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.

zedsdead wrote:
ill be there once again for my 5th year ! as well as celebrating my 50th birthday.

50? You young punks.... I'll be turning 56 the weekend before. And I'm sure there are some older farts than me planning on attending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Widowsbane wrote:
This does not seem to be an option being considered...I am not sure why not...

2 detachment, only one CAD, every army can ally with themselves(like those silly space marines)...IMO this is 2 CAD "lite"...so no 6 ani-barges, but 4...this would not be any more than was common at Adepticon where most marine bro-stars had coteaz or a nade toting Inquisitor anyways...

Ummm, no, they can't. A Faction may not take an Allied Detachment of the same Faction. So While two Necron CADs would be legal, a Necron CAD with a Necron Allied detachment is not. Hence the two CAD vs one CAD/one allied detachment discussion. Except, of course, for those special Space Marines....

MVBrandt wrote:

This explains why it's completely RAW and clearly intended to be able to mix and match Farsight selections in with Tau Empire selections, so long as you continue to follow the letter of the rules as well (i.e., you cannot have any FE selections inside your Tau Combined Arms Detachment if you do not have a 3-model troop crisis unit with bonding knives, nor can you put Tau Empire signature systems on a model that has selected Farsight Enclaves signature systems, nor can you include Aun'va or Shadowsun in a detachment that includes Farsight Enclaves selections, etc.).

It is important to note that this is one of the more subtle changes to 7th edition, but isn't a "fuzzy" one in terms of word choice and rules.

I've answered this in the other thread rather than derail this one! Suffice to say, I think there is a more clear and less fuzzy interpretation of all that that is more RAW.

I read ya Ian, still a W.I.P. and discussion in progress, been a crazy few days in proposal world.

FYI all - the Warmachine/Hordes and Fantasy tickets have been off the hook today ... we're running out of WM/H all passes (Seriously, I don't know how many are left, but it cannot be more than like 3, 4, something like that?).

Fantasy is WELL UNDER half left ... we're probably 10 sales ahead of last year's sell-out 64 player pace ... so you need to get registered now if you want in on Fantasy; it's going to sell out.

 don_mondo wrote:

Widowsbane wrote:
This does not seem to be an option being considered...I am not sure why not...

2 detachment, only one CAD, every army can ally with themselves(like those silly space marines)...IMO this is 2 CAD "lite"...so no 6 ani-barges, but 4...this would not be any more than was common at Adepticon where most marine bro-stars had coteaz or a nade toting Inquisitor anyways...

Ummm, no, they can't. A Faction may not take an Allied Detachment of the same Faction. So While two Necron CADs would be legal, a Necron CAD with a Necron Allied detachment is not. Hence the two CAD vs one CAD/one allied detachment discussion. Except, of course, for those special Space Marines....

I am pretty sure he meant the last part to be an additional rule, a *change* to the BRB rules.

Instead of allowing only 1 CAD, or allowing 2 full CADs.... the proposal is to only allow 1 CAD and 1 AllyD but *also* say that any army can ally with itself.

Ahh, gotcha.

So Warmachine/Hordes has only ONE all pass left.

We're talking about doubling down but the long and short all is if you want in on this radical WMW qualifier and Thurs - Sun nonstop WM/H gaming ... well, only one more of you can guarantee participation in any event you'd like to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - With registrations going way up since release of 7th, we're also under 100 spots left in the 40K GT.

Also, only a handful of Swag Bags Remain. Counting SuperNOVA, the first 500 get them, and then that's it. There aren't many left (come w/ Convention Access Pass purchase).

This year's Swag Bags all contain a PINT GLASS among many, many other sweet things (including, for instance, Malifaux minis).

Sweet a Pint Glass... I may have to drink more at the VIP room this year!

Indeed! Though we are now opening the VIP room to all, and including free lounge talks from game designers and artists and more all weekend

Update:

Highly likely that our structure for army build in the GT and Invitational will be:

- 1850 Points
- 2 Detachments, maximum of 1 Combined Arms Detachment
- No Lords of War*
- Force Structure Addendum - Detachments are built by FACTION as per the Rulebook, and not by source/codex
- Fore Structure Addendum - Conjured units are under your control, but are not a part of the army selection process, and thus are not part of a detachment. They therefore do not benefit from things which affect the same detachment or army, and do not benefit from detachment-specific rules such as Objective Secured; conjured models will follow the Allies Matrix per normal (as it is done on a by-model basis, not a by-unit/detachment basis)


*Lords of War may be opened up more based upon the way GW presents the Ork Codex. We are erring on the side of caution here, backed up by past survey results and output from pre- and post-7th events using Lords of War and the feedback revolving around their inclusion.


