Playing 7th Edition 40k with Multiple Detachments


Welcome to what playing “true” Warhammer 40k looks like.  Are you ready for the bright shining future?

Welcome to the New Now

I had a fun game this past weekend versus Astra Militarum and ran the following army list:

White Scars CAD
Chapter Master – bike – artificer armor – shield eternal – power fist – auspex

Librarian – bike – armor indomitus – force axe – meltabombs – level 2 (telepathy)

Command Squad – bikes – chapter banner – 4x stormshield – 4x grav gun – 4x meltabombs – power fist

5x Biker – 2x grav gun
Sergeant – combi grav – meltabombs
Attack Bike – multi-melta

5x Biker – 2x grav gun
Sergeant – combi grav – meltabombs
Attack Bike – multi-melta

Space Wolves Champions of Fenris Detachment
Wolf Lord – runic armor – stormshield – power fist

Rune Priest – bike – runic armor – force axe – meltabombs – level 2 (divination)

Iron Priest – bike

Iron Priest – bike

9x Grey Hunter – meltagun – power axe
Wolf Guard – Stormshield – frost axe
Drop Pod

It was a really fun list to play and as you can see if you follow my armies I fielded more Space Wolves. If you don’t follow my armies that is totally cool nor do I expect you to do so. I am just using what I like to play as an example for fielding more than one detachment.


Don’t Fear the Reaper

I think a lot of the TOs for some of the major events are afraid that multiple detachments equates to UBER SPAM. If you know me you know I don’t like spam. Unfortunately limiting 7th edition armies to only one detachment defeats the purpose of the game. All of the new codices were written with the intent to allow players to design their armies on this basis. There will always be spam.

Personally I hate to go to any tournament and see 25 percent or more of the armies fielding three or more flying Hive Tyrants. One person told me his fluff for his army was that his Chapter Master captured three Tyrants straight out of the shell and raised them as pets to fight for him. While we can justify anything with some outlandish fabrication fortunately there are still some of us that prefer to see on the table what is considered a cool army for all the right reasons. It doesn’t have to be the case of a few totally WAAC players ruining it all for the rest of us.

Now back to my army list… This is just one of endless examples showing what you can do with more than one detachment. I enjoyed playing the army and might test it again. I ran three mini stars attaching the two psykers to one bike squad, Chapter Master to the command squad and the two Iron Priests to the other biker squad. The psyker biker squad was my MVP which kind of surprised me.

I have made a personal vow I will only attend events that allow multiple detachments and formations. Necrons are pretty much unplayable otherwise which I think was a smart move on the part of the development team as it forces TOs finally to get off the proverbial pot. The new Necrons are highly competitive. Armies like Eldar and Tau are both totally 6th edition… YAWN. It is not like GW is going to go back and redesign the game to be beer and pretzels like 3rd edition any time soon. The veterans need to suck it up and move along just like everyone else.

The coolest armies can be designed using multiple sources. Totally WAAC armies can too. I’m all for less restriction and put the game back in the hands of the players. Give it a chance.

Here is a list of the top armies at Adepticon for the 40k championship:


Adepticon is allowing unlimited detachments and formations along with sources. It’s beautiful and clearly demonstrates the future in no uncertain terms… Extremely exciting !!!

  • Eric Backman

    I feel what’s being defended as “True 40k” here is really just swallowing the pill that is the obvious cash grab from GW. Like most things GW has done recently, allowing for you to field effectively, multiple armies, forces you to purchase multiple books, data slates, and models you wouldn’t otherwise purchase. Never mind the rules here, this is simply another way to force players who wish to play on a competitive level to shell out more for what works and spread that money over other models they may not have intended to purchase, like whatever flavor of the month is being released.

    I’m not trying to shake my fist at GW and 40k in general, but I can’t just accept the idea that TOs should just accept this is part of the fun now and embrace it. It’s some shoe horned BS that we’ve all been told to swallow under the guise of fun and in the name of the almighty dollar.

    • Fenrisian

      Except you don’t have to play that way… Necrons, Demons, Eldar, Tau they all do just fine on their own.

      And how many times in the books do you hear about multiple groups working together for different causes.

