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.
Phazael wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but don't powers which are not attacks specifically not work on superheavies/gargantuans? Or did they dump that in 7th? If so, then invisible giant things are not an issue. Invisible seer councils might be more difficult, but with the force org limits, getting invisibility is not a sure bet in the first place.
Fortune wasn't a sure bet in 6th, but beaststars and seer councils scraped by somehow.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/09 22:11:39
We've made our choices on how to proceed. I am writing it all up now.
We will have a single championship event and a non-competitive event per usual. Most of the poll results will be implemented.
We are using FW, yes, as always.
We are allowing Formations yes, as we have been. And yeah, Living Artillery is a good one! I run my Nids that way.
The sky will not fall, and while Invisible Beastpacks will be pretty gnarly, my money says an MSU scoring army wins it all.
Thanks to everyone for their feedback, we look forward to another fun BAO! The new venue is pretty fantastic =)
Tickets will be up for sale shortly (they are in the web cart now, if anyone wants to grab one before seeing all of the mission parameters), those tables are just for illustration purposes, they won't be there when we are playing, and no cash bar at the event, no.
#1. Everyone wants to play with more points. They want to take all of their toys, and not make any hard choices of what to leave behind. We saw that in 5th edition when the points level crept up to 2000, and the resistance that the community had to lowering it in 6th edition when games where not finishing. Players do not connect the cause and effect of more points=more games not finishing. The reason why is that if your game does not end on time you blame it on the fact that you were playing against or with a horde army, you were slow played, the games started late, there were a lot of arguments etc, but not on the point level. It is like when people want more services from the government and they do not know why there taxes keep going up.
#2. Invisibility is no worse than Fortune, the only difference is that more than one army can get it. Fortune was responsible for 6th editions great sins of Seer Councils and Beast Stars. Now you can counter those 2 builds with an invisible unit of your own and you now have protection from Deathstars. Also 7th edition is not the edition of deathstars, but of MSU. Invisibility is not that great on an MSU army because you just attack the rest of the army, and if you have it on a deathstar, that unit can only kill one unit a turn, so it is not that big of a deal.
Right now the only problem I have with 7th edition is that jacked-up FOC. If you put limits on that, then a lot of other problems go away.
1.) I agree. But, we are going to go with what people want this time around and see how it goes. We have a plan for a way to keep games at least aware of the schedule.
2.) I disagree, but, we're going with the poll and we will see how it actually turns out. I think that with the more random nature of getting powers off, that you may be right. We shall soon see =)
3.) We are going with the Poll on the way to structure your army, 1 CAD comprised of a single faction (which includes data slates and supplements), 1 Ally that is not the main faction per the book. I agree that this will cut down on a lot of crazy.
Awesome, see you there, buddy! Going to be a lot of fun. It's nice to get this whole business of format behind us, now we're just pumped for a fun tournament!
If you were to nerf invisibility, then the way I would do it is to limit it to infantry only (not jump). It would kill it for Lords of War and the Jetseers, plus it would stuff its use in a number of mobile combos. I think the main thing people hate about that power is when it is applied to something that moves to fast to avoid or stop. Limiting it to infantry would make it almost exclusively a defensive power for foot troops, which I think most would find an acceptable use. Its the flying rape trains that people hate.
My 2 cents, anyhow. I agree entirely with Alan's points, after dorking around with Iyanden and nids in the new edition.
Is the BAO exclusively 40k this year or is there a Fantasy event as well?
I think all things considered, you've done a really good job. This would be an event that I'd consider attending if I was in the US.
Best of luck!
"drinking liqueur from endangered rain forest flowers cold-distilled over multicolored diamonds while playing croquet on robot elephants using asian swim suit models as living wickets... well, some hobbies are simply more appealing than others." -Sourclams
Wow, looks really good. If I could swing a trip to SoCal this year I totally would.
I do have one question for you though...
1 Combined Arms Detachment (C.A.D.) which can be comprised of a single faction, chosen from any of those shown in the BRB (pg.118). This detachment can be drawn from multiple sources, such as a codex, supplement of the parent codex, data slate of the parent codex or Forge World unit of the parent codex. Note, unlike in the past, we are not allowing Forge World army lists this year as many of them have not yet been updated for 7th edition.
For example, you could take Tau as your primary faction and in the confines of your Combined Arms Detachment you could have units from the Tau Codex, Farsight Supplement, a Tau data slate and Tau Forge World units, but must abide by the limits of a single Force Organization Chart (ie. no more than 2 H.Q., 3 Elites, etc.).
