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.

@Ritides

Well played sirrah

See, I would rather play 7th with a comp score on the score card than a worse version of 6th (for anyone not a BB with someone) without it. Which is what the above suggestions boil down to. 6th edition.

And most of us know how I feel about comp

Both of you have an exalt! I think this is what will keep the heart and soul of 40k. Too much comp is silly but where things have gone now is just as bad if not worse.

Want to stop the hemorrhage of the player base? This is how you will do it. the louder bunch will complain plenty on forums, but they will attend no matter what. Be the voice for the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
Well, arguing for comp is fine but imo is a slightly different approach to take. I would not be opposed, but would prefer to try some basic restrictions like those listed above first.

This has already been attempted for 2 years. Didn't stop the loss of players at all really.

 Tomb King wrote:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

Agreeing with this. We are still playtesting but are likely to do the (almost) exact same things for comp.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

Agreeing with this. We are still playtesting but are likely to do the (almost) exact same things for comp.

I also agree this list is all good, with one exception, the "maybe" to LOW's, as we have a whole codex of super heavies now, each army having acess to one lord of war is a pretty large thing to omit, especially after the D nerf. Id rather see it as LOW allowed, with the eldar titan getting a "maybe" on a per event basis.

but as a whole that list is acceptable to a wide range of people, myself included

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)

Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot

Which goes back to the basic issue of spam and whether or not army comp is needed. 9 Wyvern is just as bad as 9 Thudd Guns. But forgeworld rules are generally less well known than the codex rules and therefore make it much easier to catch an opponent with his shorts down by spamming something previously unknown.

To be fair, the Wyverns can move if they want, aren't subject to Ld tests, and don't need psychic support or orders to get Twin Linked and Ignores Cover

Spam is always an issue, but if someone would be surprised by something like Thudd Guns, they'd be a lot more upset by the Codex tank There's very few things from FW that opponents will have no experience with anymore, I think facing combinations of things from different armies would be a much bigger issue in general, and I'd imagine at this point there's probably more people familiar with FW stuff than some of the less popular codex books (e.g Sisters) at this point.

I still don't see where a "consensus" for "no CTA allies" has come from. A couple people mentioned it, seeming to assume it was fait accompli, but there have been a huge number of people disagreeing with the necessity of it. Along with a few other things, thread participants are trying to see things that just aren't there.

At some point, somebody is going to have to demonstrate a real need to ban CTA allies. At the moment, I've yet to see anybody show that it's going to cause any sort of problem that doesn't have a far worse version in the Armies of the Imperium Battle Brother Blob (tm). Like so many other things that people seem to be worried about, the CTA issue is related to basic gamer conservatism rather than any substantial need.

@PanzerLeader. Normally it is good to connect an online alias to a facr but I think you have me confused with another. I have never ean FW or thud guns in an event.

@Snow flake come the apocalypse can be adjusted by event. As well as the limits on battle forged. We just know there will be an adjustment of some sort.

From a purely balance perspective, you're probably right, CTA allies are probably amongst the least problematic from a competitive/balance issue, but they also are amongst the most offensive just from a fluff/"things that should not be" sense.

I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)

Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:
From a purely balance perspective, you're probably right, CTA allies are probably amongst the least problematic from a competitive/balance issue, but they also are amongst the most offensive just from a fluff/"things that should not be" sense.

Which means absolutely nothing for a discussion relating to "making 7th edition playable". If we are going to start limiting things due to fluff reasons, there are far more egregious combinations out there, just at Battle Brother level.

Inquisition allying with Space Wolves or Dark Angels comes to mind first...

 Leth wrote:
I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)

Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.

I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.

Invisibility as wc3 or back to shroud stealth is awful. The latter makes the power too similar to the new one, shrouding, while wc3 makes it far too difficult to cast. Once again. If you nerf invis so heavily, why arent we looking at fortune? 1/12 wounds (2+/4+) is still essentially unkillable and people will just flock back to seers/beasts.

And as Hulk/MVB have preached, the new objective scoring method (IMO, the defining feature of 7th), will weed out deathstars due to their inability to simply contest everything/kill off MSU scorers.