Please note this ruling is not quite final, as we are still doing a lot of research, feedback from actual playtest and tournaments, soul-searching, yada yada, but we also need to formalize this imminently, to give players the most time possible for preparation.

For the Trios event, things will remain completely open-ended, following the Battle-Forged Army rules straight out of the BRB for the singles component of that event (Troy/James to confirm). For the Narrative, expect it to also remain a little more open-ended (i.e., 2 detachments or 3 detachments, with no limit on CAD), for both the NIghtfighters and the 7-game GT-caliber Warlords event.

Note that carefully - if you are dieheard irrevocably set on army construction that is broader than the GT/Invitational, a GT-level event in the Narrative Warlords track is available with more fluid army construction rules and a different angle on how to go about it. That said, less than half the spots in the Warlords Track remain.

Update on Swag Bags - Hard to get a bead on # left, but it isn't many; they do include a bunch of minis, sweet tools and useful things, and also ... again ... a limited edition pint glass for ALL first 400 swag bag registrants and 80 SuperNOVAs. I believe there's maybe 10 or 20 left? Something like that?

I am displeased with the single CAD.....If you listen carefully you can hear wonderful lists being murdered in the warp!

But on a more serious note are you going to allow allies to be from the same faction? So armies without BB's don't suffer as seriously in comparison to armies that do?

 Hulksmash wrote:
I am displeased with the single CAD.....If you listen carefully you can hear wonderful lists being murdered in the warp!

But on a more serious note are you going to allow allies to be from the same faction? So armies without BB's don't suffer as seriously in comparison to armies that do?

No plans to change the allies rules, or prohibit the Come the Apocalypse allies rules. Armies like Tyranid still benefit from the formations providing additional BB models at the same level and breadth as allies (if not as custom-tailored), speaking as a long-standing competitive Tyranid player

I know it's opinion, but based on all the playtest and feedback so far, I cannot get behind the assertion that armies without BBs are suffering seriously compared to those that have them. That said, it has been interesting to hear one or two comments asking for an exception of the 2 detachment rule to be made just for Imperial players to gain access to Inquisitors as the frosting on top.

Just seems arbitrarily limiting. SM can self ally but no other faction can.

But you have formations some say. Necrons, Orks, IG, Dark Eldar, Daemons, and Chaos tell a different story. Though only Necrons and Orks are bereft of BB's out of that list.

My issue comes with the massive consolidation of Imperial Armies into a giant BB mob with a sever limiting of AoC available throughout. Without double CAD or self allying I feel it's a massive uplift of Imperial Armies when you limit the force organization the way you have.

And I say that as a long standing competitive Imperial Player

MVBrandt wrote:

- Force Structure Addendum - Detachments are built by FACTION as per the Rulebook, and not by source/codex

Sorry to harp on about this but does thus mean (taking Farsight Tau as an example)...

A: As per the Rulebook, all new units in a supplement are part of the faction. The new units are Farsight's Buddies and nothing else. There is no new unit called 'Farsight Commander'. As per the rules in the supplement all characters in a Farsight Detachment of the Tau Faction take Farsight Signature Systems. A Tau Faction player must declare if his detachment is Farsight or not. Farsight's Buddies have a specific rule that only allows them to be taken in a Farsight Detachment.

B: Change of rules. Any unit in a detachment may choose which supplement it prefers to use the rules of and must then follow the rules for that supplement. Every rule in every supplement is changed from 'Any (Unit) in a (Supplement) detachment' to 'Any unit in a (Faction) detachment that chooses to be from (Supplement)'.

I would say that, RAW and RAI, A is true. Again, apologies for going on about this, but I'm planning on bringing CSM and trying to build an army!!!


.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I am displeased with the single CAD.....If you listen carefully you can hear wonderful lists being murdered in the warp!

