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.

There is a huge divide between AP4 and AP3 weapons, a deliberate gulf created to reinforce that "3+" magic that causes that jump in AP to result in a bigger cost increase than any other AP jump in the game. One can look at the IG codex for a pretty stark example, gaining AP3 over AP4 is apparently enough to warrant losing the "torrent" ability and take a cost increase between the Hellhound and Banewolf. Between a Leman Russ with an AP4 cover save ignoring non-ordnance large blast weapon (allowing it to move and fire everything), takes a 30pt price increase, and loses the ignores cover ability and the benefits of Heavy to get that AP3 and a bit better AT ability.

The "3+" sv is a very "sacred" thing in the minds of many players, despite such units being notably cheaper and better equipped now than in previous editions (a 6E marine is 14pts with two ranged weapons and grenades and Chapter/Combat tactics, while a 4E marine is 15pts with one ranged weapon and no grenades or Tactics rules). To what extent it effects gameplay may be debatable, but it's definitely there, and most 4+sv infantry aren't proportionally cheaper relative to the much greater capability and availability of the AP4 weaponry out there (hence why you usually don't see many Scion units in games, Dire Avengers tend to be taken in minimum sized squads, etc with only a few units like Fire Warriors seeing routine use in large numbers).

 Formosa wrote:

As I own a large chunk of each army I don't see it this way myself but I think I understand what your saying, but since marines are expensive in points and pay for these abilities, should not such counters also pay points to negate this bonus?

They do. As several others in this thread have pointed out, the difference in price for any AP3 weapon and it's AP4 counterpart is significant. All of the Lord of War type units that are being banned are quite expensive too. They would be paying those points to negate that bonus.

elotar wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


We got rid of all 2++ rr entirely

DE Archons are so OP...

1 isn't OP. 10 DE Archons with a re-rollable 2+ save would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Basically, I feel justified telling minority groups of players that my tournaments don't support X rule/model because the aim of my tournaments is to raise money, and if the best way to attract more players unfortunately leaves a small set of players out, so be it.

Yes, and this is exactly the problem: there are a lot of people who have no interest at all in making legitimate balance changes and just want to ban the stuff they don't like, and TOs like you encourage them simply because there are lots of them. 40k is never going to be a serious competitive game until people get over this idea of banning whole categories of rules for questionable reasons and start fixing balance changes the right way.

Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that?

No, because the Baneblade is a mediocre unit that doesn't need nerfing. The only reason banning it is even being considered is that it wasn't in 5th edition.

Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.

Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.

Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.

So run your own.

FWIW it looks like the Trios event at NOVA will - for the singles list component - be completely Unbound.

For the Narrative Nightfighters (4 games, can be done along with the GT or other daytime activities) and Narrative Warlords (7 games, GT level event done during days and nights, super relaxed schedule) events at the NOVA, we'll be using Battle Forged Army construction with no further restrictions (at 2k).

The Narrative allows Forgeworld and Heresy, Trios allows Forgeworld.

For those who swear up and down that they'll attend a tourney if only it offered the format they wanted

The Trios is more casual in nature, while the Narrative is custom tailored to each player type, with balanced, fun missions and pairing / structural components aimed at giving competitive/hardcore-list-focused players as much freedom to participate as casual/narrative without ruining the experience for either.

Seemed relevant to share this.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.

Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.

So run your own.

This is out of the realm of possibility for most people even if they wanted to. Most people don't have the resources to put on a major event or a venue from which to host it, nor the time to organize it.

It would probably be less of an issue if rules and trends from such events didn't trickle down to local and store events, but they do. The decisions large events make often end up having an impact on people living very far from these events who would never attend them. A good example is the BAO, a couple local stores in my area often use rules from events like the BAO or NOVA rules and missions for their leagues and tournaments (or in the past used Adepticon rules), and if X wasn't allowed there, it won't be allowed in the local events.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.

Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.

So run your own.

This is out of the realm of possibility for most people even if they wanted to. Most people don't have the resources to put on a major event or a venue from which to host it, nor the time to organize it.

It would probably be less of an issue if rules and trends from such events didn't trickle down to local and store events, but they do. The decisions large events make often end up having an impact on people living very far from these events who would never attend them. A good example is the BAO, a couple local stores in my area often use rules from events like the BAO or NOVA rules and missions for their leagues and tournaments (or in the past used Adepticon rules), and if X wasn't allowed there, it won't be allowed in the local events.

This is largely not the case, because not every tournament needs to be the BAO or NOVA. If you wanted to run an event you would find a way. Either by running events at your local store, or renting out a small hall for the event, or working with a convention to do so. If someone wants to run their own event they can do it. The issue is most people don't want to run events, they want to play, but they want to play the way they want to play, not the way that the organizer rules.

Ummm.. no.

