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.

Just to be clear I'm not pushing for an open season on battle forged. After discussing here and with a lot of people locally I think it would hurt tournament attendance. However, everyone I've shared Target's modified idea with has been in total agreement that they either like it or it wouldn't prevent attending an event.

I did push for open season at the beginning of 7th. I still don't think it would suck as bad as others. That said the majority seem to want some solid structure in place. I can understand and support this. I think the idea we worked out here is probably the best compromise for 7th as it currently stands. In fact if there aren't any major shifts it's something that could stand the test of 7th as an easy and understandable format for army building.

Currently we've seen a step toward that format with the Michigan GT who kept 2 max detachments but just changed it to any two detachments and all detachments are unique. Nova was also doing this for all intensive purposes but it's good to see other events adjusting as 7th rolls.

I don't think we'll ever see open battle-forge for the major events. They have to much on the line. And since major events won't do it most smaller events won't either. But we'll just have to wait and see

I seem to have hit a nerve for some people. The follow up posts have some great info to add but where does the other stuff come from? I understand that it is easy to misinterpret someone's writing from what they meant but some of the stuff is way out there.

As I stated in the beginning of my post - there are few positive posts about the game and many have their facts wrong or think the use of hyperbole adds to the discussion. I would like to see more positive and accurate information about the new edition.

My push is for people to learn how the game has changed and try it for themselves.

 Tironum wrote:
I seem to have hit a nerve for some people. The follow up posts have some great info to add but where does the other stuff come from? I understand that it is easy to misinterpret someone's writing from what they meant but some of the stuff is way out there.

As I stated in the beginning of my post - there are few positive posts about the game and many have their facts wrong or think the use of hyperbole adds to the discussion. I would like to see more positive and accurate information about the new edition.

My push is for people to learn how the game has changed and try it for themselves.

I'm not sure you really hit a nerve. I just think there's counterpoints. There are plenty of us who have tried the full game unfettered, in all its variations (From unbound to open battleforged to various restriction levels), and yeah .. have to say Thud makes a point. Just openly c hanging it doesn't make it good, and it doesn't always pan out unfettered, because some people and some player groups DO find it FUN to mega-break whatever they can ... and who's to hate on 'em for it? The game IS more unbalanced at the wide open level (not to say it's rainbows and unicorns at 2-detach or whatever either!), and so you open up more potential for the major issue I was pointing out - everyone plays the game differently if they can have it exactly how they want it, so the more divergent the game and army lists are capable of being, the more angst and upsetness and facecrushing you're likely to find.

That may be how you feel, but some of us have, and it's not good. Heck I ran my GT with 2 CAD...only one player used it to what ammounted to little more that self allying and everyone there complained about that army. How 2 CAD was broken, how things should be more limited etc. That was not even unrestricted at all...and people balked at it.

I think a lot of what it comes down to is that for 14 years people played with essentially 1 FOC (Daemonhunters and Witchhunters being the exception and allies were pretty limited). Then when 6th hit allies were added, and we all went with it because it was in the BrB. Then GW added formations, and escalation and people started to be like Woah woah...things are getting crazy here...I have this one army/faciton I really like and now it cannot compete at all unless I add a whole buch of other non-faction stuff.

You say for people to have fun, but they simply don't when faced with OP nonsense possible in this game.

Then 7th hit and said "Hey do whatever the heck you want". Problem is people (IME) don't want to just bring whatever to the table. They want to play a faction, maybe with allies (interestingly I see more "hardcore" gamers bringing allies for game reasons, than lower table players who have nicely painted armies belonging to 1 book).

What Brendan said.

I think Thud said it best, and I'll rearticulate.

If last year a tournament was like "LET'S JUST LET EVERYONE TAKE UNLIMITED FORCE ORGS AT ANY POINT LEVEL!" people would have broadly said "that's ridiculous, no." It might have gained purchase with a small handful or as a zany thing to do.

You could have said the same thing right before 7th dropped, with tons of new formations already out, and people still would have laughed at it.

It's very easy to throw out a half-hearted "oh it's fine you should just try it," but to Brendan's point a lot of people have. If you're in a gaming group where everyone exists within an understanding of what is and isn't "too much," fine, great, you're awesome. If you're not, if you're showing up to a big event with international attendance in the hundreds, you're going to have a lot of people frustrated at what kind of peashooter they brought to the table. Since that's a major risk to attendance, the really big events that drive a lot of the local RTT and meta situations aren't going to take major risks that they know aren't popular or safe for some of their attendees.

