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.

Bear with me

I think now that we're on our third actual codex of 7th and have seen how the armies and books are being formatted it's time to take a genuine look at the source limit again. This is from a playability, competitive, and having a good time standpoint.

Most of the people on this forum probably knew I was in favor of throw it all out there when 7th landed. I'll admit that I hadn't considered the helstorm template or massive blast AP2's that ignored cover on several of the LoW and bow to the decision to avoid letting things like that or the transcedant C'tan run around like gangbusters. However I'm still of the opinion that source limits shouldn't be applied to armies.

Let's start with the fact that 6th/7th edition are not the first times we've had multiple sources in an army. Granted, sometimes those multiple sources have been units but I remember needing 3-4 articles/books to play one of my Codex: Daemonhunter armies back in 3rd edition. That was in 3rd/4th edition where there used to be a long list on GW's website for the "Chapter Approved" units/army lists. We actually haven't had an edition that didn't include "allies" of some type. Though the last 2 years of 5th were as close as we've ever come to single source 40k.

Next we're going on book #3 in 7th edition. Orks, Space Wolves, and now Grey Knights. Every one of these books has a seperate force org chart unique from the CAD. Orks and Space Wolves have followed up initial releases with an army supplement and have campaign supplements that provide additional units to both. It's possible we might see GK formations in the second Sanctus Reach campaign supplement as well. I'm going to leave out Tyranids because even though they feel like they are meant to work with formations they were not released after 7th dropped.

Starting with Orks we have 3 different detachments available after the supplement release. We have the CAD, the Ork Horde, and the Ghaz one. We also have no less than 10 formations so far. Some good, some meh, some bad but quite a few none the less. Some of the formations are excellent for competitive gamers (Blitz Brigade or Bully Boyz). Some of them are amazing for fielding a themed force (Snikrots Commando's doing the ground work for a Dreadmob). None of them are broken or can be used in my opinion to create a broken army but why are we limiting individual formations or the numbers that can be taken?

Moving onto Space Wolves we've got an army that unlike Nids or Orks probably is going to stand up fine under the two source requirement. We're looking at a number of formations in the next few weeks for Space Wolves (some came out yesterday) but honestly it's a solid stand alone book that doesn't push it's owner into multiple sources like Orks (and Tyranids).

Then there are the Grey Knights. While the book isn't out yet we know quite a few things now. It is now entirely possible that a Grey Knight player from 5th edition would need 3 sources for his army to even be legal. That player that used an inquisitor (coteaz or the inquisitor in terminator armor w/psycannon being the most common), a vindicare, and grey knight units simply would not be able to use his army. I use 5th as the example because it was from before allied forces entered the picture. Now you'd need Codex: Grey Knights, Codex: Inquisition, and Dataslate: Officio Assassinorum. Which would be illegal at almost every major GT so far (or maybe all of them, haven't checked them all).

Whether we like it or not GW is splitting rules around. Grey Knights were the easiest to do this with as they really did have 3 different "armies" crammed into their book. And while I realize we are going to have people who try to "break" the game to win I don't see why that should impact people's ability to play their army the way the codex has allowed it since it came out (CH). I don't see why we should arbitrarily limit people's imaginations or fun because we're trying to keep people from breaking 40k. I honestly can't see how anything someone can come up with in a battle forged format could be less fun to play against that FMC Circus (6th Edition), Screamstar (6th Edition), Centurion Stars, Beastpack, or Seerstar for your average player.

Honestly I think it's time to take a second look at source limits in general and really consider the direction we're headed right now with releases from GW.

What we get out of open source:

-Diversity (already increasing but increasing further)
-Better evolving meta as more options are available to counter the new "hotness"
-More modeling opportunities
-More flexibility within your chosen codex if you don't want to branch out into other armies
-More army equality for armies that don't have battle brothers

I'm sure there are more but that's off the top of my head.

Thoughts everybody (and please keep any comments regarding GW Financials in the appropriate threads).

We don't put restrictions on sources at Game Empire Pasadena. The only exception is we limit which LoW you can take, we use the BAO list, and we say that if your army has a LoW it can't have a Knight or Knight formation etc.

So far no problems.

This is the format we use. The key to this format working is highlighted in red.

This event will be played at the 1750 point level, with three rounds of play.

