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.

I'm fine with the way they set up the Decurion. What I'm not fine with was the way that Adepticon ruled that Flayed Ones and Deathmarks were limited in a Decurion (i.e. you could only bring one unit of each in a Decurion, treating each unit as if it were an entire Detachment).

I don't like 2 source. Yes, there is abuse cases, but having a 2 source limit seriously hurts "small detachment" codices, which are designed to be plugged into a bigger army. For example, would you take a single Vindicare or Culexus knowing that doing so prevents you from taking an entire Allied Detachment whatsoever? Occasionally yes, but a lot of times no.

Look at how the Khorne codex is set up. Yes, you can bring the Decurion setup, but if you want to just grab a couple of the formations and put them with an existing CSM, Daemons, or R&H list, you can't do that. I'm not a fan.

CtA allies, I can sorta understand. It was always kinda stupid in the form of fluff (although Necron/BA bros are gone) and it looks like we're going to eventually get books to make the actual fluffy lists work (like the rumored Genestealer Cults late this year/early next, for example). At Adepticon, I can't tell you the number of AdLances just stuck onto things or Flyrants chilling with anyone. Heck, the highest placing Necron list had a Farseer on a Bike! How messed up is that?

Requizen wrote:
I'm fine with the way they set up the Decurion. What I'm not fine with was the way that Adepticon ruled that Flayed Ones and Deathmarks were limited in a Decurion (i.e. you could only bring one unit of each in a Decurion, treating each unit as if it were an entire Detachment).

I don't like 2 source. Yes, there is abuse cases, but having a 2 source limit seriously hurts "small detachment" codices, which are designed to be plugged into a bigger army. For example, would you take a single Vindicare or Culexus knowing that doing so prevents you from taking an entire Allied Detachment whatsoever? Occasionally yes, but a lot of times no.

Look at how the Khorne codex is set up. Yes, you can bring the Decurion setup, but if you want to just grab a couple of the formations and put them with an existing CSM, Daemons, or R&H list, you can't do that. I'm not a fan.

CtA allies, I can sorta understand. It was always kinda stupid in the form of fluff (although Necron/BA bros are gone) and it looks like we're going to eventually get books to make the actual fluffy lists work (like the rumored Genestealer Cults late this year/early next, for example). At Adepticon, I can't tell you the number of AdLances just stuck onto things or Flyrants chilling with anyone. Heck, the highest placing Necron list had a Farseer on a Bike! How messed up is that?

I've yet to see a competitive GT where people pay up to a few hundred dollars in flight and hotel arrangements to care about "fluff", and it's bad for the tournament scene to start hurting players who make those lists, as well as it's one thing to modify rules that come up due to interaction of powers (such as 2+ rerollable) but another thing entirely to modify the basic core rule set as laid out in the 7th edition rulebook.

 djdarknoise wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I'm fine with the way they set up the Decurion. What I'm not fine with was the way that Adepticon ruled that Flayed Ones and Deathmarks were limited in a Decurion (i.e. you could only bring one unit of each in a Decurion, treating each unit as if it were an entire Detachment).

I don't like 2 source. Yes, there is abuse cases, but having a 2 source limit seriously hurts "small detachment" codices, which are designed to be plugged into a bigger army. For example, would you take a single Vindicare or Culexus knowing that doing so prevents you from taking an entire Allied Detachment whatsoever? Occasionally yes, but a lot of times no.

Look at how the Khorne codex is set up. Yes, you can bring the Decurion setup, but if you want to just grab a couple of the formations and put them with an existing CSM, Daemons, or R&H list, you can't do that. I'm not a fan.

CtA allies, I can sorta understand. It was always kinda stupid in the form of fluff (although Necron/BA bros are gone) and it looks like we're going to eventually get books to make the actual fluffy lists work (like the rumored Genestealer Cults late this year/early next, for example). At Adepticon, I can't tell you the number of AdLances just stuck onto things or Flyrants chilling with anyone. Heck, the highest placing Necron list had a Farseer on a Bike! How messed up is that?

