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.

When 7th ed came out, and Unbound became a ‘thing’, I was worried. However, the classic FOC did survive, so I was fine. I saw that Unbound is a great tool for new players and casual gamers.

Those of us who crave structure in a competitive environment could still rely on the old FOC…until I read that there is no limit on the number of Detachments. I was like “WTF, GW, that’s not structure at all”
--------------------------------
So I propose the following:
Instead of unlimited detachements, you have to start with either a CAD, or one of the special Codex Detachments like DE’s Real Space Raiders, or GK’s Nemisis strike force. Note that this ‘Compulsory’ Detachment can’t be a Formation (we’ll go into that later). This Detachment doesn’t have to be your primary.

After this compulsory Detachment, you have the OPTION to add a second (and only a second) Detachment. If this is a CAD or codex Detachment, it MUST be the same Faction as your Compulsory. If you choice to use an Allied Detachment, it MUST be a different Faction and cannot be chosen as your Primary (just as now).

After filling your Compusory Detachment and taking the optional second Detachment, you can field as many Formations as you have points left. Any one of these Formations can be chosen as your Primary Detachment. No matter how many Formations you take, all MUST have the same Faction as either you Compulsory Detachment or Allied Detachment, or at least Battle-Brothers with BOTH if an Allied Detachment has been used. If an Allied Detachment has not been used, the Formations MUST have the same Faction as you Compulsory.

I would also disallow “Come the Apoc” allies in Battle-Forges lists. That should remain the realm of Unbound.
-------------------------
Using Eldar as an Example:
I would have to start with a CAD, but could then add a second CAD of either Eldar, or Iyanden, since they are the same Faction. Or I could add an Allied Detachment of Dark Eldar, but this HAS to be an allied Detachment.

Lets say I have an Eldar CAD with DE Allied. I can now add as a many Formations, but they would have to be Eldar or DE formations. Harlequins are BB’s with both Eldar & DE, so Harlie formations can be added.
--------------------------
Using Imperials as an example:
White Scar CAD + Guard Allied + any Formations that are Factions considered Imperial

Non-BB Example:
Necron Decurion Detachment + CSM Allied. NO Formations can be taken, as no Faction is BB’s with both Necrons & CSM. Note, however that the Decurion is a Detachment of Formations, so as long as they fit in the Decurion, they are allowed

Wrong thread

 Galef wrote:
When 7th ed came out, and Unbound became a ‘thing’, I was worried. However, the classic FOC did survive, so I was fine. I saw that Unbound is a great tool for new players and casual gamers.

Those of us who crave structure in a competitive environment could still rely on the old FOC…until I read that there is no limit on the number of Detachments. I was like “WTF, GW, that’s not structure at all”
--------------------------------
So I propose the following:
Instead of unlimited detachements, you have to start with either a CAD, or one of the special Codex Detachments like DE’s Real Space Raiders, or GK’s Nemisis strike force. Note that this ‘Compulsory’ Detachment can’t be a Formation (we’ll go into that later). This Detachment doesn’t have to be your primary.

After this compulsory Detachment, you have the OPTION to add a second (and only a second) Detachment. If this is a CAD or codex Detachment, it MUST be the same Faction as your Compulsory. If you choice to use an Allied Detachment, it MUST be a different Faction and cannot be chosen as your Primary (just as now).

After filling your Compusory Detachment and taking the optional second Detachment, you can field as many Formations as you have points left. Any one of these Formations can be chosen as your Primary Detachment. No matter how many Formations you take, all MUST have the same Faction as either you Compulsory Detachment or Allied Detachment, or at least Battle-Brothers with BOTH if an Allied Detachment has been used. If an Allied Detachment has not been used, the Formations MUST have the same Faction as you Compulsory.

I would also disallow “Come the Apoc” allies in Battle-Forges lists. That should remain the realm of Unbound.
-------------------------
Using Eldar as an Example:
I would have to start with a CAD, but could then add a second CAD of either Eldar, or Iyanden, since they are the same Faction. Or I could add an Allied Detachment of Dark Eldar, but this HAS to be an allied Detachment.

Lets say I have an Eldar CAD with DE Allied. I can now add as a many Formations, but they would have to be Eldar or DE formations. Harlequins are BB’s with both Eldar & DE, so Harlie formations can be added.
--------------------------
Using Imperials as an example:
White Scar CAD + Guard Allied + any Formations that are Factions considered Imperial

Non-BB Example:
Necron Decurion Detachment + CSM Allied. NO Formations can be taken, as no Faction is BB’s with both Necrons & CSM. Note, however that the Decurion is a Detachment of Formations, so as long as they fit in the Decurion, they are allowed

This would be absolutely terrible for me and many other players. I'm a Tau player. Tau are not Battle Brothers with anyone. So, if I play Tau, I have access to literally one Formation only - the Tau Firebase Support Cadre. How utterly boring and lopsided.