So while it's easy to say "OH TRY IT, IT'S FINE," that kinda comment has no real weight. Because the facts don't bear it out across the width and breadth of the hobby as a whole.

Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


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)
0+ 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.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


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)
0+ 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.

Inquisition is a pint sized detachment. If I field my 6 units of henchmen I won't have any FOC detachments left and my entire FOC available will be limited to 4 HQ, 6 troops, 0 fast attack, 0 elite, and 0 heavy. It wasn't a big deal when I could do 6 units of GK henchmen +IG, but now my army is squated under those restrictions.

 schadenfreude wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


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)
0+ 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.

Inquisition is a pint sized detachment. If I field my 6 units of henchmen I won't have any FOC detachments left and my entire FOC available will be limited to 4 HQ, 6 troops, 0 fast attack, 0 elite, and 0 heavy. It wasn't a big deal when I could do 6 units of GK henchmen +IG, but now my army is squated under those restrictions.

Inquisition isn't a Combined Arms Detachment, so you'd be free to run Inquisition + any CAD + any allied detach + any formation. You wouldn't be able to spam out a million inquisitorial units, true, but is it really as bad as saying squatted? Serious question!

Rare variants builds of armies have been squatted before (i.e. armies designed around moving stuff from another category to troops). It's crappy but thems the breaks.

You could take 3 henchmen units and IG in the above. Then take Steelhost Formation, Stormwing Formation and other items to fill in what you were looking for.

There are options for building a force in the above restrictions. When all is said and done you lost the ability to field 3 henchmen units. Total, full stop. I don't think that's being squatted.

@Brandt

The allied detachment wouldn't exist in your example. It's two FoC detachments in the above. So a Inquisition Detachment and any other detachment (Allied, CAD, Rando Codex Detachment) and any formation"S"

For what it is worth, I think the idea of Unique Detachments would be fun.

MVBrandt,

My comments were not half hearted, they were genuine and factual. Retorting with exaggerations and misrepresenting what I said does not help.

You have been pushing your own way to play the game for a long time. Lots of people like it but not everyone.

I said my peace, have fun.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Rare variants builds of armies have been squatted before (i.e. armies designed around moving stuff from another category to troops). It's crappy but thems the breaks.

You could take 3 henchmen units and IG in the above. Then take Steelhost Formation, Stormwing Formation and other items to fill in what you were looking for.

There are options for building a force in the above restrictions. When all is said and done you lost the ability to field 3 henchmen units. Total, full stop. I don't think that's being squatted.

@Brandt

The allied detachment wouldn't exist in your example. It's two FoC detachments in the above. So a Inquisition Detachment and any other detachment (Allied, CAD, Rando Codex Detachment) and any formation"S"

Ah, I gotya Brad!

Tony - we all push our way of playing the game, to include you! I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and closing your mind to other views is certainly not something I want to come off as doing or encouraging. Heck, in our very early years, things like the Mechanicon's sideboards and sweet terrain are what helped inspire us to have sideboards for every table at every NOVA game, and to put out our own world-class terrain across all our different events. There's a lot to be learned from everyone, and that's why conversations like this are great.

 Tironum wrote:
For what it is worth, I think the idea of Unique Detachments would be fun.

MVBrandt,

My comments were not half hearted, they were genuine and factual. Retorting with exaggerations and misrepresenting what I said does not help.

You have been pushing your own way to play the game for a long time. Lots of people like it but not everyone.

I said my peace, have fun.

While perhaps not half hearted, saying things like

Getting your teeth kicked in - matchups are not going to be balanced and you will lose games. Your "elitecombo_04" army probably cannot win 70% of the time anymore. Get over it. The game is not a sport, we are not athletes, and there is no way to provide a truly even playing field with your HouseHammer rulings unless everyone brings the exact same army.

Makes huge assumptions about why people want to restrict certain things (here's a hint, it is not for the power gamers.)

Every event can do things it's own way and the public will speak to what they want. Recently for me (in part due to lack of structure) that has been playing other games. I wish you luck with the unlimited battle forged, but I expect you'll see some armies that people won't like very much.

Humm making all detachments "unique" sounds like a simple fix (no double CAD or min maxing the same detachment over and over). I like it.

Still need a small ban list of certain LoW but that seems like an easy way to move forward for 7th tournies.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Posting this again. Because I want to and I still think it's the best direction for 7th the way it's currently formated


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)
0+ 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.

I like this. Right now there are books of main line armies who can not compete - I'm looking at you chaos - with other main line armies. I'm not as much interested in keeping it fair for fringe armies, but the main core army factions of 40k should have a chance against each other.