      I’m a TO for my area and frankly the multi detachment and formations have only drawn more players to our events. Yea we had a low period right as 7th came out but as people started to see it wasn’t so bad, more and more have been showing up to events.

      Some people also just like to collect different armies and wait you are telling me you can use them together in various combinations? Sounds legit.

      The last few codex haven’t been that crazy, Necrons are a little silly but still beatable. Updates keep the game from getting stale.

      Calling this a cash grab is like saying anyone putting out any product is a cash grab.

    • Jimmy McFeelgood

      Your counter point sounds perfect. Up to a point. There are a lot of folks who have been playing this game for 25+ years, and already have a half dozen or better armies. What GW has done is finally taken the narrow guard rails off the game and said, “Go play with your collection,” which we can do with no small measure of freedom. Sure, there are updated rules, and running multiple armies means buying multiple codices… But that also means that my Tau finally come off the shelf, or those two boxes of Space Wolves that I painted up for a contest can finally get into the battle alongside my Sisters.

      Games Workshop has finally given us the freedom to play our armies however we like, and I’m thankful for it. Better this and buying a new codex, rather than having to buy a whole new army with each edition because of a power shift from vehicles to infantry to flyers, or whatever.

      • RexScarlet

        25+ years here. That is what Apocalypse 2e is for.
        We all know that Apoc 2e failed when in conjunction with 6e, and GW just relabeled ALL the releases that were slated for Apoc to “Regular 7e 40k allowed” how many WD and subsequent releases for Apoc1e; Tons, and for Apoc 2e; NONEs in comparison, but then add in all the regular 40k; e-rules, data-slates, and etc. and you can see very well what happened.
        The Guard Rails have been off since Apoc 1e. Oh, wait, only a teeney tiny market share played Apoc 1e, and Apoc 2e failed, so GW forced everything and the kitchen sink on us with 7e, period.
        No Virus, No Vortex Missiles, no 4th level Majiks…
        FYI I am a for playing all the rules, if players do not like it, then they should choose a set of guidelines, preferably set by a big tournament.

        • jonathon

          I’ll believe you’ve been playing 40K for 25+ years when you begin responding to folks on this forum in such a manner that leads us to believe you’ve been alive for more than 16. Until such a day, back under your bridge troll! The sun is coming up soon.

      • Sugarlessllama

        It is only a “cash grab” if you care about tournaments. Since I don’t none of these crazy changes effect me. No matter what happens, the Ghoul Stars narrative arcs that me, and my friends play are not altered. It’s pretty darn amazing. 🙂

        • dubhgilla

          Playing the game to have fun with friends. This is exactly what GW puts rules out for. Don’t like that rule? Talk with your group and change it to suit you, just have FUN.

    • Avensis Astari

      Just like how all candy stores are in a conspiracy by allowing you to buy whatever candies in whatever combinations you want, rather than demanding you only buy all Nestle bars, Mars or Cadburys bars with no mixing between the brands allowed.

      For as many people starting up who feel they need a whole extra army now, there’s probably as many thinking things like, “ooh, now my Khornate Daemons and World Eaters can play together!”

      • RexScarlet

        That is what Candy-Apocalypse is for…
        You can always play Apoc 2e there Augustus Gloop.

        • Avensis Astari

          Apocalypse is for 3K+ games, your comment seriously lacks a point, Rex.

    • confoo22

      “Cash grab” is the lowest common denominator of criticism. It’s basically like saying “I don’t like this release/change but instead of coming up with an actual reason I’ll just use the vague specter of corporate greed to make my argument for me.” It’s lazy hyperbole at its worst.

      • RexScarlet

        specific; GW is in trouble, all the fat has been trimmed company wide, Apoc 2e flopped and all the releases scheduled for Apoc 2e were released instead for 40k 6e/7e, THEN 7e ALLOWED IT ALL, not rocket surgery here…

        • confoo22

          A. “GW is in trouble” is not a specific, it’s speculation on your part.

          B. Apoc flopping is also speculation on your part, I personally have seen 2 apoc games and have read battle reports about a good many more online since it was released. Of course, that’s anecdotal, but so is your statement.