Armies can be built with the following restricitons:

- Any number of detachments allowed.
- Unbound armies allowed (Unbound lists must be submitted for approval in advance of the event, no exceptions)
- 0-1 Lord of War
(from the following list:
All of the Baneblade chassis vehicles except for the Hellhammer (and Traitor’s Bane variant) and Stormsword, which are not allowed for the BAO 2014.
Crassus Armored Assault Transport
Gorgon Heavy Transporter
Minotaur Artillery Tank
All Macharius chassis vehicles.
All Malcador chassis vehicles except the Malcador Infernus which is not allowed for the BAO 2014
Valdor Tank Hunter
Marauder Bomber (may not take Hellstorm bombs)
Maurader Destroyer
Fellblade
Cereberus Heavy Tank Destroyer
Thunderhawk Transporter
Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
Obelisk
Ghazgkull Thraka
Stompa
Gargantuan Squiggoth
Kustom Battle Fortress
Kill Krusha Tank
Kill Blasta
Cobra
Scorpion
Lynx with Pulsar (but not with Sonic Lance)
Tiger Shark (Escalation version)
Orca Dropship
Barbed Hierodule)
- Forge World is allowed.

The missions will be a mix of Maelstrom and Eternal War.

2:20 minute rounds. Players must complete four full game rounds or their game counts as a double loss.

Prizes for the tournament Champion, Best Imperial, Best Non-Imperial, Best Army, and Best Sportsman.

I think using the Maelstrom missions is key to allowing 7th to actually work. Excluding them or bastardizing them just doesn't work, the Maelstrom missions are actually quite good.

Your mileage may vary and it will depend on where you are. Also, more than ever before, GW has created a game that generates enormous strife, division, and insult between players and player types, by having it so very wide open and uncontrolled. You take the very same arguers and drop them in a game like Malifaux or a more controlled/pre-set 40K environment and everything is super peachy keen ... put them in full-and-open 40K and it becomes nothing but "you're too WAAC" or "you're too casual" etc. etc.

I think by this time next year, many or most places will use Battle-Forged and Forgeworld without further restriction (except maybe tweaking the big ignores cover AP1 lords of war weaponry). I think some of the lists in the Narrative (open, battle-forged) and Trios (unbound) for NOVA this year, as I see them coming in, are already far "worse" than is typically proferred and argued as why they're "OK after all."

So ... I think in time you'll find that most events will move toward "take whatever." I also think the game will be extremely power-gamery in that environment. It is important to note that *most* of the more hardcore powergamers / tournament competitors have NOT been fielding these lists or spending much time building to break the game in Unbound/BF-only in any significant way or heavily investing in them yet because the two most widely-used GT formats in the US are still running 2-detachment. If and when that changes, you'll see a lot more people "breaking" things, especially in conjunction with ongoing releases.

In terms of "breakage," also, I think it's important to note that there are always a wide variety of things that are broken, but not always a wide variety of things that are unpleasant to play with or against (we've seen some of this with 2+ re-roll armies, some variations of knight-intensive armies, the aforementioned tranny c'tan, etc.).

I'm not sure how fun it really is to face (whether it's "good" or "bad" is a debate that's always had and never very effectively made online), for example, a tranny c'tan and a dozen squads of 3 wraiths. But that's the very sort of thing you'll see, and a million other iterations. Mine is not the only group that in apoc games has had to install barriers on how many of single-model units you can take, for instance, because it grew quickly insane when people were fielding 40 single rokkit buggies or (back when IC's couldn't be targeted if they weren't the closest in 4th edition) nothing but solo shokk attack formations w/ extra grots. This is more true in this edition, where straight Kill Points is only 1/12 the missions, so unless you artificially fake your way to a KP-density of mission occurrence that's more like 5th edition, you aren't going to find any real detriment to spamming as many super small units as humanly possible.

Fortunately, with NOVA set and around the corner, and the "restrictions" of the GT being wide enough that there are few if any people running up against 'oh crap I've filled my 3/4/8/4/4 FOC and have so many points left!' ... this is something I'm happy to become more of a conversationalist in and less of a rules-setter. We'll see how the different formats (unbound in the extreme, battle-forged w/ FW, and BAO/NOVA constructed in the GT) look and what sorts of armies pan out as an early sneak peak, and then - for us at least - have a full year to let things evolve.

I do have to disagree about Maelstrom missions, btw. Just my opinion (and what else could it be at this point), but unmodified I don't find any enjoyment in their randomization or play mechanics. Most of my games are casual ones with buddies, and I much prefer basic book missions or mission catalog missions for actually enjoying my way through a game. As with many, when playing Maelstrom, we end up just fudging a bunch when they BS-up the game anyway, and that's one of many signs of poor base mission design (harkens back to 4th ed. and others when you'd just throw out certain mission rolls in pick-up games b/c no one wanted to play them).

To be fair we do modify the Maelstrom missions in 1 way.

If you draw a card that is impossible to score, at any point in the game, you are allowed to discard it.

For example you draw the "Destroy a flyer" card but your opponent has no flyers in their list at all. You can discard it.

