Page 1 of 1

Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:38 am
by Generalissimo_Fred
In 7th edition a CAD is a combined arms detachment. It's the standard 1 HQ and 2 TR minimum force organization chart. In 7th you can take as many CAD as you want. That means as long as you fill 1 HQ and 2 TR requirement twice, you can jump up to 6 heavies, 6 elites, 6 fast attack choices in your army.

The knee jerk reaction is to limit CAD to one per army and go from there with allies, formations, etc...

Now. Mike Brandt over at NOVA is thinking that limiting CAD does nothing. It does not prevent any more abusive armies then what is currently available with just one CAD. Here is his article.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/ ... y-bad.html

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:04 am
by tulkasulmar
I don't think Double Detachments is all that bad. But I would at least cap it to just 2 in total, any type of formation/detachment/allies. I can see a lot of abuse with bringing a lot of formations/detachments/allies that just gets carried away.

I wouldn't mind seeing 2 Detachments or 1 Detachment and 1 Ally. Or taking a Detachment and a Formation.

Though it would be cool to see if someone may bring an army like this that utilizes multiple Detachments:

Space Marine HQ
2x Scout Squads
3x Stormtalons

You can take 3 Detachments of the above. It would be fun to be able to field 9 Stormtalons.

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:07 am
by Generalissimo_Fred
Yeah that would be fun to see. I don't think it would be to over the top, but it would be fun. It's like a marine version of the pure Necron Airforce list.

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:38 am
by JPA
I don't think double force org is any worse than 2++/2++ however the big issue with CAD is how you build one.

Your CAD is chosen from your faction. All supplemental codex's are considered to be from the faction they are an off shoot of.

Even though you are still locked to 2hq, 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 fast, and 3 heavy you could do something like this is one cad:

Space Marines:
1x Chapter master from Clan Raukaan with the gordon's (or however you spell it) chain.
1x Chapter master from the space marines codex (Any chapter tatic) with the shield eternal.

3x scouts or some troops.

And what ever else fits.

Being able to pick and choose like that for more than 1 detachment is a problem way worse than potentially having 6 elites, 6 fast, and 6 heavies.

EDIT: Space marine chapters are their own faction.

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:11 pm
by eltrain728
I feel like a lot of times people argue for 2 or more CADs they use:

Older codices are lacking the options that some of the newer codices have and therefore need the double force org to compete.

The thing is I don't think you really see people playing older books abusing the double force org. I don't think you even see people playing double force org that often (assuming they have the option) and playing a non abusive list.


I feel like it falls into a similar situation with allies and/or lords of war. Everything breaks the game in someone's eyes, but in reality you just have to play by whatever parameters you set. It's almost like the reverse of a comp environment. If you restrict specific things a different power build rises to the top. If you allow more things than were previously standard the same thing happens. [To some extent on both].


Personally I don't think its that abusive, but I'd rather not play with it bc it encourages moneyhammer more than I would desire.

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:30 pm
by Norbu the Destroyer
I actually like the double CAD system. IMO a balanced tourney system is allow all armies to use 2 CAD....and nothing else. This way folks can acess Tyranid/tyranid Ork/Ork so on and so forth. You wont see 3-4 imperial factions smooshed together, or coteaz hanging out in every army. When you go pure allies chart the imperials, chaos/chaos deamon and eldar/DE have a slight boost as they can find battle brothers combos. All other combos do not have battle bro. benefits.

I think if folks can have 2 CAD you will have more homogenous armies....maybe not, just a guess.

As to the power of the lists....Im sure abusive builds/combos can be found as they always have. Ive played a few games of 7th edition with 2 CAD....Lords of War......balanced lists squarng off........maelstorm missions........and all of the games have come down to first blood/line breaker/ or a last play to contest/capture an objective. I guess Im not too worried of what might come down the 2 x CAD builds with Invisible deathstars.....2+ re-rolls.....giant monsters/machines already in this Grim future.

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:51 am
by eltrain728
I too would much rather have 2 CAD than allies.

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:21 pm
by Lord Krungharr
JPA wrote:
Your CAD is chosen from your faction. All supplemental codex's are considered to be from the faction they are an off shoot of.

.



Really? So I could take a Crimson Slaughter Sorcerer with a Black Legion Daemon Prince and normal crap, I mean stuff, from the regular CSM Codex? Or does all Crimson Slaughter stuff have to be in the same CAD, for example?

Re: Is double CAD bad?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:21 pm
by JPA
All your CSM stuff (Black Legion, Crimson, Codex, etc...) comes from the same detachment. So if you only want the magic divination stick wielding sorcerer from Crimson Slaughter (I think) you can just take only him from that supplement. The only issue is it if you pull something from Black legion they must follow all the rules from the codex (I.E. must take veterans of the long war).

Crimson Slaughter would not be another CAD on it's own. If you want your entire CAD may come from that supplement but your CAD is a faction and Crimson slaughter belongs to the chaos faction.

Does that make sense?