As I am sure the internet knows, the new "Daemon Farm," list is a CD army list built around summoning large numbers of models to the board with the new Malific Psychic tree.

I do not want to discuss the relative merit of this style of list. It may be super OP, it may NOT be nearly as bad as it sounds because of the large number of Warp Charge dice needed to get a lot of these things to work consistently. I do not want to discuss the army from a power level prospective simply because I have not actually played against it. I have seen the Frontline Gaming Batrep, and read a Batrep from ToF but that is about it.

What I want to throw on the table for discussion is the concept of creating units mid-game.

The reason this game is based on a points system is to insure that each side has an equal number of resources available. Units/ Abilities that add units/points to one players army mid-game flies in the very face of this system does it not? We have previously seen things like Tervigons, Portal Glyphs, and the new Skyblight formation which add what are essentially free units to the game. These have always been a great advantage for the owning player as it basically allows one player to play with semi-renewable resources while the other player is stuck playing with the resources allotted to him/her based on the points limit. I am not saying that it is auto-win by any means as any Nid player will tell you, but it does put a strain on the idea of fair play and competition.

The examples I have given above are thankfully difficult to field in large numbers, and require a measure of luck to function well. Also, these units/abilities are theoretically point costed, keeping in mind the fact that they create other units. (With the exception of the Skyblight formation which is simply a way to get free units with no additional points cost and free special rules, I will avoid the long rant about how unbalancing it is to charge the same points cost for units with more rules on this thread)

Now consider the new Malific powers. Psychic powers can be spammed in large numbers with certain armies. The warp charge investment needed to cast several successful Conjuration powers is massive, but it exacerbates the problem with free units to a whole new level. Does this not completely invalidate playing in a points based game system? Do we as a community want to play in an environment where some armies can create units out of thin air?

I do not see how we as a community can truly consider 40K a balanced game, capable of competitive play when one side has renewable resources and another does not.

I am not saying the Daemon Farm is OP, that remains to be seen, but should we not reject the concept of Conjuration powers simply on principle, in order to retain some semblance of validity to a points based game system?

The game we play occurs in a finite number of turns, the ability to use units that were not initially points costed with the intent of creating units that are of equal points value, or in the case of Possession, much more valuable, are a threat to the concept of having a fair game.

Who really thinks it's ok to get to swap a 120ish point Herrald for a Greater Daemon worth easily twice the points just because you rolled the correct power? Never mind that no matter what you roll you get Summoning which will net you a 90 point unit for free that can itself, create more copies of itself as the game goes on.

An army like this, given unlimited time would end the game with several times more points than it started, barring outside influence. Such a thing should not be allowed in the game as it completely removes points limit restrictions, as well as the need to build an all comers list since you can choose to summon units that best fit the situation.

This is a clear cash grab by GW, please do not let them alter one of the fundamental principles of the game and get away with it, all in the name of making a $

 IK Viper wrote:


The reason this game is based on a points system is to insure that each side has an equal number of resources available.

You are wrong. It doesn't and never has ensured parity.

From Space Wolves and eldar in 2nd to - Leafblower IG/GK/Crons - To Taudar.TauTau, DE/Eldar in 6th The Points system has never been an arbiter of balance.

Point efficiency is definitely a problem.

Clown car certainly appears to be very points efficient.

I do not see how we as a community can truly consider 40K a balanced game, capable of competitive play when one side has renewable resources and another does not.

GW have never considered their rules nor have they published rules they consider to be balanced for competitive play.

This is a clear cash grab by GW, please do not let them alter one of the fundamental principles of the game and get away with it, all in the name of making a $

THE fundamental principal is for GW to make ££££

Just enjoy YOUR game.

 IK Viper wrote:

I do not see how we as a community can truly consider 40K a balanced game, capable of competitive play when one side has renewable resources and another does not.

40K isn't a balanced game. It's that simple.

The best suggestion I have here is to equate in some way the warp charges to points and allow the summoned units to be purchased- at reduced cost due to the random factor- before the game but not deployed. This would effectively be translating you warp charges to points, balanced in some fashion against the randomness of actually getting the unit or not. You would be 'over' the points limit because you got a discount on your demons but you may not get to deploy them or they may not show up when you want.

That's all I have that maintains the intent of summoning and gaining points that doesn't result in a factory that can run amok. I'd have been much happier with a blessing that a unit could put on itself. Nurgles Embrace or something that, whenever an affected unit fights in melee record the wounds. At the end of the turn you can 'spend' the wounds to put Nurglings, Plaguebearers or (should you cause a massive number of wounds) a Great Unclean One that is summoned by the infections/death/slaughter (modify to suit each Ruinous Power as you see fit). That gives you your 'free' demons- if you can earn them.

Another one of these posts.

Demons are not getting units for free. They are using their valuable resources to make new demons.

Again I have to use the example of 16 Horrors and a Tzeentch herald with ML3. This unit has the choice of either shooting 8d6 strength 6 shots or summon 90 points of demons.

So, to oversimplify, they can either kill 90 points of their opponent’s models, or summon 90 points of demons. Why are you ok with the first and not the second? What do you think their opponents army is doing while they are standing around and summoning demons? They are get shot to death from an army they are not doing any damage to.

People need to think more about the mechanics of the game.

Again, I have not played against the army, I just object to the concept of creating more units on principle.

I think the best use of the Conjuration powers is to simply swamp the board with troops. There would as you say, be very little offensive output. But lots and lots of 10 man units and/or small daemon units.

If ALL armies had options/ ways to create new units to score objectives, then it would be somewhat ok, but it's not that way. Even it other armies take the Malific table, few have the Warp Charge to really leverage the tree.

Blackmore to your question, all armies shoot you. I would submit that the units summoned are going to be summoned in terrain and go to ground if needed, or better yet out of LOS, with the intent of stacking on more units to flood the board and in the case of PH's, add more Warp Charges to the pool to repeat the proccess. Also, that 16 PH unit and the Lvl 3 Herald would need to achieve 2 successful castings of Warp Charge 3 FF of Tzeentch (total of 6 Warp Charges) in order to manifest the 8d6 shots your talking about, or instead manifest a single Warp Charge 3 to summon a unit and then shoot you with 4d6 shot left over from manifesting the first power. Also, Conjurations are much, much harder to stop than Witchfire to begin with.

The thing I think your missing is I don't care what form it takes. If there was a formation that allowed Space Marines to continually Drop Pod in a Tactical Squad on a 4+ at the start of their turn I would oppose it as well. If IG got a fortification that could accept an order to produce an Infantry Platoon every turn I would be opposed to it.

There should be no free resources. You spend points up front to build an army and that is it. You should have to fight with the models you bring, just like everyone else.

There are certainly much more broken thing/ armies out there, I just think that the creation of new units is way out there and only serves to dilute the already watered down tactical depth of the game. We lost Focus Fire, Precision Shot/Strike on Characters, many things are now Random allocation, Night Fight is just blanket Stealth no matter if your 1 inch or 60 inches away, the Force Org is basically meaningless even in Battle Forged armies, everything scores even Rhinos and Drop Pods, where does it end? Where do we as a community dig our heels in and say enough is enough. The major draw for adult 40k players is the tactical depth of the game. Being able to add points to your list mid game, in any way, breaks the whole attrition warfare and limited resources concept central to good army list design. It is also very convenient to be able to choose what units you need mid-game. Why worry with an all-comers list when you can simply summon the units best suited to the enemy at hand? Can any other army create units on demand that can be tailored on the fly to the situation? No. How is this fair to all the other armies in the game that are stuck with the list they brought to the table?

Bottom Line: creating units mid-game is a problem, no matter what form it takes. We pay points for stuff... for a reason.

PS none of the daemon units that are going to be doing all these conjuration powers, was point costed with the intent of being able to manifest these powers...

Yes we get it, any other abuse is OK, but Summoning units is one abuse too much....Groan, you could have added this to any of the 800 threads on this subject already, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said.

Why is adding units any more broken than armies with super points efficient units that murder the enemy?

Swamping the board is the worst use of conjuration powers, because in the end you likely lose out on units if your opponent targets important units first.

Also if you play tactical objectives, and the summoners are not achieving them they lose...

While I don't feel as Allan does, I'm also not sure they need to be tweaked, or that there's a reasonable understanding of how to tweak them at present.

That all said, basic 10-man horror units will not do 90 points worth of damage really ever, yet they can summon 90 points worth of horrors or some other unit instead. So it's a bit off probably to focus on whether a fully buffed herald-inclusive unit of horrors is doing something marginal instead of something major. It's probably better to focus on things like 95 point base heralds turning into Lords of Change, swooping across half the field and summoning 3 Plague Drones on top of someone's backfield. That's a fairly common likely outcome of Conjuration.

Still, at the same time, conjuration armies have so far been fairly terrible at winning missions, so it's a bit of a balance between what's onerous / "unfun" in terms of time consumption, and what's actually good. I'm personally reminded of the early concerns about 'Cron Air.

More time and consideration will tell.

The now famous game on FLG with Frankie losing with the Horror Farm was using the Tactical Objective cards btw, which I personally discount. Those stupid cards are a grab bag of yet more randomness, rewarding luck as much if not more than skill (which is not a good thing for all you more randomness junkies out there)

Not sure that game should be considered a valid example of either army's actual power level.

Not saying it should or shouldn't but if you play things other than just score last turn, it makes things much tougher for summoning armies.

I agree with that and hope that people running big events like yourselves will continue to support/ rule the progressive scoring mission in 7th edition. I think they still offer a powerful tactical flexibility that will allow more armies to play competitively.

Though I think that if summoned units score objectives, than flying DP's with Conjuration powers will be insanely good at flying over to an objective and then summoning a unit on top of it, making it really hard to beat CD's when their flying guys can bomb the board with troops. Though to be fair, you really don't want to be doing a lot of that as a CD player because your expensive, tough, flying DP will start taking wounds from Perils a lot.

 IK Viper wrote:
I agree with that and hope that people running big events like yourselves will continue to support/ rule the progressive scoring mission in 7th edition. I think they still offer a powerful tactical flexibility that will allow more armies to play competitively.

Though I think that if summoned units score objectives, than flying DP's with Conjuration powers will be insanely good at flying over to an objective and then summoning a unit on top of it, making it really hard to beat CD's when their flying guys can bomb the board with troops. Though to be fair, you really don't want to be doing a lot of that as a CD player because your expensive, tough, flying DP will start taking wounds from Perils a lot.

At least for NOVA, we'll continue to go with the Asymmetricals we've been championing for over half a year now (missioncatalog.com). They're being discussed and revised for the new edition scoring unit tweaks. The Maelstrom are basically a poor man's version, with more random and less flexibility to allow players to flex the mission to suit their army (a function of the asymmetricals that broadens the meta instead of nerfing perceived problem armies).

