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 thought I had a pretty good handle on how the army building in 7th now works, and was about to actually give a short class on it next week for the kids in our local gaming group (we're starting 7th rules for the first time).

However, I'm paging through the army lists and I still see nearly everyone has these mono lists and I can't figure out why they would do this unless there's still some rule I'm missing.

Here's my understanding for making a legal BattleForged list:

- Can contain any number of Combined Arms Detachments, Allied Detachments, and Formations, provided the requirements are met for each and total points are properly spent.
- You can designate any of the above as your "Primary" that your Warlord comes from.
- The "Allies Matrix" applies afterwards, and determines how units from the above detachments can interact.

My issues (maybe paranoia) are thus:
A) I'm hard pressed to find a good example of a list where someone brought 2 combined arms detachments. The BBB specifically says this is ok, but to me this seems very handy and yet no lists I can find utilize this - did I miss a rule somewhere else?
B) There's some kind of inference that you only get 1 Allied Detachment, or 1 Allied Detachment per Combined Arms detachment based on a few loosely worded rules in various books, but I can't find that in the 7th BBB.
C) There's some inference that an Allied Detachment can't be your primary (as it must contain units of a different faction than your primary), but I don't think it explicitly says that.

Are any of A, B, or C true, and where can I reference this?

A) You are right. There is no limit to how many detachments you can take (and multiple CADs don't even have to be from the same faction as each other). Many people do not take advantage of this due to the 'troops tax' where they may be forced to talk more Troops than they feel is efficient, or they may be building for a specific tournament that has a limit on how many detachments you can take.

B) There is no such limitation in the RB. Do you have any specific examples for the wording you're talking about?

C) This is specified in the Restrictions for Allied detachments.

 Cheexsta wrote:

B) There is no such limitation in the RB. Do you have any specific examples for the wording you're talking about?

In Militarum Tempestus (p60), for example, it says under Allied Formations "Formations do not count as your army's Allied Detachment, even if they are made of units from a different Codex..."

While it was saying something else about formations, it also implied that "Allied Detachment" was a singular thing. It then goes on to say that it does not stop me from taking an "Allied Detachment" (singular again). Why would I even care if the Formation counted as an allied detachment or not if I was allowed unlimited Allied detachments? Why is that distinction even made? Why not call everything a "Formation" and then just letting you pick one to be "Primary"?

There's similar wording in other new codex books.

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm all for it (being a big fan of combining Marines, Special Forces, and Guard into one army sounds awesome) - I just don't want any big surprises if I haul these kids to a tournament and find out otherwise.

PolecatEZ wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

B) There is no such limitation in the RB. Do you have any specific examples for the wording you're talking about?

In Militarum Tempestus (p60), for example, it says under Allied Formations "Formations do not count as your army's Allied Detachment, even if they are made of units from a different Codex..."

Thats from a 6ed codex when there was only 1 allied detachment

As such, we haven't had a 7ed edition codex yet so all references to detachments and such are in a 6ed context

Awesomesauce! I shall go forth to the trees and inform the other apes of my facts and learnings.

PolecatEZ wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

B) There is no such limitation in the RB. Do you have any specific examples for the wording you're talking about?

In Militarum Tempestus (p60), for example, it says under Allied Formations "Formations do not count as your army's Allied Detachment, even if they are made of units from a different Codex..."

While it was saying something else about formations, it also implied that "Allied Detachment" was a singular thing. It then goes on to say that it does not stop me from taking an "Allied Detachment" (singular again). Why would I even care if the Formation counted as an allied detachment or not if I was allowed unlimited Allied detachments? Why is that distinction even made? Why not call everything a "Formation" and then just letting you pick one to be "Primary"?

There's similar wording in other new codex books.

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm all for it (being a big fan of combining Marines, Special Forces, and Guard into one army sounds awesome) - I just don't want any big surprises if I haul these kids to a tournament and find out otherwise.

Well then good news! The MT FAQ tells us to ignore that section.

I strongly suggest downloading all the FAQs from the Black Library website to show the kids you're teaching.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

PolecatEZ wrote:A) I'm hard pressed to find a good example of a list where someone brought 2 combined arms detachments. The BBB specifically says this is ok, but to me this seems very handy and yet no lists I can find utilize this - did I miss a rule somewhere else?

I do this, if it helps.