 Magc8Ball wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
From a purely balance perspective, you're probably right, CTA allies are probably amongst the least problematic from a competitive/balance issue, but they also are amongst the most offensive just from a fluff/"things that should not be" sense.

Which means absolutely nothing for a discussion relating to "making 7th edition playable". If we are going to start limiting things due to fluff reasons, there are far more egregious combinations out there, just at Battle Brother level.

I don't disagree (though the SW's didn't seem to have problems with the INQ until relatively recently in 40k history), only stating why most people have issues with CTA allies.

@Vaktathi

Nevermind, someone already brought it up so I'll edit that comment out

@Tomb King

But you were trying for a baseline consensus. And you presented it like it was the way everyone in the thread was thinking while another major TO isn't totally headed that direction and others have pointed out time and again the issues and inaccuracies.

An honest look at what seems to be a consensus at this point is:

-Tactical Cards aren't going to work in their current incarnation for tournaments
-Forticiations will need clarifications
-2 Detachments (variable by event)
-No Unbound

That's the consensus I see throughout the thread that almost anyone will get behind with the final determiner for people being how the 2 detachments are handled.

Some will want to play 7th with it being how it's ruled in the BRB. Others will want to stick with what they know and play it like 6th. I think this one will honestly hinge on how the Ork codex is formatted. If it has multiple detachment types it hinders the 1 CAD & 1 Ally and/or Formation version.

Pretending there is anything more than the above that's been broadly agreed to be reasonable by the thread is being willfully blind to what's been said back and forth.

As an aside these are the things each event will likely determine for themselves over 7th that have been brought up:

-Lords of War
-Forge World Inclusion
-Whether to flat out change the rules of 7th edition in relation to the psychic phase (individual powers and warp charge generation.)
-Terrain (something that hasn't been discussed enough in my opinion).

 undertow wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)

Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.

I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.

Thats why I said Grey Knights, not inquisition. Can totally see a rogue inquisitor doing it.

But one of my personal rules when I make a list is that if my opponents dont have a decent time because of the list then I dont bring it out to play again. I have no shortage of lists that I want to try and be competative with. No reason to make it so they dont have fun in the process. Winning is not that important to me.

 Leth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)

Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.

I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.

Thats why I said Grey Knights, not inquisition. Can totally see a rogue inquisitor doing it.

But one of my personal rules when I make a list is that if my opponents dont have a decent time because of the list then I dont bring it out to play again. I have no shortage of lists that I want to try and be competative with. No reason to make it so they dont have fun in the process. Winning is not that important to me.

I have seen multiple thousand sons grey knight counts as which debunks your stance. Your not giving your opponents any credit here and are just assuming cover art besides cover art.

 Tomb King wrote:

Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)

I definitely disagree with this proposal.

Changing it to Stealth-Shroud makes Marker Lights fantastic against it. Sure, ML can raise the BS of a Snap Shot, but at least I'd get a cover save against whatever is using the ML in that case.
Additionally, making it confer Stealth-Shroud makes the power essentially the same as Shrouding. If you DON'T want a cover-save power, and you're rolling on Telepathy, now there are TWO powers you hope to avoid, rather than just one.

Changing it to WS1 means that most things will hit on 5s, rather than on the RAW 6s. And if you make a WS3 unit Invisible (like Soroitas), then everyone hits you on 4s, which is definitely not the same as 6s. It should be kept as "hits on 6s."

Finally, a WC2 power needs 5d6 to get 81% pass rate. That's a lot of dice. A WC3 power, to get the same level of success, needs 8d6. That's making it ~60% harder to pass, which is a HUGE nerf, especially in combination with the nerfs you're already proposing. You're changing this from a great power, to a crappy power. That's too much of a swing.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Leth wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)

Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.

I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.

Thats why I said Grey Knights, not inquisition. Can totally see a rogue inquisitor doing it.

But one of my personal rules when I make a list is that if my opponents dont have a decent time because of the list then I dont bring it out to play again. I have no shortage of lists that I want to try and be competative with. No reason to make it so they dont have fun in the process. Winning is not that important to me.