Running an event is a major financial and labor intensive endeavor. That filters out most people from attempting them. You have to line up a venue, prize support, and the terrain, It is a HUGE undertaking. Most startup events do not want to even consider rocking the boat and therefor play monkey see monkey do,, as Vaktathi described. Reinventing the wheel takes time and not everyone has access to the large crew to test and plan rules changes or the internet celebrity / established clout as an organizer to make large numbers of people accept that. Really, in the USA, it boils down to BAO setting the tone in the west, Nova in the east, and Adepticon everywhere in between. For better or worse, those events are more or less the format that gets aped by everyone else in some form.

Even a one day event requires that you have a store willing to host it nearby and some sort of scoring system that will not drive people away. A lot of these events are often used by participants to prepare for the larger ones and getting rules changes out to the potential attendants is a logistical pain in the butt for one day TOs. Often, these guys are also running the counter at their FLGS, so they barely have time to herd the cats and keep scores, let along try and play armchair rules designer.

Running any event is really thankless work that you do for love of the game.

I run events, so I am aware exactly how much work it is. If your local shop owner is too busy to organize stuff offer to do it for him. IME he won't mind (I've done it.). Or find a convention near you that does gaming, and offer to run events there, no need to put out money for the space, no need to line up a venue.

It is a lot of work, but it can be done, sure plenty of events just copy the major events...because that is what players generally want in many cases (though not always, I have run my own missions most of the time.).

If though the suggestion is that running a FW event or LOW event will drive people away....then why complain that people don't do it?

I'm not saying it is easy organizing events, it is not, and I always lose money on mine. But unless you want to do the same, don't complain when people run events you don't like. Or go find events that you do like.

Essentially if the argument is "You should run events they way I want, even though it seems most others don't want them that way, because I'm to cheap/lazy/want to play not TO."

I have no sympathy for you.

I'm not saying, go out and create the next NOVA. I'm saying talk to your local store owner and see if he is willing to let you run an event. Most are IME. If yours aren't I guess that sucks.

Most local stores run their own events, organizing your own event at their place usually isn't an option (not always, but usually).

Putting the effort into working with a con to rent out hall space or whatnot is a big undertaking for someone that just wants to run Unit X or Army List Y in an event, where they then wouldn't be able to play because they'd be running it.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not stellar advice for someone who just wants to run play with their toys.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most local stores run their own events, organizing your own event at their place usually isn't an option (not always, but usually).

Putting the effort into working with a con to rent out hall space or whatnot is a big undertaking for someone that just wants to run Unit X or Army List Y in an event, where they then wouldn't be able to play because they'd be running it.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not stellar advice for someone who just wants to run play with their toys.

I think "go run your own" is probably not super reasonable. That said, in my own experience (from before I had a "name" with NOVA and so could get local stores to do what I wanted due to rep gain and the promise of an attendance/customer draw), most stores would run or support you running an event if it was well-conceived and well-supported by your design. This doesn't require anything other than time and commitment with a passion to run an event you believe in. In fact, that's what got us all into the craziness of running massive, super expensive, and soul-draining cons haha.

Either way, I think there are three kinds of people broadly speaking who comment on these threads from the perspective of wishing tournaments were run more the way "they wanted," and I wish people would be more clear about which they are.

1) Players who want to attend tournaments but strongly feel they need to be at least somewhat closer to the army constructs they personally run. I think this is actually more rare, because I think most people who really want to go to tournaments simply do. Could be wrong.
2) Players who are irritated that their local meta / events are influenced by tournaments, and either find the influence to hurt how they want to play the game, or (just as often) simply don't like an external influence beyond their control affecting how they play their game.
3) Players who play how they want, when they want, and also never plan to attend tournaments, and are simply critiquing anything they can find to critique because it's the internet and everyone has a voice.

In the case of #'s 1 and 2, there is merit to both making it clear how you are (and backing it up with action), and to trying to work your own formats or concepts up that are meaningful, well-thought-out, and consider at least a few more people other than just yourself when idealizing constructs and restrictions (or their absence). Hell, you'll get my personal shout out form one organizer to another if that's worth a damn (might not be). In the case of #3, knock it off ... you're not helping anything.

I'll also reiterate - if you want major organized events with either competitive or casual elements, inclusive of unbound or battleforged without restriction or battleforged with restriction, we've explicitly gone out of our way to provide all of these at NOVA this year. If you're serious about being ready to attend big tournaments/cons "if only" ... well, there you have it. Money where mouth. I have a lot of sympathy for #'s 1 and 2 above ... that's why I started the NOVA, frankly, in the very beginning (long since morphed, my reasons for doing whatever we do). This is also part of why we've created multiple major-event formats at NOVA for this year - so players can point to formal, highly professional packets, missions, structures, force org restrictions or absences, etc., at a major Con OTHER than just the GT format as support for doing something different than that locally ... should it not be their personal cup of tea.