With re: your comment about Frankie's game on the FLG, I haven't actually watched it yet (that's my bad). When referring to summoning lists struggling to win, I'm referring at least personally to the playtesting and discussions we've been having so far to try and understand the perceived problems from a TO p.o.v.

I understand that as a TO it would be to much to flat out block the whole table as people who want to play with their toys will cry. What I was trying to do was point out the logical fallacy of the concept.

There are people out there who have no regard for the health of the game, and instead only care about winning games no matter how gimmicky. For example: if GW messed up and gave a Bastion Jink, there are some people who would try and take a 4+ Jink on a building just because it is in the rules, with no regard to "does this make any sense at all, and is it good for the game?"

I am running a small tournament in 3 weeks and am going to limit the Conjuration powers to 1 summoning per turn and see how it goes. But I do understand that you have a lot invested in a huge event like NOVA.

My intent with the post was not to institute comp. (though I support this) but to get people thinking about whether or not we want something like this in the game. If people stop playing with it, it is not a problem any more. I don't want 40k to turn into a turn based version of Dawn of War, there is value in having to work with what you have/ start with and frankly if I wanted to play DoW I would do it on my computer, the graphics, sound and animation are better then a table top analog.

 IK Viper wrote:
I understand that as a TO it would be to much to flat out block the whole table as people who want to play with their toys will cry. What I was trying to do was point out the logical fallacy of the concept.

There are people out there who have no regard for the health of the game, and instead only care about winning games no matter how gimmicky. For example: if GW messed up and gave a Bastion Jink, there are some people who would try and take a 4+ Jink on a building just because it is in the rules, with no regard to "does this make any sense at all, and is it good for the game?"

I am running a small tournament in 3 weeks and am going to limit the Conjuration powers to 1 summoning per turn and see how it goes. But I do understand that you have a lot invested in a huge event like NOVA.

My intent with the post was not to institute comp. (though I support this) but to get people thinking about whether or not we want something like this in the game. If people stop playing with it, it is not a problem any more. I don't want 40k to turn into a turn based version of Dawn of War, there is value in having to work with what you have/ start with.

On a personal level, I'm actually not a fan of the Summoning mechanic. Whether or not it's "overpowered" or "broken" or simply makes for a potentially long-drawn-out and less pleasant game in the eyes of certain people, it's a mechanic that doesn't feel right in a game that's been oriented around "Bring what you play with."

So, I get you

At the same time, I don't like to kneejerk ... Summoning armies don't do that well at winning any well-designed missions, and they are as onerous and tedious for their owners to play as they are for their opponents. As a result, it's entirely possible they'll self-resolve, because they are not the equivalent of a Jinking Bastion (which you would always take) or a 2+ re-rollable unit you only hit on 6's and that can move 48" a turn. By being tedious to play with and not very effective at winning, Summon "spam" armies may resolve themselves without interference.

I mean, is there anyone here who is really excited about spending their tournaments summoning units forever and losing their games?

 IK Viper wrote:
Again, I have not played against the army, I just object to the concept of creating more units on principle.

If ALL armies had options/ ways to create new units to score objectives, then it would be somewhat ok, but it's not that way. Even it other armies take the Malific table, few have the Warp Charge to really leverage the tree.

The thing I think your missing is I don't care what form it takes. If there was a formation that allowed Space Marines to continually Drop Pod in a Tactical Squad on a 4+ at the start of their turn I would oppose it as well. If IG got a fortification that could accept an order to produce an Infantry Platoon every turn I would be opposed to it.

There should be no free resources. You spend points up front to build an army and that is it. You should have to fight with the models you bring, just like everyone else.

Out of curiosity, do you also think that Tervigons should be removed?

I have always hated Tervigons. They are supposedly points costed to compensate for the fact that they create new stuff though so I am some what less miffed about them. No one would pay the points they cost for an MC with their stats unless they made babies. They also have a downside of blowing up and killing lots of their created units. There are enough downsides tied to the unit to make it a little more palatable, however, yes I hate Tervigons for what they do to the game. No, I do not think they are broken because the unit was designed and pointed with the intention of building in the cost of the created units into the MC's cost.

These summoning daemons were not costed in this way. Have no built in downsides besides Perils/ Using a lot of Warp Charge (which is a player choice) and can create different units suited to the task at hand.

The Portal Glyph is even more hated in my opinion, that thing, plus Fateweaver's reroll will routinely produce 3-4 times its points value in free units with no additional expenditure in resources, so long as it is not killed. Which to be fair is not that hard, but even still, its a 30 point AV12 unit. That in itself is really cheap since it now theoretically scores, much less the fact that it gives you more cheap scoring.

If every army had and equivalent, I would not complain, but as they don't, it is a problem.

SkyBROKE... not going to discuss the balance implications of paying the same points costs for units with more special rules, and the possibility to get free units on a 4+

What about Necron spiders? They generate units as well.

We played a 1,000 point game last night using daemons. While I definitely did not use a TFG list, we tried daemon farming. It is not the end of the world (no pun intended) that everyone thinks.

Perils are rampant. I tried turning a herald into a bloodthirster. It melted his head instead.

Warp dice get used up faster than you think. Also, getting cursed earth off is a must for survivability. You need to save dice for that. You also need to save dice for your horrors to shoot, otherwise, they really don't do much.

I still think the TauDar lists of 6th edition were way more difficult to deal with than this list will ever be.

I agree with every thing you are saying. And you are right, Tau and Eldar are probably better. That is not the point. Making units changes the fundamental bedrock of a game with points limits. That is all I am saying.

Aren't we already discussing this in other threads ?

paying points to summon more points,

verses paying less points to be able to blow all those other points up,

is a horrible strategy....

leave the game as it is for the most part and its fine, even in tournaments, all we really need to do is set a pts limit, FOC limit, and maybe deal with one or two specific things like INIVS and rerolling 2++'s

IK Vyper: Did you post this when Tervigons came out? They created additional units and it was fairly points effective in the previous codex? They produced units for free, in fact, with less repercussions.

And someone mentioned Tomb Spyders creating Scarabs.

I'd recommend playing af few games and then see if your opinion changes, and at what levels. Your opinion may not change, but at least it will be a more informed opinion.

Tervigons from the old Nid dex were far worse about giving away free resources for sure. I was very happy with the rewrite in the new Nid book. Makes those guys a lot more reasonable.

I see Spiders and Ghost Arks as much less of a problem because they add models back to existing units instead of create new ones. This to me is not much different that the Reanimation Protocol the rest of the army gets. It makes the units they affect more durable, but if you can wipe out the whole unit, they are gone. This concept of regrowing units does not result in the large MSU effect summoning has, which is a big deal when EVERYTHING scores now. Regrowing a unit is basically another way of making a unit tougher to kill, not by adding a save, but by adding more wounds to the unit. Still a durability buff just like Forewarning, Invisibility, Fortune, etc.

What about gargoyles coming back on 4+? I have definitely seem that win several games. You need to address everything - not just what you personally perceive as a problem for you.

yeah, no one complains about necrons getting back "free points" every time a RP roll is made...


or spyders, or tervigons, and so on....

 IK Viper wrote:
Again, I have not played against the army, I just object to the concept of creating more units on principle.

#1. Since you have not played against it how do you know if it is broken or not?
#2. If you have a philosophical problem with creating more units you need to get over it. Every army can do things that other armies can't, and that is why every codex is different. If you want every army to be the same, and to be able to do what each other army can do then I suggest that you all play from only one codex.

It is all about game balance. If they army is too good, or it can't be beat then that is one thing. So far summoning has not been game breaking or even really very good. Play some games against it and then see if all of the fears from you posts come true.

easysause => did you read what I said about Skyblight in my previous posts? How did I skip over Skyblight when I mentioned them twice on this thread, one of which was in the first post?

Responding to Blackmoor
#1 I am actively looking for games against it and reading everything batrep I can find about it.
#2 Do you honestly no care about these things? I am sure anyone who has played very long has played that one game when 2-3 Tervigons just decided to not poop out and basically take over the game based on sheer (no skill involved or required) luck. The game is basically decided not my the players, but by the sheer weight of resources one player has vs. another... That is not a tactical strategy game I care to play competitively, there is to much randomness and not enough player control of what is going on.

I know you play Nids, and I know all Nid player feel screwed by GW so they want the Skyblight free special rules/ free units/ and free force org slots at no extra charge formation to be legal, but that is no reason to support creating new units for free.

40k is one of the least balanced competitive games I know of, and adding more rules that allow armies to do stuff no one else can do (aka summon units in mass with any psycher) only adds to the balancing issue. Why not fight against this?

I played it last night. It was pretty underwhelming to be honest. While I know I could have been way more cut throat with it, it has some serious drawbacks.

For starters, anything with ranged shooting will give it problems. Second, any kind of list with its own psykers should have enough dice to try and dispel one cast by just throwing all your dice at it. Third, people are drastically underestimating how common perils is going to be.

I played TauDar several times and literally resigned after turn 1. There was not point in playing when my opponent could destroy over 600 points while I caused one wound with my entire army shooting. Where was the call to ban this list?

Let it play out for a while before just deciding to arbitrarily change rules.

 IK Viper wrote:
easysause => did you read what I said about Skyblight in my previous posts? How did I skip over Skyblight when I mentioned them twice on this thread, one of which was in the first post?

To be fair, you mentioned the word "Skyblight" twice in your OP and never again, and didn't really address the issues you have with it.
I disagree that Skyblight is free upgrades. There is a tax involved.

Same with a Tervigon - there's a tax to get "free" units. And, speaking from experience, 2-3 Tervigons refusing to quit spawning wasn't a game winner. I still lost many games when that happened.

I truly think this is all much ado about nothing.

 IK Viper wrote:
I have always hated Tervigons. ...

SkyBROKE... not going to discuss the balance implications of paying the same points costs for units with more special rules, and the possibility to get free units on a 4+

Same units as given in the codex, at the same price, with more rules...
Some people will point to the fact that you "must take Harpies. etc." but they cost the exact same as they always have. You are giving up some choices about which units to take, but at the end of the day, you are getting units from the formation that are priced the exact same as in the codex and there are more special rules tied to the unit just because they come from a formation. Literally the definition of "pay $ to get better rules,"

 IK Viper wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
I have always hated Tervigons. ...