A) 2 combined arms = 6 elite, 6 heavy Support. Not tournament legal, so not really interesting to people interested in list building.

B) no.
C) yes, explicit in the BRB.

Tournaments are still 1CA+1Allies and it may be like that for a while, the other options are so close to unbound, might as well go straight for it.

Not tournament legal where you are, maybe. I'd avoid too many generalisations.

morgoth wrote:
A) 2 combined arms = 6 elite, 6 heavy Support. Not tournament legal, so not really interesting to people interested in list building.

B) no.
C) yes, explicit in the BRB.

Tournaments are still 1CA+1Allies and it may be like that for a while, the other options are so close to unbound, might as well go straight for it.

I played in a tournament this weekend that was completely by the book, so saying it's not tournament legal is a stretch.

A couple thing sI have noticed about the new FOC rules.

1) There does not seem to be a lot incentive to take Unbound lists with the standard codexes.

2) CAD and Allies are not required formation, but 2 of the only 3 that currently give the Objective Secured rule. The third being nid's Skyblight Formation.

3) It is legal by BRB to build your entire Battleforge list from supplement Formations.

I'm looking at the NOVA rule set, and they seem quite proud of the fact they basically took every change in 7th to do with army building and made it look like 6th edition again. GW finally gets a piece of this game right, and it gets house-ruled back to oblivion.

So, if we want to be tournament ready for any major circuit, it does look like we need to re-throw-up/out everything cool about 7th edition Army Building and just stick to the one FOC/one ally rule - with the more restrictive allies matrix.

I'm just a little irritated that I already went out and bought 2 extra codexes and a few boxes of minis in anticipation of this. $300 down the drain.

Indeed, its very first days of 6th - panic over allies and flyers then....

PolecatEZ wrote:
I'm looking at the NOVA rule set, and they seem quite proud of the fact they basically took every change in 7th to do with army building and made it look like 6th edition again. GW finally gets a piece of this game right, and it gets house-ruled back to oblivion.

So, if we want to be tournament ready for any major circuit, it does look like we need to re-throw-up/out everything cool about 7th edition Army Building and just stick to the one FOC/one ally rule - with the more restrictive allies matrix.

I'm just a little irritated that I already went out and bought 2 extra codexes and a few boxes of minis in anticipation of this. $300 down the drain.

You expected fast adoption of such a major unbalancing thing as unbound and unlimiteded CADs? Truthfully I have not seen any major powerbuilds that really break out of the CAd and allies mold. A few CAD+CAD but that is really it. Nids go the most out there with a CAD+a nid dataslate formation.

PolecatEZ wrote:
I'm looking at the NOVA rule set, and they seem quite proud of the fact they basically took every change in 7th to do with army building and made it look like 6th edition again. GW finally gets a piece of this game right, and it gets house-ruled back to oblivion.

I don't see how allowing people to run 6+ Flyrants and 9+ Annihilation Barges is right for the game

PolecatEZ wrote:
I'm looking at the NOVA rule set, and they seem quite proud of the fact they basically took every change in 7th to do with army building and made it look like 6th edition again. GW finally gets a piece of this game right, and it gets house-ruled back to oblivion.

So, if we want to be tournament ready for any major circuit, it does look like we need to re-throw-up/out everything cool about 7th edition Army Building and just stick to the one FOC/one ally rule - with the more restrictive allies matrix.

I'm just a little irritated that I already went out and bought 2 extra codexes and a few boxes of minis in anticipation of this. $300 down the drain.

Yeah fear is driving this they are also trying to make the missions 6th Ed too as Maelstrom makes the game tactical rather than simple gunlining then worry about objectives turn 4...

I don't see how allowing people to run 6+ Flyrants and 9+ Annihilation Barges is right for the game

But Screamerstars, Invisistars, Gravstars, Cronair, Serpent Spam etc are fine. But oh no we can't have something that can beat the current net lists...

There are power builds in all versions of the game. Taking 7th in its entirety actually balances most of the codexes pretty well. Even Nids which are considered weak can do well. Give the players more freedom and you'll actually get new and varied challenges rather than seeing the same stuff over and over.

For me the best double CAD is Eldar with 12 units of jetbikes. But that would be both fun to play with and against.

I never said the deathstars were fine, but thats not a problem with FoCs. Thats a problem with individual codexs.