- See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/10/bay-area-open-2014-warhammer-40000-championships-format/#sthash.jsn41Won.dpuf
How is this supposed to actually work. For instance you list Farsight Enclave as an example, but the FE Supplement is riddled with langue that talks about a Farsight Enclaves Detatchment per the FAQ. For instance "Any character in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex: Tau Empire, but may instead select from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves...." Or Divergent Destiny, 'A Farsight Enclaves Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." Or under Battlesuit Spearhead, "In a Farsight Enclaves Detachment, all XV8 Crisis Teams are troops choices instead of elites choices. However, when choosing a Farsight Enclave's Detachment, you must include at least one XV8 Crisis Team consisting of three models(not including Drones)." Or "When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may Farsight's Command Team instead...."
Is the CAD a "Farsight Enclave's Detatchment?" How is someone able to have units from both when the Supplement precludes anything from the Codex: Tau Empire. Mainly the Signature systems are the problem here, or the requirements of Bonding Knives on everything if you want Crisis Troops. So, you wanted to take the Command Team or Crisis Troops you wouldn't be able to take any Tau Empire Signature Systems or would be required to take Bonding Knives on everything etc.
The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/10 17:01:53
2014/06/10 17:31:19
Subject: BAO 40K Tournament Format Up, Poll Results Back.
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
Effectively a yes to that; if the point is to imply some kind of advantage to be found, however, I'm not sure that one sells it very effectively (i.o.w., the list is not especially remarkable or potent). You would still not be able to take Aun'va or Shadowsun however, because you definitely have a FE detachment (and also a TE detachment).
2014/06/10 17:35:51
Subject: BAO 40K Tournament Format Up, Poll Results Back.
Man, counting dataslates as part of the normal FOC kind of keeps tyranids without any allies, though, right? No chance tyranids could take a dataslate (extra slots) instead of an ally?
--------------------
Regardless of the above, I've changed my mind about allowing allying with yourself. I'm a big fan of armies being 1 CAD and 1 SEPARATE ally, and not being allowed to ally with themselves (as I'd been wondering about before).
Means I'll only face 3 Annihilation Barges instead of 4 if they could ally with themselves
Scary, 5 Annihilation Barge (2 CAD format) bat rep by jy2 here:
Still, would love to see tyranids thrown a bone of some kind... since right now they're the only one with no extra slots from allying, since you're disallowing CtA allies. Seems a reasonable cause to give them some sort of ally route?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/10 17:38:32
2014/06/10 17:49:10
Subject: BAO 40K Tournament Format Up, Poll Results Back.
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
Effectively a yes to that; if the point is to imply some kind of advantage to be found, however, I'm not sure that one sells it very effectively (i.o.w., the list is not especially remarkable or potent). You would still not be able to take Aun'va or Shadowsun however, because you definitely have a FE detachment (and also a TE detachment).
I was trying to give two extreme sample lists, one was completely FE with only the TE Buffcommander. The other mixed and matched as much as possible. It could have easily have been
So we can have multiple detachments, and FED and a TED inside of one CAD?
There are definite advantages, mainly being able to take the best of both books without paying much of the 6th Edition taxes.
For instance: the ability to include a Codex: Tau Empire BuffCommander without any troops etc. So instead of allying in 6th, you just get to include one outright. Or, you have the ability to include Crisis as Troops so long as one unit is three strong and you pay the Bonding Knife tax, 3pts. Or field Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Broadsides in a TE army without Bonding Knives. Or an ECPA Riptide in a normal C:TE army.
I guess if this is how most tournaments are going to be ruled as BAO and NOVA are two of the big boys, I want to make sure people aren't going to cry foul if I combine FE and TE in one CAD as it will now be impossible to combine them with a CAD +AD.
Edit: And if this is derailing this thread, a PM response will suffice. Thank you for your responses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/10 17:49:51
MVBrandt wrote: The trouble is not actually all that complex. It just sounds wrong at face from a pre-7th p.o.v. If a character in the detachment includes signature systems or items from Farsight Enclaves, it cannot also have them from Codex: Tau (unless of course they have them by default a la the special characters).
It's a subtle but important distinction made by the new BRB. They clearly identify that multiple codices are inclusive within Faction, and then describe Combined Arms Detachments as being explicitly built from FACTION, not Codex. So, you can effectively mix and match.
The restrictions in the FE dex don't actually create a problem if you follow the RAW chain here. If you include FE in your Detachment, you cannot also include Aun'Va or Shadowsun. If you include XV8 troops or any other selection from the FE dex, you need to have a 3-man bonding knife Crisis Unit, or your list is illegal. Yada yada.
