they are.

To be clear, again: I have never really been excited about seeing SIX Longfangs squads show up in a list. Its that kind of crap that makes TO's leary because the TO's job is to make sure people want to come back NEXT year! I know Six Longfangs is GOING to happen if we let loose the dogs of war. But I see progressively little choice. The troops tax isn't totally insignificant now that everything scores. I think that will limit the extent of munchkinism. Eliminating it seems a pipe dream.

Better restrictions though are not allowing Forge World and Escalation type units. If its in the codex, as Ive often said, okay. If not... meh. And so... They make the Assassins a Dataslate. GRR... Assassins are another proof that we are going to have to accept m,ultiple detachments.

 ghastli wrote:
What was odd was the reaction of people at my FLGS. A surprising number of people were somewhat put off by the fact that I had more than one CAD.

One of the reasons why, is because people REFUSE to change and want to play the way they want to play. Just like how now after 2 or is it 3 edition changes now, people are still saying 0-1, 0-3 choices when there is no such thing as a 0 (zero) choice anymore. Some people just refuse no matter what others do.

Just like here in Canada, when people play football, they use 4 downs, instead of 3 downs, like how real men play. Seriously though, people need that extra down so it's easier to play. They need the shorter field because it's easier to get a touchdown, don't have to travel as much. We are basically raised as Americans so that is what relate to the most because we mostly watch NFL instead of CFL. It is what people are use to. So people who continue to play with 40K are stuck in 4th/5th edition and just don't want to change, for better or for worse.

You know, I might have more sympathy for the multiple CAD people if just once someone took 6 or more of the more mediocure to poor units in the game instead of the strongest.

A theme is a theme right? Scout sentinels and Mandrakes for everybody.

I use Mandrakes!

As an ork player I like to bring 2 CADs mainly so i can have more painboyz for my footslogging boyz and maybe grab something to go with my lootas, lobbas, and battlewagon (like some kans, looted wagon, or gitz).

What i feel really stinks about the arbitrary etiquette/restrictions is that people can take formations with 6 broadsides and a riptide NP or pull out tourny level cheese in an eldar serpent spam, seer star with wraithknights, etc. But wanting to bring forgeworld grot tanks or double FOC for more painboyz makes you a power gamer.

The main issue is abusing broken cheese and yet what constitutes broken cheese really varries between each army. Eldar doesn't need double FOCs, forgeworld, or Lords of War to make broken lists and yet other armies that have more reasonable stuff would need access to those options to compete get snubbed. Hell armies that can't reliably take allies get the short end while the imperium for example can mix and match codexes/dataslates to get more FOC slots and pick out the best options.

I don't mean to sound like im ranting or anything but i just find the random abstract line to make little sense when all it does is limit the options of some codexes while others still have plenty of powerful units or combos to make. To truly fix things a wave of balance changes need to be made to every codex at once to tone down some of the outlyer problems and then figuring out the balance limitations that should be put in place for allies, formations, forgeworld, lords of war, etc.

As it currently stands it just feels like heavy limitations will keep the same few codexes on top and keep the others from ever seeing the light of competitive play. People will still cheese or min/max regardless of the limitations but restricting things will just keep it more to the same cheese / power builds we are use to seeing.

There is no right answer except for GW to actually put in the work to fix the mess they created but getting that to happen is going to require a radical change like having the top execs getting the axe or a company buyout to kick start a refocus on balance game rules instead of just selling pretty models.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because for every person who brings an army list like that, the perception goes, someone will bring:

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

and then just spam malefic summons.

(and that's not even a good summon spam list)

Well, this is really the list nobody wants to face unless one runs a similar one.