MVBrandt wrote:
Your mileage may vary and it will depend on where you are. Also, more than ever before, GW has created a game that generates enormous strife, division, and insult between players and player types, by having it so very wide open and uncontrolled. You take the very same arguers and drop them in a game like Malifaux or a more controlled/pre-set 40K environment and everything is super peachy keen ... put them in full-and-open 40K and it becomes nothing but "you're too WAAC" or "you're too casual" etc. etc.

Absolutely it depends on where you are and who games locally.

I think we create divisiveness by not adhering to the way the 40k rulebook is printed. I think the drive to "limit" and "adjust" 40k is actually what causes the issues to begin with. Then everybody has an idea on how to "fix" the game and divides the hobby more than just saying to hell with it, play how the rules read. That said I think outside of some extreme individuals most people are 100% onboard with limited LoW. Especially with classic HQ's shifting to LoW.

I think by this time next year, many or most places will use Battle-Forged and Forgeworld without further restriction (except maybe tweaking the big ignores cover AP1 lords of war weaponry). I think some of the lists in the Narrative (open, battle-forged) and Trios (unbound) for NOVA this year, as I see them coming in, are already far "worse" than is typically proferred and argued as why they're "OK after all."

I'd be interested in what "broken" lists you're finding in the open-battleforged event. I can easily see unbound being an issue but that's not what I'm advocating and the rulebook gives an out for Battleforge only play.

So ... I think in time you'll find that most events will move toward "take whatever." I also think the game will be extremely power-gamery in that environment. It is important to note that *most* of the more hardcore powergamers / tournament competitors have NOT been fielding these lists or spending much time building to break the game in Unbound/BF-only in any significant way or heavily investing in them yet because the two most widely-used GT formats in the US are still running 2-detachment. If and when that changes, you'll see a lot more people "breaking" things, especially in conjunction with ongoing releases.

While I can agree that most of your more hardcore power gamers aren't investing in breaking the system because they can't use it in the big events right now I'm not sold like you are on breaking 40k at 1850pts in rulebook battle forged. I'm not saying they aren't going to find ridiculous combo's. They will. I'm not saying all of them will be fun to play against for everyone. They won't. That has been the case since I started going to GT's in 3rd edition. Breaking 40k as a whole is different than finding a broken combo. I think 6th very nearly "Broke" 40k. As in the game. As in people enjoyment and drive to play. Deathstar hammer where nothing happens is not fun for anyone. But I don't think that open battle forge looks like that in anyway.

In terms of "breakage," also, I think it's important to note that there are always a wide variety of things that are broken, but not always a wide variety of things that are unpleasant to play with or against (we've seen some of this with 2+ re-roll armies, some variations of knight-intensive armies, the aforementioned tranny c'tan, etc.).

Agreed. There is a difference between unpleasant to play and actually broken. Something over lap (2++ rerolls) and some fall into one category or the other. My concern is always with unpleasant to play against and not the actual game mechanics. 90% of tournament attendees probably don't go thinking they have a shot at winning. So it's the games that matter. They know they are likely to lose a couple of games. It's how those losses go that really effect 40k as a system. If they get to play and participate losses don't really matter. If they just sit there and pick up models then it breaks 40k.

I'm not sure how fun it really is to face (whether it's "good" or "bad" is a debate that's always had and never very effectively made online), for example, a tranny c'tan and a dozen squads of 3 wraiths. But that's the very sort of thing you'll see, and a million other iterations. Mine is not the only group that in apoc games has had to install barriers on how many of single-model units you can take, for instance, because it grew quickly insane when people were fielding 40 single rokkit buggies or (back when IC's couldn't be targeted if they weren't the closest in 4th edition) nothing but solo shokk attack formations w/ extra grots. This is more true in this edition, where straight Kill Points is only 1/12 the missions, so unless you artificially fake your way to a KP-density of mission occurrence that's more like 5th edition, you aren't going to find any real detriment to spamming as many super small units as humanly possible.

This seems more related to Apoc or unbound than open battle forged. Which makes the above understandable. I don't see it as a large issue with Battleforged. Let's be real. Most people aren't going to clear 4 sources before running out of points. The largest I could see would be orks with no joke 10 detachments w/200 grots, 10 Big Meks, and 30 individual buggies. Silly but not really a problem outside of finishing on time. An ugly one is Necrons w/3 Detachments each having 1 Lord on Barge w/Scythe, 2x5 Warriors, 3 Anni-Barges (so 3, 6, 9 total). Ugly but relatively limited and time limited because people have to know that a nerf is coming for their mindshackles and tesla. So who invests in it?

Fortunately, with NOVA set and around the corner, and the "restrictions" of the GT being wide enough that there are few if any people running up against 'oh crap I've filled my 3/4/8/4/4 FOC and have so many points left!' ... this is something I'm happy to become more of a conversationalist in and less of a rules-setter. We'll see how the different formats (unbound in the extreme, battle-forged w/ FW, and BAO/NOVA constructed in the GT) look and what sorts of armies pan out as an early sneak peak, and then - for us at least - have a full year to let things evolve.