I fully agree with what Tinorum said. There are lots of older gamers that want to keep playing 4th and 5th edition style. Often they say it's too hard for them to keep up now. :( We need to embrace 7th edition. I know a lot of newer players too who are put off by the older gamers that want to hold back the game. Many of the vets have left 40k which is fine... Win win scenario.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I fully agree with what Tinorum said. There are lots of older gamers that want to keep playing 4th and 5th edition style. Often they say it's too hard for them to keep up now. :( We need to embrace 7th edition. I know a lot of newer players too who are put off by the older gamers that want to hold back the game. Many of the vets have left 40k which is fine... Win win scenario.

Whoa, hold the phone. Vets leaving is a bad thing. The game has a stupid high barrier to entry. The motivation of a crowd of veteran opponents is a good thing to encourage growth. GW is seeing and reporting shrinkage, not growth. That's bad. And 7th edition, as written, is hot street trash. The reason why people pine for 5th us because armies were the armies, not voltron win dispensers. There was a poll on the 40k general discussion that showed a massive affinity for 4E/5E. Supporting a strong competitive edition is good for everyone, not this "fluffy bunny" edition that's obviously lead to just more in fighting of the player base (blame the company, not the players).


It's why I play all other games now. If I can save the dollars to go to NOVA, I'll play Malifaux or Infinity because I know I'm in for something Wyrd or that the ITS format is the same everywhere. I don't want to play Brandt-40k, Robbins-40k, etc. Not a slight to the TOs small and large, its just the game is a mess. My local meta adoption killed two of my armies (and GW helped with the new terrible GK book) and even went as far to ban al digital releases, p include my previous SoB army. Neat!

So the vets piling out of this slipshod edition isn't a good thing and the imperative to fix it is on GW as any solution created by an event manager will only cater to X crowd; you'll alienate Y and Z. The latter two were smaller subsets in a tighter edition like 5E, but now you're carving swaths with 7E as if this discussion being repeated for every tournament small and large isn't proof enough of that point.

So no matter the resolution, there are some of us Vets who will be eating the market away from GW actively by offering a game with none of this bickering and just playing. And that's a lovely, refreshing change of pace. Plus its way easier flying with a few crews and a 300pt infinity list than 1850 of 40k.

Wow wow wow... That is so opinionated it really doesn't carry any weight in my opinion. What I said though is fact based upon my many discussions with other gamers across the country. You though are a good example of the people trying to restrain 7th edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow wow wow... That is so opinionated it really doesn't carry any weight in my opinion. What I said though is fact based upon my many discussions with other gamers across the country. You though are a good example of the people trying to restrain 7th edition.

Funny how my "opinion" is supported by facts, my own nationwide experience over the past four years/three editions, and GWs own business actions and financial reports.

And being a good example of restraint? Good games have in built checks and balances on army construction. Every other game expresses this. The very notion of take whatever you want is sloppy is and poor design.

So unless you care to elaborate, your claim is baseless. And when 40k implodes because of GWs poor business decisions, it won't matter. The game is sick, and the discussion of "how to fix it," as evidence by this thread alone and it being necessary for every form of organized play, whether it be a tacit understanding between friends or a TO rules packet, is just more. No other game community has this level of in fighting on how to build an operational system to have a fair chance at competition. To even suggest otherwise is a mighty fine rose tinted outlook.

GW will never implode... people have been saying that for years. Anyways go ahead and NR.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
GW will never implode... people have been saying that for years. Anyways go ahead and NR.

When was the last time their financial numbers backed up the people saying that? Have you read the "future of games day" series or the financial report?


Back to the topic, I believe the tournaments are doing just fine with house rules. They're giving us enough freedom to build good lists without being totally broken. Nobody wants to see multiple CAD lists in a tournament because it benefits some armies far more than others. For every player who just wants to run the same list they used to run, there will be 3 players finding a way to break the meta with a multiple CAD list. Playing lists like that for kicks with your friends is fine but I think you will find very few people who actually attend large tournaments that would be in favor of unlimited CADs, or just wide open list building rules. As usual, it seems like the people who don't even attend these events are the ones screaming the loudest about how they should be run.

Back on topic, please. There are lots of other topics to discuss GW's financials, but this section/thread is not devoted to that. We all need a respite from that somewhere, and this area is just for tourney discussions.

Thanks!

Another reason why it's bad that vets are leaving: how does GW advertise? Through word of mouth. Now all those vets are telling people not to play GW. Their only source of advertising has now turned negative. FYI that's not a good thing for GW.