But on a more serious note are you going to allow allies to be from the same faction? So armies without BB's don't suffer as seriously in comparison to armies that do?

No plans to change the allies rules, or prohibit the Come the Apocalypse allies rules. Armies like Tyranid still benefit from the formations providing additional BB models at the same level and breadth as allies (if not as custom-tailored), speaking as a long-standing competitive Tyranid player

I know it's opinion, but based on all the playtest and feedback so far, I cannot get behind the assertion that armies without BBs are suffering seriously compared to those that have them. That said, it has been interesting to hear one or two comments asking for an exception of the 2 detachment rule to be made just for Imperial players to gain access to Inquisitors as the frosting on top.

For those two bolded items it comes down to objective secured. Tyranids under NoVa/BAO can have at most 9 objective secured units, 3 of those requiring taking a points heavy detachment that leads to a FMC monobuild. Far cry from the 18 objective secured just for a single CAD of Space Marines. I think that will be the most telling issue long term for bugs. That and their inability to effectively deal with mechspam MSU or skimmer hammer coming our way. Forces a very limited set of builds on tyranid players.

I also think the Tyranid formations are grossly overated and nerfed by 7ed. The only reason to even consider them (beyond skyblight) are the restrictions tournaments are placing on detachments.

I get it though, bugs are one dex and only one of many considerations. As a TO I do not envy you this decision, nor do I hope you take this as bashing your decision. Just another POV.

I don't see A or B as accurate.

My read is that a Tau Detachment can also be both a Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachment, since both are part of the Tau Faction. Any unit selected within the detachment from Farsight Enclaves must be denoted and modeled/painted as such (and/or be clearly distinct if you go with a homebrew set of Cadre color schemes). Any unit selected from the Farsight Enclaves supplement may only be selected if the supplement's specific rules are followed with regard to that unit. Same is true for TE.

So, you want to take O'Vesa? Well, you must select Commander Farsight - Farsight Enclaves. Then, you must select O'Vesa - Farsight Enclave.s Any signature systems he has from either dex are now considered to have been taken, yada yada.

Furthermore, you must now include a unit of 3 Crisis Suits taking up one of your 6 Troop Slots, and that unit must be equipped with bonding knives, and be denoted/modeled as Farsight Enclaves.

If you want to take the TE signature systems outside of the FE special characters, those models may not also select any signature systems / wargear from the Farsight Enclaves book, since to do so would be illegal, and they must be denoted as Tau Empir alongside their unit designation within the army list.

MVBrandt wrote:
I don't see A or B as accurate.

My read is that a Tau Detachment can also be both a Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachment, since both are part of the Tau Faction. Any unit selected within the detachment from Farsight Enclaves must be denoted and modeled/painted as such (and/or be clearly distinct if you go with a homebrew set of Cadre color schemes). Any unit selected from the Farsight Enclaves supplement may only be selected if the supplement's specific rules are followed with regard to that unit. Same is true for TE.

So, you want to take O'Vesa? Well, you must select Commander Farsight - Farsight Enclaves. Then, you must select O'Vesa - Farsight Enclave.s Any signature systems he has from either dex are now considered to have been taken, yada yada.

Furthermore, you must now include a unit of 3 Crisis Suits taking up one of your 6 Troop Slots, and that unit must be equipped with bonding knives, and be denoted/modeled as Farsight Enclaves.

If you want to take the TE signature systems outside of the FE special characters, those models may not also select any signature systems / wargear from the Farsight Enclaves book, since to do so would be illegal, and they must be denoted as Tau Empir alongside their unit designation within the army list.

Fantastic. Good to know. I still don't agree with the RAW interpretation, but it's good to know this before building the army.

I can build a CSM force with both Chosen and Possessed as troops, and pick and choose who gets Fear. Similarly, I will be likely to be facing lots of Tau armies where all the Crisis suits are troops, but they still get Buffmanders.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I don't see A or B as accurate.

My read is that a Tau Detachment can also be both a Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachment, since both are part of the Tau Faction. Any unit selected within the detachment from Farsight Enclaves must be denoted and modeled/painted as such (and/or be clearly distinct if you go with a homebrew set of Cadre color schemes). Any unit selected from the Farsight Enclaves supplement may only be selected if the supplement's specific rules are followed with regard to that unit. Same is true for TE.