I'm looking forward to the results too. And it's not that 3/4/8/4/4 is horribly restrictive. It's more than enough slots for many armies. But it's the formation limit for non-bb armies. It's the GK's not being able to reasonable field their army they've been able to field for 4 editions legally in a GT after Saturday. I'd be inclined as the next step being 2 detachment limit (any detachments) with no limit on formations. Keeps that pesky 10 detachment grot/buggie army out of it but allows armies like CSM to field their dreadnought formations with allied daemons or orks to run snikrot & da vulcha or tyranids to take living artillery and a monster mash formation.

Either way I figured with the releases since 7th it might not be a bad time to bring it up again. Especially with the GK codex going the way it seems to be. Thanks for the discourse guys!

Unlimited sources. No unbound

This kind of discussion, unfortunately, makes it hard for people like me who need time to get their armies up to current edition standards. I had just figured or what to take with self-allying allowed or formations; if it becomes multiple CAD I'll have to go through this process again.

I know that doesn't have a ton of bearing on the decision of format, but just saying how it affects me personally. Whatever the choice, I just wish I had a crystal ball and could know what it would end up as next year, so I could build accordingly.

 RiTides wrote:
This kind of discussion, unfortunately, makes it hard for people like me who need time to get their armies up to current edition standards. I had just figured or what to take with self-allying allowed or formations; if it becomes multiple CAD I'll have to go through this process again.

I know that doesn't have a ton of bearing on the decision of format, but just saying how it affects me personally. Whatever the choice, I just wish I had a crystal ball and could know what it would end up as next year, so I could build accordingly.

That's an interesting thought. Another counterpoint I think would have to be multiple CAD would make getting into tournaments for newer players even harder. The current way GW has of organizing, or you know not organizing, how lists are built is confusing enough to some of the veteran players not to mention a big deterrent in getting new players. Has anyone actually had a conversation with a new player in how armies are built in 7th? "Deer in headlights" doesn't due the look on their face justice.

I would just LOVE to see 34 point inquisitors in everyones armies again, that was so much fun knowing that armies could invest 34 points to counter their biggest weaknesses.

After adepticon last year and as much as I have to redo my armies I don't mind the limited sources, as a imperial player it limits the shenanigans I can get away with and I am fine with that. Also forces me to think a bit more instead of just cherry picking the no brainers.

Also I dont really care, most tournaments seem to agree mostly on one ally, one cad, can self ally and so there is only so many changes I need to make based on each tournament(outside of adjustments for missions)

I'm linking the rule of 2 format (though with the new codex formation requiring one detachment to be CAD is becoming problematic, though not letting 2 CADs should stand). Per RiTides comment, it lets players anticipate what a tournament scene looks like and prepare accordingly.

Friendly play means people will use what they want anyway, tournaments should have some restrictions so that everyone is at least thinking about lists on the same level.

Presently we have been playing:

Primary Detachment: 1 CAD max, w/formations and data slates
Allies Detachment: 1 CAD max, w/formations and data slates

Presenty LoW has been restricted to ones in codex's such as Orks and SW's. Now that GK include them we will open that up.

Personally i believe there will be a greater move twards allowing restricted LoW's in club and Tournament play and i werlcome it.

As the game stands i dont see why we arent allowing formations and dataslates to be included in lists under there parent codex or (if no parent codex) there appropriate faction without restriction.

Nids, Orks, CSM, Demons and Tau would benefit from this due to there limited BB allies in there factions. More and more formations have been coming out that could help these codexs, yet the 2 source limit is ham stringing them.

@RiTides

Fair enough. Honestly there isn't really an answer to this. It's fairly similar to building an army you like and new codex coming out 2 months before the event and basically making your army invalid. I'd say it's safe to build around 2 full detachments if only because every army is coming out with a unique force org.

@Leth

That 34pt model invalidates 2 builds. Scouting Marines and Flesh Hound heavy builds. People seriously overstate it's usefulness. Especially in the new edition. Most armies biggest weakness isn't vs. scouts/infiltrators.

@Buddha

I don't mind limiting it to one CAD but if you start to allow multiple detachments then you are handicapping older codexes that only have a CAD. Which doesn't seem fair.

Maybe the next step is 2 detachments max and open formations?

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RiTides


@Leth

That 34pt model invalidates 2 builds. Scouting Marines and Flesh Hound heavy builds. People seriously overstate it's usefulness. Especially in the new edition. Most armies biggest weakness isn't vs. scouts/infiltrators.