SkyBROKE... not going to discuss the balance implications of paying the same points costs for units with more special rules, and the possibility to get free units on a 4+

Same units as given in the codex, at the same price, with more rules...
Some people will point to the fact that you "must take Harpies. etc." but they cost the exact same as they always have. You are giving up some choices about which units to take, but at the end of the day, you are getting units from the formation that are priced the exact same as in the codex and there are more special rules tied to the unit just because they come from a formation. Literally the definition of "pay $ to get better rules,"

Except that's like saying Purifier armies are "pay $ to get better rules" and ignoring the Crowe "tax". You have to take a sub-par unit to upgrade rules elsewhere.
Your points are valid if you assume that 1 point is always worth the same as a point on another unit. That's demonstrably false (Pyrovores).

But you must operate under that assumption in order for the ENTIRE GAME to be considered a fair game, worthy of being played at a competitive level.

I agree with you that in practice 1 point of Eldar is not worth 1 point of BA. But from a conceptual level, in order for the game to be taken seriously as a competitive exercise, this MUST be true, specially within the same codex.

Then you need to give up thinking about the game competitively because your assumption is demonstrably false.

You want an example of points being worthless Khorne Lord of Skulls is 888 points. You mean to tell me this point cost has anything to do with balance, and is not just a cost based on fluff?

So if in your theory for the game to be taken seriously as a competitive exercise, the value of 1 point spent on a unit MUST be equivalent to 1 point spent on a different unit.

Then in that scenario the game is provably not competitive.

So lets prove it.

So If the game is competitive, then points costs must always be of the same value.

Counter example :BA tactical Marine is costed differently than Codex Space Marine Tactical Marine, despite having largely the same exact war gear stat line and special rules.

Thus 1 Point BA Tac marines =/= to 1 point SM tac marines.

Thus by proof by contratidiction we can say that the game is not competitive.

QED

 IK Viper wrote:
But you must operate under that assumption in order for the ENTIRE GAME to be considered a fair game, worthy of being played at a competitive level.

I agree with you that in practice 1 point of Eldar is not worth 1 point of BA. But from a conceptual level, in order for the game to be taken seriously as a competitive exercise, this MUST be true, specially within the same codex.

So you agree they aren't, but say that they should be? I'm not sure I understand.

Codex creep has skewed the relative value of 1 point. GW does this to sell models, and all but proves that they are intending to UNBALNCE the game by not remaining consistent in their unit costs. When DA came out, GW did not FAQ all Marine tactical equivalents to the same point cost but they should have. As soon as the DA book came out, all marines should have gone down to 14 points in an attempt to balance the game. GW was to lazy to do it.

I firmly believe that 40k cannot be considered a truly competitive game for this very reason. Because points values do not carry the same weight across all races. I like the game though and like a challenge so I play in events with the understanding that the game is by design, unbalanced. That does not stop me from wanting things like Comp/ Mission to attempt to fight against this in an attempt to take the game in a more balanced direction in order to make it at least semi-credible as a competitive game instead of just accepting whatever crap GW gives us (since it has been quantitatively proven that they intentionally create imbalance in the game).

My point with the Skyblight issue is that we are not even comparing 2 different codicies, we are comparing units from the same book. 1 point worth of Harpy should be worth 1 point of Gaunt, Hive Crone, Flyrant, etc...

A Gargoyle should cost more if it has Objective Secured and the unit respawns on a 4+ but this is not the case. This is clearly a case of getting better rules at no greater in game points cost, simply because you bout a Dataslate (and presumably some more FMC kits)

The issue is that is not even true at all. 500 points of Pyrovore probably aren't worth 1 point of Flyrant.

Would you at least stipulate that what ever the points cost of a unit is, if you add more rules to it, the resulting unit should cost more?

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is that is not even true at all. 500 points of Pyrovore probably aren't worth 1 point of Flyrant.

10 pyrovores on a promethium relay would be pretty boss.

 IK Viper wrote:
My point with the Skyblight issue is that we are not even comparing 2 different codicies, we are comparing units from the same book. 1 point worth of Harpy should be worth 1 point of Gaunt, Hive Crone, Flyrant, etc...

But that's demonstrably not true.

Genestealers. Pyrovores. Vespid. DA flyers.

There are plenty of units that are simply worse than other options in their codex - even worse than other options in the same FOC slot. Denying that fact might make you feel better, but it doesn't make it any less true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IK Viper wrote:
Would you at least stipulate that what ever the points cost of a unit is, if you add more rules to it, the resulting unit should cost more?

Sure. And it does - by taxing you with crappy units that aren't worth their original point cost.

A unit is worth 5, but costs 10. Another unit is worth 3 and costs 3.

You can add a special rule to unit B at no cost, but you must take one of unit A to get that special rule. How is that not okay?

Do models that have auras piss you off? They add special rules to other units at no cost - other than their own. And they're often not worth anything on their own...

Auras are a fixed ability that can be leveraged in a very predictable and consistent way. I have no problem, with auras, though I agree they can be used to affect very few units and be therefore useless, or affect lots of stuff and be really good. Aura buffs function in a similar way to most blessing, they are more powerful on larger units/ more models, and it is up to a skilled player to use the bubble/ power in the most efficient way possible.

Auras are roughly the same a any other unit based buff (usually a psychic power) and most if not all armies have access to these type of abilities so I see no real problem.

This conversation will always get out of hand. Summoning tons of daemons every game with every unit you possibly can will be tedious and fairly unpleasant for a fairly high # of players, and I think most will agree with that.

The army can't win every mission helter skelter, and it's not rewarding or reinforcing to play for that reason - namely, putting lots of models down every turn while your opponent is miserable is probably even worse than picking up lots of models of your opponent's army with wave serpents / etc.

Again, realistically, summon spam isn't so much a concern b/c I think it's inherently self-limiting: an onerous, difficult-to-play army that also does not win. So ... you'd have to have the outlook of: "I go to tournaments in order to spend most of my time 'thematically' placing daemon models down on the table before scoring myself with an L of some sort." Most people that go for purely the "who cares what happens" fun of the game {(and that's I think most tournament attendees)} don't seem like the types to want to spend all game placing models down and rolling psychic dice while their opponent looks languidly on. Most people that go for pure WAAC wins (which isn't really the majority but non-tourney-players still think it is) probably aren't going to spend thousands of dollars painting up and fielding a losing army that depends on having a massive bench of painted models.

All the conversation about whether it's totally balanced to summon new units in a game where every unit can't target multiple units to begin with ... and whether that's the same as shooting a unit with a powerful shooty unit ... seems a needless discussion to have.

The problem is, your assertion for your thesis is rather inaccurate. This is far from the first time we've seen units being spawned mid game. Remember nids in 3rd ed? How about never ending tides of guard later? This is a different mechanism, and is more flexible..... but you have to tie up your units in order to do it. I honestly don't see it as all that powerful. There WILL be games where you will get really lucky, not miss very many rolls to summon, and curb stomp just about anyone. But you will also have games where you kill yourself. Literally.

This army is a crap shoot. If played very well it will let you tailor your list to your opponent mid game. That actually gives the deamons some strength that they really need to be competitive. But you will have to make a HUGE investment in models... worse than orks playing green tide, and you will have to really know your army and your opponents.

If played badly or with insufficient models, it will just spawn random deamons that will sometimes work well for you and sometimes not.... If you're really scared of the high school kids that will try to abuse this (which honestly, it's really only armies built around survive-ability that are going to struggle) then just don't allow proxies and force wyswyg. Force Painted with minimum 3 colors, no primer showing, models must be based kind of rules.

I feel the biggest consideration regarding summoning is the time it takes to summon loads of daemons. It's not fair to your opponent to bring an army that might possibly consume inordinate amounts of limited time. TO's and organizers need to be clear that, even if Summoning armies are allowed, slow-play is not welcome.

MVBrandt wrote:
This conversation will always get out of hand. Summoning tons of daemons every game with every unit you possibly can will be tedious and fairly unpleasant for a fairly high # of players, and I think most will agree with that.

The army can't win every mission helter skelter, and it's not rewarding or reinforcing to play for that reason - namely, putting lots of models down every turn while your opponent is miserable is probably even worse than picking up lots of models of your opponent's army with wave serpents / etc.

Again, realistically, summon spam isn't so much a concern b/c I think it's inherently self-limiting: an onerous, difficult-to-play army that also does not win. So ... you'd have to have the outlook of: "I go to tournaments in order to spend most of my time 'thematically' placing daemon models down on the table before scoring myself with an L of some sort." Most people that go for purely the "who cares what happens" fun of the game {(and that's I think most tournament attendees)} don't seem like the types to want to spend all game placing models down and rolling psychic dice while their opponent looks languidly on. Most people that go for pure WAAC wins (which isn't really the majority but non-tourney-players still think it is) probably aren't going to spend thousands of dollars painting up and fielding a losing army that depends on having a massive bench of painted models.

All the conversation about whether it's totally balanced to summon new units in a game where every unit can't target multiple units to begin with ... and whether that's the same as shooting a unit with a powerful shooty unit ... seems a needless discussion to have.

I have to second this as it parallel's my sentiment exactly.

Daemon Factory isn't broken. It won't be the dominant list. It is unreliable. It has many points of failure. It is expensive. It is time consuming. And due to the nature of the list will be self limiting. A knee jerk extreme reaction is uneccessary and a slippery slope.

Let's save our time and energy for fixing real potential problems. Predominantly Invisibility and the 2+/2++ Rerollable mechanic. We can even add in FOC concerns as well. Those are what should concern us, not the hyped Daemon Factory.

On a side note, I got to watch a Daemon Factory in action today, even after the Blue Scribes summoned a Lord of Change for free T2, the Daemon player lost to Tau. There were a lot of factors involved, but it left a clear impression that Daemon Factory is an effective list design or style, but it won't inherently break this edition. We won't see Daemon Farm sweeping GTs, plain and simple the rest will sort itself out.

emmagine wrote:
Remember nids in 3rd ed?

No. Years of therapy had finally enabled me to block out the horror of the Numbers Without End rule. Thanks emmagine. Now I have to go back to my psychiatrist and start all over again.

And for what it's worth, I think Demon Factory lists are going to be WAY less nasty than Numbers Without End was.

 IK Viper wrote:
Would you at least stipulate that what ever the points cost of a unit is, if you add more rules to it, the resulting unit should cost more?

Where were you when Vendettas went from skimmers to flyers in 6th edition or the big rules changes with FMC? The fact is that this always happens with a new edition because when the rules change some units will always get better and some get worse but their points don't change. Snikrott and Wolf Scouts can't assault out of reserves any more in 6th, but did they get a point reduction? I think you need to work on your coping skills.


As to demon summoning taking a lot of time that always happens with a new edition as well. Casualties, saves, and model removal took a long time at the beginning of 6th edition (how soon we forget). With practice the psychic phase should take less time. In fact, I am not sure it does take more time since it is taking the place of their shooting phase and Tzeentch shooting took forever to resolve.

