Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Don Savik wrote:
If you ask me I don't think you should get special bonuses at all for taking a standard army. Scout? Canticle modifiers? Its all bonus stuff that you should be glad you get. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like either way you're spoiled with decurions.

And don't say your army 'needs' such and such to function properly because as you can see, you're preaching to the ork choir in this thread.

*shrug*

Then you shouldn't get object secured from a cad and marines should lose chapter tactics and atsknf.

I agree that War Convocation (and formations like it), are an abomination. If you take them up against a regular CAD, it is just disgusting. They are in almost two different leagues of play.

I wish GW would rate formations or detachments by Tier, like Tier 1 for a CAD, and tier 2 for the stronger formations.

I feel like a jerk telling people "I don't want to play against that list" when it is a legal list. I understand in a tournament I have no say.

It'd be nice to say "I only play with Tier 1 lists". And Tier 1 would have no OP formations, no Lords of War, etc.

GW doesn't understand if something is good or not when they print it.

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't understand if something is good or not when they print it.

I think this is probably very accurate; though how they could fail to notice that some are incredibly powerful, others are incredibly weak and others are actively detrimental I will never understand.

The Grand Convocation doesn't sound great at all but it's by no means the most egregious of the terrible detachments.

ERJAK wrote:

For the record, EVERY formation gives you free points, the gladius and WarCon are just the most obvious about it.

I do mind that 40k no longer has a working point system and I have been quite vocal about it ; )
However some formations are worse than others and gladius + WarCon are about the worst offenders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whitebeard wrote:

I wish GW would rate formations or detachments by Tier, like Tier 1 for a CAD, and tier 2 for the stronger formations.

How about you know let players pay points for them...

I think a lot of the 'all formations are bad' hate is from the old school gamer who doesn't like change.

But overall I think formations are actually one of the smartest things GW has done, which is pretty rare for them. So i don't want to give the impression that i'm on the side of get rid of all formations.

Formations let armies that aren't space marines make sense and build to different styles. The CAD is how a standard imperial army is probably organized, but it doesn't make sense for eldar orginizations, or ork, or skitarii. The formations allow you to make themed lore friendly armies. For example what would be the best way to build a kult of speed ork army, a formation that gives bonuses to flat out, has more fast attack slots or a 'core' that's made of bikes and trucks.
Formations open up playing armies themed around things other than the boring imperial CAD, and building a fluff/lore friendly list.

But....like everything GW does, they often do a bad job at it. They release some formations that totally make sense, let you play a fluffy theme of your army, and do things that would either be stupid and broken in a CAD or simply impossible. There are well designed formations.

No, my bitch isn't about formations in general, it's that this formation itself is awfully done. And the reason it's bad is because of the decision to make ad mech two different factions which breaks a lot of things.

People who say because some formations are badly written the concept of formations is terribad are the type of people who think because our government is a mess that means "government is bad."

There's a difference between a bad idea, and bad implementation.

Danny slag wrote:
I think a lot of the 'all formations are bad' hate is from the old school gamer who doesn't like change.

But overall I think formations are actually one of the smartest things GW has done, which is pretty rare for them. So i don't want to give the impression that i'm on the side of get rid of all formations.

Formations let armies that aren't space marines make sense and build to different styles. The CAD is how a standard imperial army is probably organized, but it doesn't make sense for eldar orginizations, or ork, or skitarii. The formations allow you to make themed lore friendly armies. For example what would be the best way to build a kult of speed ork army, a formation that gives bonuses to flat out, has more fast attack slots or a 'core' that's made of bikes and trucks.
Formations open up playing armies themed around things other than the boring imperial CAD, and building a fluff/lore friendly list.

But....like everything GW does, they often do a bad job at it. They release some formations that totally make sense, let you play a fluffy theme of your army, and do things that would either be stupid and broken in a CAD or simply impossible. There are well designed formations.

No, my bitch isn't about formations in general, it's that this formation itself is awfully done. And the reason it's bad is because of the decision to make ad mech two different factions which breaks a lot of things.

People who say because some formations are badly written the concept of formations is terribad are the type of people who think because our government is a mess that means "government is bad."

There's a difference between a bad idea, and bad implementation.

I'm an old school gamer who likes change, actually values it, but like you said at the end, there's a difference between a bad idea and bad implementation. The problem with GW's formations is that there are winners and losers instead of all of them being fairly equal in strength. It's like they have two different people working there, the idea guy comes up with some cool ideas but then some lazy git writes the rules. The biggest problem is that I don't think they actually test the rules, they just write something, think it sounds cool and then rush it out the door. To them, this isn't a game and the rules are secondary to "rolling buckets of dice with your mates"(tm GW).

