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.

The release of the new SW/Demon campaign and the LVO threads got me thinking: is the time for CADs over in tournament play? The direction GW is taking clearly indicates a preference for unique detachments that are representative of how the various factions organize for combat. Perhaps by following suit we could alleviate some of the common complaints of the current tournament system.

Proposal: Factions with unique detachments (i.e. formations, Decurion-like detachments, or unique force org charts like the Baal Strike Force) may NOT use CADs during army list construction. This is designed to be used with other ITC restrictions like 0-1 LOW.

This proposal has some unique advantages:
1) It greatly reduces the effectiveness of death stars by reducing the number of available HQ slots. This makes it harder to stack USRs and acquire a redundancy in high power relics/wargear. It also prevents the exploitation of formation rules by using a formation supplemented by efficiently selected units from a CAD.

2) It makes army construction deliberately inefficient. Virtually every formation has what is currently considered a "tax" that makes it less efficient than a CAD. By eliminating CADs, the unique detachments force greater army diversity by forcing players to take what are considered sub-par units. It also removes the ability to spam supremely point efficient units.

3) It makes SHVs and GMCs less prevalent. The free standing LOW slots are far less frequent without a CAD to cheaply unlock them. Those detachments that include LOWs (like the Eldar Warhost) now make it far less efficient to get one included as the cheapest core includes a warlock council and viper as part of its obligatory choices (essentially adding ~100 points to the cost of the WK).

A shift like this would clearly produce a new meta and new lists would emerge that become top tier. It could also be a helpful reset as virtually every army would have a unique play style again.

What do you guys think?

It also takes out most Void Shield Generators. That as of right now are being taken in a CAD.

An interesting idea with some promise. Just as with any comp, it will just shift the meta.

One thing I wouldn't like about it is that you won't be able to take a lot of Forgeworld units, which aren't available to many of the new detachments.

A lot of people simply like to use CADs - not for an advantage. I don't think this will be popular.

Julnlecs wrote:It also takes out most Void Shield Generators. That as of right now are being taken in a CAD.

Great point. Based off the feedback in the LVO thread, I don't think this is a bad thing. Most people seem to think the VSG is a bit much.

jy2 wrote:An interesting idea with some promise. Just as with any comp, it will just shift the meta.

One thing I wouldn't like about it is that you won't be able to take a lot of Forgeworld units, which aren't available to many of the new detachments.

Yeah, that is a major disadvantage. I think Eldar still have decent access through the Doom book's modifications to the Warhost but it would be severely limiting for everyone else. You could probably adjust a little by allowing the basic types to be replaced by the FW variants (i.e. a Whirlwind could be subbed by a Whirlwind Scorpius or a Whirlwind Hyperios) but it would be very limited compared to what we have now.

Dozer Blades wrote:A lot of people simply like to use CADs - not for an advantage. I don't think this will be popular.

I understand this. What I'm presenting is a radical solution to address other problems people stated they have with the meta. There is general agreement that deathstars, GMCs, spamable D weapons, 20+ dice physic armies and the like make the game less fun. This would be a way to mitigate that. Part of the conversation should be "Are we willing to sacrifice flexibility in army construction in an attempt to shift the meta away from those things?"

Only using Formations doesn't curb that, Eldar can still spam D. GMCs still available to both Tau/Eldar/Imperials. Eldar can still get close to 20 psy dice with formations. Daemons too.

It would heavily bring down Obsec in army lists.

 LValx wrote:
Only using Formations doesn't curb that, Eldar can still spam D. GMCs still available to both Tau/Eldar/Imperials. Eldar can still get close to 20 psy dice with formations. Daemons too.

I think my general point is that it makes the army design less efficient overall. There are some factions that can still do the same things, but not as easily as before. How easy is Eldar D Spam still out of Doom? I'm generally unfamiliar with that book still.

I'm not proposing a ban on GMCs and the like. The point is again deliberate inefficiency. Right now, any army can get a WK with a "tax" of 277 points for a jetbike Farseer and 2 scatter bike units. To get a WK under the proposed comp, you at least have to invest ~500 points first in a Windrider or Guardian Battle Host core. Demons would have significantly less HQ choices available and the types of powers generated and their number would be significantly different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Julnlecs wrote:
It would heavily bring down Obsec in army lists.

True. That is an important consideration and I don't know if its good or bad yet. It would certainly make the marine demi-company very powerful but most lists in comparison to the demi-company already have considerably less ObSec. Tyranids and AM I think are the only other factions with non-CAD ObSec access.

Easy to imagine this would put Battle Company on top of the meta since they'd still have Objective Secured.

Run a local event with this format at your store and tell us what happens!

Many nostalgic players wish for the opposite: one HQ two Troops forever. And they hate formations. I'm not one of them, but I'd expect to hear from them soon, and expect them to stay home.

Pale Courts are kind of hilarious. Your core can become a Farseer and 3 of one kind of aspect unit (*cough* Warp Spiders). That said, removing Eldar's ability to make their bikes ObSec is intriguing.

axisofentropy wrote:Easy to imagine this would put Battle Company on top of the meta since they'd still have Objective Secured.