Agreed as to right now. I dont mind the limits now that formations and dataslates and the like can be taken, in addition being able to self ally takes out a lot of the problems for a lot of books without BB allies. It forces you to make choices between multiple different viable builds and I like that we are seeing a variety of armies that I have not seen in a long LONG time. Different lists making it to the top tables than being expected etc.

Also you can get EVEN more obnoxious with daemon summoning armies/Flying Tyranids/douche canoes/barge spam with more open lists.

A lot of the problem lists have pretty cheap troop options so opening up additional cads to get the most efficient choices in the book is not difficult.

Hulk, actually local players were just telling me they didn't anticipate multiple CAD coming anytime soon, and to build towards self-ally or formation use, instead. Hence my reaction here- not saying people should or shouldn't embrace that format, just that I just figured out how to build towards the current popular ones.

zedsdead wrote:
Nids, Orks, CSM, Demons and Tau would benefit from this due to there limited BB allies in there factions. More and more formations have been coming out that could help these codexs, yet the 2 source limit is ham stringing them.

From everything I've looked at, it's nearly impossible to fit in multiple formations into an effective nids list. Again, not saying they should or shouldn't be allowed to take more, just that only one formation in an 1850 point list seems workable.

But I am not excited about playing where 6 flyrants with devourers and electroshock grubs, 6 units of deepstriking rippers, and 3 biovores makes up a tournament tyranid list. My friend recently said, if it's totally wide open, it takes some of the fun out of it. Even with multiple CADs allowed, is there a reason to allow more than two of them? Because if there is, 5-6 flyrant builds start looking like one of the more viable ones for tyranids... or even if that particular example doesn't hold up, just tons of the best unit from any 'dex... and it just seems like a bummer is all.

Again, not really pushing one way or the other, just trying to give my personal feeling / reaction to this kind of thing.

With all the various opinions, I've just built a single CAD army and play it wherever. This way it does not matter what event or even FLGS I can just play the game without anyone really able to complain or debate what I have. I really don't have the time or inclination to try and keep up with the Jones' of 40K.

One final point I'd say is that, as a casual player, unlimited CAD and Unbound don't seem that different. If you're going unlimited, what's the reasoning behind not going Unbound? All of this is restricted, really, and since much of the strategy in 40k comes at the list building stage I guess my gut reaction is just that unlimited doesn't seem that appealing... but if we're going unlimited, might as well open up the all dreadnought list or the like. But none of it sounds that fun compared to building a list for a more structured format :-/

 Hulksmash wrote:
But it's the formation limit for non-bb armies. It's the GK's not being able to reasonable field their army they've been able to field for 4 editions legally in a GT after Saturday. I'd be inclined as the next step being 2 detachment limit (any detachments) with no limit on formations. Keeps that pesky 10 detachment grot/buggie army out of it but allows armies like CSM to field their dreadnought formations with allied daemons or orks to run snikrot & da vulcha or tyranids to take living artillery and a monster mash formation.

I do not play Fantasy WH, but is it not often the convention in FWH tourneys to make specific bans and rulings right on a specific book, like M:tG tourneys do with individual cards and such?

So why not (have TOs) make this specific GK exception so that army can reasonably function with its 4 sources?

I do not have a GK army, so I dunno if your orange statement is merely because (here comes the sarcasm) you're butt-hurt about the Nerf-Bat of Damocles about to put your silvery, halberd wielding Psy-boyz into the bottom-tier doldrums.

With love, Hulk.

Seriously, the "line item" veto or exception ought to not be avoided.

 Brothererekose wrote:


I do not have a GK army, so I dunno if your orange statement is merely because (here comes the sarcasm) you're butt-hurt about the Nerf-Bat of Damocles about to put your silvery, halberd wielding Psy-boyz into the bottom-tier doldrums.

With love, Hulk.

I hate you!

I'm for keeping it simple. I don't mind a army specific veto (I don't actually care that much, while I use Inquisitors I don't use assassins) but I'm also for keeping it simple.

@RiTides

I wasn't speaking to dual CAD's. I was speaking to the detachment every codex has been getting that's CAD similar but not a CAD and that some events are already allowing as a separate source which means some codexes are already dual cadding. As for unlimited Battle Forge being the same as unbound. It's relatively similar but still requires a 200+pt investment for most armies per 0-3 other slots. Which means outside of Orks & Inquisition you're not getting much more than 3-4 Detachments (if that).

I'm not against limiting detachments to two. I'm against limiting detachments and formations to the same number. I'm even ok with no more than 1 CAD. I guess I'm just more against as more and more books come out limiting Formations (which don't really allow you to cherry pick).

One CAD with multiple formations allowed strikes me as better, personally (and now I see that's more what you're taking about). Formations tend to be expensive, and if you don't allow repeats you'll get diverse lists anyway, rather than just best unit spam from multiple CADs. So, I like the sound of that a lot more. With self-allying it allows a ton of diversity without the last straw of ultimate spam that multiple CADs leads to.

