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.

Hey dakka, I've been toying with AM lists as I have recently acquired a lot more and I've noticed something odd. Previously, my collection was small enough and bought during 5th/6th edition so that it pretty much totally adhered to the standard force org chart. Now, I have more things that I want to put in a list, that just don't fit in one force org. So naturally, I made a few totally legal lists using 2 CADs to fit in all the goodies. What was odd was the reaction of people at my FLGS. A surprising number of people were somewhat put off by the fact that I had more than one CAD. One guy said that it was not a good idea to encourage using multiple because it encourages cheese. Why do so many people feel like this?

For reference, this is an outline of the list that sparked the discussion:

As the guy said. It allows for some cheese, though that hardly stops people from cheesing in games with only 1-2 cads max.

Its easier for TOs as well.

Iv honestly never had issue with people playing multi cads though as they are still paying for the troop taxes and stuff in most cases.

Because for every person who brings an army list like that, the perception goes, someone will bring:

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

and then just spam malefic summons.

(and that's not even a good summon spam list)

It allows one to field a whole lot more of certain things than with 1 CAD, often with the same number of "minimums" you'd take anyway, or engage in some *really* cheeky army construction shennanigans.

To give you a mild example, an IG army running 2 HQ's and 4 troops with 1 CAD has access to 3 HS slots, but you can split that into 2 CAD's and run 6 HS slots, giving you access to more heavy tanks or allowing you to run the same number of heavy tanks more effectively as you won't have to squadron them.

Another multiple CAD cheese list would be 6 Winged Hive Tyrants with all the trimmings and 6 Ripper swarm broods with Deep Strike. At 1750 points. But, it's legal because it's just three CAD.

With all the ways to spam things in 40k now, and with most of it being legal and 'bound' still, people get a bit skittish about anything that isn't vanilla.

 Desubot wrote:
As the guy said. It allows for some cheese, though that hardly stops people from cheesing in games with only 1-2 cads max.

This is what really gets me about the whole thing. 5 wave serpents fit into a single CAD and leaves room for more. 3 riptides/wraithknights fit into their respective single CADs. 9 wyverns fit into a single CAD (and leaves a lot of room for more) and you can also cram 15 leman russes if you are feeling really snarky. I could go on of course. I am pretty sure the winner of the recent NOVA thing only had one CAD as well.

Obviously if a guy at your FLGS asks you to play a game and pulls out 6 riptides, you are going to seriously consider backing out of the game. I just feel like there is a lot of hate for what GW made to give the players more freedom, even if it is mostly just freedom to spend more money.

Same reason people didn't allow double FOC in previous editions: the perceived threat is worse than the actual way it's normally played.

Of course the perception usually involves ignoring the other ways you can break the game, often to more detrimental degree, without involving extra CADs or Unbound, but that's just how it is.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because for every person who brings an army list like that, the perception goes, someone will bring:

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

4x Herald of Tzeentch
2x Pink Horrors

and then just spam malefic summons.

(and that's not even a good summon spam list)

Probably because it isn't even legal

Or did you mean 2x10

The main reason I don't like multiple FOC is I prefer some structure limiting oddball stuff, then if you want some things that should exist but can't fit in to a FOC, you make specific exceptions for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Of course the perception usually involves ignoring the other ways you can break the game

This may come as a surprise, but the people who complain about breaking the game in one way are often the very same people complaining in other discussions about breaking the game in other ways, shocking I know

"The game can already be broken so why don't we just allow something else to break it as well" is not a compelling argument to me

You can get plenty of cheese with one CAD.

Restricting armies to a single CAD doesn't really change anything since allowing multiple CAD just changes who is advantaged is a player wants to mess around.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The main reason I don't like multiple FOC is I prefer some structure limiting oddball stuff, then if you want some things that should exist but can't fit in to a FOC, you make specific exceptions for them.

*coughUnboundcough*. Sorry, something was in my throat. But yes, if there was just a way to allow fluffy armies that don't fit FOCs properly existed. If there was only a thing that allow you to build a list the way you wanted regardless of the FOC....

Too bad it doesn't exist then, right?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Of course the perception usually involves ignoring the other ways you can break the game

This may come as a surprise, but the people who complain about breaking the game in one way are often the very same people complaining in other discussions about breaking the game in other ways, shocking I know

Ironic, and maybe a touch hypocritical I'd say.