My beef with formations is it just messes up the point system.

A regular CAD against War Con is like just giving your opponent several hundred extra points.

So the game is no longer fair, and there is no point in playing it (unless you just enjoy unfair games).

 Whitebeard wrote:
My beef with formations is it just messes up the point system.

A regular CAD against War Con is like just giving your opponent several hundred extra points.

So the game is no longer fair, and there is no point in playing it (unless you just enjoy unfair games).

and most admec players (at least in the local meta I'm in and from people around the web) agree with you! the problem is that the warcon is the only real feasible way to play the army like it is one big coherent army, with canticles across the board like it would have chapter tactics. the problem now is that the Grand covocation is like a CAD, but to get canticles you have to spend upwards around 2,815pts minimum for the same benefit as a war convocation. it's like having to bring apoc level points extra for chapter tactics for devastators, scouts, tactical squads and assault marines while the rest just have it as usual.

Look, as an admec player we want just a few things; Transports, Astra Militaurum tanks, and one list that works for everything and supports everything. With the grand covocation we didn't get a single piece of it, just a complicated puzzle that is missing a few crucial pieces.

 agnosto wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I think a lot of the 'all formations are bad' hate is from the old school gamer who doesn't like change.

But overall I think formations are actually one of the smartest things GW has done, which is pretty rare for them. So i don't want to give the impression that i'm on the side of get rid of all formations.

Formations let armies that aren't space marines make sense and build to different styles. The CAD is how a standard imperial army is probably organized, but it doesn't make sense for eldar orginizations, or ork, or skitarii. The formations allow you to make themed lore friendly armies. For example what would be the best way to build a kult of speed ork army, a formation that gives bonuses to flat out, has more fast attack slots or a 'core' that's made of bikes and trucks.
Formations open up playing armies themed around things other than the boring imperial CAD, and building a fluff/lore friendly list.

But....like everything GW does, they often do a bad job at it. They release some formations that totally make sense, let you play a fluffy theme of your army, and do things that would either be stupid and broken in a CAD or simply impossible. There are well designed formations.

No, my bitch isn't about formations in general, it's that this formation itself is awfully done. And the reason it's bad is because of the decision to make ad mech two different factions which breaks a lot of things.

People who say because some formations are badly written the concept of formations is terribad are the type of people who think because our government is a mess that means "government is bad."

There's a difference between a bad idea, and bad implementation.

I'm an old school gamer who likes change, actually values it, but like you said at the end, there's a difference between a bad idea and bad implementation. The problem with GW's formations is that there are winners and losers instead of all of them being fairly equal in strength. It's like they have two different people working there, the idea guy comes up with some cool ideas but then some lazy git writes the rules. The biggest problem is that I don't think they actually test the rules, they just write something, think it sounds cool and then rush it out the door. To them, this isn't a game and the rules are secondary to "rolling buckets of dice with your mates"(tm GW).

My theory on that is that they don't have a rules team and the people writing the rules don't talk to one another. it seems like they all write their rulebooks in the dark to every other rule written and being written. I totally agree that they just write something without testing it. Case and point, tech-priest engineer can't even use it's ability on ad mech vehicles, and servitors are only an option in a servitor formation. WTF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 Whitebeard wrote:
My beef with formations is it just messes up the point system.

A regular CAD against War Con is like just giving your opponent several hundred extra points.

So the game is no longer fair, and there is no point in playing it (unless you just enjoy unfair games).

and most admec players (at least in the local meta I'm in and from people around the web) agree with you! the problem is that the warcon is the only real feasible way to play the army like it is one big coherent army, with canticles across the board like it would have chapter tactics. the problem now is that the Grand covocation is like a CAD, but to get canticles you have to spend upwards around 2,815pts minimum for the same benefit as a war convocation. it's like having to bring apoc level points extra for chapter tactics for devastators, scouts, tactical squads and assault marines while the rest just have it as usual.

Look, as an admec player we want just a few things; Transports, Astra Militaurum tanks, and one list that works for everything and supports everything. With the grand covocation we didn't get a single piece of it, just a complicated puzzle that is missing a few crucial pieces.

This exactly. We don't want super OP rules, we just want transports, tanks, but most importantly our army to be one faction so it can all be in one list instead of being stuck with really wonky list building due to being split into 3 different books that don't go together, and our version of chapter tactics being army wide instead of half the army having a totally different set to keep track of.