So these would be legal armies under a single CAD?
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
or
HQ FE: Farsight
FE: O'Vesa
TE: BuffCommander
Troops
FE: Crisis(Required Bonding, one at least three strong)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
FE: Crisis(Requires Bonding)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)
Elites
TE: Crisis(No Bonding Required)
FE: Riptide with Talisman
TE or FE: Riptide
Basically any mixed or matched units from Codex: Tau Empire or Farsight Enclave so long as each individual unit fulfills its requirements ie Farsight as Warlord for O'Vesa, One unit of three Crisis with Bonding as troops, etc.
But, doesn't that make Divergent Destiny Errata "A Farsight Enclave Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." completely unnecessary and pointless despite all Errata including the same language. Just take Shadowsun form Codex: Tau Empire and avoid the Restriction?
I guess my biggest problem is trying to rectify the 7th Edition FAQ's wording and restrictions based off of "a Farsight Enclaves Detatment". All Erratas use that langue and imply limits, but as you've explained the CAD Faction requirements they just don't apply?
Effectively a yes to that; if the point is to imply some kind of advantage to be found, however, I'm not sure that one sells it very effectively (i.o.w., the list is not especially remarkable or potent). You would still not be able to take Aun'va or Shadowsun however, because you definitely have a FE detachment (and also a TE detachment).
I was trying to give two extreme sample lists, one was completely FE with only the TE Buffcommander. The other mixed and matched as much as possible. It could have easily have been
So we can have multiple detachments, and FED and a TED inside of one CAD?
There are definite advantages, mainly being able to take the best of both books without paying much of the 6th Edition taxes.
For instance: the ability to include a Codex: Tau Empire BuffCommander without any troops etc. So instead of allying in 6th, you just get to include one outright. Or, you have the ability to include Crisis as Troops so long as one unit is three strong and you pay the Bonding Knife tax, 3pts. Or field Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Broadsides in a TE army without Bonding Knives. Or an ECPA Riptide in a normal C:TE army.
I guess if this is how most tournaments are going to be ruled as BAO and NOVA are two of the big boys, I want to make sure people aren't going to cry foul if I combine FE and TE in one CAD as it will now be impossible to combine them with a CAD +AD.
Edit: And if this is derailing this thread, a PM response will suffice. Thank you for your responses.
I'm not "ruling" for BAO just for the record. I just know Reece and I talked about this at length, and it's something we see eye to eye on as far as the letter of the rules are concerned. This also is the only clear way for FE and TE units to be in the same army, since you are no longer allowed to ally them in (I suppose you could do it in a multiple-CAD scenario, or with the TE Formation as your 2nd Detachment to a FECAD if this wasn't legal).
Realistically, you're actually losing some of the options you'd have had in the past. Remember that previously you were acquiring those same HQ choices anyway, and paying the same crisis tax anyway. Now, however, you cannot get your fourth Skyray or fourth Riptide or whatever else was what you really wanted to do (again, barring the use of formations).
2014/06/10 17:56:01
Subject: Re:BAO 40K Tournament Format Up, Poll Results Back.
Your comment about Tyranids came up several times in frontline's discussion of the poll results. More than one person commented on the Nids being exclusively pinched by the results. Reecius did comment on it:
"I understand what you’re saying but making special allowances almost always causes more probles than it solves. And, skyblights not the only one. I use living artillery and it’s really good."
I think Nids could have been given something to attempt to level the playing field, but them's the breaks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/10 17:56:53
"drinking liqueur from endangered rain forest flowers cold-distilled over multicolored diamonds while playing croquet on robot elephants using asian swim suit models as living wickets... well, some hobbies are simply more appealing than others." -Sourclams
Nids get Formations as an ally, which gives them more options, but yes, they do get the short end of the stick in regards to ally options. However, they still have a lot going for them. A lot of the formations are much better this edition than they were, people are just fixated on Skyblight.
@MVBrandt
Thanks for the assist there, and yeah, we talked about the way the CAD works at length. And thanks for working through a lot of this stuff with me, it was a big help. 7th ed has some subtle, but significant changes.
See you at NOVA, buddy! Can't wait to go and play.
@Thread
Once you get your head around it, you have WAY more freedom in list building now than you did, but, with some more limitations on how much of everything you can take.
I actually like it a lot. I think now players can build what they want but within some fairly reasonable limitations.
As 7th unfolds and more armies get more supplements/formations/etc. this disparity we see right now will dissipate.