So, you want to take O'Vesa? Well, you must select Commander Farsight - Farsight Enclaves. Then, you must select O'Vesa - Farsight Enclave.s Any signature systems he has from either dex are now considered to have been taken, yada yada.

Furthermore, you must now include a unit of 3 Crisis Suits taking up one of your 6 Troop Slots, and that unit must be equipped with bonding knives, and be denoted/modeled as Farsight Enclaves.

If you want to take the TE signature systems outside of the FE special characters, those models may not also select any signature systems / wargear from the Farsight Enclaves book, since to do so would be illegal, and they must be denoted as Tau Empir alongside their unit designation within the army list.

Fantastic. Good to know. I still don't agree with the RAW interpretation, but it's good to know this before building the army.

I can build a CSM force with both Chosen and Possessed as troops, and pick and choose who gets Fear. Similarly, I will be likely to be facing lots of Tau armies where all the Crisis suits are troops, but they still get Buffmanders.

Accurate enough; again make sure you model and paint for clarity and with your opponents in mind. These armies sound unique as well, with a lot of room for characterful conversion, and certainly are also not more powerful or effective than anything else in the meta right now (as it establishes itself).

As per my previous statement about 2CAD "Lite", i.e. everyone can ally with themselves, or stated differently, everyone can take allies from the same faction...I will stand by this as leveling the playing field...otherwise Imperial armies, and mainly peeps out of codex space marines seem to be at an advantage.......

In other words, I agree whole heartedly with Hulk on this one...(even after the spanking, on the tabletop that is, that he gave me at adepticon!!)

Just for instance on this one...and this is only one example...Necrons can take 2 necron overlords...Space marine's can take 3 chapter masters from different sourcebooks and it is all good, correct?...not to mention other BB...just seems as if some armies are really getting the shaft here...mainly Xenos with no BB...

I also do not envy the NOVA's decisions here and understand they are made with all the i's dotted and t's crossed and everyone in mind...so this is not anything but my two cents...I will be in attendance and have a friggin blast, just like the last 3 years...Thanks again, everyone who makes this happen!!

MVBrandt wrote:
I don't see A or B as accurate.

My read is that a Tau Detachment can also be both a Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachment, since both are part of the Tau Faction. Any unit selected within the detachment from Farsight Enclaves must be denoted and modeled/painted as such (and/or be clearly distinct if you go with a homebrew set of Cadre color schemes). Any unit selected from the Farsight Enclaves supplement may only be selected if the supplement's specific rules are followed with regard to that unit. Same is true for TE.

So, you want to take O'Vesa? Well, you must select Commander Farsight - Farsight Enclaves. Then, you must select O'Vesa - Farsight Enclave.s Any signature systems he has from either dex are now considered to have been taken, yada yada.

Furthermore, you must now include a unit of 3 Crisis Suits taking up one of your 6 Troop Slots, and that unit must be equipped with bonding knives, and be denoted/modeled as Farsight Enclaves.

If you want to take the TE signature systems outside of the FE special characters, those models may not also select any signature systems / wargear from the Farsight Enclaves book, since to do so would be illegal, and they must be denoted as Tau Empir alongside their unit designation within the army list.

Good to know and consistent with BAO. We have a similar reading, though I don't think there is any true ironclad RAW interpretation yet as the RAW is a mess. Any ideas when such things will be finalized?

I do agree that some armies get the proverbial shaft without access to BBs or Self Allying while all Imperial Armies have a plethora of options. But, I see allowing Self allying and Dual CAD has so much potential for abuse.

I agree that it is the more balanced option and really only serves to limit spamming. I also agree that limiting Lords of War right now is the right call competitively, at least as long as so many armies are screwed out of any choices and Imperial armies have dozens to choose from. Also, as long as things as the Transcendent C'Tan are running around etc.

 winterman wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I am displeased with the single CAD.....If you listen carefully you can hear wonderful lists being murdered in the warp!

But on a more serious note are you going to allow allies to be from the same faction? So armies without BB's don't suffer as seriously in comparison to armies that do?

