{"id":2042,"date":"2014-06-02T07:51:17","date_gmt":"2014-06-02T11:51:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rocketshipgames.com\/blogs\/tjkopena\/?p=2042"},"modified":"2014-06-02T07:51:41","modified_gmt":"2014-06-02T11:51:41","slug":"40k-books-and-books-and-books","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rocketshipgames.com\/blogs\/tjkopena\/2014\/06\/40k-books-and-books-and-books\/","title":{"rendered":"40k: Books & Books & Books"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"7th-cover\"<\/a>With GW seriously ramping up its book and model output for 40k over the past year, and 6th and now 7th editions having wide open army construction rules, there are some crazy combos out there. A lot of tournaments have already applied or\u00a0are\u00a0talking about restrictions such as “Your army must come from 2 sources.<\/a>” That seems pretty reasonable to me. But, particularly now with 7th edition, I think it’d be better to define the restriction in terms of “2 factions.”<\/p>\n

Factions<\/h2>\n

Previously I don’t think 40k had\u00a0a formal definition of “faction.”\u00a0This edition though actually has a fairly clear\u00a0one, on page 118. Some obvious things are made formal,\u00a0following the traditional notion of each codex book as a faction.\u00a0 For example, Salamanders Space Marines aren’t a faction while Blood Angels are.\u00a0It also specifies\u00a0that all the units selected from\u00a0a codex are of that faction unless noted otherwise, even in the now common case that the unit exists in multiple codexes. More usefully,\u00a0in a needed formalization,\u00a0the section also explicitly says that all the units in a codex supplement\u00a0belong to that codex’s faction.<\/p>\n

Sources<\/h2>\n

The primary\u00a0problem with restrictions based on “sources” is specifying\u00a0what counts as a source.<\/p>\n

For example, I doubt\u00a0most people would object to a Space Marine detachment allied with Imperial Guard. But suppose I want to include an Aegis Defense Line or Imperial Bunker? That\u00a0also seems totally reasonable. But that’s now three distinct books: The Space Marines<\/em> and Astra Militarum<\/em> codexes, plus Stronghold Assault<\/em>. Note that ADLs, Bastions, etc., have all been removed from the core rulebook in this edition, so lots of people will presumably be grudgingly buying and wanting to use the Stronghold Assault<\/em> book.\u00a0Even with diminished quadguns and other skyfire weapons, with scoring permitted from buildings, improved\/clarified Void Shields, and D weapons in the core game, I expect bastions and such to return in popularity<\/a>;\u00a0I’ve been a fan of the Imperial Bunker since the book came out.\u00a0Generally I think the fortifications\u00a0in Stronghold Assault<\/em>\u00a0are pretty reasonable and not overpowered, so it or some subset\u00a0should almost definitely be allowed in nearly all tournaments. The main question\u00a0to me\u00a0is whether or not to allow D weapons, from any book, not just Stronghold<\/em>, the answer to which should probably be the same answer to whether or not to allow Stronghold’s<\/em> mighty bulwarks and other buildings with AV15.<\/p>\n

\"These<\/a>

These guys are not a game breaking setup.<\/p><\/div>\n

The problem is\u00a0then what to do about defining “sources,” because that quite reasonable Space Marine + IG + ADL\/Bunker\u00a0army has three. You can’t just arbitrarily allow three sources and hold to the original intent of the restriction because then somebody brings some ridiculous Tau + Eldar + Necron combo or such, eliminating which\u00a0is the whole point of the exercise.<\/p>\n

You could carve out Stronghold Assault<\/em> as not counting toward the source limit, but then you get stuck into an ever deepening hole of special exemptions to what counts as a “source.” Does Escalation<\/em> count as a source, assuming\u00a0it’s permitted? What about Codex: Imperial Knights<\/em>? Assuming you’re willing to allow at least a subset of the\u00a0units in any of those books into the game, you now have all the same problems. More challenging, suppose GW puts out a new, modest\u00a0fortification model\u00a0in the near future, and includes rules in the box as they initially did with some of the latest pieces? Or publishes a new variant or updated rules for\u00a0an existing unit\u00a0in White Dwarf<\/em>? Do those count toward\u00a0the source limit? At that point you’re looking at either limiting people’s army selections, which might be reasonable in a heavily competition oriented event like a GT but less so otherwise, or you’re building complex lists of exceptions and periodically\u00a0updating them\u00a0according to GW’s production whims.<\/p>\n