          C. 7e borrowed four elements from Apoc: Unbound, formations, LoW slot, and D weapons. Unbound is optional and not very popular, LoW for 40k proper are extremely limited and hardly on an Apoc level unless you use Escalation in which case the opposing player gains benefits for destroying your LoW, and D weapons were nerfed pretty fairly for basic play. Formations are pretty much the only direct import, everything else was changed severely and there are plenty of elements still left out.

          So no, 7e did not “ALLOW IT ALL,” but it did incorporate some of Apoc. And, of course, you’re welcome to not use any of those elements since they’re all optional. At least your hyperbole was slight less lazy, I suppose.

          • RexScarlet

            A) follow the links to GW financials and stock. here, experts;
            B) apoc 2e was released when? and you saw two, count them two games, wow, great way to prove your point, I guess Apoc 2e was a success, two whole games were seen by confoo22.
            Q) where are all the Apoc 2e subsequent rules data-slates and etc.? Released when? (Apoc 1e free rules releases could fill an entire three ringed binder)
            C) yes, exactly 40k 7e IS APOCALYPSE 2e thanks for clearing that up.
            Allow it all; yes, 7e went out of its way to label units; “regular 40k allowed” and allowed FW, etc., whereas that was not the case in previous releases.
            your misinformation is astounding, and latching onto a micro point and trying to specific it to death does not help you.

          • confoo22

            You do realize that article is from over a year ago, right? that some things are different now?

            And I guess you’re right, 40k incorporating some elements of Apoc, but changed to fit smaller games, totally makes it exactly like Apoc. I mean, there’s literally no difference except for all the differences, right? /sarcasm

            And yeah, I’ve only seen two Apoc games at my local store, but how many should I have seen to make Apoc a “success”? It’s only been out for a year and a half and it’s not exactly an easy lift to coordinate 10 people and 30,000 points of models for a two day event. Also, if you follow battle reports on forums and blogs there’s a steady run of Apoc games constantly going on. Should people have Apoc games every week or else it’s a failure? Twice a month? Who’s got resources and time for that? Let’s be a little realistic and a little less smarmy while speculating, shall we?

          • RexScarlet

            I edited it to LSE, just did not take before you read it;
            specific it to death again, oh, the points are different, so they are different, right? sarcasm 😉
            mainstream would be a success, like 40k, warmahordes, FoW, etc. (notice I did not put whfb here)
            Apoc only needs two players and base is 3000 points (or less if you like), exaggerate much?
            Q) where are all the Apoc 2e subsequent rules data-slates and etc.? Released when? (Apoc 1e free rules releases could fill an entire three ringed binder)

            A) They were relabeled and released regular 40k as a MONEY GRAB.

          • confoo22

            “Apoc only needs two players and base is 3000 points (or less if you like), exaggerate much?”

            That statement right there tells me that you’re being willfully obstinate. Please don’t pretend like 2 players at the 3000 point level is a standard apoc game. Do you even play 40k or do you just troll BoLS?

            Either way, I’m done feeding the troll on this one, by all means speculate to your heart’s content and use information from over a year ago to prove your “point” (read: opinion).

          • ronin_cse

            ……Are you really trying to say that Warmahordes is more mainstream whant WHFB?

            I know I shouldn’t comment on posts like this but sometimes I can’t help myself, and it’s also fun seeing just how horrible the logic in subsequent replies can be 😉

          • Samuel Sanchez

            Um gw stock experts are saying its a buy stock right now. Oops looks like your own statement just backfired.

            Apoc has had several war zone supplements released as recently as 2 months ago and FW still make and release apoc only models.

            Gw always in every edition said FW was legal and allowed. The only new editions was loWs. In counter to your point once again apoc fornations are NOT allowed in standard 40k

            Seems your the only one full of misinformation

          • RexScarlet

            wow stalk me much? ride confoo22 coat tails much?
            amazing out of the millions of posts on the Interwebs you found this response to a response, yet did you comment on the actual article?
            Please supply the link to the ‘recommend buy GW stock” laughable.
            Apoc 2e releases are nothing compared to Apoc 1e releases, but if you add in ALL the 7e releases, the Apoc 2e would have the same amount, see the relationship.
            I never said apoc formations were allowed in 40k, derr
            go back under your bridge

          • confoo22

            Wow, sensitive much? This dude just destroyed your argument and you respond like a petulant child. Maybe you should find a bridge to retreat to yourself if you can’t handle it.

