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.

 zachwho wrote:
there has ALWAYS been broken things that kill the tournament scene. some things rise to the top, some things rise really quickly. its the nature of the game we play. i didn't buy my models books and cards, just to have someone else tell me I'm playing their version of 40k. i didn't buy adepticon 40k, BAO40k,
or nova open 40k. no i bought warhammer 40k, to be played as it is. if you feel you want to play a game that has bans and restrictions, then go play MTG, that company who designed their cards decides what's broken and what's not.

i understand that gw may not have that degree of involvement in their "balancing for competitive play" department, but this is the game we play, as given to us by gw. its not a 3rd parties responsibility or right to change it for a better game in their opinion, or balance in their opinion.

if you don't like how 7th edition plays, or fear what the tourney scene will be without slamming the brakes on it, then don't play it!


this is entirely my opinion, and in no way meant to be offensive to anyone, or change their minds.

But in the 7th ed rulebook Gw says to houserule and change the rules as you will. So there's your authority right there. TO's have at it.
The fact of the matter, Zachwho, is that if TO's don't change the rules, the game isn't playable for tournaments. So, either they change rules and have tournaments or they just don't do any more tournaments which would be a blow to the gaming community.

Also, I think that that was GW's intention. They actively don't want a tournament scene and don't want tournament style players. I don't understand why tournament players find a game more friendly to their style. There are games out there that would welcome them with open arms.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RiTides

Would you allow armies to ally with themselves? I ask because that's currently no longer legal outside of Space Marines. due to the FAQ.

When all is said and done under the current system we've pretty much been playing 2 FOC's already (slightly limited but not really). At least for Tau, Eldar, SM, IG and CSM.

Could tau still do it via FE?

Nope, same factions can't be allies anymore. Period. Per the rulebook. The sole exception was the ruling in the SM FAQ allowing them to allie if they have different chapter tactics. But the CSM + Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter or Tau w/Farsight are no longer legal allies.

@Hulk- Personally, I'd love for that exception to be made. It's less extreme than allowing a second full detachment from the same army, which is the only choice otherwise.

(Well, not the only choice- I could take a dataslate, instead. But that feels needlessly complicated when allying with yourself would accomplish the same thing in a simpler manner)

I think the only reason GW didn't make that the rule is money- forcing people to accept a full second detachment, or bring in (i.e. buy) models from another force. It's silly to allow marines to self-ally and no one else, imo, when they already have more options... so I'd love for events to allow armies to ally themselves instead of forcing them to take a full second detachment.

Either way, I'm heartily in favor of allowing an ally but not a second detachment, at least for a battle forged event... you might as well play unbound at that point if you allow the second detachment, there's hardly any limitation at all.

 JGrand wrote:
I'll never understand why people feel the need to be so dogmatic about the rules. TOs have ALWAYS needed to intervene. Does GW give us balanced missions? Or the ability to run events? Or how to set up terrain in detailed fashion? The answer is no.

In recent editions, there have been more decisions to make, as GW wants an open game. A loose and open ruleset may not appeal to me, but I do appreciate that there are people out there that want to run fluffy armies using unbound, or who play very differently than myself and other tournament goers. However, when we talk about organized play, there need to be agreed upon restrictions.

Furthermore, these restrictions are not "wild and crazy" or "politically driven." I don't see a major divide in the types of changes that tourney-going players want. The only reason it seems like there is a large amount of dissent is that there is a loud vocal minority that likes to yap about the reasons that the competitive scene is wrong, unbalanced, and stupid. News flash: these people are trolls and are not attending events anyway--even if you allowed everything, ran strict book missions, and made everyone wear jorts and have a neckbeard.

There is no point in being dogmatic--40k is not made for out of box play. However, most games are not. Almost all competitive play requires a community consensus of changes.

You are absolutely right I have never cared about the necessary decisions that TOs have to make so why did I get caught up in the political whirlwind? I have always just lived with the decision and not taken into account the reason for the decision I need to stop thinking like that and just play.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RiTides

Would you allow armies to ally with themselves? I ask because that's currently no longer legal outside of Space Marines. due to the FAQ.

When all is said and done under the current system we've pretty much been playing 2 FOC's already (slightly limited but not really). At least for Tau, Eldar, SM, IG and CSM.

Could tau still do it via FE?

Nope, same factions can't be allies anymore. Period. Per the rulebook. The sole exception was the ruling in the SM FAQ allowing them to allie if they have different chapter tactics. But the CSM + Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter or Tau w/Farsight are no longer legal allies.

As I understand it, one can take units from Farsight Enclaves and Tau Empire in the same CAD. Which is close enough to allying with oneself.

 Thud wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RiTides

Would you allow armies to ally with themselves? I ask because that's currently no longer legal outside of Space Marines. due to the FAQ.

When all is said and done under the current system we've pretty much been playing 2 FOC's already (slightly limited but not really). At least for Tau, Eldar, SM, IG and CSM.

Could tau still do it via FE?

Nope, same factions can't be allies anymore. Period. Per the rulebook. The sole exception was the ruling in the SM FAQ allowing them to allie if they have different chapter tactics. But the CSM + Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter or Tau w/Farsight are no longer legal allies.

As I understand it, one can take units from Farsight Enclaves and Tau Empire in the same CAD. Which is close enough to allying with oneself.

Yeah, it says in the FE supplement very clearly that they can ally.

I wasn't talking about an allied detachment, but Batman in an otherwise pure FE detachment.