Conjuration is powerful, but it's becomes uncompetitive when spammed. The flaw of the average net list can be summed up with the number 1,030.
4 lvl 3 heralds + Be'Lakor + Fateweaver=1,030 points with stock heralds. It gets even more expensive with gifts or discs of Tzeentch. That leave the rest of the army strapped for points and vulnerable to aggressive armies or alpha strikes.

Without Fateweaver the army is going to suffer average an army wide deamonic instability roll once per tournament and the grimoire will backfire an average of twice per game. Without Be'Lekor the army will only have access to a single telepathy roll from fateweaver unless it wants to give up lvl 3 Tzeentch heralds.

1,030 is prohibitively expensive and ends up crippling the factory. The factory can survive being hobbled early in the game if it's allowed to have Tzeentch units G2G for a 2+ rerollable cover and will roll over any army that is unable to deny it the 2+ rerollable cover save. The problem is tons of armies can deny the 2+ rerollable by closing range fast, barrage, ignore cover, or charging into melee turn 2. The list of hard counters is a mile long.

That being said summoning is really powerful, but needs to be taken in moderation say only 1 or 2 Tzeentch heralds, Fateweaver, and the blue scribes while leaving Be'Lekor out of the list. A balanced list with plenty of soul grinders and other solid units will really benefit from horrors casting cursed earth for a 4+ invo. The balanced list won't summon a lot of units, but it will have enough summoning units to get rid of any and all excess warp charges. 8D6 shots is better than summoning 90 points of deamons, but summoning 90 points of deamons is better if the 8D6 shots are out of range or don't have a good target. Cursed earth and sacrifice are more warp charge efficient than 2D6 shots.

Conjuration is good, but less is more, it doesn't need a ban, and it doesn't need a nerf.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
Would you at least stipulate that what ever the points cost of a unit is, if you add more rules to it, the resulting unit should cost more?

Where were you when Vendettas went from skimmers to flyers in 6th edition or the big rules changes with FMC? The fact is that this always happens with a new edition because when the rules change some units will always get better and some get worse but their points don't change. Snikrott and Wolf Scouts can't assault out of reserves any more in 6th, but did they get a point reduction? I think you need to work on your coping skills.


As to demon summoning taking a lot of time that always happens with a new edition as well. Casualties, saves, and model removal took a long time at the beginning of 6th edition (how soon we forget). With practice the psychic phase should take less time. In fact, I am not sure it does take more time since it is taking the place of their shooting phase and Tzeentch shooting took forever to resolve.

I am not talking about the rules change from edition to edition. I am pointing out how ridiculous it is for the exact same model, in the exact same edition, from the exact same codex entry, getting more rules without a cost increase just because the model happened to be bought for a formation.

The only variable that changes is the special rules. Allowing such things makes the same amount of sense as saying " 4 + 1 = 4" You cannot add to something and end up with the same value.


Also, and this thread has seemed to forget. My initial statements pointed out that I am not saying that any list/ build is or is not broke. What I am saying is that the whole concept of units being added to the game mid-stream seems wrong. Yes it has been around for a while, but never on this scale. Yes I have always opposed this game mechanic, I am simply reaffirming my belief in light of the new changes with 7th Edition. Multiple posters have like to point out "well did you forget about X back in X edition," To address your question, no I have not. I hated it then, I hate it now, and will always hate anything that adds point to an army mid-game.

I played a very good CD player this weekend and won the game, despite his summoning. I agree that the army has a limited return after a certain point for sure and I don't think summoning is a huge game breaker He only summoned 3 units during the game but that is still 270 more points than I ever had to work with. My point still remains, the CD player did not have to be as smart/tactical as I because he had the luxury of just creating units when he needed them. I see summoning units as a cop out. Rather that planning out in advance how to use your limited resources, you get to create stuff as you go when problems arise. Not saying the army plays itself, but it certainly allows someone to cover their weakness in long term planning with a primaris power they can build into their list.

Aside from the free points issue, summoning scoring units mid-game (and specially late game when both armies are depleted) decreases the skill required to insure your units are in position late game, because they can just be pooped out at any point. This does nothing but help less skilled players beat/ compete with skilled players, this is a bad thing last time I checked... Why do we want to encourage this trend?

So you must Hate codex supplements, FOC changing characters, Grand Strategy, and the Space marine codex too right?

Because all of those add rules for no additional cost to the unit.

I.e. a white scars bike squad is the same points as a templar bike squad.

 IK Viper wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
Would you at least stipulate that what ever the points cost of a unit is, if you add more rules to it, the resulting unit should cost more?

Where were you when Vendettas went from skimmers to flyers in 6th edition or the big rules changes with FMC? The fact is that this always happens with a new edition because when the rules change some units will always get better and some get worse but their points don't change. Snikrott and Wolf Scouts can't assault out of reserves any more in 6th, but did they get a point reduction? I think you need to work on your coping skills.


As to demon summoning taking a lot of time that always happens with a new edition as well. Casualties, saves, and model removal took a long time at the beginning of 6th edition (how soon we forget). With practice the psychic phase should take less time. In fact, I am not sure it does take more time since it is taking the place of their shooting phase and Tzeentch shooting took forever to resolve.

I am not talking about the rules change from edition to edition. I am pointing out how ridiculous it is for the exact same model, in the exact same edition, from the exact same codex entry, getting more rules without a cost increase just because the model happened to be bought for a formation.

The only variable that changes is the special rules. Allowing such things makes the same amount of sense as saying " 4 + 1 = 4" You cannot add to something and end up with the same value.


Also, and this thread has seemed to forget. My initial statements pointed out that I am not saying that any list/ build is or is not broke. What I am saying is that the whole concept of units being added to the game mid-stream seems wrong. Yes it has been around for a while, but never on this scale. Yes I have always opposed this game mechanic, I am simply reaffirming my belief in light of the new changes with 7th Edition. Multiple posters have like to point out "well did you forget about X back in X edition," To address your question, no I have not. I hated it then, I hate it now, and will always hate anything that adds point to an army mid-game.

I played a very good CD player this weekend and won the game, despite his summoning. I agree that the army has a limited return after a certain point for sure and I don't think summoning is a huge game breaker He only summoned 3 units during the game but that is still 270 more points than I ever had to work with. My point still remains, the CD player did not have to be as smart/tactical as I because he had the luxury of just creating units when he needed them. I see summoning units as a cop out. Rather that planning out in advance how to use your limited resources, you get to create stuff as you go when problems arise. Not saying the army plays itself, but it certainly allows someone to cover their weakness in long term planning with a primaris power they can build into their list.

Aside from the free points issue, summoning scoring units mid-game (and specially late game when both armies are depleted) decreases the skill required to insure your units are in position late game, because they can just be pooped out at any point. This does nothing but help less skilled players beat/ compete with skilled players, this is a bad thing last time I checked... Why do we want to encourage this trend?

7 power dice have about a 77% chance of passing a psychic test for a WC3 power
2 power dice have about a 75% chance of passing a psychic test for a WC1 power

Those 3 conjuration powers required as much warp charges as 10.5 psychic shrieks.

I would make the argument that attempting to win by summoning 270 points of units is a more skill intensive and difficult rout to victory than just shooting someone in the face with 10.5 psychic shrieks.

Breng77 wrote:
So you must Hate codex supplements, FOC changing characters, Grand Strategy, and the Space marine codex too right?

Because all of those add rules for no additional cost to the unit.

I.e. a white scars bike squad is the same points as a templar bike squad.

did you even read my previous post?

Taking a special character to buff units with rules is pretty standard stuff. It is also an ability that most, if not all armies have in some form or another. Khan being your Warlord gives buff X, Y, and Z to bikes. Dante grants the buff of Objective Secured to Sang. Guard. You buy a Grandmaster to gain Grand Strat. I am sure there are examples, but I am having a hard time coming up with armies that don't have IC's that buff units in this way. Usually these IC's take up a needed HQ slot and their buff should be factored into their unit cost. The so called "tax units," linked to formations are not like this, they have a set cost and set rules THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE FORMATION BUFFS, and then the formation buffs the exact same units for free. The "Harpy Tax," makes you take units that are in theory, already correctly costed within the context of the codex and the greater game of 40k. Your paying the normal points for the unit, therefore it is not a tax, if the Harpy was more expensive, sure, call it a tax because it does in fact cost you more then a normal Harpy out of the codex.

With the bikes example, chapter tactics aside (because each chapter gets their own) the difference is based around the IC, not the bikes themselves.

Not sure how which powers you cast has any bearing on the skill of a player as each situation is different from game to game. What is good in one situation is terrible in another so you can't really judge the "skill" of spell casting in a vacuum. My point is that most generals don't have the extreme luxury of looking across the table on turn 4, thinking "of crap I am running out of troops," and then create more of them. They must plan their game based on finite resources and concern themselves with keeping those resources alive for the whole game instead of popping units out late game. Sure you have to protect your summoning units, but the point remains, no one else gets to pop out new stuff late in the game when both sides are depleted and scrambling for objectives. This is a huge advantage similar to the ever cowardly and laughably cheap/broken Eldar Jetbikes that hide in the back all game safe from fire and then boost forward at the last minute or the Necron turn 5 air drop. It is really powerful to be able to safely hide all your troops unit the end of the game instead of actually fighting with them. Conjurations are yet another means of doing this, skimping on troops, hiding what pitifully cheap troops you did take in the back, in reserves, or now in your carry case, until all the real fighting is over then hopping out and scoring.

Which is why these progressive mission are such a needed thing in 40k right now. Go Go mission catalog. Make people actually fight with their scoring units!

 IK Viper wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So you must Hate codex supplements, FOC changing characters, Grand Strategy, and the Space marine codex too right?

Because all of those add rules for no additional cost to the unit.

I.e. a white scars bike squad is the same points as a templar bike squad.

did you even read my previous post?

Taking a special character to buff units with rules is pretty standard stuff. It is also an ability that most, if not all armies have in some form or another. Khan being your Warlord gives buff X, Y, and Z to bikes. Dante grants the buff of Objective Secured to Sang. Guard. You buy a Grandmaster to gain Grand Strat. I am sure there are examples, but I am having a hard time coming up with armies that don't have IC's that buff units in this way. Usually these IC's take up a needed HQ slot and their buff should be factored into their unit cost. The so called "tax units," linked to formations are not like this, they have a set cost and set rules THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE FORMATION BUFFS, and then the formation buffs the exact same units for free. The "Harpy Tax," makes you take units that are in theory, already correctly costed within the context of the codex and the greater game of 40k. Your paying the normal points for the unit, therefore it is not a tax, if the Harpy was more expensive, sure, call it a tax because it does in fact cost you more then a normal Harpy out of the codex.

