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.

Gigasnail- To be clear, I love allowing formations (although I was used to just seeing one allowed) and self-allying. These can really help some weaker books, like nids, close the gap. It's the multiple CADs that makes my hair stand up on end, and which I didn't think people would be interested in playing anytime soon.

Target wrote:
Comp is still a bad option, because well executed comp is about as rare as a unicorn. You end up just changing the meta for each event individually, with some players deciding to put the effort into figuring out what is "busted" under the new set of rules, and some not.

If it were me, I'd go battleforged, come up with a specific ban list for lords of war for the truly imbalanced ones, and let all formations/dataslates otherwise we fair game, with the caveat that all are 0-1 (so no 4x tau fire cadre, you can have 1 among your slew of formations/other stuff). With it all being legal we can all expect to see any variety or combination of it on any given day at an event, all that would change is that you might see more of them together at once.

+1 its the direction i have wanted to see game play go withwhat GW has given us. However i still see it being a good thing to also limit CAD's to 0-1

Builds =
CAD 0-1
Formations = unique
Self Allies
Limited LoW = ban list

It is a good thing to limit CADs to 0-1, but if you don't also limit Allies ... well ... as fun as 12 guardian jetbike squads and a fearless "council" of 10 jetbike farseers rolling mostly on Malefic Daemonology sounds ...


Will be fun to see Daemon sales go up.

I think Target was saying unlimited detachments but everything is 0-1. CAD's, Allies, Codex/Supplement FoC Detachments, and Formations. Then limited Lords of War.

This is something that is simple, easy to institute, allows for 99% of the options in 7th.

I would actually say 0-2 Force Org. Detachments (CAD, Ally, Codex/Supplement) and unlimited other detachments (formations) all Unique. This way the 0-1 isn't gotten around by armies with lots of FoC Detachments down the line. Allows for consistency over the entire edition with just a growing list of non-approved Lords of War

MVBrandt wrote:
It is a good thing to limit CADs to 0-1, but if you don't also limit Allies ... well ... as fun as 12 guardian jetbike squads and a fearless "council" of 10 jetbike farseers rolling mostly on Malefic Daemonology sounds ...


Will be fun to see Daemon sales go up.

Allies would also be limited to 1 CAD as well

We should all stop using CAD as a term for detachment. It only leads to more confusion.

 Hulksmash wrote:

This way the 0-1 isn't gotten around by armies with lots of FoC Detachments down the line. Allows for consistency over the entire edition with just a growing list of non-approved Lords of War

But doesnt points cost and lack of ObjSec pretty much reduce the effectiveness of this ?

To a point. But it's a long term solution while also easing people's minds about unlimited FoC Detachments. Obsec isn't people's only concern with unlimited FoC's.

Highlander format is a fun style of comp that is gaining in popularity. Love to see more GT's adopt it for some of their events.

zedsdead wrote:

Target wrote:
Comp is still a bad option, because well executed comp is about as rare as a unicorn. You end up just changing the meta for each event individually, with some players deciding to put the effort into figuring out what is "busted" under the new set of rules, and some not.

If it were me, I'd go battleforged, come up with a specific ban list for lords of war for the truly imbalanced ones, and let all formations/dataslates otherwise we fair game, with the caveat that all are 0-1 (so no 4x tau fire cadre, you can have 1 among your slew of formations/other stuff). With it all being legal we can all expect to see any variety or combination of it on any given day at an event, all that would change is that you might see more of them together at once.

+1 its the direction i have wanted to see game play go withwhat GW has given us. However i still see it being a good thing to also limit CAD's to 0-1

Builds =
CAD 0-1
Formations = unique
Self Allies
Limited LoW = ban list

With your clarification that you're also limiting Allies to 0-1, I think this is perfect, personally.

