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.

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

Nope if it's double cad either one can have the warlord, but if it's allies the allied detachment can't be selected to have the warlord.

Troop slots can be on a 3/3 3/4 4/4 or 5/3 split. With allies the allied detachment has a strict 2Troop limit.

The other slots can do a 2/2split

Double cad opens a lot of options for taking a single extra troop.

the common house rule of everyone self allies changes a lot more than just 1 Troop

That seems needlessly complicated.

I think 1 allied/other, 1 cad, can self ally is perfectly fine.

Nice mix of being able to bring in additional stuff for your army while not reaching the ridiculousness of double cad.

So the BAO and Nova are both now allowing the following?

3 HQ
8 Troops
4 Fast
4 Elite
4 Heavy

With no need to call some things an "ally" or not? Basically, the same FOC that self-allying yields, without the 1 additional troop requirement?

Seems reasonable to me, although just allowing self-allying would have been just as good, imo. I have to think about which seems simpler... but since it is just 1 additional troop requirement, it's not that different, and I feel like competitive lists are mostly going to have at least 3 troops anyway, right?

 RiTides wrote:
So the BAO and Nova are both now allowing the following?

3 HQ
8 Troops
4 Fast
4 Elite
4 Heavy

With no need to call some things an "ally" or not? Basically, the same FOC that self-allying yields, without the 1 additional troop requirement?

Seems reasonable to me, although just allowing self-allying would have been just as good, imo. I have to think about which seems simpler... but since it is just 1 additional troop requirement, it's not that different, and I feel like competitive lists are mostly going to have at least 3 troops anyway, right?

Last I checked, NOVA was "2 Detachments (as described in the 40k Rulebook), maximum of 1 Combined Arms Detachment, Allied Detachments may be chosen from the same Faction as your Primary Detachment". So yes, you would have the additional Troop requirement.

Yeah I was suggesting that we basically were doing what Schaden was asking for (he also dramatically exaggerates the differences, which apply to only a very narrow frame of army build possibilities)

What Don said is accurate - 2 detachments, max 1 CAD, can self-ally

 don_mondo wrote:
Last I checked, NOVA was "2 Detachments (as described in the 40k Rulebook), maximum of 1 Combined Arms Detachment, Allied Detachments may be chosen from the same Faction as your Primary Detachment". So yes, you would have the additional Troop requirement.

MVBrandt wrote:
What Don said is accurate - 2 detachments, max 1 CAD, can self-ally

Ah, good! I think allowing self-allying is the more elegant / simpler approach. Very happy about that, thanks

Ya our local tournament, once a month, has stated the new Ork detachment is to powerful. and the only allowed detachment is the C.A.D. were now back to allies not allowed to allies with ones self except marines, trying out formations : which count as your allies? Nice because that completely nullifies the Ork Gaz sup.

this will probably go on till either till a few imperial codex's come out or till his buds change there minds.

Ps. also knights are ok in these tournaments but no L.O.W. i don't know if that's anything like whats going on elsewhere, but if GW isn't allowing knights at there tournaments with no L.O.W. i thought others would follow suet.

Do they know that the new ork detachment doesnt have objective secured right?

yupyup

Then they would know it is actually much weaker because of it......

Whats next banning kroot?

Ban Fever...CATCH IT!

Solo cad and the enforced CAD+Allied detachment really do favor high cost armies, as they aren't branching out and taking multiple CADs or formations due to cost restrictions.

With the introduction of the new ork codex we even see new detachments that are not CAD, and as per the battle forged army rules there'sno requirement that your primary detachment be a CAD, just because we see that as the example everyone is allowed to take.

I think its odd people are concerned about "spamming" with multiple CADs when we look at many tournaments from 6th the "top armies" were all armies with high model cost and were basically repeats of the units with 1 deathstar.

So in effect these armies would never have been able to have multiple CADs as it would have been more or less redundant due to the cost of the models in points.

Putting in artificial limits on CAD/formation selection only favors high cost units/models and in effect is just preserving the old meta, preventing many of the old mid/low tier armies to move up in power as they would benefit more than the old top tier armies.

and i'm sure many players don't like the idea of their 2nd detachment having to be an allied detachment as that means it cannot be the same faction as their main detachment, for some armies that's actually a bad thing.

blaktoof wrote:
Solo cad and the enforced CAD+Allied detachment really do favor high cost armies, as they aren't branching out and taking multiple CADs or formations due to cost restrictions.