          • Avensis Astari

            Don’t worry about it Confoo. Rex literally comes on here to complain about 40K. I’m not sure he’s ever even played it, it’s like all the butthurt on /tg/ coalesced in the Warp and gave birth to a new entity of blind, impotent anger and belligerent misinformation…

          • He is a super troll !!!

          • Lol !!! True dat

          • Samuel Sanchez

            I have no idea who you are but apparently you’re still butthurt from somewhere.

            Apparently you were to slow to understand the point of not allowing apoc formstions. That means they didn’t just make standard 40k into apoc as you stated. Instead they made specific formations for standard 40k hardly the same thing.

            I’m providing you with the stock analysis. I don’t expect you to understand what it means from your posts and I don’t have the desire or time to give you a lesson on investing but here you go regardless. You can ask someone more knowledgeable then you on what it means.

          • Samuel Sanchez

            Here is another market watch saying its one of the top yield stocks. Pay particular attention to the part about analyst saying the stock yield will be increase dramatically each year!!!! Now reread your completely false and total misinformation statements.

          • Mordrot

            Yea what’s wrong with you Rex!? Don’t you know that it’s ok to say that about fantasy releases but not sacred 40k!? Pick up a book Randy!

          • CertainlyNOTmccarthy

            “Um gw stock experts are saying it’s a buy stock now”
            Did you had a stoke while typing this?
            Would you care to provide a link to that?

          • Samuel Sanchez

            Read below its provided. As recently as two weeks ago analysts predict gw stock yield to rise 10% each year making it one of the best dividend producing stocks. Certainly tired of the same anti gw rhetoric people who have no factual information backing up thier bs.

          • ronin_cse

            Maybe try increasing the history of the stock price before saying it’s losing money? 5 years ago when according to bitter internet commentators the stock was 150-200 pts lower.

          • CertainlyNOTmccarthy

            So what? In July 2013 it was more then 300 pts higher.
            Where did I say that they are losing money?
            They are losing profit. That is a fact.

          • ronin_cse

            This is off topic but I have to ask: why do you have to be so aggressive in your comments about GW? Not just in this comment thread but across the site?

          • CertainlyNOTmccarthy

            Mate. That is an excellent question.
            Let me try to explain.
            BolS is my way of getting rid of any “aggression” that the usual human being accumulates during a usual work day.
            This is the place where I can argue with people about things that are pointless in the greater scheme of things.
            This enables me to be a nice to the people that I care a lot for. (GF, Friends, Family)
            Im aware that this might not be the perfect way of dealing with these things, but it kinda works out for me.
            Even though we might disagree with each other, I pretty sure that we would have on hell of a blast playing 40k.
            We simply disagree. No big deal for me.
            Hell I disagree with my best mate on almost all things and I would still take a bullet for him.
            If you are a decent human being who loves what he does (whatever that might be) enjoys his precious limited time on this beautiful planet, and treats the people around him with basic respect, then I love you too brother.

          • ronin_cse

            Well that was certainly more of an explanation than I expected so thank you.

            I can definitely appreciate where you are coming from since, if I am being honest with myself, I generally come to the comments here on BoLS to argue/debate as well so I can’t throw stones.

            Glad we could find some common ground there, and I look forward to “debating” you more whenever I end up on BoLS 😉

          • Stoke ??

          • CertainlyNOTmccarthy

            The irony is not beyond me!

          • Samuel Sanchez

            As I said before gw stock is a buy stock. It’s considered by many analysts one of the best high yield stocks. It is set to raise dividends each year by 10%. Dividends are a portion of profits they release to stockholders. Which also means they expect gw stock and profits to increase Year over year into 2017. The press date for this analyst was March 16, 2015.

          • Valourousheart

            Rex, not to rain on your party, but the limited play time that you claim for Apoc 2e was also an issue with Apoc 1e.

            The fact that there were a ton of supplements for one and not the other doesn’t change the fact that Apoc games take most of a weekend. Add to that the space, logistics, and attention span requirements and it is not hard to see why most people perfer to play smaller faster games.

            Now 7e is not forcing Apoc on people, but allowing the potential of key elements of Apoc to be added to a more manageable game size if players so choose.

            Nothing wrong with that.