I would say this is as close to perfect as you can get and keep everyone at least reasonably happy moving forward throughout 7th (assuming what we've seen so far in 7th holds)

Builds=
All Detachments Unique (Remember formations are Detachments as well which means all Formations and detachments are 0-1)
0-2 FoC Detachments (i.e. CAD, Allied, Champions of Fenris, Ork Horde Detachment, Codex: Legion of the Damned, Codex: Inquisition)
Formations
Limited LoW = Ban List

Following the rulebook rules with the cavaet that if your book hasn't got a 7th edition codex (i.e. alternative detachment) that you can self ally.

As self ally actually becomes better for avoiding additional unit taxes later on if you're only looking for 1 extra HS/Elite/FA

That would be totally fine by me- the "all detachments unique" line is the key one (and including the CAD as a unique type of detachment, but with the outlet that people can self-ally if they don't have other detachments available to them).

Muahahahaahahaha, I've brought over RiTides! Next, THE WORLD!

You will never get me!

I will die before i let unlimited formations in !

If they are 0-1 what is the issue with formations? C'mon, you know there isn't one

This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

i think I am on the same page as mike. It is just too earlier to start revisiting 2 Sources.

MVBrandt wrote:
This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

Not even really sure how to respond to this. Are we not supposed to make any adjustments based on information that we have consistantly represented by 3 releases now because of future unknown information? The biggest noted issue you seem to have is with open CAD for annoying, unfun to play armies. That's been curtailed. Formations, due to special rules now existing in normal detachments, are just very unit specific detachments. I'm failing to see your issue? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky or anything. Internet=Bad for tone )

With the new special detachments that each new Dex is bringing to the table, the two detachment model is going to quickly get dated as its primary use of reducing certain forms of spamming and abuse is going to be almost moot.

I feel 0-1 Unique Detachments is going to be an effective limitation and usable wish the caveat for older Codices to be able to Self Ally. Lists are still governed by points... until GW gives us permission to just ignore points costs or make up our own!

2 Detachments definitely had a crucial place at the beginning of 7th, but each new release is making its long term feasibility much more tenuous. We aren't going to have much choice.

Brad, you are slowing winning me over to the idea as well, and I was vehemently opposed to anything resembling a free for all 7th Ed with open detachments.

To be fair it isn't open detachments. It is limited. But I feel it's a good compromise that based on the first 3 releases of 7th and fits the direction of 7th while preventing major abuse (i.e. no more than currently happens under standard 2-source w/self allying).

That's why I'm open to it too, Zagman (and lol at the comment above regarding that Hulk ). I'm just really against seeing multiple CADs spammed. Seeing different types of detachments fielded doesn't really bother me at all (although I know it needs looking at from a balance perspective, it's just not raising my "spam-o-matic" hackles like allowing more than 1 CAD does). Making every detachment unique is a nice, simple rule to apply across the board... so it has some merit even based on that alone

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

Not even really sure how to respond to this. Are we not supposed to make any adjustments based on information that we have consistantly represented by 3 releases now because of future unknown information? The biggest noted issue you seem to have is with open CAD for annoying, unfun to play armies. That's been curtailed. Formations, due to special rules now existing in normal detachments, are just very unit specific detachments. I'm failing to see your issue? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky or anything. Internet=Bad for tone )

My first post in this thread acknowledged that eventually we'll be playing just full and open battle-forged. That I do not think right now is a fair time for 0-1 on all detachments does not mean it will not be. The trend is very obvious, but the present still finds most future formations absent, even though we know they will exist as books release. "Slow your roll" is not the same as "you're wrong forever!" I don't think you are. <3

Not sure why we're slowing our roll? Honestly why not put what would appear based on information available from 3 releases in this edition a system that seems to mostly embrace 7th army battleforge army construction with a simple adjustment to keep ridiculous spam in check? Then we're far more likely to not have to adjust things for a long, long time. Where as now it'll just keep coming up. The question is what is going to make that change required? I think most people in the future if you adopt this sort of system will not really buck it and open battleforged might never happen.