With the introduction of the new ork codex we even see new detachments that are not CAD, and as per the battle forged army rules there'sno requirement that your primary detachment be a CAD, just because we see that as the example everyone is allowed to take.

I think its odd people are concerned about "spamming" with multiple CADs when we look at many tournaments from 6th the "top armies" were all armies with high model cost and were basically repeats of the units with 1 deathstar.

So in effect these armies would never have been able to have multiple CADs as it would have been more or less redundant due to the cost of the models in points.

Putting in artificial limits on CAD/formation selection only favors high cost units/models and in effect is just preserving the old meta, preventing many of the old mid/low tier armies to move up in power as they would benefit more than the old top tier armies.

and i'm sure many players don't like the idea of their 2nd detachment having to be an allied detachment as that means it cannot be the same faction as their main detachment, for some armies that's actually a bad thing.

Do you consider Necrons lower tier? They benefit greatly from 2xCAD. Scarab Farm, Anni Barge spam, Wraith Spam, AV13 Spam, Flying Bakery, 4x CCB, etc...

it appears you didn't actually read my post.

Many of the mid/lower tier armies have low cost models, double CAD benefits them more than other armies.

that does not mean that all of the armies not implied as top tier are bottom tier(hence why I put mid/low..), it also does not mean that all of the armies gain no benefit from multiple CAD. I stated that armies with LOW MODEL COST GAIN MORE BENEFIT.

But yes at 1850 and lower the necron models you proposed gain little benefit to double CAD compared to Nids/Orks/Ig/Dark eldar or other armies whose models are low cost.

Anni barges are the only thing on there you really listed that are "cheap" 4 lords with MSS/scythe/phyl/phase shifter/ccb are 255 points each (1220 for 4) without any other upgrades, so 4 of those is about 65-705 of your army in points, 3 max squads of wraiths without upgrades is 630 points, so 1/3rd of your points at 1850, if you double CAD thats 1260 points or 2/3rds of 1850- none of these are including the minimum troops you need. so yes thank you for citing a perfect example of why double CAD is of little benefit to armies that have high model costs.....

Overall it seems you like ignored the point about model cost versus CAD and just got on a high horse about how you feel necrons are, and necrons are mid tier to low tier at most tournaments.

Indeed low cost armies greatly benefit from it.

Eldar would get almost nothing from it, they aren't really restricted by a CAD + self ally. 2 councils? More than 8 WS? More than 4 WK? They don't sound like good lists honestly.

Compare it with a nid with 6 elites and 12 troops, or 6 heavies for nidzilla, or 6 fast for flying circus.

Orks with 12 troops are quite the parking lot.

Every army benefits from double CAD in similar fashion, b/c every or nearly every army has extremely powerful MSU Style builds. I'm not sure where Eldar fail to benefit, unless you play in a meta where the best that can be msutered are seer stars.

It certainly can be extremely powerful for an Eldar player to spend 180 points only adding 6 solo spinner batteries [that now score] to their backfield, supporting 6 outflanking scorpion squads hunting backfield opposing troops and the like, with 12 EJB obsec units, and still having plenty of points for a seer star (but with more council members than ever before!) in some variations.

The same can be said of Tau (Which love unbound with their ability to overload toolkit deployment flexible troop MSU, cheap skyrays, missilesides, etc), and the same can be said of really any build. They all have access to sub-100 point, effective units all over the place.

I do see some players who really want to take 6 Skyrays, or 9 Skyrays, or any sort of equivalent thing (i.e., Orks), but it's not as if they're running around upset that they can't take 6 of "everything."

Additionally, as you actually play the edition, seerstar/screamerstar/etc. are all fairly awful now, even with invisibility, in that they cannot really win games reliably against peer players running MSU (and this is with said army construction restrictions). But this is gamer nature of glass half empty outlook ... instead of seeing an ability to run 4 each of your elites/fast/heavy and 8 troop and 3 HQ now instead of lesser from any one codex, people are concerned about things that aren't actually problematic. I want to see a lot of armies at NOVA or BAO with maxed out FOCs and wasted points b/c "I just didn't have enough FOC slots to use what I really needed to best use!"