MVBrandt wrote:
The result? 1999+1 became a "thing" for the entire edition. I'm not sure that was necessarily a good thing to this day, and our impact on it was fairly clear. There are lessons learned from that for the present, and we're taking that inherent (if not desired) responsibility pretty seriously, as are others like Reece, Chandler, etc.

I'm one of the people that was happy it became a thing. In all honesty though, had it not I would have just played 1850 or whatever. I do find this ominous because I have to think Nova is going to take a hard look at battle forged and realize that some form of regulation is needed. Unlimited force org at any points level makes double at 2000 look positively adorable. Unbound is a distraction that seems to somehow add legitimacy to battle forged, which itself isn't too far off from unbound. Battle forged is putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak.

Now as for all the apocalypse stuff, it should stay in apocalypse. IMO.

As long as you can take at least 2 Combined Arm Detachments in whatever restrictions people put on 7th I'll be a happy camper. If the restriction is basically just 6th edition (i.e. Combined Arms + Allied or Formation) I'll be much sadder.

I'm really hoping our TO friends don't take the initial psyker backlash to heart and limit warp charges as that will just make invisibility and seer council better, not curb it in any way.

 Hulksmash wrote:
As long as you can take at least 2 Combined Arm Detachments in whatever restrictions people put on 7th I'll be a happy camper. If the restriction is basically just 6th edition (i.e. Combined Arms + Allied or Formation) I'll be much sadder.

I'm willing to give it a chance... but doesn't it seem like it will make things even worse than they are?

I.e. why would every tyranids list then not include 4 winged hive tyrants?

It then becomes less "Codex Tyranids" but "Codex Flyrants"...

I'll be excited if I can take a third (by allowing codexes to ally with themselves instead of taking a second detachment). But a fourth... I don't know, it just seems a bit much.

As noted above by Crablezworth, you can't even avoid this by lowering point levels- 4 Flyrants will just be that much more overpowering. Not that tyranids are going to overpower anyone... but I just don't want to see this kind of thing become the norm............ thinking out loud here.

There will always be a select few who end up dictating the tournament standard. Not because they are right or wrong or because of some political agenda. Its because they have the desire, drive and intentinal fortitude to run a big event and put up with all that entails. Including threads like this and comments like these (and even mine below). One can always decide to be a part of the process through actually starting your own event and see what it really entails. Trust me it is eye opening.

 RiTides wrote:
@Hulk- Personally, I'd love for that exception to be made. It's less extreme than allowing a second full detachment from the same army, which is the only choice otherwise.

<snip>

Either way, I'm heartily in favor of allowing an ally but not a second detachment, at least for a battle forged event... you might as well play unbound at that point if you allow the second detachment, there's hardly any limitation at all.

If a TO bans multiple (or dual) combined arms but allows ally detachments then I think they must further house rule to let allied detachments self ally.

Otherwise we are back to late 6ed and a few chosen factions that can get extra FOC slots.

Just my opinion as a player and TO.

I'm right there with you, winterman. And like I said, just thinking out loud... but allowing armies to self ally would be a midway point between nothing and allowing a full second FOC. So, I agree with you and really like that idea, personally.

@Rtides

With the nerfing that FMC's took as far as not being able to score while flying and not being able to land and charge in the same turn or the changes to smash I'd be 100% ok with someone filling 1000pts of their list with Flyrants. Oh, and lack of precisioni shot which was one of the things that made them super nasty.

I don't think double force org makes anything worse. I think that we've pretty much been playing with a neutered version of it for the last year and half and it hasn't broken the game. Is allowing 1 extra HQ, 2-4 extra troops, and 2 extras in the other spots really going to break the game?

i'd argue the opposite. The thing people truly came to loathe as this edition closed was:

1. 2++ rerollable armies
2. Deathstars

Limiting the force org only supports these type of armies. Makes it harder to adjust for the new deathstarry goodness. As for the 2++ rerollable the psychic phase does most of the fixing for us.

And the new threat that people won't be quiet about, Daemonology, is hurt far more by double force org than anything else you can do. Especially if you rule the that you can self ally they can now take 8 heralds whether it's an ally or a double force org so what are you limiting by going single force + ally? Answers to armies like this is the answer.

Naturally it's just my viewpoint. I wasn't a big fan of double force org at the beginning of 6th. But after playing allies for a year and half I honestly have zero issues with double force org at this point.

For simplicities sake though I can see a 2 source restriction even if I'd still prefer a 3 source or open one

Well, I'm personally really happy about the changes to FMC because I always failed my grounding tests . Only having to take one now at the end of the phase is pretty sweet... and then I can charge in if I fail! Still reading through things so forgive me if I'm off on anything, but I think that will help my fragile Flyrants live a bit longer.

On the more general points... well, you may be right. I will think about it. But seeing 6 of whatever the nastiest unit is someone can take in an elite/heavy slot instead of 4 seems a bit over the top... but like I said, I'll think about it.

I really like the idea of 1 primary detachment and 1 allied detachment, where the allied detachment can be the same faction or a formation.

Quite frankly when it comes down to it for me, i'm a guy who, since going to Darkstar, really wants to play more tourneys but probably lacks the skillset to really do well due to not being able to play enough games. wow sorry for that abomination of a run on sentence...

I am concerned that with my limited experience I would definitely struggle with spammed points efficient units that would normally be limited to 3 in a single detachment army.

This is probably going slightly off topic. I'll post my response to the two above comments over in the TO Discussion thread about changes and such

Good call, let's take our discussion over there (direct link to your post below):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/596748.page#6877443