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
This is a far future determination probably, since many codices do not have any formations available to them. This is the sort of thing where there are still a lot more abuses and things to consider out there for the taking in the development of it. I would rather see more consideration of the fact that some armies are going to be able to then take cad/allied/formation-of-significant-merit while others are going to be able to do so only if they want to introduce convenient or apocalypse/desperate allies into their army's midst.

Not even really sure how to respond to this. Are we not supposed to make any adjustments based on information that we have consistantly represented by 3 releases now because of future unknown information? The biggest noted issue you seem to have is with open CAD for annoying, unfun to play armies. That's been curtailed. Formations, due to special rules now existing in normal detachments, are just very unit specific detachments. I'm failing to see your issue? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky or anything. Internet=Bad for tone )

like what he said above. it is too soon for this. Everyone knows you on the right track just not yet.

 RiTides wrote:
Gigasnail- To be clear, I love allowing formations (although I was used to just seeing one allowed) and self-allying. These can really help some weaker books, like nids, close the gap. It's the multiple CADs that makes my hair stand up on end, and which I didn't think people would be interested in playing anytime soon.

i can agree with this.

MVBrandt wrote:
My first post in this thread acknowledged that eventually we'll be playing just full and open battle-forged.

Ugh... I cannot disagree with this being a certainty more! I really dislike the idea of a slow, eventual slide into just "take everything". This is why I'm open to the ideas Hulk is presenting, although I'm totally fine if you think it's too early to implement them (Nova is set for a few weeks away, anyway ). But, I do not think it has to be inevitable that we eventually just say "open battleforged" and that's it...

I'm not saying everyone should do what Hulk is saying, or especially not do it immediately- but my original post in this thread actually has a lot of bearing on what you put above, MVBrandt: I think casual players want to know what sort of structure to build towards, hopefully one that will be in place for a few years. The idea that I'd build an army towards self-allying now, only to have 2 CADs allowed next year, is what has been a major deterrent to my updating my army to 7th edition. Knowing what to expect would be awesome... which is why the "all unique" detachments idea appeals to me (as does the current "2-soruce" to be honest).

I don't see why we eventually have to succumb to "take as many CADs as you like, full battle-forged, no restrictions". That's what "full and open battle-forged", as you typed, says to me. And if that also implies any LOW, any fortification, and as many CADs as you want... yeah, I don't see why we ever have to embrace that honestly. I am all for more inclusion, but the idea that we'll ever be playing totally unrestricted 7th edition, at least at most major events, strikes me as preposterous. This edition is crying out for some sort of structure/restriction... "all unique" does that, as does the current commonplace "2-source" that this thread started with. But the idea that we'll eventually just chuck all restrictions doesn't sound good at all.

Edit: To fix typo and just mention this should not be read as my being upset, just passionate that we don't have to ever just do "full and open battle-forged". I think much of the 40k player base is cringing even at reading that phrase...

I am happy with 2 detachment max atm.

Tbh i am more inclined to have 3 detachment approach (Not sourcebook limitation ) in the future. The splitting sources into many detachments that happened to gk happens to every army that might have to be inevitable.

Atm the 2 detachment approach is not really restrictive when you consider points cap, it allows more diversity in army building since it removes "must-take" additions to army.

I actually don't see a difference between Unbound and unlimited Battleforged, or unlimited formation even if they have a 0-1 limitation. I think they are too open-ended as what can be called as army building and might alienate some players before any other concern of mine takes place.

I'm pretty sure that if something like I presented got adopted it would never go to all out open battle forged. I think it would provide the flexibility people would want and answers most of the common questions with army building.

It seems like a reasonable compromise for hardcore everything in and more casual players that want consistency and structure.

 Leth wrote:
From everything I have seen no one is saying that dataslates use up one of your slots.

So belakor, cypher, and now assassins are still fine to add into a army without limiting yourself.

Looks like unlike Cypher and Belakor the Assassins are they're own detachments of a single elite choice. No just a unit added in. So they would require a 3rd source to use. Just throwing it out there.

I hope this new chop and sell approach wont expand to all faction. It will make even keeping up with the releases let alone attempt to regulate.