The whole "they walk so they don't need transports" is kind of a separate issue, but since you bring it up, how lame is their excuse?
I just picture a tech magos, "unit 213 needs reinforcements on the left flank, retask vanguard squads 2 and 3"
"but sire they'll take 3 days to get there and it'll be too late, should we put them in a transport"
"NO! we don't like wheels, have them walk, we walk, that's what we do"

Their lore excuse for no transports makes no sense, hell the ad mech build the freaking things in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whitebeard wrote:
My beef with formations is it just messes up the point system.

A regular CAD against War Con is like just giving your opponent several hundred extra points.

So the game is no longer fair, and there is no point in playing it (unless you just enjoy unfair games).

Well, really how do you decide what 'free points' means?

I can definitely agree on the ones that just say "take transports free" or "take upgrades free"

But it's not that cut and dry when you talk about other detachment rules because you could call any rule 'free' do marines pay for atknf? they get bolters free technically, they don't pay points for it. How many points do they pay for chapter tactics? Or drop pods not scattering, you pay for the pod but do you pay for it's not scattering rule? Some of the detachment rules balance out restrictions, or make non-standard organized armies doable and competent. How do you determine what you think is 'paid' for and what isn't?

The war con is a bad example because it's the most egregious (next to the gladius strike force)

I'm not saying you're wrong on every formation, i'm just saying it's not as cut and dry.

'I'm not saying you're wrong on every formation, i'm just saying it's not as cut and dry. "

I don't think all formations are bad. I think most are ok actually.

But Gladius and WarCon definitely stand out.

 agnosto wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I think a lot of the 'all formations are bad' hate is from the old school gamer who doesn't like change.

But overall I think formations are actually one of the smartest things GW has done, which is pretty rare for them. So i don't want to give the impression that i'm on the side of get rid of all formations.

Formations let armies that aren't space marines make sense and build to different styles. The CAD is how a standard imperial army is probably organized, but it doesn't make sense for eldar orginizations, or ork, or skitarii. The formations allow you to make themed lore friendly armies. For example what would be the best way to build a kult of speed ork army, a formation that gives bonuses to flat out, has more fast attack slots or a 'core' that's made of bikes and trucks.
Formations open up playing armies themed around things other than the boring imperial CAD, and building a fluff/lore friendly list.

But....like everything GW does, they often do a bad job at it. They release some formations that totally make sense, let you play a fluffy theme of your army, and do things that would either be stupid and broken in a CAD or simply impossible. There are well designed formations.

No, my bitch isn't about formations in general, it's that this formation itself is awfully done. And the reason it's bad is because of the decision to make ad mech two different factions which breaks a lot of things.

People who say because some formations are badly written the concept of formations is terribad are the type of people who think because our government is a mess that means "government is bad."

There's a difference between a bad idea, and bad implementation.

I'm an old school gamer who likes change, actually values it, but like you said at the end, there's a difference between a bad idea and bad implementation. The problem with GW's formations is that there are winners and losers instead of all of them being fairly equal in strength. It's like they have two different people working there, the idea guy comes up with some cool ideas but then some lazy git writes the rules. The biggest problem is that I don't think they actually test the rules, they just write something, think it sounds cool and then rush it out the door. To them, this isn't a game and the rules are secondary to "rolling buckets of dice with your mates"(tm GW).

Yes, implementation is the main problem. One of the other problems is that many formation-based armies are better than taking the equivalent units in a CAD, and a lot of people are used to the CAD as the standard army. This power level mismatch invalidates what has been until 7e the "default" way of playing-- the more content (content released in 7e) that an army has, the higher chance it has a way to run whatever units you want to run more effectively without a CAD. For example most SM armies focused on TacMarines in Rhinos are better off using Gladius than using a CAD. This loops back to implementation though. Danny slag used the example of an ork Kult of Speed Army. Due to orks being neglected when it comes to new content, there is no Kult of Speed detachment that supports trukks and bikes better than the CAD does, however if someone wanted to play a CWE army with a wraithbone construct theme, the Wraith Host detachment is available.

TLDR the problem is that GW wanted to phase out the CAD as the "normal" way to structure an army, but half-arsed it, resulting in some of the hatred towards formations and the reliance some armies have on them.

Half assed it is a good way to describe it.

I think they should phase out the cads, the detachments that give different ways to play are super interesting. But then like everything they do they bungled it by having novelists write the rules instead of technical writers.

Danny slag wrote:
I think a lot of the 'all formations are bad' hate is from the old school gamer who doesn't like change..