I think this post became rambling, but ... it's the internets, and everyone has a voice, even tired overspoken TOs like me.

It does appear that most major events are having to offer an increasingly large array of events and playtypes to satisfy the userbase.

I think this speaks to the increasingly "fractured" nature of the playerbase, some wanting to go whole hog allowing everything in without any sort of regulation on one end, and others that would prefer to play a more 5th edition style game on the other, and everything in between. These end up being very different things, and it's surprising how much the inclusion or exclusion of something will cause people to feel apprehensive. I personally feel this way with FW stuff, if I can't run my DKoK Assault Brigade, I won't attend the event. Others feel that the inclusion of FW means the event will be a cheesefest and will stay away just for that. You can replace FW with LoW's or Tactical Objectives or Force Orgs or whatever.

Ultimately it's clear that the is a less coherent vision of what "a game of 40k" really means, and it's obviously difficult to satisfy that as a TO.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most local stores run their own events, organizing your own event at their place usually isn't an option (not always, but usually).

Putting the effort into working with a con to rent out hall space or whatnot is a big undertaking for someone that just wants to run Unit X or Army List Y in an event, where they then wouldn't be able to play because they'd be running it.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not stellar advice for someone who just wants to run play with their toys.

See the thing for me with that is, ok so you want to play with your toys, well do something about it other than Bitching. Honestly as a TO Bitching to me about something gets the least useful response. Talk to your local shop (or rent out a cheap hall, they exist in most places assuming you have the ability to supply some level of terrain.) for an afternoon. If your shop is anti-someone else running an event (which is silly really as it is free advertisement if things are run well.), that sucks. If not running an event with the set up you would like to see does help you play with your Toys. Maybe not at that events, but it shows people what things will be like, and removes the "SCARY" from things they don't play. Is it no work at all. Nope, it'll be work. But you can have an impact, and if other people like your format locally, guess what other people will run it (happened for some of my missions at some local events), then when those people run things similar to what you are doing. Guess what you get to play with your toys.

As Mike said, its not easy, nor is it free. But IMO it has a better chance of succeeding than coming on the internet, and complianing that other people aren't willing to risk, their time, money, and repuation on running things they way you want them too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:


It does appear that most major events are having to offer an increasingly large array of events and playtypes to satisfy the userbase.

I think this speaks to the increasingly "fractured" nature of the playerbase, some wanting to go whole hog allowing everything in without any sort of regulation on one end, and others that would prefer to play a more 5th edition style game on the other, and everything in between. These end up being very different things, and it's surprising how much the inclusion or exclusion of something will cause people to feel apprehensive. I personally feel this way with FW stuff, if I can't run my DKoK Assault Brigade, I won't attend the event. Others feel that the inclusion of FW means the event will be a cheesefest and will stay away just for that. You can replace FW with LoW's or Tactical Objectives or Force Orgs or whatever.

Ultimately it's clear that the is a less coherent vision of what "a game of 40k" really means, and it's obviously difficult to satisfy that as a TO.

100% agree with this. It is hard to impossible to please everybody. As a TO you need to try to please as many people as you can, which often means making decisions you may feel differently about. For me I would generally include FW in my events, but every time I bring it up, I get lots of push back on it. So I leave it out. Because as an organizer I'm not willing to eat the bill if people don't show up any more than I already do.

Okay each TO needs to set their Tourney up their way. The player base can chose to attend or not as desired. I am still for all the folk waiting a couple months before trying to make possibly unneeded changed based on a guess.
(really do need to play it out a dozen times with each army to see what happens).
Facing MC or Psycker spam or even Summon Spam has happened in the past and will happen in the future.

I have found spammy armies to be dead armies when I face them. They do not have the tools to deal with all situations.

Summoning is not a new concept it has come, gone, and returned more than once to 40k. Seen in fantasy far more often .

We've tried a few games with totally open Battleforged lists these last few days - and we did sub in some cheese lists just to try them out.

Basically, with the new way objectives work, having a handful of uber units hurts. Badly. You may be able to smash and thrash through what you can catch, but having a small power army prevents you from accomplishing a lot of things...and makes you very vulnerable to hard counters.

If you keep the 5th-6th leafblower uber-alles mindset, then letting people just create their own Battleforged (or even unbound) lists seems like a bad idea. Combine that with the way missions/objectives work now though, it brings it into a lot more perspective. A well-balanced swiss army knife with a fair amount of bodies on the board will beat a cheese list almost every time.

PolecatEZ wrote:
We've tried a few games with totally open Battleforged lists these last few days - and we did sub in some cheese lists just to try them out.