Similar to\u00a0all of that are the supplements. Say I want to field Codex: Space Marines<\/em>\u00a0plus Sentinels of Terra<\/em> as my core army. Does that hit my two source limit already, prohibiting any\u00a0allies, knights, fortifications, or superheavies ? As another, presumably very common possibility, what about Codex: Chaos Space Marines<\/em> + Black Legion<\/em> + Codex: Chaos Daemons<\/em>? It would be unduly limiting to include supplements in the sources count, but to not do so then the definition of “sources” needs to spell that out. But then what if some supplement down the line includes units\u00a0it explicitly puts into different\u00a0factions?<\/p>\n

Dataslates + Formations<\/h2>\n

A closely related question then is whether or not to include dataslates and formations. Caveat some other explicit restriction, under the “factions” terminology they would be included, and you could use several at once provided they stayed\u00a0within the faction limit.\u00a0Notably, though they would be limited in number, the “sources” phrasing would also permit you to take one, which could be\u00a0all you need to cause trouble, assuming there is trouble to be had. There definitely could be or possibly already are some formations or dataslates that are not desirable but fall\u00a0within the two\u00a0sources limit, permitting\u00a0codex + ebook.<\/p>\n

Whether or not to include these\u00a0is a whole separate topic. One important quick point though is that though often lumped together, these should be considered separately. Other than some potential absurdly powerful unit,\u00a0dataslates introducing a new model\/unit variant are almost\u00a0always going to be much less problematic than formations, which either introduce new benefits with no additional cost or enable crazy quantities or combos of units. Restricting these should be considered separately, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all for many tournaments to say yes to dataslates but no to formations.<\/p>\n

My main point here is that in regards to dataslates and formations, the “sources” phrasing doesn’t\u00a0do a particularly better job than “factions” at getting to the heart of the problem despite all the extra baggage outlined\u00a0above. Either way you cut it,\u00a0additional rules are needed, and it’s cleaner to phrase them in terms of factions. For example, I suspect some of the worst\u00a0formation problems could be dealt with by saying “No more than 1 detachment of any given\u00a0faction is permitted.” There would be some collateral damage there, like preventing the\u00a0Codex: Space Marine<\/em> chapters from allying with themselves. But unless I’m mistaken it would also very cleanly prevent builds\u00a0I believe to be generally considered problematic, like the Tau Empire<\/em> + Farsight Enclaves<\/em> + Firebase Support Cadre<\/em> combo.<\/p>\n

Formal Terms<\/h2>\n

All in all, it’s much more elegant to simply say “Armies may include at most 2 factions” rather than restricting sources. That gets at the heart of the problem, preventing crazy non-traditional army combos, while still cleanly and clearly allowing in\u00a0the various codex supplements and expansions.\u00a0Obviously there could be other rules, say to exclude D weapons and AV15, permit only 2 detachments, or exclude formations, but\u00a0they’ll all be sitting on a much more clear and formal framework. In general, it’s almost always simpler, more effective, and causes less collateral damage\u00a0to do these kinds of restrictions in terms of formal game concepts like “faction” or “buildings with AV15” rather than informal,\u00a0external ephemera\u00a0like\u00a0which source\/book a unit came from—particularly as it could come from several—or the\u00a0ostensible manufacturer, i.e.,\u00a0restricting Forge World.<\/p>\n

\"From<\/a>

From ForgeWorld, probably not game breaking.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"From<\/a>

From ForgeWorld, probably game breaking.<\/p><\/div>\n

Summoning<\/h2>\n

As a final note, regardless of the phrasing in terms of “sources” or “factions,”\u00a0some clarification should be made regarding\u00a0conjurations. If I’m using the malefic powers in the core rulebook and summoning\u00a0units from Codex: Chaos Daemons<\/em>, as it explicitly\u00a0notes, does that count against my sources\/factions limit? Much as it horrifies the fluffy player in me, you could certainly have somebody now\u00a0with a totally reasonable main list of just Space Marines<\/em> + Astra Militarum<\/em> + Stronghold Assault<\/em> who is also putting Chaos Daemons on the board in-game. Again, any clarified permission or enforced\u00a0restriction here should be made in formal game terms and be crafted to be proof against\u00a0potential future codex and supplement updates, i.e., not specifically about\u00a0Chaos Daemons or malefic powers.\u00a0It wouldn’t shock me at all for some future army or unit to have powers to summon\u00a0something besides daemons, like an Eldar Avatar, Ork golem\u00a0of Gork (or Mork), or something akin to the Space Marine Legion of the Damned.\u00a0I would guess such a rule or clarification\u00a0should be phrased along the lines of something like:<\/p>\n