I've yet to see a competitive GT where people pay up to a few hundred dollars in flight and hotel arrangements to care about "fluff", and it's bad for the tournament scene to start hurting players who make those lists, as well as it's one thing to modify rules that come up due to interaction of powers (such as 2+ rerollable) but another thing entirely to modify the basic core rule set as laid out in the 7th edition rulebook.

Do you really think that's ok though? Things like AdLance or TripFlyrants basically showed up in nearly half the tables I saw, and without some sort of restriction, that's likely to continue and possibly just grow.

I like seeing variety. I don't want to live in a world where playing in a tournament means that you have to plan for most of your opponents to be fielding 3 Knights, no matter what their base army is. It's kind of annoying, honestly.

Requizen wrote:

 djdarknoise wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I'm fine with the way they set up the Decurion. What I'm not fine with was the way that Adepticon ruled that Flayed Ones and Deathmarks were limited in a Decurion (i.e. you could only bring one unit of each in a Decurion, treating each unit as if it were an entire Detachment).

I don't like 2 source. Yes, there is abuse cases, but having a 2 source limit seriously hurts "small detachment" codices, which are designed to be plugged into a bigger army. For example, would you take a single Vindicare or Culexus knowing that doing so prevents you from taking an entire Allied Detachment whatsoever? Occasionally yes, but a lot of times no.

Look at how the Khorne codex is set up. Yes, you can bring the Decurion setup, but if you want to just grab a couple of the formations and put them with an existing CSM, Daemons, or R&H list, you can't do that. I'm not a fan.

CtA allies, I can sorta understand. It was always kinda stupid in the form of fluff (although Necron/BA bros are gone) and it looks like we're going to eventually get books to make the actual fluffy lists work (like the rumored Genestealer Cults late this year/early next, for example). At Adepticon, I can't tell you the number of AdLances just stuck onto things or Flyrants chilling with anyone. Heck, the highest placing Necron list had a Farseer on a Bike! How messed up is that?

I've yet to see a competitive GT where people pay up to a few hundred dollars in flight and hotel arrangements to care about "fluff", and it's bad for the tournament scene to start hurting players who make those lists, as well as it's one thing to modify rules that come up due to interaction of powers (such as 2+ rerollable) but another thing entirely to modify the basic core rule set as laid out in the 7th edition rulebook.

Do you really think that's ok though? Things like AdLance or TripFlyrants basically showed up in nearly half the tables I saw, and without some sort of restriction, that's likely to continue and possibly just grow.

I like seeing variety. I don't want to live in a world where playing in a tournament means that you have to plan for most of your opponents to be fielding 3 Knights, no matter what their base army is. It's kind of annoying, honestly.

The percentages were not half, but the truth of the matter is whatever restrictions you field, you're going to see "best of" lists being spammed and repeated, unless you change the bar every single event (in which case, good luck sustaining a happy attendee base).

My only concern with the poll was the focus on pluralities where obvious superceding majorities existed among the disparate response options, and the open-ended nature of it. Hard to know if people who felt passionately about any given thing would just leverage friends or coworkers, for instance, to vote repeatedly for the same option. Overall felt a little obfusticated or confusing. Might have been better to send out a poll only to previous attendees / those on their e-mail contact lists.

Requizen wrote:
Do you really think that's ok though? Things like AdLance or TripFlyrants basically showed up in nearly half the tables I saw, and without some sort of restriction, that's likely to continue and possibly just grow.

I like seeing variety. I don't want to live in a world where playing in a tournament means that you have to plan for most of your opponents to be fielding 3 Knights, no matter what their base army is. It's kind of annoying, honestly.

Welcome to competitive 40k.

I honestly would be fine if they kept CtA in the game, I don't want to come across as crusading against it. But personally I'm also fine with them restricting it. It's just not fun to me to see any list randomly have 3 Flyrants slapped onto it. But I also understand the people that have Genestealer Cult lists, or corrupted Eldar lists, etc.