I have seen multiple thousand sons grey knight counts as which debunks your stance. Your not giving your opponents any credit here and are just assuming cover art besides cover art.

I once again said grey knights. Now if someone puts the time and effort into making the army work I really don't give a damn. But we are talking about tournaments. I find it highly unlikely that the person who is going to cheese out to the max is going to put the hobbyist effort in.

If you put the effort in I will play whatever list you bring happily. Like there is a guy who is working on nurgle infested eldar. If that person started summoning daemons 100% thumbs up from me. Now would I not play someone who did grey knights next to daemons? Of course I would still play them, but I would constantly give them good natured ribbing the entire match

 Madness! wrote:
How about scoring "Objective Secured" points at the end of the opponent's turn. Gives players the chance to kill units off the objective.

I think most tournaments are going to stick to the alternate scoring missions that were being developed at the end of sixth which had you scoring points at the start of your turn. Nice little mix of both.

How about scoring "Objective Secured" points at the end of the opponent's turn. Gives players the chance to kill units off the objective.

 LValx wrote:
If you nerf invis so heavily, why arent we looking at fortune? 1/12 wounds (2+/4+) is still essentially unkillable

This is true. If you start messing with one Psychic power, you're going to have to take an honest look at all the Psychic Powers. And Fortune is at the top of the list. I'd say it's the worst offender, far outstripping the current Invisibility. Be fair and honest, and nerf that first, please.

 easysauce wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

Agreeing with this. We are still playtesting but are likely to do the (almost) exact same things for comp.

I also agree this list is all good, with one exception, the "maybe" to LOW's, as we have a whole codex of super heavies now, each army having acess to one lord of war is a pretty large thing to omit, especially after the D nerf. Id rather see it as LOW allowed, with the eldar titan getting a "maybe" on a per event basis.

but as a whole that list is acceptable to a wide range of people, myself included

I agree of course (as stated). But as Hulk fairly points out, let's leave out the words "conclusions" or "consensus"... I do think, though, that a large number of people (definitely not all- when has it ever been all?) would be fine / happy with these restrictions.

Tomb King wrote:@PanzerLeader. Normally it is good to connect an online alias to a facr but I think you have me confused with another. I have never ean FW or thud guns in an event.

@Snow flake come the apocalypse can be adjusted by event. As well as the limits on battle forged. We just know there will be an adjustment of some sort.

Entirely possible I'm confusing you with someone else. I'm thinking of Tim Gorham's army from last years Wargamescon.

Vaktathi wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)

Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot

Which goes back to the basic issue of spam and whether or not army comp is needed. 9 Wyvern is just as bad as 9 Thudd Guns. But forgeworld rules are generally less well known than the codex rules and therefore make it much easier to catch an opponent with his shorts down by spamming something previously unknown.

To be fair, the Wyverns can move if they want, aren't subject to Ld tests, and don't need psychic support or orders to get Twin Linked and Ignores Cover

Spam is always an issue, but if someone would be surprised by something like Thudd Guns, they'd be a lot more upset by the Codex tank There's very few things from FW that opponents will have no experience with anymore, I think facing combinations of things from different armies would be a much bigger issue in general, and I'd imagine at this point there's probably more people familiar with FW stuff than some of the less popular codex books (e.g Sisters) at this point.

I disagree on the Forgeworld only because of the vastness of the books. Stock Imperial Armor stuff isn't the issue so much as units from niche books like Fall of Orpheus, Doom of Mymeara, Raid on Kastorel-Novem or The Anphelion Project. Plenty of small, nasty units in there that aren't talked about alot but have the potential to be pretty brutal.

Just out of curiosity, any examples?

I can't think of any that are terribly more brutal that anything they might face out of codex books, especially that aren't required to be run as part of an FW list.

One issue I see with FW is their extremely slow to non-existant reaction to updates.

If a book still isn't updated via a FAQ after 3 (?) weeks, that's just extremely poor work.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just out of curiosity, any examples?

I can't think of any that are terribly more brutal that anything they might face out of codex books, especially that aren't required to be run as part of an FW list.