With the bikes example, chapter tactics aside (because each chapter gets their own) the difference is based around the IC, not the bikes themselves.

Not sure how which powers you cast has any bearing on the skill of a player as each situation is different from game to game. What is good in one situation is terrible in another so you can't really judge the "skill" of spell casting in a vacuum. My point is that most generals don't have the extreme luxury of looking across the table on turn 4, thinking "of crap I am running out of troops," and then create more of them. They must plan their game based on finite resources and concern themselves with keeping those resources alive for the whole game instead of popping units out late game. Sure you have to protect your summoning units, but the point remains, no one else gets to pop out new stuff late in the game when both sides are depleted and scrambling for objectives. This is a huge advantage similar to the ever cowardly and laughably cheap/broken Eldar Jetbikes that hide in the back all game safe from fire and then boost forward at the last minute or the Necron turn 5 air drop. It is really powerful to be able to safely hide all your troops unit the end of the game instead of actually fighting with them. Conjurations are yet another means of doing this, skimping on troops, hiding what pitifully cheap troops you did take in the back, in reserves, or now in your carry case, until all the real fighting is over then hopping out and scoring.

Which is why these progressive mission are such a needed thing in 40k right now. Go Go mission catalog. Make people actually fight with their scoring units!

Too long, best summed up with the fact you don't like armies that can hide or produce last minute objective snatchers like guardian jetbikes, necrons jumping out of a scythe, and conjured deamons.

The problem in that case isn't conjuration, its objectives only being worth points at the end of the game. If some of the games have objectives that generate points every turn that problem is solved.

 IK Viper wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So you must Hate codex supplements, FOC changing characters, Grand Strategy, and the Space marine codex too right?

Because all of those add rules for no additional cost to the unit.

I.e. a white scars bike squad is the same points as a templar bike squad.

did you even read my previous post?

Taking a special character to buff units with rules is pretty standard stuff. It is also an ability that most, if not all armies have in some form or another. Khan being your Warlord gives buff X, Y, and Z to bikes. Dante grants the buff of Objective Secured to Sang. Guard. You buy a Grandmaster to gain Grand Strat. I am sure there are examples, but I am having a hard time coming up with armies that don't have IC's that buff units in this way. Usually these IC's take up a needed HQ slot and their buff should be factored into their unit cost. The so called "tax units," linked to formations are not like this, they have a set cost and set rules THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE FORMATION BUFFS, and then the formation buffs the exact same units for free. The "Harpy Tax," makes you take units that are in theory, already correctly costed within the context of the codex and the greater game of 40k. Your paying the normal points for the unit, therefore it is not a tax, if the Harpy was more expensive, sure, call it a tax because it does in fact cost you more then a normal Harpy out of the codex.

With the bikes example, chapter tactics aside (because each chapter gets their own) the difference is based around the IC, not the bikes themselves.

Not sure how which powers you cast has any bearing on the skill of a player as each situation is different from game to game. What is good in one situation is terrible in another so you can't really judge the "skill" of spell casting in a vacuum. My point is that most generals don't have the extreme luxury of looking across the table on turn 4, thinking "of crap I am running out of troops," and then create more of them. They must plan their game based on finite resources and concern themselves with keeping those resources alive for the whole game instead of popping units out late game. Sure you have to protect your summoning units, but the point remains, no one else gets to pop out new stuff late in the game when both sides are depleted and scrambling for objectives. This is a huge advantage similar to the ever cowardly and laughably cheap/broken Eldar Jetbikes that hide in the back all game safe from fire and then boost forward at the last minute or the Necron turn 5 air drop. It is really powerful to be able to safely hide all your troops unit the end of the game instead of actually fighting with them. Conjurations are yet another means of doing this, skimping on troops, hiding what pitifully cheap troops you did take in the back, in reserves, or now in your carry case, until all the real fighting is over then hopping out and scoring.

Which is why these progressive mission are such a needed thing in 40k right now. Go Go mission catalog. Make people actually fight with their scoring units!

Do you read what you are saying?

So taking an IC to give x unit objective secured, is ok but needing to take 2 harpies and a crone is not? Chapter tactic are ok because it's the same codex, but I get free special rules for no points (presumably not all special rules are equal.). You have a giant double standard about what is ok an what is bad. Ok = things that have been going on for a while. New = bad..

I love asymmetrical missions, but they don't stop last turn grabs, they just force more strategy into doing them. As for stuff popping out last turn, sure, other armies pop things out of transports which add durability to units,, or keeps them hidden, some other armies (nids, crons) can generate units/models.

 IK Viper wrote:

I played a very good CD player this weekend and won the game, despite his summoning.

I thought that this was funny. That is how good you are that you are able to beat a good player using broken rules eh?

You still not not realize that the summoning player is using valuable resources to summon demons. All of those warp charges are not being used for anything other than to summon demons.

Again, summoning takes the place of shooting. If he is summoning he is not shooting. I find if funny that you are ok with him using his warp charges to shoot you off of your objectives, but you do not like him summoning units to claim his own.

it comes down to you not liking units that are created mid-game other than the fact that you just don't like it. Do you know what I do not like? I do not like that Wave Serpents can only be glanced with the Serpent Shield. I do not like Fortune, I do not like Necrons that can move 24" and be able to disembark on objectives. I could go on, but most armies have rules unique to them that everyone has to deal with.

 IK Viper wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So you must Hate codex supplements, FOC changing characters, Grand Strategy, and the Space marine codex too right?

Because all of those add rules for no additional cost to the unit.

I.e. a white scars bike squad is the same points as a templar bike squad.

did you even read my previous post?

Taking a special character to buff units with rules is pretty standard stuff. It is also an ability that most, if not all armies have in some form or another. Khan being your Warlord gives buff X, Y, and Z to bikes. Dante grants the buff of Objective Secured to Sang. Guard. You buy a Grandmaster to gain Grand Strat. I am sure there are examples, but I am having a hard time coming up with armies that don't have IC's that buff units in this way. Usually these IC's take up a needed HQ slot and their buff should be factored into their unit cost. The so called "tax units," linked to formations are not like this, they have a set cost and set rules THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE FORMATION BUFFS, and then the formation buffs the exact same units for free. The "Harpy Tax," makes you take units that are in theory, already correctly costed within the context of the codex and the greater game of 40k. Your paying the normal points for the unit, therefore it is not a tax, if the Harpy was more expensive, sure, call it a tax because it does in fact cost you more then a normal Harpy out of the codex.

The problem with buffs to various units is when/where the points are paid, and how can they possibly be balanced all the time no matter what you're buffing.

For example, where do Assault Squads pay their chapter tactics points? They get nothing under eg Imperial Fists, but buffs under Ultramarines. ARe they costed correctly for Imperial Fists or for Ultramarines?
Or a blessing, Say Endurance. This blessing is worth a lot more if you cast it on a large squad or an already durable squad. If I paid 100pts for the psyker, does that mean the blessing is worth 100pts no matter if I cast it on the lone psyker himself or a unit of 10 paladins?
Or a Tau buff commander. His Tank Hunter ability is worth a lot more if he joins a unit of Broadsides, than a unit of fire warriors, and more in a unit of 3 broadsides than a unit of 1. In both cases the points cost is the same. Does that mean the broadsides already have inflated points cost just in case the commander joins them??

Some buffs, and especially multiple stacking buffs, can quickly become too extremely points efficient. A very simple example is re-rolling saves. A unit with a re-rollable 2+ invulnerable can eat six times the amount of wound as a unit with only a 2++, but does not cost anywhere near 6 times the amount of points. Is giving that unit the re-roll really significantly different than instead summoning additional models in to the unit?

Not sure how which powers you cast has any bearing on the skill of a player as each situation is different from game to game. What is good in one situation is terrible in another so you can't really judge the "skill" of spell casting in a vacuum. My point is that most generals don't have the extreme luxury of looking across the table on turn 4, thinking "of crap I am running out of troops," and then create more of them. They must plan their game based on finite resources and concern themselves with keeping those resources alive for the whole game instead of popping units out late game. Sure you have to protect your summoning units, but the point remains, no one else gets to pop out new stuff late in the game when both sides are depleted and scrambling for objectives. This is a huge advantage similar to the ever cowardly and laughably cheap/broken Eldar Jetbikes that hide in the back all game safe from fire and then boost forward at the last minute or the Necron turn 5 air drop. It is really powerful to be able to safely hide all your troops unit the end of the game instead of actually fighting with them. Conjurations are yet another means of doing this, skimping on troops, hiding what pitifully cheap troops you did take in the back, in reserves, or now in your carry case, until all the real fighting is over then hopping out and scoring.

The Daemon summoning army has at least 50% of its points tied up in 3 T3 5++ save units. These are the resources for the Daemon general that he must focus on keeping alive. They have no offensive capability on the first turn, probably not much on the second turn. Any dice they spend creating offensive units are dice not spent creating more summoning power, so if they DO try to create some offence on the first turn you can take out their summoners; and if they do create summoners you're safe another turn of damage. The majority of increases in casting power come from summoning a W2 T3 5++ model that can't join a unit until the next turn - something a combat squad of space marines should be able to pick off easily. The Daemon player can't hide his troops (at least, not his Objective Secured ones) as these must be on the board turn 1 to summon.

If the Daemon army is depleted, they stop summoning. Every warp charge is precious; and they need at least 20 warp charges to maintain even a chance of summoning and getting the other buffs they need. Even 20 is low - that's only 2 attempts at WC3 spells. To have a decent chance of getting new units on the board, they need 6-8 dice to cast (2 Tzeralds and 2 units of horrors), which can still fail or perils. Or they might not even have a unit on the board that still has a summoning spell, if you're smart with targeting.

Which is why these progressive mission are such a needed thing in 40k right now. Go Go mission catalog. Make people actually fight with their scoring units!

What do Daemons bring to the table in their troops slots?
Daemonettes and Bloodletters: T3 5+ save combat troops
Pink Horrors: without undue psychic spam, they effectively have a single heavy bolter.
Plaguebearers: T4 5+ save combat troops that are slow.
Some armies just don't have troops that can win games.

If you have frail troop units, not that I would consider a Shrouded unit in cover, or a potentially Grimmed up unit of PH or an Invisible Daemonette unit frail, do what most armies do... bring more of them, They are cheap for a reason and you get what you pay for.

Everything scores now any way so this is not nearly as big an issue as it was in the past though.

I do not oppose new stuff simply on principle, I honestly believe that it makes and already unbalanced game even more unbalanced when more and more rules/abilities are added into the game that allow one army to do things no one else can do. How can anyone balance a game where each army does not operate with similar sets of tools?