          • Samuel Sanchez

            Rex is long gone he got called out on his bs and fled to another thread to spread his anti gw rant in hopes some else doesn’t smack him around showing his lies.

  • MVBrandt

    AdeptiCon is not allowing unlimited detachments. Every detachment is Unique. The same players and codices are still doing well.

    There is no “true” 40k … everyone has some kind of limitations, and the game openly encourages you to DIY it. Tired rhetoric.

  • Charon

    “Personally I hate to go to any tournament and see 25 percent or more of the armies fielding three or more flying Hive Tyrants.”

    And I personally hate to see 50% of all armies beeing Space Marines and the majority of them beeing White Scars in a Bike spam list.
    So… what was your point again?

    • Never seen it… So what’s your point again ?

    • I am at adepticon and I have seen maybe 2-3 bike armies. Most marines are not bikes, nor are they similar

  • kier

    What people don’t seem to realize when they get in to the multiple detachment argument is that what they are really talking about is the fairness vs complexity problem. this is an idea in economics usually applied to taxes that after a cretin point of optimization you can not increase fairness without increasing complexity and you can not decrees complexity without decreeing fairness. this is essentially the issue we have here where a perfect “fair” system allows all possible army builds that are within the fluff while outlawing all builds outside of it.

    putting aside the problem that people cant always agree on weather something is fluffy, if you were to make a perfect “fair” system the rules for it would be the size of a phone book. witch is obviously not practical any attempt to decrees the complexity of the rules would make some fluffy army’s illegal and allow certain unfluffy ones.

    when people are complaining about allies or formations break the game what your actually saying is that you don’t like the particular set of trade offs the designers made in this edition

    and one final thought before anyone else says it. yes 40k is not an optimally destined game and there are likely some small gains to fairness that could be made before it became necessary to increase complexity however the scale of these gains is small enough that if that was that close to making people happy these sort of discussions would not be as heated as they often become.

    • RexScarlet

      well said, 40k 7e is not even close to making people happy.
      Players, the community, will not join together.
      all 40k needs is two-three types of games and everyone on the same page;
      GT Tournament style game
      Arrr’d Boyz style game
      That is it, but players still refuse to follow one Piper.
      Sad really

      • Avensis Astari

        Save us Rexy-Kenobi, you’re our only hope. Rex, you are the Chosen One. Oh, blessed Messiah, lead us to the Promised Land…

      • Dustin Dean

        40k is not close to making people happy? My FLGS is full of players happily playing games. 7th edition even.
        In fact, 40k is seeing the most growth in our area. You (and a few others) may not be happy but don’t lump others into your assumptions. Your three style game suggestions may make you happy, but it looks a little sad to me.

        • ronin_cse

          I’ll add my experience to this. The local store I started going to a couple months before 7th has seen a huge increase since then (and it probably isn’t all just because I started going there 😀 ). The player base has probably doubled since then.

          • Josh Watkins

            Roflmao my area shriveled up an died! seriously we would pack 2 local stores with the amount of people we used to have, now its a very small group on the edge of total burnout. People just lose intrust when they’ve been tabled by eldar for the billionth time or when they can’t afford to keep up with the “cheesedickers”. If GW brought back reasonable prices and play testing then I know my area would be booming again in no time.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Just stop playing the WAAC jerks, let them play each other and you just play fun people.

        • Our area had a doubling of 40k players as well.

          We lost most of the tournament players and those were replaced by more casual players. Some returning from past editions after they quit, others new.

          The three formats that Rex desires above are not bad if you are looking for a tournament style game, but they quickly become boring if you are looking for something outside of that style (which is my beef with 4th and 5th edition 40k)

        • Very sad to me. Lol

      • Chris. K Cook


      • Chris. K Cook

        Translation. “People are playing the game a different way than I do and that makes me angry. Everything different to my way is badwrongfun.”

        What about these styles?

        Fun Pick up games with other folks who like to try funky different things.

        Special Scenarios

        Teaching games to get new players interested


  • RexScarlet

    Was the opponents army;
    no Proxy?
    Close as possible “Counts As?”
    I am for all the rules, but 7e is causing more headaches than it is worth on that point, players really need to set standards, preferably by following a set of guidelines set by a big tournament, which ends most arguments, the only ONE goal a tournament has that is different than everyone else is TIME CONSTRAINT, that is it, all other goals are the same as any player; fairness, FaQ, answers, fix, and etc.
    If you want 40K 7e “everything and the kitchen sink” (unbound)
    play APOCALYPSE.