They won't exist.

 Leth wrote:
That seems needlessly complicated.
I think 1 allied/other, 1 cad, can self ally is perfectly fine.
Nice mix of being able to bring in additional stuff for your army while not reaching the ridiculousness of double cad.

I would say self ally is far more complicated and double cad with a total limit on FOC as creating the house rule of everybody also causes some confusion.

MVBrandt wrote:
Yeah I was suggesting that we basically were doing what Schaden was asking for (he also dramatically exaggerates the differences, which apply to only a very narrow frame of army build possibilities)
What Don said is accurate - 2 detachments, max 1 CAD, can self-ally

The Frame is much larger and effects some of the mid and bottom their armies the most.

I think the biggest winner is AS. They have great HQ, HS, and FA, but their troops are anemic. Celestine can't be warlord unless AS are allies. It opens a lot of possibilities like adding cotaez and 6 units of henchmen or Khan and space marine bikes.

Chaos deamons must be primary in order to have 4 heralds take a single FOC slot. It would give more flexibility to CSM + deamons as an alliance.

Knights can field a more balanced army which result in them taking lists with 3 knights instead of 4 or 5

Characters from codex inquisition can be the warlord. That's not really possible when inquisition is primary because primary inquisition is limited to 3 troops and 2 HQ. Most armies will struggle to spend 1850 on 3 henchmen units, 2 hq, and an allied detachment. While for the most part it's a lazy copy of GK codex the self ally rule does effectively ban a codex as a primary detachment.

It's a big boost to a Necron/Tau list. Crons are tight on HS and FA while Tau are tight on elite slots.

AM would be another winner because Yarrik can be warlord, but this is the one with the most powerful combos. You could be looking at a bunch of t7 AM artillery like basilisks, medusas, thudds, rapiers, and sabers that are immune to morale/pinning while in Yarrik's warlord bubble + imperial troops from another army like khan and some bikes.

There are a ton of good allies combo where the basic mix is Codex A has an awesome non troops choice and Codex B has the good troops. The 2 troop limit on allies is what limits allies more than Double CAD with FOC caps.

The current thinking "2 detachments, max 1 CAD, can self-ally" will be pretty out of date in the next few months anyway as new codex's and supplements come out, allowing some armies to effectively double CAD using a unique to them detachment plus a CAD, or a CAD and a formation. Our first example is Orcs, who can get easily get 12 to 15 troops within a reasonable points limit using a combination of CAD, the Orc horde detachment or a formation. So Orcs can get 15 troops but other armies are restricted to 8. Although Guard aren't the best example (they can squadron up Russes anyway), a CAD plus the new Steel host formation is effectively 7 HS slots. The next codex will undoubtedly do something similar, for example it could have a detachment allowing 4 or 5 elites. Each month will bring more ways to make a double CAD restriction pointless.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Leth wrote:
That seems needlessly complicated.
I think 1 allied/other, 1 cad, can self ally is perfectly fine.
Nice mix of being able to bring in additional stuff for your army while not reaching the ridiculousness of double cad.

I would say self ally is far more complicated and double cad with a total limit on FOC as creating the house rule of everybody also causes some confusion.

MVBrandt wrote:
Yeah I was suggesting that we basically were doing what Schaden was asking for (he also dramatically exaggerates the differences, which apply to only a very narrow frame of army build possibilities)
What Don said is accurate - 2 detachments, max 1 CAD, can self-ally

The Frame is much larger and effects some of the mid and bottom their armies the most.

I think the biggest winner is AS. They have great HQ, HS, and FA, but their troops are anemic. Celestine can't be warlord unless AS are allies. It opens a lot of possibilities like adding cotaez and 6 units of henchmen or Khan and space marine bikes.

Chaos deamons must be primary in order to have 4 heralds take a single FOC slot. It would give more flexibility to CSM + deamons as an alliance.

Knights can field a more balanced army which result in them taking lists with 3 knights instead of 4 or 5

Characters from codex inquisition can be the warlord. That's not really possible when inquisition is primary because primary inquisition is limited to 3 troops and 2 HQ. Most armies will struggle to spend 1850 on 3 henchmen units, 2 hq, and an allied detachment. While for the most part it's a lazy copy of GK codex the self ally rule does effectively ban a codex as a primary detachment.