For example, facing an army with a CAD, an ally, and two formations would be more palatable to me than facing a 3 CAD army, personally. I could even see allowing 2 CAD. But beyond that I get mind blown from cheap unit spam and it just seems too open ended. Formations are much more restrictive and I don't really have a problem with seeing more of them- they certainly open up the variety of nid builds I can run (although 2 CAD does similarly).

Well I would just say 2 detachments. Limit it to one CAD if that makes people feel better but allow a CAD and the new detachments being released in codexes. You can't get insane spammy at that point but it does allow for diverse lists in combination with formations and such.

Plus two detachments (only one of which is CAD) and however many formations you may want. That way GK's can still run the army they've been running without fail since codex Daemonhunters came out.

This would be for those still worried about open ended battle forged.

 Hulksmash wrote:
What we get out of open source:

-Diversity (already increasing but increasing further).

Every time we have the discussion, this gets paraded around like it's gospel truth. I'm gonna call BS on this.

Look back to 6th when we had more 'diversity' with allies and the like. Look at Adepticon, where damn near every top army had the Skullquisitor and everything was some variation of a Battle Bro Deathstar. Look at things now where Knights are popping up like weeds. If you remove restrictions, it doesn't add variety. There's a reason we had a FOC in the first place. If you weren't limited, you wouldn't take Tactical Squads when you could just spend all your points on TFCs and Storm Talons. It's the same deal here. If anyone can take anything, why not just take the best of anything in a competitive environment?

Hulk, if you say "two detachments but one CAD" can older books make use of this? I don't think they can, but wasn't sure if I'm missing something (although giving older books self-ally is a nice gesture along those same lines).

 RiTides wrote:
One final point I'd say is that, as a casual player, unlimited CAD and Unbound don't seem that different. If you're going unlimited, what's the reasoning behind not going Unbound? All of this is restricted, really, and since much of the strategy in 40k comes at the list building stage I guess my gut reaction is just that unlimited doesn't seem that appealing... but if we're going unlimited, might as well open up the all dreadnought list or the like. But none of it sounds that fun compared to building a list for a more structured format :-/

Some armies are seriously restricted by being forced to take the HQ/troops to get multiple CADs. For example, dual Transcendent C'tan can't be done if you must take the 'tax'. 52 Warlocks rolling Daemonology can't be done. One big power of unbound is taking units of single models where you would normally be restricted by force org - eg, taking 6 individual broadsides instead of 2 squads of 3 to vastly reduce your overkill.
I agree that for most purposes it is the same - especially if you're building a more normal-style armies with decent troops like Eldar or Scythe necrons.


My experience with 7th ed so far is that the less restrictions you use, the more rock-scissors-paper the game gets. Certain army builds are nearly impossible to be beaten by a take-all-comers, and can go toe-to-toe with even their best 'hard counters'. Many of these games boil down to whoever goes and gets that lucky 6 on the destroyer table. It is incredibly one-dimensional.

Some armies lack the tools of other armies no matter how many restrictions you remove. Tau have limited access to Destroyer weapons - the forge world (apocalypse, non-escalation) tigershark and the Aquila Strongpoint are their only options, and both are relatively lacklustre. When you open up Lords of War to normal games, some armies get massive new threats (Revenant Titans) whereas others (Tau) don't really benefit much at all. Whatever is done, I think the viability of single source armies should be protected.


At a local tournament the other day, lists had to be submitted in advance. We used 1 CAD 1 Allies (+ you can ally with your own codex), with all Escalation/Stronghold Assault/Formations allowed. We were able to accurately pick 8 out of the top 10 placings solely based on the army lists. Revenant titan took out place 1 with 4 tabled opponents, as expected. The bottom 10 positions were all over the place - partly due to player skill, but partly due to the variance and take-all-comers style of the lists where you really couldn't tell which would win.


... rambling a bit here.
I mostly agree that source restrictions should be lowered. Certainly it should be freer than simply 2 source, as even stock-standard armies begin to become available that require allies and dataslates, like your Grey Knights example. However, I'm very wary about straying in to other realms as my experience so far is that it takes a lot away from the game.

(I think this is all a clever move on behalf of GW. Players resist using the Stronghold book but allow AEGIS lines - so they remove fortifications from the rulebook so people must use Stronghold for those at least, and then it becomes arbitrary to not use the other bits. Players resist using Lords of War, so they make the iconic heroes in to Lords of War and put them in to the main Codexes - and then it is not clearly delineated why Baneblades aren't allowed but Ghaz is. Players don't like D weapons or superheavies - so add an entire legit Codex of them.... its all to force people to play with everything and not have any clear lines that you can cut off why X is allowed but Y isn't. And the more we try to fight it, the more ways GW will find to force them on us.)