Basically, with the new way objectives work, having a handful of uber units hurts. Badly. You may be able to smash and thrash through what you can catch, but having a small power army prevents you from accomplishing a lot of things...and makes you very vulnerable to hard counters.

If you keep the 5th-6th leafblower uber-alles mindset, then letting people just create their own Battleforged (or even unbound) lists seems like a bad idea. Combine that with the way missions/objectives work now though, it brings it into a lot more perspective. A well-balanced swiss army knife with a fair amount of bodies on the board will beat a cheese list almost every time.

@thread: Sorry for not posting for a while I started my vacation.

I an waiting to settle on this idea until i see how the first few GT results come out with 7th edition list. Really wish I was able to contribute to the learning of the new meta in this edition. Such is life though. By the time I get back it will all change. I just hope orks are still viable then as I am really wanting to run them even more now that a new book dropped. Though $33 for a Ghaz supplement is a bit silly.

@Mike Are you all going to have live feeds for each of your events? Definitely want to watch some games if possible.

The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

 schadenfreude wrote:
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.

 Zagman wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.

The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.

The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.

Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.

Capping psykers per points (say one Mastery level per 250pts unless you're playing GK since you'd screw them over horribly that way) and summoned units can't summon more units would go a long way towards making the psychic phase more balanced.

Hmm i think that facts are indeed proving that the psychic phase needs no change. Read a bit of battle reports around and you'll see that having the total domination on psy phase brings no over the top bonus compared to how many points you are investing.

Invisibility on the other hand should be changed, and i don't mean only nerfed i mean completely changed. It's creating too many rules debates.

MVBrandt wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.

The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.

Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.

I thought they were allowing self allying instead of duel cad with foc caps

Self ally had the advantage of a 1 troop minimum

Duel cad with an 3/8/4/4/4 cap needs 2 troops, but either cad can be warrlord and the 2 cad have some increased flexibility.

 schadenfreude wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.

The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.

Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.

I thought they were allowing self allying instead of duel cad with foc caps

Self ally had the advantage of a 1 troop minimum

Duel cad with an 3/8/4/4/4 cap needs 2 troops, but either cad can be warrlord and the 2 cad have some increased flexibility.

It's a better middle ground, and more 2-CAD specific, than you are suggesting.

Double CAD "pure" would require 2 HQ and 4 Troops to access up to 6 elites/fast/heavy. Your suggestion is 1 HQ and 2 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Self-Ally is 2 HQ and 3 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Basically what you're suggesting, but truer to the notion of double CAD and the edition (simply allowing people to freely take extra fast/elite/heavy would be more akin to unbound than multi-detachment).

Spoletta wrote:
Hmm i think that facts are indeed proving that the psychic phase needs no change. Read a bit of battle reports around and you'll see that having the total domination on psy phase brings no over the top bonus compared to how many points you are investing.

I would have to agree. I've played my Grey Knights in 7th, and, on average, I'm only getting about half as many psychic powers off as I did under 6th. I mean, sure, Grey Knights are still near the top of the ladder in psychic powers. but that ladder has had quite a few rungs knocked out of it for everyone in this edition.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Hmm i think that facts are indeed proving that the psychic phase needs no change. Read a bit of battle reports around and you'll see that having the total domination on psy phase brings no over the top bonus compared to how many points you are investing.

I would have to agree. I've played my Grey Knights in 7th, and, on average, I'm only getting about half as many psychic powers off as I did under 6th. I mean, sure, Grey Knights are still near the top of the ladder in psychic powers. but that ladder has had quite a few rungs knocked out of it for everyone in this edition.

Definitely. Psychic phase has proved to be just fine so far, Math had shown the initial knee jerk reaction was unnecessary and time is showing that to be true.

I just wanted to point this out, thought it was hilarious:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Capping psykers per points (say one Mastery level per 250pts unless you're playing GK

Under Anomander's name on the left side of the page is this:

"Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight"

Bias much?

MVBrandt wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.

People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.

Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.

The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.

Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.

I thought they were allowing self allying instead of duel cad with foc caps

Self ally had the advantage of a 1 troop minimum

Duel cad with an 3/8/4/4/4 cap needs 2 troops, but either cad can be warrlord and the 2 cad have some increased flexibility.

It's a better middle ground, and more 2-CAD specific, than you are suggesting.

Double CAD "pure" would require 2 HQ and 4 Troops to access up to 6 elites/fast/heavy. Your suggestion is 1 HQ and 2 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Self-Ally is 2 HQ and 3 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Basically what you're suggesting, but truer to the notion of double CAD and the edition (simply allowing people to freely take extra fast/elite/heavy would be more akin to unbound than multi-detachment).

No keep all existing standard double cad restrictions so 2hq and 4 troops to have double cad and add an additional restriction that both cads can not exceed a combined 3/8/4/4/4

Isnt the single difference the mandatory troop choice in situation? A single troop mind you.