    • Avensis Astari


      I have a fully-converted and themed Gue’vesa army made of a merge of Tau and Guard units, all represented with a coherent them in an Unbound list. Why can’t I just run that?

      • Chris. K Cook

        Because it makes the WAAC folks cry.

        • Avensis Astari

          Eh, they don’t affect me as I avoid tournaments. Tournaments should invent their own FAQs to deal with the issues they have, and leave the rest of us to enjoy the game however we please.

    • You don’t even really understand. :/

    • ronin_cse

      There is a SUPER easy solution if you want way more strict army building guidelines and don’t want to worry about painting all that much. Go play Warmachine.

      This is basically the same argument as telling people currently enjoying 7th to go play Apoc.

    • Chris. K Cook

      Please tell me more about how someone in America should decide how I in Australia run/play in tournaments.

      Tell me more about how I am having Badwrongfun.

      Also Unbound is great for small games for new players.and funky special scenarios.

      Thanks for reminding me why new players are driven away.

      In the end of the day who cares so long as you are having fun?

      You do remember fun right?

  • Orodruin

    Blah blah blah, not fluffy.

    Wah wah wah, cash grab.

    Neh neh neh, win at all costs.

    Am I doing it right?

    • Da Masta Cheef


    • RexScarlet


    • just needs moar cowbell

    • Dennis J. Pechavar

      Close, you forgot to mention how GW is going to run this game into the ground and fail as a company.

  • Grand_Master_Raziel

    For every player using allies, multiple detachments, and formations to play fluffy, characterful armies, there’s probably a half dozen using them to produce the cheesiest power armies they are capable of making.

    • effinger2

      Yup. Regardless what the writer says it is a power gamer list to win a tournament and that is the only reason you’d ever take that list. Pure and simple. If you walked into a shop with that list I don’t think anyone would want to play you. You would get scorned around these parts.

    • OMG !!!

    • If you’re that worried about players playing within the rules to win, you could only play maelstrom games where the list and player skill are mitigated by wild swings of randomness.

  • deuce1984

    The biggest problem in my mind is not detachments, it is Battle Bros! Strip the power/special rules sharing privileges of battle brothers and allies/detachments/formations etc. ain’t no thang!

    GW may be doing a good job (in 7th) of internal codex balance, but they are still not creative enough to see the problems that come about from battle brothers.

    • ronin_cse

      What makes BB so bad? I don’t think there are any big problems atm myself, but most of the complaints I see are from bring Hive Tyrants as allies with SM or IK or some other Bring the Apocalypse ally.

      • They didn’t complain about it in sixth Ed when they were cheesing it out with their Taudar.

        • ronin_cse

          Very true, but at least that was obviously cheesy. I honestly don’t see many BB combinations that are all that cheesy right now.

          WWP Archons with Eldar are good, but I don’t know that that combo makes the Eldar codex better, just different.

          Same with the Imperial factions but I am not that familiar with them. MAYBE teleporting Centaurians with GK but that is too random. I guess drop podding Centaurians but does that really make them op? Not IMO

    • Rules changer. :/

  • Drew_Da_Destroya

    Alright, I love seeing “ORK/ORK/ORK” listed. I’m sure that army was cheesy as hell, but I feel like it should be listed as “ORK/ORK/ORK WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!”

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      It’s probably just the Ork Dex and 2 formations.

  • Another Biased Opinion

    I always field multiple Detachments last game, 3000pts, I had:
    Primary – Word Bearers CSM
    Allied 1 – Daemons
    Allied 2 – Nurgle CSM
    Allied 3 – Slaanesh CAM
    Helbrute Formation
    I feel that that is still fluffy enough and possibly more so than having all the different factions mixed in one detachment.

    • Personally one of the things I love about multiple detachments is that I have several distinct chaos forces, and before they all had to share an FOC. Now it is clear when I take a Red Corsairs sorcerer as my warlord that he is the lynchpin summoning daemons (of all varieties) and that the nurgle warband with him aren’t allied directly with Tzeentch daemons, they are both under the command of an undivided commander

    • That sounds like a lot fun to play !!

