Friday, September 12, 2014

A question to the readers.

I want to ask you a question.  As the Dataslatres like the Assassins and the Inquisition/Grey Knights split, you now have to have at least a CAD, Allied and an Assassins Detachment just to play your old list and for that matter to play some future competitive lists.

The LVO and BAO posted up what at the time was a "House Rule" type of thing for list construction However, their method is quite illegal by the books standard.  And moving forward now that the Grey Knights kind of shattered all their traditional allies away, should we expect that Dual CAD and the like will just simply have to be accepted?  Will two CAD's be enough?

As one who has more or less championed simplifying things and staying within the codex force org chart and maybe an allied Detachment, I now find that I simply cant do it that way.  the codex's and Dataslates plus supplements were clearly foreseen when 7E began allowing multiple detachments of various types.

Do you oppose multiple Detachments?  Do you have a limit?  or do we need to just move towards accepting that the rules is the rules?

5 comments:

  1. I love the variety and options all the dataslates offer, I like being able to add lots of different fluffy units to my list. The fact that I can have IG with SW allies yet still add an inquisitor, assassin, lotd and cypher is something I enjoy. I'm not really sure what the issue is with multiple detachments, take them if you want or don't, its just another way to spend your points and I personally would still always adhere to the foc. Now unbound armies I can see the problem...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My reply got eaten. I think Unbound is silly and that TO's are "giving it a go" is just going to end up with more people talking trash about the game instead of lawding its improvement. That damage was so severe that online chatter alone cut GW's stock price almost in half a year into 6E and forced the issue of 7E faster than i think Ive ever seen any company backtrack. To their credit they DID what had to be done and the game has immeasurably improved in my opinion. Prices still need to be slowly moderated for the company to attract new people though.

      Delete
  2. To be fairly honest, I like the way it's been done, albeit I would argue it's very much biased towards the Imperium in general. However, I like this idea they're essentially proposing. The idea of a large "combined arms" force that, in order to operate is utilizing all sorts of elements from the 40k universe. Sometimes leading to a weird situation where an Inquisitor (Inquisitorial Detachment) might make use of an Dark Eldar corsair's services (Allied Detachment) but does stick to his guns by having the Sisters (Primary Detachment) at the forefront. Of course with an assassin (Assassinorum Formation) thrown in for good reason. I like it that way. It leads to far more varied and interesting armies and feels like something I'd WANT to field. The ability to be able to field so many interesting things if you're prepared to pay the "tax" for it doesn't feel like it ruins the game. It enriches it in my opinion. And besides, with all the dataslates and supplements coming out GW would've been forced to implement this system, or it would have led to all sorts of shenanigans for the company. I'd say these changes are for the better and create a more varied, interesting and custom-to-playstyle force.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like being able to select from three places (IG+SM+INQ) but it does feel like it takes the challenge out of list building if you go far? Am I being old fashioned there?

    Part of the thrill for me has always been choosing a codex (or two with allies) and designing a list around it, in the knowledge that I'm missing out because I can't take celestine, yarrick, and Vulkan all in one list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you're being old fashioned at all. I think my preference is the same as yours and I have really only played since right before 4th Edition came out, so i cant speak to much of what happened before then. What we've seen though is a pretty complete breakup of certain things that forces the issue from one of preference, which I agree with YOU on to one of "hey are we REALLY going to squeeze players who already kinda had the lists before this all happened?". The issue of fairness is unfortunately now there and I think its a legit question to ask. Its real money involved there. We all know the hobby has grown in cost and although one cannot deny that the quality levels of the models has by and large been more than ridiculously good, I look at it from both a traditionalist standpoint as well as a practical one... It's a tough question.

      Delete