Arcanthrites (spelling?) come to mind. T5, W3 wraiths with Stealth and a meltagun (but no ++ save to be fair). The Orc Mega Dread is pretty brutal, especially now that it takes a 7 to explode vehicles. The Eldar Hornet is annoying (AV11, HP2 fast skimmer with 2x pulse lasers. Has scout and a special rule that allows it move flatout and then snap shoot its pulse lasers. Can be bought in squadrons and its cheaper than a Typhoon).

I think something that occurs with Forgeworld is the same thing that is occurring with things like Summoning spam, and it's similar in nature to sticker shock.

People've never seen a 95 point herald suddenly turn into a 230 point lord of change, then seen it swoop halfway across the board before crapping out a squad of plague drones. Yet, that's exactly the kind of thing that's going to be happening with regularity.

They also never saw a Wave Serpent put 13 armor saves on a marine squad or one-shot a night scythe, but they got used to it. People got used to Wave Serpents more or less faster than 2+ re-rolls. Both are beatable and work-aroundable, but a giant super fast unit of 2+ cover/invul/armor type re-roll models that can hurt anything and can't be pinned is almost unprecedented in 40k history ... whereas Wave Serpents being d-bags isn't (hello 4th edition). Familiarity matters to acceptance.

The frequency with which certain things occur at the LGS level locally / regionally / nationally directly impact the readiness with which people socialize them into their understanding of the game. The more egregious and/or rare something is, the more negatively that can impact the average gamer's perception of what they come across.

Frankly, I think it's going to be pretty common to see people getting 'free' mid-game Lord of Change "upgrades" and dropping plague drone units all over the place. I think it will probably be less common to spend 3 hours in 3 turns of mass horror summoning spam. So these things will be perceived, incorporated into the standard acceptance, and played around with differently from each other.

This ties back to FW of course - frankly, there probably aren't that many issues with it, but each TO has a different prime constituency, and if the regional / local / national / international attendee combination that primarily fuels a given event is uncomfortable with FW still, they aren't likely to change their comfort level very quickly, b/c they likely never have to deal with it or become accustomed to it locally.

Some of the freakout about new crazy game mechanics is basically oriented around the fact that things are new that have never been seen or possible before, and everyone has to play with them for now, because they are mainstream components of the game. The initial kneejerking is affecting everything from TOs on down.

I think, however, on the bright side ... the game is also incredibly flexible while still being the game. When I see someone say "unlimited detachments is how 7th edition should be" or "2 CAD is how 7th should be" or "unbound is how 7th should be" or "2 detachments but only one CAD is how 7th should be" ... it's kinda hilarious ... because every one of those quotes is both right and wrong. They're wrong because there is no one way it should be ... so when you say "well unless you do this it isn't 7th," you're wrong ... sorry!

At the same time, they're all right ... b/c they're all choosing to in some way restrict or organize how 7th should be played, and the rulebook itself quite early on (I think within the first 10 pages of the rules, no?) has a line that effectively says "these are more like guidelines, get creative and do w/e the hell you want."

It's good to see so many people taking that suggestion seriously ... and maybe not so good to see the already-visible beginnings of the internet culture clash between a wide swathe of people who will adamantly start to claim that THEIR idea for how to organize 7th is "the" way the game should be played, and that someone else's idea is "just 6th all over again" or in some other way fundamentally "wrong."

 Sigvatr wrote:
One issue I see with FW is their extremely slow to non-existant reaction to updates.

If a book still isn't updated via a FAQ after 3 (?) weeks, that's just extremely poor work.

I don't disagree, but that's not unique to FW. To be fair, GW hasn't FAQ'd the Inquisition or Adeptus Sororitas armies at all, and the rest of their FAQ's are very barebones with massive gaps.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just out of curiosity, any examples?

I can't think of any that are terribly more brutal that anything they might face out of codex books, especially that aren't required to be run as part of an FW list.

Arcanthrites (spelling?) come to mind. T5, W3 wraiths with Stealth and a meltagun (but no ++ save to be fair). The Orc Mega Dread is pretty brutal, especially now that it takes a 7 to explode vehicles. The Eldar Hornet is annoying (AV11, HP2 fast skimmer with 2x pulse lasers. Has scout and a special rule that allows it move flatout and then snap shoot its pulse lasers. Can be bought in squadrons and its cheaper than a Typhoon).