But yes, the same people capping one way of expanding the game are surprisingly often the same ones who want to break the same game in other ways.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The main reason I don't like multiple FOC is I prefer some structure limiting oddball stuff, then if you want some things that should exist but can't fit in to a FOC, you make specific exceptions for them.

*coughUnboundcough*. Sorry, something was in my throat. But yes, if there was just a way to allow fluffy armies that don't fit FOCs properly existed. If there was only a thing that allow you to build a list the way you wanted regardless of the FOC....

Too bad it doesn't exist then, right?

Yeah, I don't like Unbound either. Unbound coming in to being sort of pushed the focus away from the fact even if you don't go Unbound you can now have multiple FOC's which is almost just as bad in a lot of cases.

Ironic, and maybe a touch hypocritical I'd say.

But yes, the same people capping one way of expanding the game are surprisingly often the same ones who want to break the same game in other ways.

Can you point out these people? Because I'm usually pretty consistent in disliking things that break the actual "game" aspect of the game and I have noticed several other people who seem to be consistent in that regard too.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, I don't like Unbound either. Unbound coming in to being sort of pushed the focus away from the fact even if you don't go Unbound you can now have multiple FOC's which is almost just as bad in a lot of cases.

I like what Unbound gives new players, who may not be able to throw a proper army together right away (like if all they could afford to start their small army was one of the army starter boxes) and fluff players who want to do something extremely fluffy but can't fit FOC (like someone who wanted to do, say, an all Jump Reserve company, or an all scout army). Yes it is open to abuse (just like every single other way to play the game), but it has a lot of great potential too.

Can you point out these people? Because I'm usually pretty consistent in disliking things that break the actual "game" aspect of the game and I have noticed several other people who seem to be consistent in that regard too.

Can I name names like this was a McCarthy hearing and you wanted me to out my fellow Communists? Not off the top of my head, but I do recall a lot of very angry big tournament players who went 1999+1 to avoid double FOC, but then would turn around and talk about the best way to squeeze every drop of cheese out of a codex too. Some of which run blogs too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I like what Unbound gives new players, who may not be able to throw a proper army together right away (like if all they could afford to start their small army was one of the army starter boxes) and fluff players who want to do something extremely fluffy but can't fit FOC (like someone who wanted to do, say, an all Jump Reserve company, or an all scout army). Yes it is open to abuse (just like every single other way to play the game), but it has a lot of great potential too.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Can I name names like this was a McCarthy hearing and you wanted me to out my fellow Communists? Not off the top of my head, but I do recall a lot of very angry big tournament players who went 1999+1 to avoid double FOC, but then would turn around and talk about the best way to squeeze every drop of cheese out of a codex too. Some of which run blogs too.

Oh you mean people who are unhappy about how the game can be broken still break it? I don't really see that as hypocritical, I see it as doing something you don't like in order to achieve what you want to achieve. Being hypocritical would be telling other people they can't exploit the rules but then still exploiting them anyway.

Disliking game breaking rules but still exploiting those rules is kind of like me saying I don't like the speed limit of 50km/h through my town... I don't like it but I still drive through my town at 50km/h because it's faster than going the long way round and I'll get a fine if I go faster than that

Hypocrisy implies some sort of deceit and/or double standards.

If they say they don't like the game breaking rules but still break them, that's not hypocrisy. I guess if they say they don't like the game breaking rules but they do actually like them, that's hypocrisy... but then you have to ascertain motive which is trickier than judging actions.

My friends and I have no problem with multiple CADs. In fact, my Adeptus Mechanicus army always has multiple CADs, just so my automatons can have the Paragon of Metal special rule.

I meant they'd argue to not use one form of game play that was rules legal with the argument that it broke the game only to turn around and try to break their modified version of the game. Apparently it was okay to abuse the system, but only in ways that ultimate didn't threaten to change the meta (or their lists) too much.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I meant they'd argue to not use one form of game play that was rules legal with the argument that it broke the game only to turn around and try to break their modified version of the game. Apparently it was okay to abuse the system, but only in ways that ultimate didn't threaten to change the meta (or their lists) too much.