It's a big boost to a Necron/Tau list. Crons are tight on HS and FA while Tau are tight on elite slots.

AM would be another winner because Yarrik can be warlord, but this is the one with the most powerful combos. You could be looking at a bunch of t7 AM artillery like basilisks, medusas, thudds, rapiers, and sabers that are immune to morale/pinning while in Yarrik's warlord bubble + imperial troops from another army like khan and some bikes.

There are a ton of good allies combo where the basic mix is Codex A has an awesome non troops choice and Codex B has the good troops. The 2 troop limit on allies is what limits allies more than Double CAD with FOC caps.

While I'm allowing 2 CAD for my Event I think you have some stuff wrong here.

Daemon FAQ removed the Primary part from the 4 heralds things, so any detachment can now have 4 heralds.

I'm also pretty sure Codex inquisition specifically states that an inquisitor may always be your warlord.

blaktoof wrote:
it appears you didn't actually read my post.

Many of the mid/lower tier armies have low cost models, double CAD benefits them more than other armies.

that does not mean that all of the armies not implied as top tier are bottom tier(hence why I put mid/low..), it also does not mean that all of the armies gain no benefit from multiple CAD. I stated that armies with LOW MODEL COST GAIN MORE BENEFIT.

But yes at 1850 and lower the necron models you proposed gain little benefit to double CAD compared to Nids/Orks/Ig/Dark eldar or other armies whose models are low cost.

Anni barges are the only thing on there you really listed that are "cheap" 4 lords with MSS/scythe/phyl/phase shifter/ccb are 255 points each (1220 for 4) without any other upgrades, so 4 of those is about 65-705 of your army in points, 3 max squads of wraiths without upgrades is 630 points, so 1/3rd of your points at 1850, if you double CAD thats 1260 points or 2/3rds of 1850- none of these are including the minimum troops you need. so yes thank you for citing a perfect example of why double CAD is of little benefit to armies that have high model costs.....

Overall it seems you like ignored the point about model cost versus CAD and just got on a high horse about how you feel necrons are, and necrons are mid tier to low tier at most tournaments.

First I believe your way off base on the power level ofNecrons. They are back to being a top tier army with the changes in 7th. Vehicle rules, LOW, chariots, an scoring. As Mike said every army has low point cost units. Your post is too narrowly focus on points costs when you really should be looking at points efficiency. Riptides are not low cost models but are very point efficient. Durable, fast and with good firepower. Space Marie's can spam out 3 man double grav obsec bikes and still fit quite a few thunderfire cannons and the like.

The dominant codicies right now are there largely due to point efficiency, not the actual cost of models.

I'm hoping that we see an easing of number of formations an army can take. Formations are generally expensive so they aren't going to be particularly overwhelming.

And Tyranids and Orks (the two newest books) seemed designed around formations in addition to the standard list. It's not like formations has objective secured (outside of the now less efficient and extremely expensive tyranid one).

I put out there maybe giving up your second "detachment" for unlimited formations from the same faction as the parent faction. If you take a formation from a faction different than the "primary" detachment then you could still only take one. Generally this would still only be 1-2 formations but it does allow some flexibility for books that seem designed around formations (so far orks and tyranids).

May i point out that forcing Nids into the same FOC restrictions as everyone else is kind of cruel when they can't dump points into dedicated transports like everyone else?

Really, if you look at the the nid situation:

1) Low cost on many competitive slots choices.
2) Their models work best in small units
3) No out of FOC choices (except Tyr Guards, but seriously...)

And they get confined by the same restrictions as eldar. IMHO one FOC rule applied to all codici is not the right way to go, you are bound to go wrong somewhere (maybe percentages, but let's not go there).

In fairness no other army gets an MC as a troop choice nor can any other army spawn obsec troops in game. Tyranids problem is not scoring. Its that so much of their codex is craps they need to duplicate certain Force org slots.

Actually i don't think that's the problem. If you look at it players use quite a big part of the codex, there are very few models that really never get played. If you look at the tau codex which is considered a really good codex nids actually have a better internal balance, the problem is the external balance. If you take a look at lists you'll notice that those are typically constrained in HQ slots, elite slots, FA slots and HS slots, sometimes even troops. This means good internal balance but serious problems in following the same FOC rules as the other codici.