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 wondering what the view is on the Nid dataslates in tournaments. While dataslates, to date, have been generally forbidden (the Tau broadside one being the main culprit) the position with Nids does change the environment. Due to their no allies rules there will not be a supplement codex as with Eldar, SM, tau etc and instead the dataslates have been created as a Nid specific way of allowing diversity to Nid lists. All good so far and probably no real problems after volume 1, but volume 2 introduced the skyblight list allowing up to 9 FMCs and scoring, renewable, non-contestable gargoyles. This one just seems too abuseable to get through most TOs.

While I'm in the process of modelling my Nid Bastion I just wanted to get a feel for what the position is likely to be for the remainder of the year before I start buying all those flying Nids ....

From a relatively new player and tournament attendee perspective, I think its lame to see so much 'abuse' at the hands of the allies chart and supplements in other armies.

Tyranids receive better troops and more 5 wound T5 4+ MC's and no deathstar situations in Skyblight, which is helpful but still not on par with some of the other meta builds. The simple fact of it being a dataslate that looks like it should have been in the hollowed out codex to begin with begs some degree of argument. But then again maybe I am biased.

For our part, the NOVA is starting to lean toward considering Formations to take up the Allied Detachment slot. So, at least on that front, you're likely safe as a Nid to start brainhammering some of the ways to use the Leviathan slates.

It's no more abusable than Allies, Lords of War, Stronghold Assault fortifications, or Knight / Inquisition codexes.

Any tournament that bans dataslates needs to be banning all those too.

MVBrandt wrote:
For our part, the NOVA is starting to lean toward considering Formations to take up the Allied Detachment slot. So, at least on that front, you're likely safe as a Nid to start brainhammering some of the ways to use the Leviathan slates.

Whoa, cool!! I'm partial to the exocrine, 3 biovores, 3 warriors one myself

 RiTides wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
For our part, the NOVA is starting to lean toward considering Formations to take up the Allied Detachment slot. So, at least on that front, you're likely safe as a Nid to start brainhammering some of the ways to use the Leviathan slates.

Whoa, cool!! I'm partial to the exocrine, 3 biovores, 3 warriors one myself

Yup. Not sure anyone is going to complain over-much about X-star eschewing its mandatory combos in order to plug in the ripside formation.

I quite like the idea of the detachments being "either / or" (i.e. taking the allies slot).

But darn, if these things don't just look designed to sell models . Looking at the skyblight swarm, I'd have to buy several things to run it... that would likely be a popular one, but it's pretty extreme, and thus pricey. Feels like Privateer Press' tier lists all over again!

 RiTides wrote:
I quite like the idea of the detachments being "either / or" (i.e. taking the allies slot).

But darn, if these things don't just look designed to sell models . Looking at the skyblight swarm, I'd have to buy several things to run it... that would likely be a popular one, but it's pretty extreme, and thus pricey. Feels like Privateer Press' tier lists all over again!

Looks like you get to make custom gargs for your already awesome nid army!

I'm down for Formations taking up allied slots.

You're right krootman- good thing I had already planned to build some . Although after powering through all these gaunts I'm going to take a "break" by moving on to the bigger gribblies

If this talk of the dataslate taking the allied detachment slot is true. Well, awesome. I think it's fair, considering the shenanigans that I see regularly, I think it's fair.

I'm all for having dataslates be your allied detachment. It seems silly to allow some of the more extreme ally shenanigans, but not give Tyranids anything (or disallow benign things like a reclusiam command squad... yes, I know none of the top tables would take things like that, but the top tables will adjust to whatever the current meta is so I'm not terribly concerned about them.)

Making Formations take up the Allied Detachment slot in your army list is very fair for what you get. I can't see anyone coming up with a valid reason to not allow this. On the plus side this new one really helps the Nids out, as like some of you have said, they don't have access to deathstars.

100% think formations should just be an Ally. It is simple and cleans up some stuff without being too "rules" changie etc. plus it lets people with Nids play stuff.