I'm not "ruling" for BAO just for the record. I just know Reece and I talked about this at length, and it's something we see eye to eye on as far as the letter of the rules are concerned. This also is the only clear way for FE and TE units to be in the same army, since you are no longer allowed to ally them in (I suppose you could do it in a multiple-CAD scenario, or with the TE Formation as your 2nd Detachment to a FECAD if this wasn't legal).
Realistically, you're actually losing some of the options you'd have had in the past. Remember that previously you were acquiring those same HQ choices anyway, and paying the same crisis tax anyway. Now, however, you cannot get your fourth Skyray or fourth Riptide or whatever else was what you really wanted to do (again, barring the use of formations).
I understand you aren't ruling for the BAO, but I can't go to the BAO and am seriously considering the NOVA. I am also very interested in how this plays out for general tournaments as the BAO and NOVA to influence how many local TOs and even GTs rule things.
I agree, it allows you to ignore some requirements but eliminates getting a 4th Slot for Riptides, or Skyrays. Though Quadtide is still doable with O'Vesa the true O'VesaStar is dead. Overall its a win, less Spam potential though still boosts the power of C:TE by granting access to things like an ECPA Riptide or Crisis Troops without much cost or no cost ie the HQ/Troop Tax of an allied detatchment or 2nd CAD.
I'm basically interested to still have access to a BuffCommander in my FE army. I wasn't running Quadtide or Quad Skyrays so the FOC limitations don't affect me personally. I like the ruling, but still get hung up on the language of the FEFAQ etc. as it is a 7th edition Errata that seems to make no sense.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/06/10 18:34:48
Just out of curiosity, why was the Malcador Infernus banned specifically? Not that I imagine too many people have one, but it seems like an odd exception. Was it just anything with a big, cover-save ignoring template/blast banned?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2014/06/10 18:38:21
Subject: BAO 40K Tournament Format Up, Poll Results Back.
RiTides wrote: Man, counting dataslates as part of the normal FOC kind of keeps tyranids without any allies, though, right? No chance tyranids could take a dataslate (extra slots) instead of an ally?
--------------------
Regardless of the above, I've changed my mind about allowing allying with yourself. I'm a big fan of armies being 1 CAD and 1 SEPARATE ally, and not being allowed to ally with themselves (as I'd been wondering about before).
Means I'll only face 3 Annihilation Barges instead of 4 if they could ally with themselves
Scary, 5 Annihilation Barge (2 CAD format) bat rep by jy2 here:
Still, would love to see tyranids thrown a bone of some kind... since right now they're the only one with no extra slots from allying, since you're disallowing CtA allies. Seems a reasonable cause to give them some sort of ally route?
Tyranids can still take dataslate formations.
When Reece was talking about dataslates as part of the normal FOC, he is talking about dataslate characters such as Be'lakor or Cypher. Otherwise, you can't even take Skyblight at all as it consists of 1 HQ and 6 FA's.
Reecius wrote: Nids get Formations as an ally, which gives them more options, but yes, they do get the short end of the stick in regards to ally options. However, they still have a lot going for them. A lot of the formations are much better this edition than they were, people are just fixated on Skyblight.
jy2 wrote: Tyranids can still take dataslate formations.
When Reece was talking about dataslates as part of the normal FOC, he is talking about dataslate characters such as Be'lakor or Cypher. Otherwise, you can't even take Skyblight at all as it consists of 1 HQ and 6 FA's.
Sweet! However, the wording below confused me, emphasis mine:
For example, you could take Tau as your primary faction and in the confines of your Combined Arms Detachment you could have units from the Tau Codex, Farsight Supplement, a Tau data slate and Tau Forge World units, but must abide by the limits of a single Force Organization Chart (ie. no more than 2 H.Q., 3 Elites, etc.).
Apparently this doesn't apply to formations and only dataslate characters (the needing to fit in one FOC part). So, it might be worth clarifying that wording? If I was confused, another attendee might be, as I still don't know how you could tell it wouldn't apply to formations jy2 (which would, as you say, invalidate Skyblight... which doesn't matter to me since I want to take a Living Artillery Node, but still ).
2014/06/10 19:08:57
Subject: BAO 40K Tournament Format Up, Poll Results Back.
How does this affect one-per-detachment units? I'm thinking specifically of the Eldar Crimson Hunter Exarch. Can I take one from C: Eldar and one from C: Iyanden? Or just the one regardless?
Rokugnar Eldar (6500) - Wolves of Excess (2000) - Marines Diagnostica (2200)
tumblr - I paint on Twitch! - Also a Level 2 Magic Judge
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
).
Rokugnar Eldar (6500) - 
Wolves of Excess (2000) - 
Marines Diagnostica (2200)
Also a Level 2 Magic Judge