What if I want to field a Grey Knights list featuring Inquisitors and Assassins? Under your rules, I'm not allowed to as that would require a minimum of 3 detachments. In fact, adding a single Vindicare Assassin to an army list means you are completely giving up any option for most allies under your rules.

Can I ask what exactly your issue with unlimited detachments is? You don't really specify. This feels like one of those "I was more comfortable with 6th Edition" threads. If you're setting a fixed point cost (say 1850), it's not like you'll be able to field 100 detachments. Anything more than a few and your army becomes less competitive. It's either too fragmented to work cohesively or too focused to deal with more than one type of threat.

Actually under this setup, GK can indeed have lists with Inquisition and Assassins, as both are Imperials.

My issue with unlimited detachments has to do with it not being any kind of structure, which should be the whole point of "battle forged". Currently, it is just, "field enough HQ's and minimum troop units and you can play whatever".

Might as well play Unbound. I have no issue with Unbound as a concept, but if you have a "structured" alternative, please make it "structured".
----------------------------------
I agree with your point about this skewing non-BB as far as formations are concerned. One of my main goals here is to prevent armies like GK's allied with Daemons with a Nid Formation. Those lists are just so left field, that it should remain Unbound.

I also want to prevent armies that JUST field Formations with no decernable "core".
-----
-----
How about this: 1 Compulsory 'regular' Detachment and only 1 optional 'regular' Detachment/Allied, but unlimited Formations and no "Come the Apoc" allies allowed. Makes it much more simple and should allow most "sensible" armies. "senbile" might not be the right word

So you don't want me to be able to play my Daemonhunters army? I need four Codexes and at least four Detachments to even start these days, and you want to make it harder?

Its not a bad idea perse, the local rule is more or less "You are limited to 2 detachments. 0-1 CAD/CAD like codex equivalent, 0-1 Allied, 0-1 FOrmation


I will however say I like CtA allies.

The problem with unbound and unlimited detachments is that you can field 8 flying hive tyrants and call it a day. The game just gets ridiculous. Unbound has always been a thing, it was always just a matter of agreement between friends. Now it's "woo, everyone go crazy and put warp spiders next to paladins, throw in some obliterators and run them in wave serpents! Woo! We're crazy!"

That said, I don't think this is the solution. Much easier solutions (1 or more of the following):
- Your primary detachment must account for at least 75% of your total points. Unbound or not.
- You may not have more than 1 detachment from any source book. Unbound or not.
- Bound armies gain 1 VP at the start of the game.

Revamped Allies Matrix, any force may ally only with their own faction as battle brothers (must be different source), the armies above and below as desperate allies, any other alliance is come the apocalypse:

- Space Marines & Inquisition & Sisters & Assassins (Vanilla, Blood Angels, etc.)
- Imperial Guard
- Chaos & Demons
- Orks
- Dark Eldar
- Eldar
- Tau
- Necrons (wraps back with Marines)

Tyranids should get a special provision for assimilation, genestealer cults, etc. Maybe desperate allies with everyone?

This way the alliance system is more equitably distributed across armies. And there is much less room for rules exploitation across armies since there are fewer battle brothers. You can still field human auxilia next to Tau, or traitor guard, etc. There are just substantial penalties.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So you don't want me to be able to play my Daemonhunters army? I need four Codexes and at least four Detachments to even start these days, and you want to make it harder?

Please take into consideration that I have no idea how the Inquisition Codex works. I assumed they had their own Detachment, but clearly I am mistaken.

With Lord Commissar's local ruling, you could not field your Daemonhunters either.
----------------------
Another big issue is how TO's have had to place rules to impose structure (like the common 2 Detachments only). While TOs have always had their own special rules, it was (usually) still possible to bring the same list to tournies and just adapt your tactics. However, this edition has made it so that TO rules are so wildly divergent that you have to know their rules before even making a list, and you cant bring the same list to different tournies.

The lack of consensus has effectively killed tournament paly for me. On the bright side, casual games (unbound or otherwise) are the most fun in the edition than any other edition I have played, which I guess should be the point.

 Galef wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So you don't want me to be able to play my Daemonhunters army? I need four Codexes and at least four Detachments to even start these days, and you want to make it harder?

Please take into consideration that I have no idea how the Inquisition Codex works. I assumed they had their own Detachment, but clearly I am mistaken.

With Lord Commissar's local ruling, you could not field your Daemonhunters either.
----------------------
Another big issue is how TO's have had to place rules to impose structure (like the common 2 Detachments only). While TOs have always had their own special rules, it was (usually) still possible to bring the same list to tournies and just adapt your tactics. However, this edition has made it so that TO rules are so wildly divergent that you have to know their rules before even making a list, and you cant bring the same list to different tournies.