Nope not at all. I love the 7th edition. It finally allows me to build the army that I like to build with a complex mix of detachments from multiple factions.
It allows me to field a rogue trader army or a radical inquisitor army without much need for counts as models or paying huge dull troop taxes due to CADS etc.

I do however dislike the loss op point cost in 40k as a result of unpaid for but significant bonuses in some of the detachments.. It makes the game harder to enjoy, this is really bad.

 Whitebeard wrote:
'I'm not saying you're wrong on every formation, i'm just saying it's not as cut and dry. "

I don't think all formations are bad. I think most are ok actually.

But Gladius and WarCon definitely stand out.

They tend to stand out because people:
A) Play them wrong(I've seen people not pay for additional models in the War Convocation--you have to shut that crap down ASAP)
B) Not actually have the physical rules on hand

Danny slag wrote:
Half assed it is a good way to describe it.

I think they should phase out the cads, the detachments that give different ways to play are super interesting. But then like everything they do they bungled it by having novelists write the rules instead of technical writers.

do you mean the detachments like flesh tearers or the detachment decurion? Because I agree with the CAD based army part if that's what your saying. They provide enough ways to play and can help build an army to a certain theme compared to the decurion and... whatever the hell the grand convocation is.

for example why didn't each chapter just get a FOC chart instead of a decurion?

 Kanluwen wrote:

They tend to stand out because people:
A) Play them wrong(I've seen people not pay for additional models in the War Convocation--you have to shut that crap down ASAP)
B) Not actually have the physical rules on hand

Nope they stand out because they offer huge and unfair bonuses. Having a extra HoW attack on charge distance rolls of 11 or 12 doesn't really compare to free transports or free weapon upgrades does it ?

90% of formations are fine.

The 10% that aren't either a) involve units that are already busted as feth on their own or b) give out a disproportionate benefit

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

They tend to stand out because people:
A) Play them wrong(I've seen people not pay for additional models in the War Convocation--you have to shut that crap down ASAP)
B) Not actually have the physical rules on hand

Nope they stand out because they offer huge and unfair bonuses. Having a extra HoW attack on charge distance rolls of 11 or 12 doesn't really compare to free transports or free weapon upgrades does it ?

No ones making you use the formation

Besides its the only real competitive formation we have for formats such as ITC.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

They tend to stand out because people:
A) Play them wrong(I've seen people not pay for additional models in the War Convocation--you have to shut that crap down ASAP)
B) Not actually have the physical rules on hand

Nope they stand out because they offer huge and unfair bonuses. Having a extra HoW attack on charge distance rolls of 11 or 12 doesn't really compare to free transports or free weapon upgrades does it ?

Having free Rhinos, Razorbacks, or Drop Pods for 6 Tactical, 2 Assault, and 2 Devastator Squads isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be.
Just like having free upgrades on units with very little upgrades to begin with isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be.

lol. Sure its not like players have ever build their list around maximizing the amount of those transports in the past, or that these formations are overrepresented in optimized tournament lists.

I love the new detachment. I will work well in my local meta and tourney scene. I've fielded the war convo plenty of times, and the canticles for everyone seems to be way more devastating than the 'free' stuff'. Most the free stuff never blessed difference. It's fun to say "oh, 700+ points of free gear!" but that 4+ invuln never helped my ranger alpha. Niether did the smoke launchers on my onagers lol.

xlDuke wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't understand if something is good or not when they print it.

I think this is probably very accurate; though how they could fail to notice that some are incredibly powerful, others are incredibly weak and others are actively detrimental I will never understand.

The Grand Convocation doesn't sound great at all but it's by no means the most egregious of the terrible detachments.

Vestal task force. It combines A) a low tier army B) Worse benefits than the CAD while being functionally identical to it except...C) Forcing you to take a unit from the worst force org slot in the army as a tax for no reason.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Hey you are totally allowed to love your free stuff, or be of the opinion that it is fair in an environment of other free stuff armies.

I just feel that free stuff formations are a horrible design mechanism and I am glad that it is no longer the default option to run them in semi casual events that only allow a limited number of detachments.

I seriously feel that the FREE STUFF approach was the start of GW's problems with balance in the current environment and apparently has become their effort to patch certain things up.

Off the top of my head...