Requizen wrote:
I honestly would be fine if they kept CtA in the game, I don't want to come across as crusading against it. But personally I'm also fine with them restricting it. It's just not fun to me to see any list randomly have 3 Flyrants slapped onto it. But I also understand the people that have Genestealer Cult lists, or corrupted Eldar lists, etc.

Again, you are now asking tournament players to specifically tailor (or now justify to someone's contentment) their lists because you (and others) do not like that a rule such as CtA exists in the main core set of rules.

By your example, we should also then restrict Battle Brothers because its not fluffy;

Dark Angels and Space Wolves
Eldar and Dark Eldar
Grey Knights and Anyone (because Grey Knights only show up for Chaos Incursions and then mindwipe or kill every survivor to have seen them)

If your army cannot deal with 3 flyrants, then perhaps it is not the CtA that is the issue, but you.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Results are in:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/03/30/itc-2015-season-policy-guideline-poll-results/

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Going with a less than 1% plurality and the stealth Decurion restriction both make me feel like the survey was nothing but a pretense.

Meh, it all looks more or less fine to me. I am a bit upset with the way they decided on the multiple detachments set. They went with the less logical approach. Oh, well I am still going to the BAO this year regardless.

I'm annoyed at the detachment and CtA rulings. CtA is basically only for fluff which doesn't make a bit of sense and invalidates armies where people have put in the time to create a consistant theme and now can't use them. And the detachment one is so obviously on the side of more than 2 it's insane.

Also using the word "formations" when they mean "detachments" is a bit annoying too. I actually voted one way based on the actual correct use of the word formations and turns out I voted against my intention....

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm annoyed at the detachment and CtA rulings. CtA is basically only for fluff which doesn't make a bit of sense and invalidates armies where people have put in the time to create a consistant theme and now can't use them. And the detachment one is so obviously on the side of more than 2 it's insane.

Also using the word "formations" when they mean "detachments" is a bit annoying too. I actually voted one way based on the actual correct use of the word formations and turns out I voted against my intention....

Agreed. I felt the whole poll was skewed (albeit unintentionally).

The options effectively split the results of the poll. The number of people wanting 3 or more detachments outnumbers the people who want 2 detachments, but they went with 2 detachments anyways.

The number of people wanting CtA allies (albiet with a theme or restriction enforced) outnumbered the people who didn't want CtA allies at all, but they went with no CtA allies anyways.

Then there was the whole formation / detachment thing, which is a whole 'nother wording mess.

As someone else put it, it's like if they asked in the poll if you would rather have salad, pizza with pepperoni, or pizza with sausage, and the votes (respectively) were 10, 9 and 9. The people wanted pizza, and they got salad instead.

Really, they need to do a followup poll to clarify some of the split options - and "not having time" isn't really a good reason to not follow through with that this whole thing, as it is a massively important factor in tournaments.

Just my 2 cents.

 djdarknoise wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I honestly would be fine if they kept CtA in the game, I don't want to come across as crusading against it. But personally I'm also fine with them restricting it. It's just not fun to me to see any list randomly have 3 Flyrants slapped onto it. But I also understand the people that have Genestealer Cult lists, or corrupted Eldar lists, etc.

Again, you are now asking tournament players to specifically tailor (or now justify to someone's contentment) their lists because you (and others) do not like that a rule such as CtA exists in the main core set of rules.

By your example, we should also then restrict Battle Brothers because its not fluffy;

Dark Angels and Space Wolves
Eldar and Dark Eldar
Grey Knights and Anyone (because Grey Knights only show up for Chaos Incursions and then mindwipe or kill every survivor to have seen them)

If your army cannot deal with 3 flyrants, then perhaps it is not the CtA that is the issue, but you.

It's not just the fluff. I prepped my Adepticon list knowing that people were just going to throw AdLance and Flyrants in, I was prepared for it and ended up liking my list as well. I did well against Flyrants, though I didn't play against them in a CtA role and I didn't hit any Knights either. I have no problem dealing with them, I just think it's kind of silly when every single army, regardless of codex, can just look at their list and go:

"You know what this list could use? 3 Knights or 3 FMCs. Let me just throw them in regardless of alliance level."