Trasvi wrote:


(I think this is all a clever move on behalf of GW. Players resist using the Stronghold book but allow AEGIS lines - so they remove fortifications from the rulebook so people must use Stronghold for those at least, and then it becomes arbitrary to not use the other bits. Players resist using Lords of War, so they make the iconic heroes in to Lords of War and put them in to the main Codexes - and then it is not clearly delineated why Baneblades aren't allowed but Ghaz is. Players don't like D weapons or superheavies - so add an entire legit Codex of them.... its all to force people to play with everything and not have any clear lines that you can cut off why X is allowed but Y isn't. And the more we try to fight it, the more ways GW will find to force them on us.)

I think this is quite right,

if going forward the tournament scene (and mainly the TOs for their sins) want to keep restricting things they are going to have to do it on a much more individual basis rather than just banning sources (forge world), books (stronghold assault) or number of sources

they are going to have to ask which individual units or combination of units (or weapons on those units) are a problem and take them out of the game in a more surgical way. A lot more work, but doing so would actually lead to a more fun game for everybody

Yeah, I think the more I think about this, it's really the second CAD that gets me, not other sources.

I could run 4 flyrants, 6 deepstriking rippers, and 4 Crones (or 4 deepstriking rippers and 5 Mawlocs). It just becomes so open that it doesn't seem to resemble what I think of as army building anymore. So I agree that letting GK run an army they used to is good, but hopefully not at the expense of making every other top army not look like an army anymore. To me, that implies allowing in these new sources but not more CADs.

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, I think the more I think about this, it's really the second CAD that gets me, not other sources.

I could run 4 flyrants, 6 deepstriking rippers, and 4 Crones (or 4 deepstriking rippers and 5 Mawlocs). It just becomes so open that it doesn't seem to resemble what I think of as army building anymore. So I agree that letting GK run an army they used to is good, but hopefully not at the expense of making every other top army not look like an army anymore. To me, that implies allowing in these new sources but not more CADs.

Honestly 2 CAD's would probably be fine. There isn't much you can do with a second CAD you can't do reasonably with self allying. In the examples above you can basically does those lists with 1 less flyrant or 1 less Mawloc. Is it really the 4th flying FMC that breaks the bank? When we've got an army that can do 5 of them pretty easily? And by CAD do you mean a force org that gives obsec to it's troops or simply a force org that has the full selection of slots similar to the CAD in the rulebook?

I think maybe limiting "Detachments" to 2 and not putting a limit on formations might be the next best step. I'd be hesitant to say only one CAD but that's because only 3 books have additional force orgs at this point and it wouldn't be fair to those who haven't been updated with a 7th codex yet.

So not completely open battleforged but essentially open source since you could then take 2-3 formations if you choose too on top of your detachments.

For the record, I have little to no sympathy for letting someone run an army they used to be able to run. That's I think not a major subject for this discussion. The REASON I have little sympathy is not because I'm a jerk, but because GW has been forcing people to completely alter their armies with new codex releases for decades. The GK one being blown up is no different than many other similar instances, including in part when the current GK dex came out (Which forced entirely different builds upon people). "I can't run the army I was running before that dropped" is not a new phrase, nor one made real by army design structures instituted by TO's; GW wants you to have to invest in a new army every time. Big surprise.

It also does continue to bear discussion that the game is not balanced, and that balance worsens in a Battle Bro legal environment where Imperial dexes can all sync up with each other and share rides and the like, but the other half of the codex spread cannot. Limitless CAD or detachments does not fix this problem, it arguably exacerbates it.

Mixed feelings, at any rate. I think the problem that has to be surmounted is - if you don't have a more limited construction process for armies in the all-comers type of events at Tournaments, you either have to institute some kind of social engineering around what constitutes an acceptable army list (i.e., comp scoring by opponents) or you have to accept that more fluffy or casual players will be further pushed out (Exactly the kind of thing asymmetrical missions and more limited army construction try to solve).

It also is true that you won't see more variety, to the point made above. You might see cases where someone who is basically playing the same hardcore badass netlist has more freedom to add his tiny morsel of beautiful snowflake, but those who want to run truly different lists just for the sake of it do so in almost any construction environment, whereas some of the higher tier gamers who wish to remain "beautiful snowflakes" with their list really do so by taking the brass tacks baller stuff and then creatively adding a few tweaks. This can be done either way, but from the 50,000 foot level isn't really "Variety" at all.

I'll even call myself out on this one, as a good example; in 5th, I ran straken assault veterans and a lot of outflanking, and it was a different army list, but it's not as if my veterans weren't riding in chimeras and toting meltaguns, and it's not as if I didn't have 3 vendettas. The more open it is, the more you'll see those "duh I'm going to spam a lot of this particular unit type or that one" ... even if people use a fraction of their points to make it seem "different."

