Maximum detachments for a reasonable player?

[Guest]

Just wondering, how many detachments before it becomes unreasonable? I'm thinking casual play.

 

I think I can bring 10 detachments at 2k without much difficulty. Not sure on the viability for such a force, but I'm wondering at what point it is too much?

 

I see LH, in another thread, advocating 3 detachments (formations). Is this a reasonable number for casual (no prior warning) play?

 

I'm not attempting to doubt LH's list, just wondering for my own lists. Am I nerfing myself by sticking to a low number of detachments (1-2)?

[fluger]

The standard for most tournaments has become 2 detachments as a maximum.  I think for casual play 3 is fine.  

 

I don't think you're nerfing yourself, I don't see many organized 7th edition events allowing more than 2 detachments without some kind of oversight (like a list rating committee).  

[WestRider]

It really depends on what you're putting in those Detachments. I've played against a 7 Detachment list at 1500 that was perfectly reasonable.

[Guest]

It really depends on what you're putting in those Detachments. I've played against a 7 Detachment list at 1500 that was perfectly reasonable.

Any chance you recall the list? 7 detachments at 1500pts...

[Gorgosaurusrex]

I think that any number of detatchments is acceptable, within the rules published by GW. If you can't fit what you want to take into detachments then there's always Unbound.

[Guest]

I think that any number of detatchments is acceptable, within the rules published by GW. If you can't fit what you want to take into detachments then there's always Unbound.

Although I agree, no one seems to want to play by the rules published by GW. Those rules allow multiple detachments, FW, several LoWs, several Fortifications, and even melee combat rules for flyers (dog fighting). I sometimes even have trouble getting players to use terrain rules as written.

[WestRider]

Any chance you recall the list? 7 detachments at 1500pts...

I don't recall the exact list, but it was 2 INQ, 1 LotD, 1 Knight, 1 Guard, 1 Tempestum, and 1 SM. Most of the Detachments were only bringing one or two Units, like Inquisitors riding along to make Vet Squads or Scions Stubborn.

[Lord Hanaur]

Grey Knight was shattered into three codeci/Formations, Witch Hunters into four, Militarum Tempestus EFFECTIVELY into 2 or more (though yes you can play them purely as one, its incredibly unlikely you will ACTUALLY succeed given so few orders as one Detachment allows).

 

It's a new age.  I expect that we will simply have to accept that the Main rule books method of army construction is in lock step with the way the codex's were treated.  it isn't an entirely welcome reality...but it seems a reality nonetheless.

 

There is some room for abuse, although I havent often seen it (outside of Chaos Daemon FMC's).  TO's must ultimately decide if they are going to attack the abuse..  or the number of detachments.  They're different issues.  I think the number of detachments is an easy mechanic for the TO's to curb abuse so they use it.  I can appreciate why.  But in an OFCC, it's not the detachments they look at but the total picture that is looked at. 

 

As long as peoples model collections keep getting split up and abilities moved over to this or that codex (as in the case of "Latest Experment"), we're going to have to use the main rule book as our way of building armies in normal games and deal with the composition finagling within each tournament as we come to it.  Tournaments all view it differently and while some peoples brains aren't good enough to handle multiple different composition limitations between tournaments, stamping their feet for "standardization", I'm not really one to care.  I think the spice comes from having to do things different ways and prove you can still win.  That's part of the fun.  So composition controls are fine  I don't think they are really going to make sense for normal games though.  There's never going to be a consensus on what it "should be set at" in the first place because certain codex's aren't penalized or split up to to the same degrees.