7ed is just an example of the paradox of freedom. There may be more choices, but less different choices will be made (because why take different units instead of the best one when i can just take another CAD and get more of the best unit). All it does is magnify the terrible internal balance of each codex.

P.S. - I don't know anyone who would think playing against 12 EJB units is fun

Most codexes have several powerful units and every codex has at least one. You wouldn't get the single codex builds anything like you suggest by giving this freedom. Particularly when you factor in the importance of troops to maelstrom and the tax on HQs.

What it would do is totally shake up the meta and make many of the netlists no longer top dog. But yeah new challenges aren't good for the tournament scene and anything that hurts the deathstars is also terrible. We need to be keeping to 6th but with a Psychic phase, 7th is just too scary. People mught write different lists...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Most codexes have several powerful units and every codex has at least one. You wouldn't get the single codex builds anything like you suggest by giving this freedom. Particularly when you factor in the importance of troops to maelstrom and the tax on HQs.

The codexs that dominate the scene do so because they have the best units in the game. If everyone just spams the best unit they have then those same codexs will still be on top because they still have the best units in the game.

What it would do is totally shake up the meta and make many of the netlists no longer top dog. But yeah new challenges aren't good for the tournament scene and anything that hurts the deathstars is also terrible. We need to be keeping to 6th but with a Psychic phase, 7th is just too scary. People mught write different lists...

multiple CAD won't shake up the meta, it just means people can run duplicate death stars (because now they have two FoC to do it in)

I wasn't going to comment because it is the 'golden Rule' or something along those lines:
The additional flexibility is great for the people whom want to use it for tactical or narrative reasons, and the balance to this flexibility is the ability for players to simply say no to those who bring ridiculous Army concepts to the battlefield. The vast majority of the time an unbound Army is not going to be all that much of an issue, maybe someone wanted to bring one additional Elite unit then they could with the Combined Arms Detachment, and the few times it will be is due to something obvious such an all flyer Army. Regardless of the reasoning why; it is best to state on a Rule discussion board that Unbound Armies are outside of our ability to debate because they need so much opponent feed back.

Same way we point out that Tournament events are outside of our preview, you need to ask the Organizers.
Unbound Armies are outside of our preview, you need to ask your opponent.

JinxDragon wrote:
I wasn't going to comment because it is the 'golden Rule' or something along those lines:
The additional flexibility is great for the people whom want to use it for tactical or narrative reasons, and the balance to this flexibility is the ability for players to simply say no to those who bring ridiculous Army concepts to the battlefield. The vast majority of the time an unbound Army is not going to be all that much of an issue, maybe someone wanted to bring one additional Elite unit then they could with the Combined Arms Detachment, and the few times it will be is due to something obvious such an all flyer Army. Regardless of the reasoning why; it is best to state on a Rule discussion board that Unbound Armies are outside of our ability to debate because they need so much opponent feed back.

Same way we point out that Tournament events are outside of our preview, you need to ask the Organizers.
Unbound Armies are outside of our preview, you need to ask your opponent.

That I can totally agree with.

The codexs that dominate the scene do so because they have the best units in the game. If everyone just spams the best unit they have then those same codexs will still be on top because they still have the best units in the game. 

So what are you saying? Are you saying Flyrants are one of the best units in the game or that Nids are dominating the scene? Given that multiple Flyrants was one of the reasons you gave for not allowing CADs it must be the later. In which case I have to ask you what you are smoking.

Heck with the current Ork codex you could run 90 lootas and have a shot at doing well. Pretty much every codex has something. The better codexes have multiples (for instance Tau with Missilesides, Riptides, Farsight Bombs and Skyrays). Yet those list are generally going to be one dimensional

multiple CAD won't shake up the meta, it just means people can run duplicate death stars (because now they have two FoC to do it in)

Yes because double CAD means infinite points. Seriously that would not be possible due to points unless you skimp on the Deathstar at which point it ceases to be such. On top of that if it was possible that would still be a change. Finally what you could actually do with that would result in you losing.

Basically the argument against it can be summed up thusly:

There would be new power builds, that's terrible for the game.
These power builds beat the current netlists so that is bad for the game.
I could just spam X, Y, Z unit (thus creating in general an uncompetitive list like 10 Helldeakes) and its broken (by which of course you mean it can be beaten and would never win a tournament).

So yes if you think having new and tactical challenges is bad for the game. Then by all means keep trying to FaQ 7th back to 6th.