IIRC equipping a Hornet with dual pulse lasers and no other wargear costs as much as a Leman Russ Eradicator (don't have my book on me right now though). The Acanthrites can be powerful, but I don't think they're necessarily scarier than other stuff people currently face, and IIRC their meltas are S6 (though again, I don't have my book on me). I don't recall the Mega Dread specifically so I can't comment on that .

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
One issue I see with FW is their extremely slow to non-existant reaction to updates.

If a book still isn't updated via a FAQ after 3 (?) weeks, that's just extremely poor work.

I don't disagree, but that's not unique to FW. To be fair, GW hasn't FAQ'd the Inquisition or Adeptus Sororitas armies at all, and the rest of their FAQ's are very barebones with massive gaps.

What bothers me isn't that their books are always up-to-date. 7th has been released and there hasn't been a FAQ to get the books up-to-date. That isn't a sloppy oversight, that's unacceptable.

MVBrandt wrote:
They also never saw a Wave Serpent put 13 armor saves on a marine squad or one-shot a night scythe, but they got used to it. People got used to Wave Serpents more or less faster than 2+ re-rolls. Both are beatable and work-aroundable, but a giant super fast unit of 2+ cover/invul/armor type re-roll models that can hurt anything and can't be pinned is almost unprecedented in 40k history ... whereas Wave Serpents being d-bags isn't (hello 4th edition). Familiarity matters to acceptance.

For the record, I'm still not used to it (but unfortunately don't get to play 40k as much as I'd like, with my local group being primarily into Warmachine and Infinity, currently). Even with my limited play experience, I feel like Wave Serpents are more problematic than a lot of the things we're freaking out about in here...

And that is part of why I don't like the idea of 2 CADs. One limitation of serpent spam before was this:

...After Wave Serpents, Jetbikes are perhaps the best option in the Eldar codex but we've already sucked up all of our Troop slots so for the moment, we'll give them a miss.

Quoted from here in an article on running serpent spam. Now you can run objective secured serpent spam and a bunch of cheap objective secured jetbikes!

I'm not really upset about summoning, it just seems like a new kind of army, the only issue with it being whether it can finish on time (which may really be an issue). But making already super strong armies that much stronger by allowing 2 CADs is the issue I see. I.e. the often mentioned 6 Annihilation Barges, or my Serpent spam + jetbikes example above.

Anyway, I'm sure people can poke holes in any example I give, but I'd like to be clear that I'm saying I'd like to see only 1 CAD allowed... not that that is "how 7th ought to be played" . Honestly I think very few people are saying that about any stance here. It's pretty obvious 7th ed was intended to be whatever people want it to be, in order to sell the maximum amount of models. So, we just have to sort out what we want it to be

 RiTides wrote:

Anyway, I'm sure people can poke holes in any example I give, but I'd like to be clear that I'm saying I'd like to see only 1 CAD allowed... not that that is "how 7th ought to be played" . Honestly I think very few people are saying that about any stance here. It's pretty obvious 7th ed was intended to be whatever people want it to be, in order to sell the maximum amount of models. So, we just have to sort out what we want it to be

I had a really long response that my computer ate to Mike's post but this pretty much summed it up (not the 1 CAD part, the rest). I'm not saying you're not playing 7th if you play one CAD & 1 Ally detachment only. I'm saying you're playing 7th with 6th edition army structures

And honestly army selection is extremely unlikely to keep me from attending an event. I think simple is better and two detachments is simple. Two detachments but only one of each kind and you can ally with each other is more complicated. Not much, but more complicated and it could get worse depending on how codexes are formatted moving forward

The thing that would keep me from attending events is changing the basic rules in the phases. How movement works. How shooting works. How the Psychic phase works. Those to me are a far cry from army structure discussion. At that point, even with the caveat that you can do what you want, I don't feel like you're playing 7th edition anymore. Vs. the army list discussion where you're playing 7th, just with 6th edition army structure