Run a local event with this format at your store and tell us what happens!

Many nostalgic players wish for the opposite: one HQ two Troops forever. And they hate formations. I'm not one of them, but I'd expect to hear from them soon, and expect them to stay home.

I'll see what I can put together. I think most of them could be won over. Formations by themselves aren't generally over the top. Its what you can combo in that makes them crazy IMO. It'd be fun to run an RTT again.

FTGTEvan wrote:Pale Courts are kind of hilarious. Your core can become a Farseer and 3 of one kind of aspect unit (*cough* Warp Spiders). That said, removing Eldar's ability to make their bikes ObSec is intriguing.

I've heard that. At least that's still a ~400 point core and a little more inefficient than the normal CAD buy in. Removing OBSEC from jet bikes would certainly shake things up.

Pale courts are actually very efficient. The only downside is that the warp spiders can't be part of an aspect host, but that is a minor quibble.

I too think that removing CAD would definitely make battle companies too strong. As a TO, I would feel like I would need to make the missions less dependent on obsec to level the playing field, which I'm not really a fan of. A good tournament tries to enforce no or as close to zero of a meta bias as possible.

Also, as has been stated, forge world is a thing. If you want to let me take Y'vahra riptides in a riptide wing, however....then we can talk!

Let's go the other direction, back to all you can take is 1 CAD, .

luke1705 wrote:Pale courts are actually very efficient. The only downside is that the warp spiders can't be part of an aspect host, but that is a minor quibble.

I too think that removing CAD would definitely make battle companies too strong. As a TO, I would feel like I would need to make the missions less dependent on obsec to level the playing field, which I'm not really a fan of. A good tournament tries to enforce no or as close to zero of a meta bias as possible.

Also, as has been stated, forge world is a thing. If you want to let me take Y'vahra riptides in a riptide wing, however....then we can talk!

Lets think through the battle company briefly. The typical battle company build starts with 20 OBSEC units (2 HQs, 6 Troops + Transports, 2 Heavies + Transports, 2 Fast Attack) with the combat squad option bringing it to a rough maximum of 32 (with 10 man tactical, assault, and devastator squads with transports for the assault squads). The average CAD based list has between 4 and 6 OBSEC units (i.e. min troops with transports, multiple jet bike squads, etc). The battle company already has a roughly 5 to 1 or 6 to 1 advantage in OBSEC. If you want to take an objective from them, you already have to kill them off of it. Otherwise, the best you could do is tie it. Its also not very difficult for a battle company to kill enemy OBSEC to solidify this advantage. I don't think dropping CADs would make the Battle Company significantly better than it already is. It might pick up a little on the margins, but good players already know how to focus their combat power to win the mission. I don't think a serious adjustment in the missions would be needed at all.

FW units is the real difficult one. People invest a lot of money and time into them and not allowing CADs acts as a defacto ban on most FW. It's been allowed for a decent amount of time now and people are used to playing with their toys. Yet allowing them wholesale into formations might be problematic as your Riptide example points out. I don't really know the answer but it might be worth experimenting.

MVBrandt wrote:Let's go the other direction, back to all you can take is 1 CAD, .

Ah, the good old days. I think the cat is way to far out of the bag to go backwards though.

As a Blood Angels player, this only sounds.. INCREDIBLY AWESOME

Why not allow one or the other? Want a VSG, FW, etc. take a CAD. Want other cool stuff, take your Super Detachment.

Considering the widely varying quality that GW of the Decurion-detachments, this would be terrible.

You have forces like Marines, Necrons, Eldar and Tau who have some awesome formations with very little tax involved. These are the armies that you currently see taking their special formations because they are competitive with or better than CADs.

THen you get ones like the new Daemons, Guard and the new Orks, where the taxes are so onerous that people will never take them. Especially in these armies where the taxes are huge, many units (even ones considered really good) will never be seen.

It would be different if the Eldar Warhost required you to take 8 squads of Howling Banshees; then your 'purposefully inefficient' might have some meaning. But when they have the oh-so-inconvenient tax of 3x one of the best units in the game, vs Daemons tax of *9* squads of pink horrors.... it's simply incomparable.

Even just looking at the dichotomy between factions there, the top 4 forces are going to be so far and away better than the rest of the pack, that it seems immediately obvious to me that going the OTHER way, being CAD only, is a better answer.

Trasvi wrote:
Considering the widely varying quality that GW of the Decurion-detachments, this would be terrible.

You have forces like Marines, Necrons, Eldar and Tau who have some awesome formations with very little tax involved. These are the armies that you currently see taking their special formations because they are competitive with or better than CADs.

THen you get ones like the new Daemons, Guard and the new Orks, where the taxes are so onerous that people will never take them. Especially in these armies where the taxes are huge, many units (even ones considered really good) will never be seen.

