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.

eleven11 wrote:
We don't need the cad at all

We really do, badly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

eleven11 wrote:
There is unbound, where you can take whatever you want.

And that wouldn't be an issue if this was a one player game. It takes two to tango though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

eleven11 wrote:
Cad is truly a relic. If groups would just open up to unbound, then the cad would be completely unnecessary.

Just curious, why do you think it existed in the first place? Hazard a guess?

eleven11 wrote:
We don't need the cad at all

There is unbound, where you can take whatever you want.

Cad is truly a relic. If groups would just open up to unbound, then the cad would be completely unnecessary. As it is, the cad confuses the gak out of new players.

If there were only codex detachments or unbound it would be easier.

What? CAD is easily understood.

You can take X amount of Y units which give you Z bonuses.
Peasy.

eleven11 wrote:
As it is, the cad confuses the gak out of new players.

Yeah, it's pretty shocking when you can't do literally whatever the hell you want.

 Crablezworth wrote:

eleven11 wrote:
As it is, the cad confuses the gak out of new players.

Yeah, it's pretty shocking when you can't do literally whatever the hell you want.

I mean, it's not like you can take this gem of a list using a CAD at all, right?:

HQ-Techmarine w/ 2 Servitors
Troops- 3x Grav Tacs (Max squad, Grav Cannon, Grav gun, Comb-grav)
Heavy Support- 2 Squadrons of 3 Thunderfires
1 LR with Chronus (Insert Techmarine here)

Except no one uses Unbound and GW knows this.

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

eleven11 wrote:
As it is, the cad confuses the gak out of new players.

Yeah, it's pretty shocking when you can't do literally whatever the hell you want.

I mean, it's not like you can take this gem of a list using a CAD at all, right?:

HQ-Techmarine w/ 2 Servitors
Troops- 3x Grav Tacs (Max squad, Grav Cannon, Grav gun, Comb-grav)
Heavy Support- 2 Squadrons of 3 Thunderfires
1 LR with Chronus (Insert Techmarine here)

I guess I fail to see how adding a bunch of extra free gak or giant models on top of an obnoxious list is somehow an improvement.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
GW is a model company. We will lose CAD and point costs in AoS... Age of Sicarius

That made me laugh greatly, the sheer sarcasm of it...then I almost teared up because I realise it might well happen.

Col. Dash wrote:
Except no one uses Unbound and GW knows this.

You just made Jervis cry, I hope you're happy.

 Talys wrote:
I disagree -- I think CAD is here to stay. Why:

Games Workshop has never replaced all of the Codices at the same time (don't we wish?).

Except for 3rd edition. BGB had rules for all factions (except, famously, for Squats). It was a complete reboot.

WFB had a complete rewrite for 5th (if I remember correctly) as well, with all the army books replaced by Ravening Hordes.

Except unbound gets rid of any formation bonuses, I like my objective secured and I like that people have to take an HQ and Troops. I'm also huge fan of what was in orks, DE, and Grey knights which is alternative force orgs rather than the decurian style of things. If players find a force org chart confusing their playing the wrong game.

 Crablezworth wrote:

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

eleven11 wrote:
As it is, the cad confuses the gak out of new players.

Yeah, it's pretty shocking when you can't do literally whatever the hell you want.

I mean, it's not like you can take this gem of a list using a CAD at all, right?:

HQ-Techmarine w/ 2 Servitors
Troops- 3x Grav Tacs (Max squad, Grav Cannon, Grav gun, Comb-grav)
Heavy Support- 2 Squadrons of 3 Thunderfires
1 LR with Chronus (Insert Techmarine here)

I guess I fail to see how adding a bunch of extra free gak or giant models on top of an obnoxious list is somehow an improvement.

I bring the cheese when the cheese is brought to me, but that list is just fething stupid looking at it

At least it's not Double Skyhammer.

flyers would eat it alive.

I'm pretty sure were going to lose the CAD and it will get replaced with the decurion type formation's in the codex's. Same for maelstrom and psychic's. If we get another quick burst of codex's this year that'll convince me.

I don't think it'll go away

Because reasons

They will Sigmar 40k. Just give it time.

AoS has been a resounding failure. They have lilkely lost more money on that then they were just keeping Fantasy moving along like it was. Both game stores I visit still play 8th and even have tournies in 8th edition and only one of them have anyone who have anything positive to say about the few games of AoS they played. GW makes bad decisions quite often but even they are smart enough not to destroy their money maker by turning it into a game system that has already failed.

My real question will be answered when the next 40k FW book comes out and if it is adjusted to take into account formations instead of being forced to take a CAD to use them. Just as an example, writing things like "Tau Hazard suits are a 0-1 choice in a Retaliation Cadre." That kind of thing. I guess we will see when the corsairs come out if it isn't out already.

 Eldarain wrote:
The combination of the 2 years or less lifespan of editions/codexes and the fact Jervis is at the helm puts it somewhere in the next 4-6 months.

That's funny, because both Chaos books are now 3+ years old...

eleven11 wrote:
We don't need the cad at all

There is unbound, where you can take whatever you want.

Cad is truly a relic. If groups would just open up to unbound, then the cad would be completely unnecessary. As it is, the cad confuses the gak out of new players.

If there were only codex detachments or unbound it would be easier.

The CAD is pretty straightforward. I see a lot more questions about how formations work than asking how the CAD works.

I wouldn't call CAD a relic. The idea of list restrictions exist in most games. The way GW does (did) it might not be the same as other games but I'd call unbound the abnormality in the wider hobby.

 Talys wrote:
I disagree -- I think CAD is here to stay. Why:

Games Workshop has never replaced all of the Codices at the same time (don't we wish?). That means that with 8e 40k, there will be plenty of older rules that will still be used, possibly for years before GW gives a refresh.

Third Edition completely overhauled the army selection criteria, introduced the Force Organisation Chart, eliminated the Movement stat, and necessitated printing new army lists for every single faction (except Necrons, who were too new).

Col. Dash wrote:
Except no one uses Unbound and GW knows this.

GW doesn't do market research, at all, so they have no fething clue how people play their game.

The name may change, but 40k has had One HQ Two Troops since 3rd Edition. So long as HQ and Troops exist as battlefield roles, there will be a detachment to field them for [nearly] all factions.

Quote me in two years when they screw this up too.