The lack of consensus has effectively killed tournament paly for me. On the bright side, casual games (unbound or otherwise) are the most fun in the edition than any other edition I have played, which I guess should be the point.

The Inquisition has it's own "Inquisitorial Detachment" consisting of 1-2 HQ and 0-3 Elites. Each detachment is intended to represent a single Inquisitor and his Henchmen.

And it concerns me that you obviously haven't read all the codexes, yet want to come up with new restrictions on how we build armies. Do yourself a favor. Go out and read the various codexes... especially the newer, smaller ones and then tell me that requiring a CAD and limiting an army to two main detachments is fair.

 Galef wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So you don't want me to be able to play my Daemonhunters army? I need four Codexes and at least four Detachments to even start these days, and you want to make it harder?

Please take into consideration that I have no idea how the Inquisition Codex works. I assumed they had their own Detachment, but clearly I am mistaken.

With Lord Commissar's local ruling, you could not field your Daemonhunters either.

My Daemonhunters were one army under the 3rd edition Daemonhunters Codex, since 5th it's been getting split up so now my Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, my actual Inquisitors, my Assassins, and my Grey Knights all come from separate Codexes and take separate Detachments.

Any Detachment-limiting thing has to have exceptions written in for Inquisitorial and Assassinorium detachments at the very least or those Codexes become pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(That or give me my unified Inquisition rules back)

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So you don't want me to be able to play my Daemonhunters army? I need four Codexes and at least four Detachments to even start these days, and you want to make it harder?

Please take into consideration that I have no idea how the Inquisition Codex works. I assumed they had their own Detachment, but clearly I am mistaken.

With Lord Commissar's local ruling, you could not field your Daemonhunters either.
----------------------
Another big issue is how TO's have had to place rules to impose structure (like the common 2 Detachments only). While TOs have always had their own special rules, it was (usually) still possible to bring the same list to tournies and just adapt your tactics. However, this edition has made it so that TO rules are so wildly divergent that you have to know their rules before even making a list, and you cant bring the same list to different tournies.

The lack of consensus has effectively killed tournament paly for me. On the bright side, casual games (unbound or otherwise) are the most fun in the edition than any other edition I have played, which I guess should be the point.

The Inquisition has it's own "Inquisitorial Detachment" consisting of 1-2 HQ and 0-3 Elites. Each detachment is intended to represent a single Inquisitor and his Henchmen.

And it concerns me that you obviously haven't read all the codexes, yet want to come up with new restrictions on how we build armies. Do yourself a favor. Go out and read the various codexes... especially the newer, smaller ones and then tell me that requiring a CAD and limiting an army to two main detachments is fair.

@kriswall, Most people don't have the $600 available to purchase each and every codex. You can't possibly expect every single person on the proposed rules forum to have read and internalized each and every detail of every army and forge world. It's unrealistic and you're contributing to a toxic atmosphere on the forums.

@galef, it's impossible to post anything in proposed rules without stepping on someone's toes, don't take the criticism too hard.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So you don't want me to be able to play my Daemonhunters army? I need four Codexes and at least four Detachments to even start these days, and you want to make it harder?

Please take into consideration that I have no idea how the Inquisition Codex works. I assumed they had their own Detachment, but clearly I am mistaken.

With Lord Commissar's local ruling, you could not field your Daemonhunters either.
----------------------
Another big issue is how TO's have had to place rules to impose structure (like the common 2 Detachments only). While TOs have always had their own special rules, it was (usually) still possible to bring the same list to tournies and just adapt your tactics. However, this edition has made it so that TO rules are so wildly divergent that you have to know their rules before even making a list, and you cant bring the same list to different tournies.

The lack of consensus has effectively killed tournament paly for me. On the bright side, casual games (unbound or otherwise) are the most fun in the edition than any other edition I have played, which I guess should be the point.

The Inquisition has it's own "Inquisitorial Detachment" consisting of 1-2 HQ and 0-3 Elites. Each detachment is intended to represent a single Inquisitor and his Henchmen.

And it concerns me that you obviously haven't read all the codexes, yet want to come up with new restrictions on how we build armies. Do yourself a favor. Go out and read the various codexes... especially the newer, smaller ones and then tell me that requiring a CAD and limiting an army to two main detachments is fair.

@kriswall, Most people don't have the $600 available to purchase each and every codex. You can't possibly expect every single person on the proposed rules forum to have read and internalized each and every detail of every army and forge world. It's unrealistic and you're contributing to a toxic atmosphere on the forums.