SM Gladius - there's the real bugbear. The free transports were the killer as far as balance went.
War Convocation - a bit of a pickle, free upgrades are always questionable.
SoB Blood Angel formations - free upgrades again, this time on Vanguard and Sternguard veterans.
SW Ironwolves formation - free upgrades on vehicles. Somehow worse than the Gladius because the base cost still exists.
Traitor Legions - we're going to fix CSM by giving the Legions all free VotLW - admittedly this is something that should have been the default - I know of no other army that literally has to pay for their army special rule (which, as weak and situational as it is VotLW is just that for CSM).

Free Stuff...doesn't seem like much to be fair. A lot of people won't have the right models to capitalise on the options....

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Hey you are totally allowed to love your free stuff, or be of the opinion that it is fair in an environment of other free stuff armies.

I just feel that free stuff formations are a horrible design mechanism and I am glad that it is no longer the default option to run them in semi casual events that only allow a limited number of detachments.

I seriously feel that the FREE STUFF approach was the start of GW's problems with balance in the current environment and apparently has become their effort to patch certain things up.

Off the top of my head...

SM Gladius - there's the real bugbear. The free transports were the killer as far as balance went.
War Convocation - a bit of a pickle, free upgrades are always questionable.
SoB Blood Angel formations - free upgrades again, this time on Vanguard and Sternguard veterans.
SW Ironwolves formation - free upgrades on vehicles. Somehow worse than the Gladius because the base cost still exists.
Traitor Legions - we're going to fix CSM by giving the Legions all free VotLW - admittedly this is something that should have been the default - I know of no other army that literally has to pay for their army special rule (which, as weak and situational as it is VotLW is just that for CSM).

Free Stuff...doesn't seem like much to be fair. A lot of people won't have the right models to capitalise on the options....

In all honesty I think the problems began when they gave us the new necron codex with that decurion. it all went downhill from there in my oppinion.

Having a whole army made up of a formation with many smaller formations inside just kills some variety in the game.

ERJAK wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And if you're really trying to argue that someone can't field those Detachments in a "casual game" without fielding some kind of high end tournament army, you're delusional.

YES THIS ^ : )

Is my entire point. Free transport units / unit upgrade detachments are the worst thing that has ever happened to 40k in the last years and have noting to do in a normal non apocalypse style casual game.
They poop all over the entire concept of points and balance in the game making 40k essentially nearly as pointless as AoS used to be a while ago. Fielding 500+ points more than your opponent isn't casual play.

For the record, EVERY formation gives you free points, the gladius and WarCon are just the most obvious about it. If you think that charging out of no scatter deepstrike, shooting twice in a turn, giving every unit obsec, or increasing multiple units ballistic isn't actually worth anything tangible then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if my grav centurions shot 47 times per turn with a 36" move right? Since that's not 'free points'?

Idiot question I'm afraid....

That formation where you get free Drop Pods. - provided the formation itself doesn't specifically grant Objective Secured, does the formation therefore lose Objective Secured, because it's a Formation, despite that it would normally fit a single FoC? (not looking to be incendiary. This is genuine ignorance I want to clear up)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Do you understand what "Until the start of your next turn" means?

I use Protector Imperative Alpha, and now I have +3 BS and -2 WS.
I'm now at WS1 across the board, BS7 across the board. To get maximum usage out of this, you're going to be within 15"-18" of my Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard and much closer to my Sicarian(my "assault" units).

If you get any charges in, I'm boned because hey. I'm now WS1 and that does diddly for my Overwatch.

But hey, let's compare.

Plasma Gun--24" S7 AP2 Rapid Fire, Gets Hot 15 points
Plasma Caliver--18" S7 AP2 Assault 3, Gets Hot 30 points

Depends on the formation you're taking. Any that grant the Skitarii BS Booster and Canticles of the Omnissiah can mean some fairly nasty combos - especially if you've got that Kastellan formation, which can readily split fire with weapons which can further reduce cover. From there, you can easily boost up your BS (how much is up to you), and to cover your forces butt, switch on 're-roll to hit in combat', helping to partially mitigate any lowering in WS. Sicarian Infiltrators can help to similarly weaken the enemy, potentially result in a zero-sum for your combat.

Then that's 9 Plasma shots, potentially re-rolling 1's (BS7, if I'm right in think you'd only overheat if both dice are a 1? I may be dead wrong though), with a guaranteed -1 cover to the enemy, possibly rising to -2. Plus whatever other dakka the unit is toting.

xlDuke wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't understand if something is good or not when they print it.

I think this is probably very accurate; though how they could fail to notice that some are incredibly powerful, others are incredibly weak and others are actively detrimental I will never understand.

The Grand Convocation doesn't sound great at all but it's by no means the most egregious of the terrible detachments.