It would be different if the Eldar Warhost required you to take 8 squads of Howling Banshees; then your 'purposefully inefficient' might have some meaning. But when they have the oh-so-inconvenient tax of 3x one of the best units in the game, vs Daemons tax of *9* squads of pink horrors.... it's simply incomparable.

Even just looking at the dichotomy between factions there, the top 4 forces are going to be so far and away better than the rest of the pack, that it seems immediately obvious to me that going the OTHER way, being CAD only, is a better answer.

Its not forcing people to play with the decurions, just the unique detachments. Orcs could use the Great Horde Detachment still and an army could be composed entirely of formations. AM can build a solid army out of Emperor's Blade + Emperor's Wrath.

There are some qualitative differences between formations, absolutely. But I'm arguing those differences are made even more acute by allowing the unique detachments to be combined with a CAD.

The way to balance out the Demi Company is to have Marine players use the Supremacy Tactical Objectives whilst everybody else uses standard Tactical Objectives.

That might sound crazy but it's how my gaming group have just started doing it and it makes the marines less likely to romp their way through Maelstrom Missions.

With all those Obj Sec units they walk through Maelstrom Missions but if you make them play Supremacy Objectives they generally have to either hold the objectives for longer or fight their opponent off of them rather than just camping on them.

While I don't mind shifting the game less towards the ho-hum CADs and more towards mixed formations, it worries me in a few regards.

1) Some races simply don't have alternatives. You're a Sisters player, are you cool with not being able to run them in a CAD? What's the alternative for you then? Sisters not being a great example because they're already a one option tourney race anyway.. but you get my point I hope.

2) A ton of the formations are not really flexible in their layout/building. I would be worried that people's ability to have more fun non-ultra competitive lists would be limited if restricted to formations.

3) Where do the lord of wars go? Does a general 0-1 LOW rule just get tacked on?

4) Ditto 99% of Forgeworld. There aren't formations for these things. You'd have to come up with a long list of interchangeables. The various riptides for instance being interchangeable within formation requirements would be an example. Otherwise you'll never see them and FW is clearly more popular now than it was 4/5 years ago.

Not knocking the idea, but curious how you'd solve these issues.

GreyDragoon wrote:
While I don't mind shifting the game less towards the ho-hum CADs and more towards mixed formations, it worries me in a few regards.

1) Some races simply don't have alternatives. You're a Sisters player, are you cool with not being able to run them in a CAD? What's the alternative for you then? Sisters not being a great example because they're already a one option tourney race anyway.. but you get my point I hope.

2) A ton of the formations are not really flexible in their layout/building. I would be worried that people's ability to have more fun non-ultra competitive lists would be limited if restricted to formations.

3) Where do the lord of wars go? Does a general 0-1 LOW rule just get tacked on?

4) Ditto 99% of Forgeworld. There aren't formations for these things. You'd have to come up with a long list of interchangeables. The various riptides for instance being interchangeable within formation requirements would be an example. Otherwise you'll never see them and FW is clearly more popular now than it was 4/5 years ago.

Not knocking the idea, but curious how you'd solve these issues.

I'll try to hit all of them:

(1) I might not have been clear up front, but factions without unique detachments would continue to use CADs. My rough count is that this is two factions: Chaos Space Marines and Sisters of Battle. The idea would be that CADs for these two would be phased out when (if) GW introduces unique detachments for them.

(2) I think removing CADs would actually create the opposite: you'd have more diversity in lists and the number of hyper-competitive builds would drop, creating a more fun experience overall. The majority of the super friends combos are achieved by stacking HQs to add USRs/wargear benefits. Removing CADs makes lists inefficient and harder to get that kind of effect. You'll still get some power builds and death stars but nothing like what we're seeing now. Basically, I don't see the restrictive nature of the formations as a bad thing.

(3) I'll have to take a closer look, but I'm reasonably certain that every existing Decurion style detachment has LOW options (at least for the Codex LOWs). Knights can still be added to most imperial armies through their own detachments (Imperial Knight/Oathsworn/Household + the various formations). Tau and Eldar detachments have options for surges and WKs. The Cadian Battlegroup has a Baneblade formation of all things. It shouldn't be a major problem to field a LOW. In the Eldar case, the WK actually fills your mandatory auxiliary choice. I think the bigger issue is actually the tie in with your #4.

(4) Forgeworld. This one, I'm honestly not sure what to do. Some of the units are easy because they can be taken as dedicated transports or have permission to take slots (i.e. FW knights can go in to IK detachments). I'm totally open to ideas here, especially for the unique HS/FA/Elite units. I don't think you can let them get subbed into formations whole sale (think double shooting R'varna Riptides) but I'm not sure how to handle them.

Also, the ITC approved FW lists would still be in play. I think the only real hit would be including FW FA/EL/HS/HQ slots in Codex armies.

 Julnlecs wrote:
It also takes out most Void Shield Generators. That as of right now are being taken in a CAD.

The popular dirt cheap Space wolf detachment has a fortification.
Tax will be 1 HQ +, 2x 1servitors = 70 pts ; )