Skyblight is apparently completely fair and reasonable, I am way, way, off the mark, but for some reason every high placing Nid player I know uses Skyblight in every event they can. It is hard to argue with the results, and by purchasing a $5 download the Nids are magically a lot better. It surely has nothing to do with the powerful new rules/ FOG slots they gain from the formation.

Forget the Nids, all Nid players feel under privileged because they did not get an Eldar Broke codex so they universally whine when formations are not allowed because they feel that GW owes them. How many other armies with a 6th Ed Codex are stuck without formations to catapult their power level? Why is it fair for Nids to have Formations to boost them but SoB, DA, CSM are stuck with useless or generic formations that other, stronger armies can take as well. Is that fair? If every army had a "Skyblight equivalent," then sure, allow all formations, because each army has equal access to free rules at no cost but right now that is not the case.

Lets look at the Tau Firebase. What "tax" is being paid to gain Tank Hunter for free? What terrible unit are the Tau forced to take that makes it reasonable for them to pay the same points for their Broadsides and Riptides, and now gain one of the most powerful shooting USR's in the game. Hell, why not give them Ignores Cover too... After all, who really thinks that you should pay points for such useful buffs, specially now that the Buffmander can't join a Riptide.

Do you honestly not see the core problem with formations? They offer more rules, at no cost, and the formation love has not been evenly distributed across all armies. Until each army has access to similarly broken formations, they have no place in competitive play. This is essentially the same argument that has been used to oppose Forgeworld for years.

 IK Viper wrote:
Skyblight is apparently completely fair and reasonable, I am way, way, off the mark, but for some reason every high placing Nid player I know uses Skyblight in every event they can. It is hard to argue with the results, and by purchasing a $5 download the Nids are magically a lot better. It surely has nothing to do with the powerful new rules/ FOG slots they gain from the formation.

It absolutely does. That's not the point - it takes a codex from mediocre to competitive, but that doesn't mean Skyblight is bad. The downside to it is of you can handle FMCs, Skyblight will lose.

If every army had a "Skyblight equivalent," then sure, allow all formations, because each army has equal access to free rules at no cost but right now that is not the case.

So when did you move from "Conjuration" to "Skyblight is the deevil"?

Lets look at the Tau Firebase. What "tax" is being paid to gain Tank Hunter for free? What terrible unit are the Tau forced to take that makes it reasonable for them to pay the same points for their Broadsides and Riptides, and now gain one of the most powerful shooting USR's in the game. Hell, why not give them Ignores Cover too... After all, who really thinks that you should pay points for such useful buffs, specially now that the Buffmander can't join a Riptide.

The Tau Firebase is a crap Formation - it's overpowered. I absolutely agree.

Do you honestly not see the core problem with formations? They offer more rules, at no cost, and the formation love has not been evenly distributed across all armies. Until each army has access to similarly broken formations, they have no place in competitive play. This is essentially the same argument that has been used to oppose Forgeworld for years.

There is a cost to many Formations... I noticed you didn't complain at all about the Helbrute ones, or the Nid Artillery one...

What do you expect me to do? Create an exhaustive list of all the things I disagree with in 40k? How is the fact that I have not mentioned these formations relevant when there are obviously other formations at are more powerful and widely used.

 IK Viper wrote:
What do you expect me to do? Create an exhaustive list of all the things I disagree with in 40k? How is the fact that I have not mentioned these formations relevant when there are obviously other formations at are more powerful and widely used.

Because it shows it's not the formations you hate, it's the power granted by those formations.
So it's not a, quote, "core problem with formations", it's a problem you have with some formations.

More or less you argue that its "Unfair that Nids get access to the powerful Skyplight Formation" Should we write a list of powerful things other books have access to that nids don't? Allies (other than CTA), Book Psychic powers, Vehicles, Wave Serpents, codex supplements, AP 1 weapons (do they have any I don't recall but I'm pretty sure they don't)....The point is simply this the game is unbalanced at its core, so unless you want to tear down the whole game and write a new one, accept what is out there a little more.

Somehow it seems "fair" to you that Eldar get super powerful units in their codex, but nids don't but have access to a power-up through a formation.

Your argument is flawed on many levels.

1.) Not all codices are equal, so if this is true why does it matter why they are not?

2.) Even the Powerful Tau formation pays a price in opportunity cost (sure it is composed of powerful units, and is over powered, but so are other things in the game.), in that it limits what other units you can take because you run out of points. This assumption that you need to take a terrible unit as cost is false, Draigo is hardly terrible, Azreal = not terrible, Chaptermaster on bike to unlock bikes etc. The cost is not "I buy this terrible unit" its "I cannot buy something else because I spent points on x."

3.) It makes an assumption that codices were written with balance in mind.

Breng77 wrote:
AP 1 weapons (do they have any I don't recall but I'm pretty sure they don't)

Nope. Our only AP1 (Warp Lance) was nerfed with the new codex.
And now that I say that I'm not sure it was AP1 in the old codex - I never ran Zoeys.

2.) Even the Powerful Tau formation pays a price in opportunity cost (sure it is composed of powerful units, and is over powered, but so are other things in the game.), in that it limits what other units you can take because you run out of points. This assumption that you need to take a terrible unit as cost is false, Draigo is hardly terrible, Azreal = not terrible, Chaptermaster on bike to unlock bikes etc. The cost is not "I buy this terrible unit" its "I cannot buy something else because I spent points on x."

That's only true if you weren't going to take those units in the first place.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the Broadsides and a Riptide?

A codex contains all the rules for a given army. That is the golden standard for what those units should cost. Is it not reasonable to make every one play out of their codex until and unless everyone has access to formations tailor made for them?

Some formations are not as bad as others, but that is not the point, Codexes should not require a formation/ dataslate to be competitive. Formations (all of them) are at their core a GW money grab that generate sales by offering new rules abilities for units. If these rules/ abilities were intended for the core codex, they should have been in there. If these formations were play tested and points correctly they should be in the codex. If every codex gets formations of roughly the same power then sure, play with them. As it stands, formations are great for casual play, but not in a competitive environment where equality, or as near equality as we can achieve, is important. Play what is in your book and be happy, until everyone has formations of equal power. That is what all the other 6th Ed. codexes do and many of them are weaker then Nids without formations. Examples include: SoB, DA, non-beast pack/Eldar side kick DE (in relation to the Meta, though they do well against Nids head to head by nature of Poison weapons), CSM.

The one constant in 40k is that each army has a codex. All the other bolt on supplements and add-ons are a craps shoot at best. Forgeworld, Escalation, Dataslates, Formations, and Supplement Codexes are all over the place. Some armies benefit greatly, others benefit not at all. There is not even an attempt to fairly represent each army in these add-ons. Without equal distribution how/why would we allow these in competitive events?

Note: I have left out Stronghold Assault on purpose because each army except Nids has access to these rules. I think that Stronghold could be allowed in tournaments fairly, so long as[u] Nids are allowed to use them in the same way the other armies in the game do. That way every army has equal access.

Except Codex has not been the gold standard for an army since the start of 6th ed. For a long time now it has been codex + supplement + ally + fortification.....

Why is it ok for a codex to be very powerful (and likely not play tested) and a Codex + formation not to be?

Why is it ok for some codices to have more units than others?

Why are wave serpents ok, but skyblight nids not, other than the money grab aspect of formations?

Why are allies accepted as OK but formations are bad?

You continue to make some sort of assumption that codex units are costed appropriately (they're not) and balanced (they're not).

If we are concerned about equal distribution why do we allow vehicles in competitive events? Not every army has equal access to vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That's only true if you weren't going to take those units in the first place.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the Broadsides and a Riptide?

I have seen many Tau armies without 2 Broadside teams (which are required). It is certainly less taxing than other formations, but it still limits your options in your army build.

 IK Viper wrote:
A codex contains all the rules for a given army. That is the golden standard for what those units should cost. Is it not reasonable to make every one play out of their codex until and unless everyone has access to formations tailor made for them?

Why do they have to be tailor made? You seem to be moving from a theoretical opposition to all Formations to a opposition only to the ones that "matter"

Some formations are not as bad as others, but that is not the point, Codexes should not require a formation/ dataslate to be competitive.

Agreed. That's demonstrably not the case so I'm not sure why you're tilting at that windmill.

If every codex gets formations of roughly the same power then sure, play with them.

What codex doesn't have access to the Tau Firebase?

Note: I have left out Stronghold Assault on purpose because each army except Nids has access to these rules. I think that Stronghold could be allowed in tournaments fairly, so long as[u] Nids are allowed to use them in the same way the other armies in the game do. That way every army has equal access.

There are no rules forbidding Nids from using SA. Not even forbidding Nids from shooting emplaced weapons (anymore).

Why is this so hard?

Each army has a codex, each army has access to fortification. The codicies are (in theory) play tested and point costed appropriately.

I am not saying that I agree with how units are costed, there are an almost endless list of example of both over and under costed units and GW is to blame for their failings in this departments.

What I am driving at is the simple idea that in competitive game, each army needs equal resources to draw from.

Every army has a codex so use that to build an army with.

Each army can use all the fortifications now so include that in competitive play.

Anything else that is not EQUALLY available to every army, only serves to imbalance the game further than what the inherent codex based differences are.

I am ok with armies being better at one thing and worse at others, specialization gives us variety, instead of playing really expensive, complicated chess. But there is a vast difference between specialization, and out right breaking the rules and doing something no one else can. aka create units, teleport in out of a flyer with laser accuracy and not actually be there, rally and act as moral when falling back, etc.

Allies is widely accepted in the 40k world and I know this would never fly, but allies are another part of the game that is not equally distributed. I would be fine with tournaments events being "no allies" as it again brings the game back toward a state where everyone has equal access to all tools needed to compete. (Yes I realize this would hamper many weaker armies, please don't blast me with this fact, it is obvious to everyone, I am just stating that in order to have fair competition everyone needs the same restrictions)

 IK Viper wrote:
Why is this so hard?

Each army has a codex, each army has access to fortification. The codicies are (in theory) play tested and point costed appropriately.

It's "so hard" because you keep trotting this out as if it's true. It's demonstrably not.

What I am driving at is the simple idea that in competitive game, each army needs equal resources to draw from.

Every army has a codex so use that to build an army with.

Each army can use all the fortifications now so include that in competitive play.

Anything else that is not EQUALLY available to every army, only serves to imbalance the game further than what the inherent codex based differences are.

Again, what codex doesn't have access to the Tau Firebase? Or Skyblight?

Essentially what rigeld said. The thought that codices are playtested and appropriately costed is a false premise, so using it as the basis for your argument is where you fall apart.

Your notion that all armies have equal resources is incorrect unless you allow allies, and formations etc. If not than Sisters have far fewer resources than say eldar (there are fewer units in their codex, and most of those units are fairly similar).