No plans to change the allies rules, or prohibit the Come the Apocalypse allies rules. Armies like Tyranid still benefit from the formations providing additional BB models at the same level and breadth as allies (if not as custom-tailored), speaking as a long-standing competitive Tyranid player

I know it's opinion, but based on all the playtest and feedback so far, I cannot get behind the assertion that armies without BBs are suffering seriously compared to those that have them. That said, it has been interesting to hear one or two comments asking for an exception of the 2 detachment rule to be made just for Imperial players to gain access to Inquisitors as the frosting on top.

For those two bolded items it comes down to objective secured. Tyranids under NoVa/BAO can have at most 9 objective secured units, 3 of those requiring taking a points heavy detachment that leads to a FMC monobuild. Far cry from the 18 objective secured just for a single CAD of Space Marines. I think that will be the most telling issue long term for bugs. That and their inability to effectively deal with mechspam MSU or skimmer hammer coming our way. Forces a very limited set of builds on tyranid players.

I also think the Tyranid formations are grossly overated and nerfed by 7ed. The only reason to even consider them (beyond skyblight) are the restrictions tournaments are placing on detachments.

I get it though, bugs are one dex and only one of many considerations. As a TO I do not envy you this decision, nor do I hope you take this as bashing your decision. Just another POV.

I cant really agree with this post. I am primarily a xenos player though I do run my AM from time to time. SM could always take more scoring troops for tyranids (Minus the spawned guants that is). So why it just not an issue that tyranids cant take the same amount of troops? You do realize a decently built tyranid army would slaughter your suggested SM build. People are making a move towards MSU. I love that idea because with MSU you get a steady decrease in killing power that one unit can deal out. In addition, it is easier to target the more killy of the MSU's. I am not to worried for my nids... especially with them only getting grounded once per turn. Sorry you cant run more flyrants but two should get the job done.

I don't quite understand the argument. It seems that with how NOVA and BAO are setting the tournament scene for 7th goes something like this....if you run SM you can ally with yourself because there is a FAQ stating as much. If you run Imperial armies or a very select few others you can have battle brother allies. The rest of you are stuck with some more restrictive limitations in place.

If the reasoning is that there are just too many broken combos why not limit Space Marines as well? Or have you determined in play testing that marines allying with marines is not nearly as powerful as Necrons with Necrons? Or other armies that currently do not have any battle bros or dataslates to help them break the force org chart?

I only ask because when NOVA and BAO make decisions we really are pretty much going to play under those restrictions for the rest of the edition as everyone takes your lead. It doesn't seem like Nid on Nid or Tau on Tau action is necessarily that much more broken than Marine on Marine.

I guess I'm on Hulksmash's side and wish you guys would let us see if its broken then restrict it later down the line if the game is unbearable.

 Tomb King wrote:


I cant really agree with this post. I am primarily a xenos player though I do run my AM from time to time. SM could always take more scoring troops for tyranids (Minus the spawned guants that is). So why it just not an issue that tyranids cant take the same amount of troops? You do realize a decently built tyranid army would slaughter your suggested SM build. People are making a move towards MSU. I love that idea because with MSU you get a steady decrease in killing power that one unit can deal out. In addition, it is easier to target the more killy of the MSU's. I am not to worried for my nids... especially with them only getting grounded once per turn. Sorry you cant run more flyrants but two should get the job done.

after the nerfs to VS and smash? no, two really don't get the job done.

edited because i can't type.

I'm with Hulksmash.

Xenos should at least be able to self-ally. Imperials gain too much list building flexibility by having a ton of battle brother options.

Regarding self-allying, is it really a problem? Aren't the most OP builds currently all-xenos anyway?

I'd much rather face a self-allying Marine army with extra troops than self-allying Eldar or Tau with extra giant robots.

Bravo on the 1 CAD decision!

Most posts following the decision had a somewhat disgruntled tone, so I thought I'd give you one of happiness and praise!

I know my gaming group sides with the majority (as revealed by BAO and NOVA research) that votes NO to 2 CAD. So we are quite pleased.

As for self-allying. Eh... Really not worried about SM OS spam. In the same way I'm not worried about the Daemon Farm list. We are used to SM self-allying since their codex came out anyway.