  • Christopher A. Herrera

    Multiple never detachments never bothered me. It’s the different faction different detachments that I gripe with.

    But I do agree with most of the intent of the article. I do think Allies has a flavourful game enriching way to be introduced.

    I think the only types of people that should be allowed to run those lists are the one’s that are nerdlair 300 page of fanfic justifying their army kind of people, but there’s a reason I comment on forums.

    The above is obviously an exaggeration. I just wish allies/diff faction detachments wasn’t so good that we see it as often as we do. Even if we saw “purestrain” single book armies do as well AS OFTEN as the allied ones I’d embrace allies.

    But we don’t.

    And I think me expecting that is unrealistic, because I think I’m right about allies and diff faction detachments. They’re too good(in general, not every case as evidenced by eldar once again having an aggressive single army presence).

    That’s where I think i have to agree with the need to suck it up. 40k is my game but it isn’t my property. And on a real level, to enjoy the hobby as much as I want I need to get over that. But it’s really @#*(@#) hard.

    Especially as someone who plays 3 armies none of which are battle brothers because I got them before allies was a thing. Tyranids(gotten much love but I won’t be happy with their place in allies spectrum until after a genestealer cult codex drops), Space wolves, and tau. Currently trying to pawn of my tau to get my space pups some BB love.

    And that’s sad to me.

    • ronin_cse

      Is your local meta so competitive that you can’t run your Space Wolves without allying in another imperial faction? For the most part the SW codex seems pretty decent all by itself.

      Also: I have been thinking of starting Tau…what are you selling and how much? 😉

      • Christopher A. Herrera

        The Space Wolves book is solid. Completely. But I sort of dabble in 3-4 metagames(the one in the LGS by my home), one by the LGS about an hour away where I’m about to get a job, one at the LGS where I just moved from about 1.5 hours away, and the group of friends I play with in the same area as the last LGS that don’t actually play at the LGS.

        The standalone book is great in my closest LGS. And against specific armies like necrons, and other vanilla armies the book is wonderful. It’s when you start having other people left and right run X+Y book that it starts to feel less an option and more a thing to do to stay relevant.

        I mean my last game was 3500 pts Tyranids V White Scars, Tau, Eldar, with a flyer formation.

        My wolves need a lot more hammering out before I can even begin to touch that(my bugs don’t need fleshing out but they’re damned angry about allies).

        • ronin_cse

          I was just thinking it would be a shame to get rid of an army just to get some allies for your SW.

  • With books like Inquisition and Harlequins allies aren’t just a convenience, they are essential. One of my greatest desires is to take my Inquisition, storm troopers, and Deathwatch to a major event, but finding one that allows 3 detachments is tough.

  • Master Avoghai

    I totally disagree with the following assertion :

    All of the codex were written with the intent to allow players to design their armies on (multiple detachment)

    That’s mostly wrong… only the Harlequins codex and maybe the necron decuries system can be considered as such. The rest of the codex are not.

    First it implies that GW studo playtests and has a inter connexion with codex playtesting when they create a codex. We all know this is wrong : GW makes a few games to test the units, they don’t do any statistics prevision… If they diid more do you really think tere would be such a gap of efficiency between the units?

    Secondly, it’s taking the cause for the consequence : Codex are not created to be played using formations, it’s formations that are created to allow players to use several codex.
    By creating the formation, GW allow the players to progressively introduce units in a new army. It reduces the investment for starting a second/third/ whatever army while allowing to play with the models.

    They created formations for the codex and not codex for formations.

  • Chosen of Khorne

    There are several standards published by the big tourneys for rules for list making for competitive games. I have not seen a list of standards published for friendly pick up games. It would be nice to see a guideline for strangers to meet up for a friendly game with a standard of army list creation that would be fun and competitive for both involved. It might be easier to take options that aren’t the best in your codex, if you know your opponent wasn’t going to spam out his best options. Adds more variety to the games and still keeps it competitive. Anyone seen a set of friendly standards anywhere out there?

  • dubhgilla

    I’ve said it one and I’ll say it again. Jamie Grigsby you should be ashamed.