I personally don't think that's interesting. That's just my opinion.

Requizen wrote:
It's not just the fluff. I prepped my Adepticon list knowing that people were just going to throw AdLance and Flyrants in, I was prepared for it and ended up liking my list as well. I did well against Flyrants, though I didn't play against them in a CtA role and I didn't hit any Knights either. I have no problem dealing with them, I just think it's kind of silly when every single army, regardless of codex, can just look at their list and go:

"You know what this list could use? 3 Knights or 3 FMCs. Let me just throw them in regardless of alliance level."

I personally don't think that's interesting. That's just my opinion.

I can respect your opinion. My concern is that in banning CtA, or modifying 2++ or Invis or any other modification is that the very basic core of the game is changed, and at what point do we stop, and at what point do go back to playing a previous edition, and that's what I have an issue with. It's like when 6th came out and every FLGS tourney banned more than 1 flyer. Why?

The whole point of the various alliance levels is for people to make unconventional lists and to have fun. And to be honest, most of us that have been playing for a while know how to deal with them. You'll notice that most GT's in the past few months, not one Ad Lance made it to the finals. It's great for stomping out kids but the minute you play someone who knows how to beat them, you've lost.

As to your comment on the "what could this list use", that's just the unfortunate current nature of the game. With a new formation/dataslate/codex every few months, army construction is going to change. Daemonkin and the new Ad Mech units jjust came out this week. By the time we get to LVO in February we potentially could have 4-5 new books as well, so trying to determine what should and should not be allowed before we even know what's coming is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.

 djdarknoise wrote:

Requizen wrote:
It's not just the fluff. I prepped my Adepticon list knowing that people were just going to throw AdLance and Flyrants in, I was prepared for it and ended up liking my list as well. I did well against Flyrants, though I didn't play against them in a CtA role and I didn't hit any Knights either. I have no problem dealing with them, I just think it's kind of silly when every single army, regardless of codex, can just look at their list and go:

"You know what this list could use? 3 Knights or 3 FMCs. Let me just throw them in regardless of alliance level."

I personally don't think that's interesting. That's just my opinion.

I can respect your opinion. My concern is that in banning CtA, or modifying 2++ or Invis or any other modification is that the very basic core of the game is changed, and at what point do we stop, and at what point do go back to playing a previous edition, and that's what I have an issue with. It's like when 6th came out and every FLGS tourney banned more than 1 flyer. Why?

The whole point of the various alliance levels is for people to make unconventional lists and to have fun. And to be honest, most of us that have been playing for a while know how to deal with them. You'll notice that most GT's in the past few months, not one Ad Lance made it to the finals. It's great for stomping out kids but the minute you play someone who knows how to beat them, you've lost.

As to your comment on the "what could this list use", that's just the unfortunate current nature of the game. With a new formation/dataslate/codex every few months, army construction is going to change. Daemonkin and the new Ad Mech units jjust came out this week. By the time we get to LVO in February we potentially could have 4-5 new books as well, so trying to determine what should and should not be allowed before we even know what's coming is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.

That I can understand very well. I think it would be fine playing with the core Rulebook and no modifications, and it would be quite a fun time as well. That's what we do at my FLGS, and no one complains (though, we don't tryhard very much there).

But, the long and short of it is that GW is making a hobby game with some fun rules thrown on. They balance to a point, but if people want to run competitive tournaments for people who pay hundreds of dollars to fly to and stay at, then it's up to those people running it to make sure abuse cases are prevented or at least mostly mitigated. GW created the rules to make it so people could build what they wanted and throw dice with friends. They didn't specifically put the rules together to create a tournament level game, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

While modifying rules is a slippery slope, I think it's one that needs to be at least explored if not ventured upon, cautiously. I think that way, you create an environment that is most inclusive and fun for the most attendees. I could be wrong, as I'm still fairly new to the hobby and competitive scene as a whole, but that's just my feelings on the matter.