I can agree, there are some interesting things in there like being able to take a baronial detachment it can have some potential.

I am hoping that this new book was designed with the concept of there being a new edition in the pipeline. Maybe formations will have point costs attached to them? I noticed that these were not formations they are new alternative detachments.

I like the concept behind decurions. Its giving you a nice benefit for playing what amounts to a fluffy list. The only problem is that some benefits are TOO nice or the tax is too prohibitive (im looking at you fun but overdone Cadian Battle Group). I for one used to play codex compliant marine lists back when people said devs and assault marines were a waste of time, and now im being overly rewarded for it!

The free points and everything gets canticles and DI is pretty awesome but expecting it on every detachment or formation is ridiculous.

It's pretty knee jerk to assume a detachment is bad just because it does t have those. You have no focus on what the attachment could take.

For example, if you take troops as cult mechanics MSU, and fast attack heavy from skitarri and low knights with Belisarius and some other HQs you could have a lot of armor units that effectively have; potms, IWND, + 5++ and can benefit from canticles of the omnissiah. That's pretty good.

Getting canticles on knights skitarri units requires maxing out the detachment, many of the canticles benefit non vehicles more than vehicles so taking skitarri vehicles doesn't really suffer. I would rather have IWND potms and the archmagos canticles for those anyways.

blaktoof wrote:
The free points and everything gets canticles and DI is pretty awesome but expecting it on every detachment or formation is ridiculous.

You don't get Doctrina Imperatives in War Convocation.

That happens with the new Conclave Acquisitorius if you max out the units or if you take the webstore bundle.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Hey you are totally allowed to love your free stuff, or be of the opinion that it is fair in an environment of other free stuff armies.

I just feel that free stuff formations are a horrible design mechanism and I am glad that it is no longer the default option to run them in semi casual events that only allow a limited number of detachments.

I seriously feel that the FREE STUFF approach was the start of GW's problems with balance in the current environment and apparently has become their effort to patch certain things up.

Off the top of my head...

SM Gladius - there's the real bugbear. The free transports were the killer as far as balance went.
War Convocation - a bit of a pickle, free upgrades are always questionable.
SoB Blood Angel formations - free upgrades again, this time on Vanguard and Sternguard veterans.
SW Ironwolves formation - free upgrades on vehicles. Somehow worse than the Gladius because the base cost still exists.
Traitor Legions - we're going to fix CSM by giving the Legions all free VotLW - admittedly this is something that should have been the default - I know of no other army that literally has to pay for their army special rule (which, as weak and situational as it is VotLW is just that for CSM).

Free Stuff...doesn't seem like much to be fair. A lot of people won't have the right models to capitalise on the options....

In all honesty I think the problems began when they gave us the new necron codex with that decurion. it all went downhill from there in my oppinion.

Having a whole army made up of a formation with many smaller formations inside just kills some variety in the game.

I kind of disagree with this. I'm on the opposite side of the fence. I think the decurian style of detachments is far more interesting and makes more sense than the force org charts.
You pick a core, that's essentially your basic troopers and whatnot, then build your army around which aux groups you want. The problem was they started it, then like everything didn't follow through or stay consistent with how they did it.

With the decurian style they could over time release new formations in WD and social media, you know the community stuff they used to do. They could release supplements that allow an army to play completely differently just by having new core and aux formations available. That is if they would get their heads out of their arses and have the formations dictate that they're core or aux and what decurian they can be taken in, instead of the decurian itself listing the formations that can be taken in it so that they don't work with any future rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
The free points and everything gets canticles and DI is pretty awesome but expecting it on every detachment or formation is ridiculous.

It's pretty knee jerk to assume a detachment is bad just because it does t have those. You have no focus on what the attachment could take.

For example, if you take troops as cult mechanics MSU, and fast attack heavy from skitarri and low knights with Belisarius and some other HQs you could have a lot of armor units that effectively have; potms, IWND, + 5++ and can benefit from canticles of the omnissiah. That's pretty good.

Getting canticles on knights skitarri units requires maxing out the detachment, many of the canticles benefit non vehicles more than vehicles so taking skitarri vehicles doesn't really suffer. I would rather have IWND potms and the archmagos canticles for those anyways.

what vehicles are you getting IWND and PTOMS on exactly? the onager and...the onager.

and no one is getting canticles on everything, that requires 4000 points, that no one plays at.

Is it really wrong to expect the entire army to have an army wide rule?
Do we complain that every marine benefits from chapter tactics and not just part of a space marine army?