And Brad - you may respond with "Well MY lists actually are different!" even if they have centurions and guard units with inquisitors or space marine IC's in them ... and they quite can be, you are creative both with how you model/paint and list design ... but nothing has ever stopped you from being creative in the past. Opening it up so you can continue to be creative (which you can be anyway) isn't going to make everyone else suddenly stop spamming guardian jetbike squads or dropping seercouncils on the table or ... you know, pick your poison.

I guess my larger issue with opening things up is it requires players to make fewer choices to some extent. If I am limited to 1 FOC (as we were in 5th) or 1 + allies (6th for the most part) at some point you needed to make a choice about what units to take based on what slots you had available. I feel that formations are their own detachment (why limit armies with no formations, vs those with formations.)

Maybe that is because I don't really like free for all 40k (I ran 2 CAD at my event in july, only one player abused it, but I heard plenty of gripes about his list, despite the fact that it fit into self ally anyway.)

The more I play the more I think I prefered NO allies 40k (yeah Daemonhunters were a thing, and I mostly did not like those either.)

I hate my computer....For the second time, slightly more concise (internet ate the first one)....

@Mike

I feel that there is a difference between changing your army because something isn't good anymore and not being allowed to change your army to include units that have been in it because of it's spread across to many sources. It would be one thing if a unit is deleted but simply shifting to another source isn't nearly on the same page. Another example would be the likely removal of Legion of the Damned from the SM book in the next iteration.

Additionally I would prefer if you dropped the "You're pushing it for your special snowflake armies" angle. Would I like more options for modeling? Yep. Is that a drive for me? Nope. I'll build lists in the format of events and have a good time. Sometimes they'll be a template with personality tacked on and other times they'll be just silly but work decently.

Just so we're 100% clear on where on stand on this:

-I am in favor of open Battleforge
-I understand open Battleforge makes some people cringe
-I understand I am currently in the minority in my views
-I am OK with structure for list building for events
-I am OK with detachment limitations (i.e. 2 Detachments with only 1 CAD)
-I am in favor of no limits on Formations
-I am going to win 80% of my games across this edition no matter the format

I think 7th has the most potential for diversity at the top tables of any edition we've seen so far. Even with people being people. I just felt it was time to revisit source limits (not detachment limits per se) based on the first 3 releases for 7th. Formation numbers have increased and of the armies arguably designed for 7th (Nids forward) we've got two imperial armies that stand fine without formations and two non-imperial/BB armies that seem designed to function better with formations.

Initial limitations were put on based on 6th edition. Which is fine. I just felt it was time to revisit based on what we're seeing now.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I hate my computer....For the second time, slightly more concise (internet ate the first one)....

@Mike

I feel that there is a difference between changing your army because something isn't good anymore and not being allowed to change your army to include units that have been in it because of it's spread across to many sources. It would be one thing if a unit is deleted but simply shifting to another source isn't nearly on the same page. Another example would be the likely removal of Legion of the Damned from the SM book in the next iteration.

Additionally I would prefer if you dropped the "You're pushing it for your special snowflake armies" angle. Would I like more options for modeling? Yep. Is that a drive for me? Nope. I'll build lists in the format of events and have a good time. Sometimes they'll be a template with personality tacked on and other times they'll be just silly but work decently.

Just so we're 100% clear on where on stand on this:

-I am in favor of open Battleforge
-I understand open Battleforge makes some people cringe
-I understand I am currently in the minority in my views
-I am OK with structure for list building for events
-I am OK with detachment limitations (i.e. 2 Detachments with only 1 CAD)
-I am in favor of no limits on Formations
-I am going to win 80% of my games across this edition no matter the format

I think 7th has the most potential for diversity at the top tables of any edition we've seen so far. Even with people being people. I just felt it was time to revisit source limits (not detachment limits per se) based on the first 3 releases for 7th. Formation numbers have increased and of the armies arguably designed for 7th (Nids forward) we've got two imperial armies that stand fine without formations and two non-imperial/BB armies that seem designed to function better with formations.

Initial limitations were put on based on 6th edition. Which is fine. I just felt it was time to revisit based on what we're seeing now.

These are good stance clarifications, and I apologize, genuinely, for misinterpreting some of your motivation as wanting to run a specific army.

Also, given that every event is allowing at least some multi-detachment choice, isn't it better if a unit is sent to another source than simply deleted (as has often been the case, and is increasingly the case)? Hell, Tyranids lost several units for - as far as we know - ever. Like my lovingly painted and converted Parasite of Mortrex, which is gone. :( ... I'd love for him to be in a Formation aside from the dex instead.