You could argue that use of formations and allies, blances the game more than the inherent codex based difference. i.e. Skyblight Nids stand a chance against eldar, which they don't really otherwise.

 IK Viper wrote:

Some formations are not as bad as others, but that is not the point, Codexes should not require a formation/ dataslate to be competitive.

But this is simply not the case. Some codexes are just bad and need something to put them on par with the top tier codexes.

GW prefers to write codexes that, in theory, are "fluffy" and allow you to create armies that match the 40K universe. However, this translates to some codexes simply lacking the firepower or durability to match other codexes. And, in other cases, allows players to make combinations that simply make it impossible to lose, especially if they go first.

If you want a more balanced game, go try Warmachine. However, if you want to play competitive 40k, expect rulings by TOs to level the playing field. You may agree with some. You may disagree with others.

Heck - remember that in 7th CtA allies can be in the same army. And there's not a huge penalty for doing so (over what Desperate Allies already is).

So literally every army has access to literally every formation. Literally every army has access to literally every model in the game.

Crying about some having access and some not is being willfully incorrect.

If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.


Maybe I am not aware of the force org requirements for Formation as I have only skimmed it once, knowing that I would never use them but surely there is at least some requirement that you be Convenient Allis to use a formation right? Has the game really gone that far that you can literally pull in what ever you want, from where ever you want in a Battle Forged list? And if so, does this not seem really silly, like you said, there is very,very little difference between Desprate and Apoc. allies. There is basically no structure/ usefulness at all to the Allies Matrix to begin with unless your BB's, I was at least hoping there was some restrictions governing formations.

Why even bother with classifying things into codexes and force org slots at this point? Why not just publish one big book with all the units in the game in it and say "take whatever you want, but make sure you have an HQ and 2 troops, " (this is Battle Forged) or "take what ever, just have an HQ," this is Unbound.

Unbound would sadly create a balanced game since every one can take everything, but at that point what army you play/ all the fluff and flavor of each army, becomes basically worthless. 40k becomes one homogenous mass of unit entries that you mash together into a combat force.

At that point, he/she who cherry picks best, stands the best chance of winning, but at least we are all cooking with the same ingredients.

To me you either need to limit everyone to their codex and fortifications, or go completely unbound. Either of these if closer to actual balance in 40k than what we have now. Problem is, we all like to build/ play/ and be proud of our armies and Unbound undermines that. So the other option is sticking strictly to the codex and Stronghold.

All these suggestions are very extreme and quite harsh, but it makes much more sense then the "GW giveth and taketh away," approach where GW picks which armies rise and fall in power in order to sell the newest models/ army and we simply accept everything they pump out without question.

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

How is list building not a player skill?

And when literally everyone has access to literally every unit in every codex how is that not balanced?

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

Should be and ARE, unfortunately are not the same. If you think this has been the case for 40k you have been wrong going on at least 3 editions now. List building is one of the largest parts of the game right now. If you want another type of competition you need to seek it elsewhere. I have no illusions about things being equal and decided purely on skill. I have illusions that I can play enjoyable games against other skilled players, and that sometimes things just aren't fair.

Just the way things are, but railing on about what is SUPPOSED to be the case, doesn't make it the case, and banning allies, formations, data slates, Forgeworld, Lords of War, Warp charges, or anything else isn't going to change this. In fact I would argue going to "one codex only" would only amplify some of the issues in the current game. Right now what needs to be looked at is making the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, if you want balanced, unfortuantely nothing you can do short of rewriting a lot of the game will achieve that.

Breng77 wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

Should be and ARE, unfortunately are not the same. If you think this has been the case for 40k you have been wrong going on at least 3 editions now. List building is one of the largest parts of the game right now. If you want another type of competition you need to seek it elsewhere. I have no illusions about things being equal and decided purely on skill. I have illusions that I can play enjoyable games against other skilled players, and that sometimes things just aren't fair.

Just the way things are, but railing on about what is SUPPOSED to be the case, doesn't make it the case, and banning allies, formations, data slates, Forgeworld, Lords of War, Warp charges, or anything else isn't going to change this. In fact I would argue going to "one codex only" would only amplify some of the issues in the current game. Right now what needs to be looked at is making the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, if you want balanced, unfortunately nothing you can do short of rewriting a lot of the game will achieve that.

Sounds like you agree with me in that 40k in it's current state is not balanced. The logical response to a video game imbalance is a Patch. Some times the game dev. team won't patch the game or goes out of business. Sound familiar to anyone who has played DoW 2? So what did the competitive community do? ELITE MOD. Which has been revisited and redone many, many times, and will never be a perfectly balanced game, but by the same token, has become the widely accepted form of the game for competitive play. If they can do it, why not 40K? ELITE mod is way better than the retail game in terms of game balance because it is done by people that actually play the game and have no financial stake in game sales.

What is the 40k analog of the DoW2 ELITE mod? Community implemented comp, targeted at balancing the game. But before anyone can take up the task of trying to change the game via comp. we as a community need to first see the problem and acknowledge that a "Patch" is needed. Rather then accepting and assimilating everything GW gives us in to competitive play. Formations, Dataslates, Supplements, etc. are all essentially DLC that GW is pumping out and most of it is ok, some of it is utter garbage and we the discerning community need to either make it a point to filter the good from the bad, or if not filter them, at least stop all of these analog DLC products GW is pushing on the community. After all Exterminatus is the only way to be sure...

 IK Viper wrote:
What is the 40k analog of the DoW2 ELITE mod? Community implemented comp, targeted at balancing the game. But before anyone can take up the task of trying to change the game via comp. we as a community need to first see the problem and acknowledge that a "Patch" is needed. Rather then accepting and assimilating everything GW gives us in to competitive play. Formations, Dataslates, Supplements, etc. are all essentially DLC that GW is pumping out and most of it is ok, some of it is utter garbage and we the discerning community need to either make it a point to filter the good from the bad, or if not filter them, at least stop all of these analog DLC products GW is pushing on the community. After all Exterminatus is the only way to be sure...

Tell me - what major tournaments have played 7th edition yet? Zero.
So other than assuming, how do we know what problems are going to exist? We don't.
I'm not saying there won't be problems - there will. But you're making some wild accusations and assumptions here.
And what does any of that have to do with your original premise?

 IK Viper wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

Should be and ARE, unfortunately are not the same. If you think this has been the case for 40k you have been wrong going on at least 3 editions now. List building is one of the largest parts of the game right now. If you want another type of competition you need to seek it elsewhere. I have no illusions about things being equal and decided purely on skill. I have illusions that I can play enjoyable games against other skilled players, and that sometimes things just aren't fair.

Just the way things are, but railing on about what is SUPPOSED to be the case, doesn't make it the case, and banning allies, formations, data slates, Forgeworld, Lords of War, Warp charges, or anything else isn't going to change this. In fact I would argue going to "one codex only" would only amplify some of the issues in the current game. Right now what needs to be looked at is making the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, if you want balanced, unfortunately nothing you can do short of rewriting a lot of the game will achieve that.

Sounds like you agree with me in that 40k in it's current state is not balanced. The logical response to a video game imbalance is a Patch. Some times the game dev. team won't patch the game or goes out of business. Sound familiar to anyone who has played DoW 2? So what did the competitive community do? ELITE MOD. Which has been revisited and redone many, many times, and will never be a perfectly balanced game, but by the same token, has become the widely accepted form of the game for competitive play. If they can do it, why not 40K? ELITE mod is way better than the retail game in terms of game balance because it is done by people that actually play the game and have no financial stake in game sales.

What is the 40k analog of the DoW2 ELITE mod? Community implemented comp, targeted at balancing the game. But before anyone can take up the task of trying to change the game via comp. we as a community need to first see the problem and acknowledge that a "Patch" is needed. Rather then accepting and assimilating everything GW gives us in to competitive play. Formations, Dataslates, Supplements, etc. are all essentially DLC that GW is pumping out and most of it is ok, some of it is utter garbage and we the discerning community need to either make it a point to filter the good from the bad, or if not filter them, at least stop all of these analog DLC products GW is pushing on the community. After all Exterminatus is the only way to be sure...

I agree with you that the game is not balanced....where I disagree is the method you think will "balance it", I agree we could patch, if the community could agree, but I think there are things in codices/core rules that need patching more than Conjuration, more than Formations, more than Data Slates. Why am I patching Skyblight (arguably a patch that allows nids to compete), by removing it and saying...hey those wave serpents they're ok. Oh those conjuration powers, need to ban them, but 2++ re-rolls are ok. Invisibility...gotta change that one, but Fortune, we can leave that alone.

I think the game needs a near wholesale rewrite in many aspects, that we just are not going to see.

Also we lack playtesting to determine "broken" yet, how many years/games did it take before Elite MOD was put out? I'm guessing more than one month.

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
AP 1 weapons (do they have any I don't recall but I'm pretty sure they don't)

Nope. Our only AP1 (Warp Lance) was nerfed with the new codex.
And now that I say that I'm not sure it was AP1 in the old codex - I never ran Zoeys.

2.) Even the Powerful Tau formation pays a price in opportunity cost (sure it is composed of powerful units, and is over powered, but so are other things in the game.), in that it limits what other units you can take because you run out of points. This assumption that you need to take a terrible unit as cost is false, Draigo is hardly terrible, Azreal = not terrible, Chaptermaster on bike to unlock bikes etc. The cost is not "I buy this terrible unit" its "I cannot buy something else because I spent points on x."

That's only true if you weren't going to take those units in the first place.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the Broadsides and a Riptide?

What does this have to do with the original post?

The conversation has gone from gaining mid-game units to formations, to whether or not 1 point in fact is equal to another point. There appears to be a collective feeling that summoning units if fine, that Formations are fine, and that nothing needs to be done, while at the same time basically everyone on this thread has agreed with me and said that 40k out of the box in NOT balanced. Yet no one but me is advocating any sort of action to correct the issue.

My initial post was aimed at getting people to consider not just "oh look what a cool new trick I can do with my CD's," but to look at the entire game and see if we really want more units being created mid-game in 40k. Is this type of thing healthy for the game from a competitive standpoint? I was hoping to convince people that points do in fact count for something and that creating more in the middle of the game is not ok. It has never been ok, but in typical GW addict fashion we as a community have allowed this stuff in the game since 3rd ed. and it is getting to the point that if we do not step up and stop this trend, it will only get worse as GW more aggressively attempts to render the game into a children's bedroom pass time. The link between the points you bring to the table, and the effectiveness of your army is getting looser and looser. Some armies can easily create more points in game while others cannot. Some armies can take formations and gains more useful special rules, and others cannot. Where does it stop?

The only way for it to ever stop is with community involvement. Hence the ELITE Mod example.
No action, and no complaint against the status quo = you approve of what GW is doing.