@galef, it's impossible to post anything in proposed rules without stepping on someone's toes, don't take the criticism too hard.

Some of us are still bitter and taking our frustration out on folks who suggest any tweak to our armies.

As to the purchasing each and every Codex that would be silly, but at the same time it's reasonable to expect someone who's proposing a broad sweeping change to the game to understand how their rule works in the first place. I don't expect Galef to have purchased Codex Inquisition and know that an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor can take Terminator armour and an Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor can't or what the Psychotroke table does, I do expect Galef to know that there exist small detachments designed to supplement larger armies in the game and that this rule would dramatically impact them.

The purpose of the forum is to propose rules, get feedback, revise, get feedback, and work out a solid solution for homerule/tournie/whatever use. He's trying to fix something that he sees as a problem he's not out to get all the inquisition players. It's a forum, this isn't the GW annual stockholders' meeting.

And frankly I'm willing to cut anyone slack when it comes to Inquisition, Sisters, Tempestus, and Imperial Knights. For the first two, there isn't even a hard copy at their FLGS to peruse during their opponent's turn.

 TheSilo wrote:
The problem with unbound and unlimited detachments is that you can field 8 flying hive tyrants and call it a day. The game just gets ridiculous

You can already field 1200pts of Battleforged Flyrants (5x). Would you not say that the point of ridiculousness has already been reached?

Anyways, you're less likely to see a broken unbound list from a fluff player, than a "legal" list from a WAAC tournament player. GW isn't only writing for competitive tournament players, they want fluffy peeps to be able to run narrative armies.

Tournaments are just going to have their own specific restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The organisers are the ones you would address a restriction like this to.

This is actually WHY I posted this. Believe it or not, I appreciate all the feedback, even if some of it seems harsh.

I actually have read all the codecies, minus a small handful, such as the Inquision, Sisters and some of the supplements.

Now that some of you have pointed out, not all armies have a Detachment that fits my proposed format. I can now tweak my format.

@ kriswall: just to be clear, I am not suggesting that a CAD is required, just a non-Formation Detachment, like the DE Realspace Raiders, or GK Nemesis Strikeforce.

Basically, I think only Formations & Dataslates should be unlimited since most Formations come with specific restrictions/mandatory units.
---------------------------
I also think that the "2 Detachments only" that many Tournies use is a "OVER" step in the right direction. It doesnt make sense to require the use of a half your Detachment allotment on 1 Assassin, or 1 Inquisitor.

 Galef wrote:
I also think that the "2 Detachments only" that many Tournies use is a "OVER" step in the right direction. It doesnt make sense to require the use of a half your Detachment allotment on 1 Assassin, or 1 Inquisitor.

It's very harsh on the supplement armies, which tend to lack options like AA in their own codex.

Exactly. I want a format that requires so kind of core, restricts unit duplication abuse, but also allows the "supplement" armies flexibility

--------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT (to avoid double post)

I think I have a better format. Instead of limited the number of Detachments, rather it should be the type of Detachment limited. CADs and special codex Detachment should be reserved to your Primary Faction, whereas the Allied Detachment should only be for (spoiler alert) your Allies. All levels of Alliance allowed, but I also think that the number of Factions should be only 2, unless additional Factions are BBs with your Primary Faction (I will elaborate below)

So lets say you play Tau Primary. You obviously have to start with a CAD, unless the Farsight book has its own Detachment. You can have as any Tau Detachments or Formations as you want.

"But wait, I want to add Necrons". Sure, go ahead, but you can only add Allied Detachments or any Formations. Since Tau are your Primary Faction, you cant use a CAD or Decurion for your Necron Allies

Since Tau and Necrons have no BBs, they would be limited to just those 2 Factions, but pretty much still have unlimited Detachments.
------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY reason I would make this allowance for BBs to add additional Factions is for armies like Inquisition, Assassins, Harlequins, etc. as they cannot really use the Allied Detachment or are fielding in a special way

So If my Primary army is Dark Eldar, I can use as many CADs or Realspace Raiders detachments as I want, Allied Detachments of Eldar and Formations of Eldar, Dark Eldar or Harlequins.

Also if your Primary is Inquisition, take as many of their special Detachment, and you can add an Allied Detachment of Blood Angels, a Formation of Imp Guard and an Assassin. All are BBs, so as long as you DONT use the Allied detachment for you Primary Faction and your Allies DONT use CADs, etc., you can add whatever
------------------------------------------------
But lets say that your Primary and Allied Detachments weren't BB's, like Space Marines & Orks. If your Primary is Space Marines, you could add Assassins or Inquisitors or Knights. This creates the feel or a "Core" or your Space Marines & Knight with Orks as an Ally. If you added a 3rd non-BB ally, like Nids, the army would have too much on an Unbound feel to it