Requizen wrote:

 djdarknoise wrote:

Requizen wrote:
It's not just the fluff. I prepped my Adepticon list knowing that people were just going to throw AdLance and Flyrants in, I was prepared for it and ended up liking my list as well. I did well against Flyrants, though I didn't play against them in a CtA role and I didn't hit any Knights either. I have no problem dealing with them, I just think it's kind of silly when every single army, regardless of codex, can just look at their list and go:

"You know what this list could use? 3 Knights or 3 FMCs. Let me just throw them in regardless of alliance level."

I personally don't think that's interesting. That's just my opinion.

I can respect your opinion. My concern is that in banning CtA, or modifying 2++ or Invis or any other modification is that the very basic core of the game is changed, and at what point do we stop, and at what point do go back to playing a previous edition, and that's what I have an issue with. It's like when 6th came out and every FLGS tourney banned more than 1 flyer. Why?

The whole point of the various alliance levels is for people to make unconventional lists and to have fun. And to be honest, most of us that have been playing for a while know how to deal with them. You'll notice that most GT's in the past few months, not one Ad Lance made it to the finals. It's great for stomping out kids but the minute you play someone who knows how to beat them, you've lost.

As to your comment on the "what could this list use", that's just the unfortunate current nature of the game. With a new formation/dataslate/codex every few months, army construction is going to change. Daemonkin and the new Ad Mech units jjust came out this week. By the time we get to LVO in February we potentially could have 4-5 new books as well, so trying to determine what should and should not be allowed before we even know what's coming is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.

That I can understand very well. I think it would be fine playing with the core Rulebook and no modifications, and it would be quite a fun time as well. That's what we do at my FLGS, and no one complains (though, we don't tryhard very much there).

But, the long and short of it is that GW is making a hobby game with some fun rules thrown on. They balance to a point, but if people want to run competitive tournaments for people who pay hundreds of dollars to fly to and stay at, then it's up to those people running it to make sure abuse cases are prevented or at least mostly mitigated. GW created the rules to make it so people could build what they wanted and throw dice with friends. They didn't specifically put the rules together to create a tournament level game, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

While modifying rules is a slippery slope, I think it's one that needs to be at least explored if not ventured upon, cautiously. I think that way, you create an environment that is most inclusive and fun for the most attendees. I could be wrong, as I'm still fairly new to the hobby and competitive scene as a whole, but that's just my feelings on the matter.

I agree with most of this. Locally we run pretty much straight from the book. Very few restrictions unless we are using a specific events rules and missions so our players can prepare for the event. The problem is, I think, that "unbound" style tournament work on a local level due to the fact you're playing within a relatively set group of "friends" or at minimum "peers" and this discourages TFG moments and all out uber lists from showing up. Large GT style events are different animal. If you're likely going to be playing a bunch of people you don't know that well and there are large prizes and/or prestige on the line you're more likely to go full blown TFG when building a list. I sympathize with larger event TOs who have to balance out the fun with the competitive because they don't benefit from a more or less self policed group of players like a lot of local TOs have.

All in all I feel the larger events simply can't go pure BRB no matter how well it works locally; there is too much potential for major problems.

While I don't agree with everything. I will say at lest they asked. They could have made some odd ruling like with the Tyrannocyte gun ruling. As for saying people wanted more detachment. If you added them together maybe. They had 4 options only one can win. it doesn't matter if two are similar to each other. Could the voting format been done better yes. I have never seen a case where it couldn't have been better.





The big thing here is that there was voting allowed. They use a simple way of interpreting it and apply it over all the question.

There are some very smart people that play this game that can and have offered to help them do a better job next time. I hope they take that offer of help..


For now we have a rule set to use. Lets be glad for that and look forward to the year ahead.

This poll feels mighty rigged.

The CTA decision makes little sense outside of a fluff perspective. You are only harming the codices who have few allied options.

There should be a new vote for come the apocalypse allies and number of detachments to be taken.