The Gargoyle thing is kind of BS with I get the objective but you don't sort of thing - but then if you have a big enough unit - they won't get near the objective as most things can punch the crap out of them in combat. Plus with a lot of games going combo missions - KP will be more prevalent. Mix that with the Scouring and now you are going to give up a lot of VP on a unit that can be killed fairly easily as they stay Fast Attack choices even though they are in a formation.

But heck - this means I can play Bel'Akor maybe?

I think that formations taking up the allied slot curbs the worst excesses.

Looks like you have a real winner with this idea, MVBrandt!!

I think the DaBoyz GT is also looking to allow them. I personally think things like the Imperial Knight and Formations might be a better way to then changing rules or adding restrictions to a event.

I think it will shift the “meta” in a good way.

Jay_Daboyz wrote:
I think the DaBoyz GT is also looking to allow them. I personally think things like the Imperial Knight and Formations might be a better way to then changing rules or adding restrictions to a event.

I think it will shift the “meta” in a good way.

It will at least shift it. We're trying to playtest knights as much as we can to understand what the net result will be. Nearly every list currently out there will have to change if Knights are broadly legalized, which is in and of itself potentially good, but the outcome is what needs to be assessed.

Formations are pretty benign, even the mean ones, as long as you aren't allowed to broadly spam them (most aren't that spammable, but restricting them to occupying the allied slot prevents shenanigans with the most abuse-able ones ... at least the most abuse-able ones out so far).

I'm also with you on the better way nature ... frankly I'd rather see allowances be the way each event "Comps" or "restricts/bans/changes rules." I'd rather anything further that's done be events improving units that are otherwise bad or infrequently selected, so if an event is going to change the game substantially, they change it in a way that makes more things good ... instead of trying to target what is perceived to be too good.

This starts the broadening of the conversation, though ... nutshell simplicity, dataslates/formations are fairly tame compared to the whole when you do something akin to "they count as your allied detachment."

MVBrandt wrote:
...nutshell simplicity, dataslates/formations are fairly tame compared to the whole when you do something akin to "they count as your allied detachment."

I agree, and am not sure why this didn't occur to me before! I'm guessing you guys have been thinking about it for awhile, but this thread was the first I'd heard of that idea... and I love it!

I think all tournaments should adopt a 2 source maximum rule for armies. Data slates count as 1 source. Then TO's should go through each of the data slates and through playtesting determine which are obviously OP (tau for instance) and ban specific slates.

IMO the Nid skyblight formation is probably OP and ban worthy because of the ability of the gargoyles to regenerate completely on a 4+ and the can't be contested rule. The argument that nids suck otherwise is not really an argument to allow that formation IMO.

Pony_law wrote:
I
IMO the Nid skyblight formation is probably OP and ban worthy because of the ability of the gargoyles to regenerate completely on a 4+ and the can't be contested rule. The argument that nids suck otherwise is not really an argument to allow that formation IMO.

They *can* be contested, just not by scoring units. It's a bit odd, but that's how the rule is written.

Pony_law wrote:
I think all tournaments should adopt a 2 source maximum rule for armies. Data slates count as 1 source. Then TO's should go through each of the data slates and through playtesting determine which are obviously OP (tau for instance) and ban specific slates.

IMO the Nid skyblight formation is probably OP and ban worthy because of the ability of the gargoyles to regenerate completely on a 4+ and the can't be contested rule. The argument that nids suck otherwise is not really an argument to allow that formation IMO.

The formation would be more problematic if there weren't such a wide range of ways to deal with it. It's quite good at a glance, but in actual play almost any army has a wide variety of ways to manage it. If we aren't going to ban 2+ re-rolls or 2+/4+ re-rolls (Which are much more difficult for most armies to deal with), we probably aren't going to ban on the basis of something that can be solved with combat pulls, shooting, blocking, etc., etc. It's a far cry from some of the deathstars, d weapons, etc., and much closer to "typical" kneejerk new game additions that drive the OP-type claims. I don't say this to disparage your opinion either ... just taking a "SWAG" here that it will settle down much more readily than some of the other issues we're all looking at. If I'm wrong, well, it'll get looked at also

I didn't mention it in my post but i think that the LVO had it right in modifying 2+ rerollables to say the second roll is always a 4+. Again that is a modification that I support as well.