@Budzerker

We're used to SM, Eldar, Tau, Chaos, and IG self-allying thanks to 6th. It's not worrying that SM are OP for being able to self ally. It's more along the lines of GW allowing everyone to essentially self ally (Unlimited CAD) and then organizers saying nope, only Marines get to. Why are marines special enough to get an extra elite, fast attack, heavy support and two troops while Tyranids, Necrons, Orks, and Tau can't? Because they are Space Marines of course

Like I said, I've played Imperial Armies for most of 6th edition. This isn't a "it hurts my army" statement. It won't affect my playstyle or army a bit. I just think it's a silly distinction that heavily favors a single faction majorly and to a lesser extent any faction with a BB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Regarding self-allying, is it really a problem? Aren't the most OP builds currently all-xenos anyway?

I'd much rather face a self-allying Marine army with extra troops than self-allying Eldar or Tau with extra giant robots.

The 6th edition OP builds were certainly mostly xenos. Seerstar, Beaststar, and Ovessa Star with Centurion Star bringing up 4th. But we're not playing 6th anymore. Big robots from Eldar/Tau aren't really an issue in 7th.

I think there's a compelling argument to be found herein:

GW made the BB rules "fluffier" (And thus more Imperial Friendly) because they simultaneously made multiple CAD's possible and made factions self-BB'ed. So, "yeah imperial have more access to BB allied facs, but everyone can take a whole second CAD so it's not a big deal as far as access to ICs, hide-able ML, ride sharing, etc."

I think the decision to limit to 1 CAD is the right one for now, but it simultaneously screws with the above thought process.

For that reason, there's a more compelling argument to be had for what's been mentioned already by some - simultaneously with a 1 CAD restriction, removing the Allied Detachment same-fac restriction.

Still in some discussion, but we will likely go with this amendment, thus allowing Allied Detachments to come from the same faction as the Primary Detachment.

Exactly. And while I'd prefer 2 CAD I think that's a decent compromise and at least doesn't heavily favor BB armies.

Glad to hear this being seriously considered. Give us players that wanted to use double CAD a bone!

 Tomb King wrote:

 winterman wrote:
-snip-Forces a very limited set of builds on tyranid players.-snip-

I cant really agree with this post. I am primarily a xenos player though I do run my AM from time to time. SM could always take more scoring troops for tyranids (Minus the spawned guants that is). So why it just not an issue that tyranids cant take the same amount of troops? You do realize a decently built tyranid army would slaughter your suggested SM build. People are making a move towards MSU. I love that idea because with MSU you get a steady decrease in killing power that one unit can deal out. In addition, it is easier to target the more killy of the MSU's. I am not to worried for my nids... especially with them only getting grounded once per turn. Sorry you cant run more flyrants but two should get the job done.

I don't really want to run any Flyrants, let alone more. Or more specifically I don't want to run FMC spam (eg even the 5 FMC like your old batreo lists) or more importantly feel forced to do so in order to compete. With some extra FOC a player like myself has more breathing room to try other builds. Like one built to leverage objective secured, cheap troops and the rest of our codex, rather then fly around and do nearly nothing for 5-7 turns. But sure, assume I just want 3-4 flyrants to make your point.

I think there's a compelling argument to be found herein:

GW made the BB rules "fluffier" (And thus more Imperial Friendly) because they simultaneously made multiple CAD's possible and made factions self-BB'ed. So, "yeah imperial have more access to BB allied facs, but everyone can take a whole second CAD so it's not a big deal as far as access to ICs, hide-able ML, ride sharing, etc."

I think the decision to limit to 1 CAD is the right one for now, but it simultaneously screws with the above thought process.

I have been saying this very thing everywhere to no avail, awesome to hear a major TO say it as well.

For that reason, there's a more compelling argument to be had for what's been mentioned already by some - simultaneously with a 1 CAD restriction, removing the Allied Detachment same-fac restriction.

Still in some discussion, but we will likely go with this amendment, thus allowing Allied Detachments to come from the same faction as the Primary Detachment.

Awesome.

@winterman: A majority of people that get this will run multiple flyrants because even though combat FMC went down some dakka flyrants are still amazing, even if you dont wanna run multiple flyrants. I was speaking as a whole not just targeting your particular build. I could of worded it better. However, with the skyblight formation you can run an extra flyrant now anyways. Trust me facing three of those guys is not a fun day. Had AM not been so ridiculously good in 6th edition I would of probably lost the game to Matt.