Requizen wrote:
"You know what this list could use? 3 Knights or 3 FMCs. Let me just throw them in regardless of alliance level."

So it's fine to replace it with "you know what this list could use? 3 knights" for every imperial player, while removing that option from other players? If you want to limit the ability to throw in a group of powerful units then limit the number of detachments so that there isn't room for them, don't make the system favor the armies that, for fluff reasons, already have the best allies options even more than it already does.

No one ever complained when Tau and Eldar were BB .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
No one ever complained when Tau and Eldar were BB .

That's sarcasm right?

Yes .... It's so much fun playing the guy who is using Tau for whatever his codex is missing.... That takes a lot of skil.....

Haldir wrote:
Yes .... It's so much fun playing the guy who is using Tau for whatever his codex is missing.... That takes a lot of skil.....

I think the general point is there are SUPER DUPER unfluffy armies comprised entirely of Battle Brothers. There are also genuinely fluffy armies comprised of Eldar and Tyranid you can build (e.g., the Eldar explicitly fought in support of the Tyranids - while of course keeping their safe distance, almost like the one eye open rule's de facto result - in a Dawn of War game in order to ensure outcomes occurred which benefitted their craftworld in the long run). Arguments that CTA feels unfluffy because people use it to do things like tack some power units onto another army are sorta silly, since that's what people do with BB anyway. Arguments that it seems unfluffy are kinda silly, since there's 0 game-changing ruling being made to prevent equally unfluffy BB pairings.

Frankly, Reece should feel comfortable running his event(s) as he sees fit, and using a poll is often better than ruling on your own. So, more this is just in response to various folks who seem to think the ONLY unfluffy leveraging of power units that occurs in the game are with CTA ally situations. Since those alliances are now allowed by the game rules, ruling against them on fluff grounds is largely hypocritical unless you rule no army can use allies at all unless they have good fluff/theme behind their choices. It's openly contradictory.

Personally, I feel we should go back to the days when you had to take 40% of your points in troops, and caps on the other levels or you lost comp points.

It's pretty hilarious when people start tossing out fluffy reasons for CtA armies. It's not the end of the world.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's pretty hilarious when people start tossing out fluffy reasons for CtA armies. It's not the end of the world.

I see what you did there.

Still don't understand how Ranged "D" in bad and Melee "D" is good. Either take the "D" in the mouth or don't.

Can run KNIGHTS but not other titans.

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Still don't understand how Ranged "D" in bad and Melee "D" is good. Either take the "D" in the mouth or don't.

Can run KNIGHTS but not other titans.

There's a huge difference between needing to get in melee and getting shot at while you cross the board, and a Lynx shooting at you from 60" away. I'm sure you realize that.

This poll is frigging BS because it was up for 4 days!!!!!!

How the heck did people even know to vote. C'mon!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Requizen wrote:

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Still don't understand how Ranged "D" in bad and Melee "D" is good. Either take the "D" in the mouth or don't.

Can run KNIGHTS but not other titans.

There's a huge difference between needing to get in melee and getting shot at while you cross the board, and a Lynx shooting at you from 60" away. I'm sure you realize that.

Hmmmm Morkanaut vs Imperial Knight.....

Save the big D for 40k porn (apoc)

MVBrandt wrote:

Haldir wrote:
Yes .... It's so much fun playing the guy who is using Tau for whatever his codex is missing.... That takes a lot of skil.....

I think the general point is there are SUPER DUPER unfluffy armies comprised entirely of Battle Brothers. There are also genuinely fluffy armies comprised of Eldar and Tyranid you can build (e.g., the Eldar explicitly fought in support of the Tyranids - while of course keeping their safe distance, almost like the one eye open rule's de facto result - in a Dawn of War game in order to ensure outcomes occurred which benefitted their craftworld in the long run). Arguments that CTA feels unfluffy because people use it to do things like tack some power units onto another army are sorta silly, since that's what people do with BB anyway. Arguments that it seems unfluffy are kinda silly, since there's 0 game-changing ruling being made to prevent equally unfluffy BB pairings.