Yes, its a Lot of this...I hear a lot of (Translated) "My Tau/Eldar list can run three Rips/Knights, and you can't, so No Way do I want you to be able to make you army stronger!" Of course I run NIds, and CAD x2 is about the only way to make my list stronger, so I likely hear this more often.

Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

This is where the logic against multiple CADs fails for me. It is somewhat new, since doubling the force org was around in 6th, but it is now just another part of the BRB. I wouldn't go telling someone, "No you can't cast invisibility. Why? Because I think it's cheesy," because hey, it is in the BRB.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

Well that and every release has 1 thing that will deemed "stupid". Usually at least one rule and a model kit per release. In the case that there are a lot of cool models the least cool model gets deemed "stupid".

Because there can be no 100% good releases.

 PhillyT wrote:
You can get plenty of cheese with one CAD.

The wouldn't it stand to reason if you multiply the number of CADs you're also multiplying the cheese

You know, i am sort of a fan of just one CAD, but recently ran into TWO armies that more or less kind of need the extra flexibility.

first is grey Knights. they now require TWO CADS and an Assassin Detachment to play the same list that used to be just one CAD.

With Militarum Tempestus, I found that it needed three CADS. I ended up losing almost all my objective secured ability. I Literally lost 7 Objective Secured units because they had to go in a formation just so i could field the EXACT SAME ARMY with one CAD! The only difference in the entire thing was a Commissar I had to take but other than that guy, same darn thing. So to comply with a SINGLE CAD made a BIIIIG difference in my armies effectiveness even though essentially not one model changed. Well... ONE did. But do we really wanna split hairs over a 25 point Commissar with nothing on him and who doesn't even go with an important squad?

So in light of those recent developments, I am finding that they had a pretty clear vision for the codex's when they wrote the Rules for Detachments and now that I'm seeing why they allowed multiple detachments, I'm "getting" that it was a concession to players so they wouldn't have to remake entire armies per se. Alter them? Of course.

TO's are probably convenienced a little by the restriction on CAD's. Ultimately its not the TO's that are the issue though. It's players that just cant be trusted with the entire toy box.

If you can't fit what you want in 1 CAD, just go unbound. That's kind of the point of unbound isn't it? Also I don't see the big issue with unbound, any game that actually matters has a "no unbound, 1 CAD, 2 sources" type of rule set anyway.

Problem with unbound is that it is as accepted as FW or even less.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

Yeah coz God forbid people have legitimate likes and dislikes They must just be complaining instead of adapting. It's entirely not possible that people can adapt but simply don't like the change. /sarcasm

CAD #1

Necron Overlord, CCB, PS, MSS, WS, SW, Phyl - 270
5x Warriors, Night Scythe - 165
5x Warriors, Night Scythe - 165
Anni Barge - 90
Anni Barge - 90
Anni Barge - 90

CAD #2

Necron Overlord, CCB, PS, MSS, WS, SW, Phyl - 270
5x Warriors, Night Scythe - 165
5x Warriors, Night Scythe - 165
Anni Barge - 90
Anni Barge - 90
Anni Barge - 90

Total 1740

That's why.

I really like multiple CADs/Allied Detachs. It brings up a lot more flexibility. But you need some common sense.

Same. I'm quite fond of my Order of Dusk double FoC army, which goes something like;

Detachment 1:
Ahriman stand-in
Warpsmith (Scrolls of Magnus)
2x Thousand Son squads

Detachment 2:
Sorcerer of Tz
Daemon Prince of Tz (Malefic)
2x Thousand Son squads

with the rest of the points going into more Thousand Sons and some Daemon Engines.

As long as armies can bring formations that completely wreck the FOC and take all terminators that can deep strike turn one, then i am completely fine with it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because when anything changes in an edition, people would rather complain than adapt.

See: flyers, over watch, lords of war etc

Yeah coz God forbid people have legitimate likes and dislikes They must just be complaining instead of adapting. It's entirely not possible that people can adapt but simply don't like the change. /sarcasm

I think there is a little of column a and a little of column b going on when it comes to GW stuff and the internet. Yes people have their legitimate likes/dislikes but when put online most things are run to the far extremes with no middle ground. And sometimes I'm pretty sure people do just complain to complain.