I think you get pretty decent balance and at the very least get a situation where you never have games that are so one sided that they are not fun if you say 1) 2 source maximum 2) no super heavies or stronghold assault 3) 2+ reroll becomes 2+ 4+ 4) specific bans on the egregious data slates and 5) riptides cannot be joined.

Those modifications seem reasonable and you still have good armies remaining good they just aren't broken anymore.

Pony_law wrote:
I didn't mention it in my post but i think that the LVO had it right in modifying 2+ rerollables to say the second roll is always a 4+. Again that is a modification that I support as well.

I think you get pretty decent balance and at the very least get a situation where you never have games that are so one sided that they are not fun if you say 1) 2 source maximum 2) no super heavies or stronghold assault 3) 2+ reroll becomes 2+ 4+ 4) specific bans on the egregious data slates and 5) riptides cannot be joined.

Those modifications seem reasonable and you still have good armies remaining good they just aren't broken anymore.

I don't have any specific objections to any of those. The challenge for event organizers is - the more complex the restrictions, mods, bans, etc., the more difficult it is to get wide buy-in from other event organizers in order to establish a set of expectations as to what army is actually legal to bring around with you to different events. Therein lies the rub.

Exactly... which is why a simple "a formation uses the allies slot" is beautiful. It's simple, and allows people who really want to (or need to, a la tyranids who have no allies) to take a formation, but not to have so many sources at once.

A "2 sources per army" rule does the same thing, and just phrases it a different way, right? And that is also sweet

The LVO/BAO has already decided to incorporate this "2 sources per army" rule into their tournaments.

I like that. If I understand, a "source" = codex (Codex: Tau Empire), supplement (Farsight Enclaves), allies (Codex: Eldar), or a data slate (Fire Support Cadre), correct.

Do multiple instances of a data slate count as 2 sources or 1?

I see just one slight difference there- I could take multiple formations from one "source" under that variation of the rule.

I.e. a Skyblight Swarm and a Living Artillery Node, or two Living Artillery Nodes. Is that right? It probably wouldn't be done as most of the formations are expensive points wise, but just wondering about that.

Either way, if it allows Nids to get a little more love by taking a formation, I think it's a good idea.

Edit: Ninja'ed with the same question by Ifurita!

Either "great minds think alike", or "fools seldom differ". You pick.

Another clarifying question. Which of the following is counted as 1 source:

-- DATASLATE: TYRANID *** (i.e., the collection of data slates associated with Codex: Tyranids)
-- DATASLATE: TYRANID INVASION - RISING LEVIATHAN II
-- Skyblight Swarm

What i am getting at, is that in the Tyranid case there are muiltiple formations within each data slate and in fact, there are 3 data slates (chapters) for Codex: Tyranids. While somewhat unique now, I wouldn't be surprised to see this structure for future codexes coming out (e.g., Imperial Guard)

 RiTides wrote:
I see just one slight difference there- I could take multiple formations from one "source" under that variation of the rule.

I.e. a Skyblight Swarm and a Living Artillery Node, or two Living Artillery Nodes. Is that right? It probably wouldn't be done as most of the formations are expensive points wise, but just wondering about that.

Either way, if it allows Nids to get a little more love by taking a formation, I think it's a good idea.

Edit: Ninja'ed with the same question by Ifurita!

I don't think this would be too much of an issue as the Skyblight Formation is a lot of points so by the time you take this and your mandatory 1 HQ and 2 Troops from your normal Codex you're going to be up there in points. I do see what you're saying and it's a very valid point that will need clarifying. I'm really excited that Reece's group is already incorporating the change. I can't wait to see how the BAO turns out this year.