Frankly, Reece should feel comfortable running his event(s) as he sees fit, and using a poll is often better than ruling on your own. So, more this is just in response to various folks who seem to think the ONLY unfluffy leveraging of power units that occurs in the game are with CTA ally situations. Since those alliances are now allowed by the game rules, ruling against them on fluff grounds is largely hypocritical unless you rule no army can use allies at all unless they have good fluff/theme behind their choices. It's openly contradictory.

Completely agreed.

Personally I feel that the game was better off without allies at all... but now that they're part of the game, drawing distinctions against the core rules on pure 'fluff' lines is pretty bad. Equally powerful options are still available to all the BB / AOC pairings, meaning this is just a nerf to the armies with bad allies matrices - especially when people HAVE gone to the effort of creating a fluffy CTA theme (like the various Chaos Knight conversions around, or the Tau mind-controlling Tyranids). And its not as tough most tournament players are particularly thinking about their fluff when they put Grey Knights in Space Wolf Drop Pods or Fire Dragons in Venoms or any other ally pairing,.

Hulksmash wrote:I'm annoyed at the detachment and CtA rulings. CtA is basically only for fluff which doesn't make a bit of sense and invalidates armies where people have put in the time to create a consistant theme and now can't use them. And the detachment one is so obviously on the side of more than 2 it's insane.

Also using the word "formations" when they mean "detachments" is a bit annoying too. I actually voted one way based on the actual correct use of the word formations and turns out I voted against my intention....

I agree 100% I think its important to be able to separate fluff from competitive gt level events. There is nothing wrong with fluff, and I myself enjoy attending fluffly events from time to time, but fluff is a poor justification to justify hurting the competitive balance of the game. Banning CTA allies shifts the game back to bb deathstars which we had in 6th, and if you want to argue fluff, there are plenty of reasons gk shouldn't be battle brothers with sm and guard.

Not happy about the decurion ruling as well, think you hurt these armies who already have built in weakness.

LValx wrote:

The CTA decision makes little sense outside of a fluff perspective. You are only harming the codices who have few allied options.

There should be a new vote for come the apocalypse allies and number of detachments to be taken.

While I agree with this, you have to respect the fact they at least took a poll and asked everyone their opinion. This won't stop me from attending LVO, and BAO next year. That said I am very happy east coast events don't take polls like this and base their events on what the masses want. I understand making compromises (hence killdadephia is banning adlance) with people who don't like to be as competitive, but still enjoy attending gts. I just feel like banning cta allies is a step backwards for competitive game play.

Peregrine wrote:

Requizen wrote:
"You know what this list could use? 3 Knights or 3 FMCs. Let me just throw them in regardless of alliance level."

So it's fine to replace it with "you know what this list could use? 3 knights" for every imperial player, while removing that option from other players? If you want to limit the ability to throw in a group of powerful units then limit the number of detachments so that there isn't room for them, don't make the system favor the armies that, for fluff reasons, already have the best allies options even more than it already does.

Exactly, at the 2 source CTA events, you limit the craziness of imperial battle bros, while allowing races with limited to no battle bros to make some interesting and effective army combinations

Haldir wrote:Yes .... It's so much fun playing the guy who is using Tau for whatever his codex is missing.... That takes a lot of skil.....

Actually because everyone can ally with everyone and you can't just build the perfect list anymore, this game has been more about skill then it's ever been. I see people at the mid and bottom tables at gts with net lists all the time. There are just too many army combinations out there in a 2 source cta fw allowed format to build a list that counters them all.

I am however happy they limited sources to 2, I think once you get to 3+ the game gets silly. I think 2 source cta allies, fw allowed is perfect. I am even ok with non ranged d lord of wars.

 LValx wrote:
This poll feels mighty rigged.

The CTA decision makes little sense outside of a fluff perspective. You are only harming the codices who have few allied options.

There should be a new vote for come the apocalypse allies and number of detachments to be taken.

They should keep running polls until you are personally happy. Check.