Also: No action, no complaining, or thoughtlessly embracing everything GW puts out without evaluating if these new things are good not just for you, but the game as a whole = approving of what GW is doing, or at the very least being selfish because you are only concerned about the power of your own army.

And we have all collectively established that GW has published an unbalanced game so none of use should be approving of what they are doing right?

You do realize only one army (without allies) is incapable of creating new units, and all fo them can take formations. You are also the only one arguing that it needs to stop. Like I said a ton of other stuff IMO needs fixing before I feel the need to address what you are concerned with.

 IK Viper wrote:
The conversation has gone from gaining mid-game units to formations, to whether or not 1 point in fact is equal to another point. There appears to be a collective feeling that summoning units if fine, that Formations are fine, and that nothing needs to be done, while at the same time basically everyone on this thread has agreed with me and said that 40k out of the box in NOT balanced. Yet no one but me is advocating any sort of action to correct the issue.

Because we have no real evidence that there's a problem with any one thing - or what that problem is. Banning/"comping" before you even know what problems exist is just dumb.

I was hoping to convince people that points do in fact count for something and that creating more in the middle of the game is not ok. It has never been ok, but in typical GW addict fashion we as a community have allowed this stuff in the game since 3rd ed. and it is getting to the point that if we do not step up and stop this trend, it will only get worse as GW more aggressively attempts to render the game into a children's bedroom pass time.

I have a 1000 point unit that does nothing on its own, but creates a Hive Tyrant per turn.
Creating units is fine as long as the creating unit is costed with the expectation that it will create units. (in other words, the 5th ed. Tervigon was too cheap, the 6th edition one is slightly too expensive).

Some armies can easily create more points in game while others cannot.

I assume (from your other sentences) that by armies you mean codexes.
This might be true, but is irrelevant.

Some armies can take formations and gains more useful special rules, and others cannot.

This is completely wrong. Have you read the new allies rules?

The only way for it to ever stop is with community involvement.

If there's a problem, sure. But how do you know that what you're bringing up is an actual problem?

Breng77 wrote:
You do realize only one army (without allies) is incapable of creating new units, and all fo them can take formations. You are also the only one arguing that it needs to stop. Like I said a ton of other stuff IMO needs fixing before I feel the need to address what you are concerned with.

I am assuming you are referring to the fact that all but GK can use Malific.

How many armies have Warp charge to actually use those powers? Never mind the fluff heresy involved.

rigeld2 => besides nit picking my statements, what is YOUR point, what is your suggestion to fix 40k. Do you not want/expect a game where 1 point of Eldar = 1 point of Sisters? We are paying customers who have a right to expect a game that offers a variety of equally powerful armies. The balance will never be exact, but certainly we should expect better than what we now have? Formations may be GW's way of "fixing" Nids, but if that were the case they have neglected many other armies along the way. I am a paying customer and I have a right to expect a consistent, quality product every time, and if GW is going to create content to help one race, they should do it for every race or not at all.

I for one am leery of the "wait and see" approach because people get used to playing the game one way (regardless of how broken something is or is not) and changing the way they paly after a few months is not going to be easy, much cleaner for the community to act now and limit the spread of this renewable resource cancer that is spreading through 40k.

BTW: when I say "create a formation for each army," I do NOT mean, just allow every army to ally in that formation. I mean GW should create an equally powerful formation for each army. Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete.

The issue is what you are suggesting does not ammount to 1 point of Eldar = 1 Point of Sisters.

What you are suggesting causes fewer armies to rise to the top and thus makes the game more imbalanced. I just don't understand the "Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete. " train of thought. So nids should not get to use official rules that improve their book because other codices don't yet have these rules?

SO you would prefer Eldar Dominaton, followed by maybe GK, Daemons, Tau, SM, AM...then have a bunch of bottom tier armies like BA, DA, Nids and Sisters. Rather than throwing in some rules and having a smaller bottom tier of BA, DA, Sisters (all assuming no allies, because guess what all those armies other than nids get that nids don't: battle Brothers.) and raising nids up the ladder.

In fact one could argue that Battle Brothers is the things that those other armies have that makes them higher tier than they would otherwise be.

 IK Viper wrote:
rigeld2 => besides nit picking my statements, what is YOUR point, what is your suggestion to fix 40k.

Aside from armchair generaling, prove it's broken.
Now, before you get all uppity about that statement, remember that small metas are going to shake out differently from large tournaments. We have literally zero knowledge of what's going to rule the tables at 7th edition tournaments. We can make educated guesses (ie - Sisters won't be up there) but preemtively banning/buffing things because they seem good is silly.
Want an example?

Vehicles just got significantly better. So what needs to go up in number for competitive armies? Anti-Armor weapons. Eldar Wave Serpents were at the top of the power curve before, mainly because of the Serpent Shield and the fact that Anti-Armor weapons weren't as prevalent. Maybe - just maybe - more anti-armor will equal out the power of Wave Serpents. (They can't fire the shield because they need it for the 2+ "save" so it's truly a survivability vs damage scenario) We won't know how that shakes out for at least a couple of major events.

Do you not want/expect a game where 1 point of Eldar = 1 point of Sisters? We are paying customers who have a right to expect a game that offers a variety of equally powerful armies. The balance will never be exact, but certainly we should expect better than what we now have? Formations may be GW's way of "fixing" Nids, but if that were the case they have neglected many other armies along the way. I am a paying customer and I have a right to expect a consistent, quality product every time, and if GW is going to create content to help one race, they should do it for every race or not at all.

You sure do. I'm not saying you shouldn't expect it. You can only expect it from GW so many times before I start to quote the definition of insanity at you (repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result)

I'm not telling you to play a different game - there's hundreds of reasons not to. But expecting GW to publish a balanced and well written rule set is, at this point, insane.

BTW: when I say "create a formation for each army," I do NOT mean, just allow every army to ally in that formation. I mean GW should create an equally powerful formation for each army. Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete.

So allies should be ignored when discussing balance? Yeah - no. That's not how you actually balance things. You need to look at all options - and allies is an option.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is what you are suggesting does not ammount to 1 point of Eldar = 1 Point of Sisters.

What you are suggesting causes fewer armies to rise to the top and thus makes the game more imbalanced. I just don't understand the "Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete. " train of thought. So nids should not get to use official rules that improve their book because other codices don't yet have these rules?

SO you would prefer Eldar Dominaton, followed by maybe GK, Daemons, Tau, SM, AM...then have a bunch of bottom tier armies like BA, DA, Nids and Sisters. Rather than throwing in some rules and having a smaller bottom tier of BA, DA, Sisters (all assuming no allies, because guess what all those armies other than nids get that nids don't: battle Brothers.) and raising nids up the ladder.

In fact one could argue that Battle Brothers is the things that those other armies have that makes them higher tier than they would otherwise be.

Except that in your list of bottom tier armies, 3 of the 4 are battle brothers with three of the top tier armies, so it isnt necessarily battle brothers that are the problem so much as the ability for things to interact.

Even then I am not seeing many that are really bad. Most of the assumed top tier armies right now actually work the best running as a solo book, or with minimal allies. Allies just help the other books be propped up a bit.

As has been said by many a TO, conjuration powers will solve themselves. They are not conductive to a tournament setting, they are not going to win for a variety of reasons. If they are not going to win then they are not likely to be played often and will sort themselves out IMO.

rigeld2: the difference between a formation and an ally, is that an allied detachment is derived from another codex, using units that are points costed according to that dex, and limited to the rules that unit was initially costed for. I have a problem with things that alter/ enhance units from an existing codex.

For example:
You can ally in a tactical squad all day, but you have no right to ally in a tactical squad with FNP and Deepstrike at the same cost as the original squad.

In relation to Nids:

There is no reason you can't do double force org now and take roughly the same units as the Skyblight formation. That is completely fine, just don't ask for extra rules on top of the existing units and not expect to have to pay more for said units.

Tau Empire can't generate new allies and can't use Malefic Daemonology or any Psychic powers at all without allies.

And they don't Battle Brothers ally to ANY psykers, so they can't even benefit peripherally from most powers.

Just as an FYI. GK aren't the only ones who can't spawn additional mobs.

 Kriswall wrote:
Tau Empire can't generate new allies and can't use Malefic Daemonology or any Psychic powers at all without allies.

And they don't Battle Brothers ally to ANY psykers, so they can't even benefit peripherally from most powers.

Just as an FYI. GK aren't the only ones who can't spawn additional mobs.

Necrons here o/

Fact checking aside, the point is that there are many armies that either do not have the warp charge, or do not have the psychers period, in order to create units, fluff and personal reservations aside.

 Kriswall wrote:
Tau Empire can't generate new allies and can't use Malefic Daemonology or any Psychic powers at all without allies.

And they don't Battle Brothers ally to ANY psykers, so they can't even benefit peripherally from most powers.

Just as an FYI. GK aren't the only ones who can't spawn additional mobs.

a

So dont get invested in the arms race, get a talisman for the maledictions that might be thrown your way and then spend the rest of the points on ALL THE DAKKA

Shooting will work in every game, psykers wont.

 IK Viper wrote:
rigeld2: the difference between a formation and an ally, is that an allied detachment is derived from another codex, using units that are points costed according to that dex, and limited to the rules that unit was initially costed for. I have a problem with things that alter/ enhance units from an existing codex.

For example:
You can ally in a tactical squad all day, but you have no right to ally in a tactical squad with FNP and Deepstrike at the same cost as the original squad.

In relation to Nids:

There is no reason you can't do double force org now and take roughly the same units as the Skyblight formation. That is completely fine, just don't ask for extra rules on top of the existing units and not expect to have to pay more for said units.

but I can ally in a tactical squad with fnp for no additional cost, or hit and run, or re-roll ones to but or.....all for no additional cost (or at least some assumption that all chapter tactics are of the same value. In fact if I play BA I can ally in those things for less points than my tactical squad. I can also ally in psykers into armies with no psykers which then benefit from, psychic powers when they are not point costed for that synergy etc......or I can ally in battle bros to access special rules my codex does not otherwise have and was not costed for .

Essentially your argument is taking the units is ok, but if I receive some sort of advantage for taking specific units, that is bad....sorry but this is no longer the case, and as far as I can tell formations lead to a more balanced game right now not a less balanced one.

You are pointing to chapter tactics as if they are not already in the codex and considered when pricing the unti. CT are in the SM codex right now, no formation needed. You pay the same points for each chapter but they each have different CT based abilities, that should in theory (not in practice) be of equal value.

Let me be very specific then. If you buy a IH Tac. Squad, you pay X points. You should not be able to go get a formation that allows you to buy that same IH Tac. Squad for the X points, but now that squad respawns from their board edge on a 4+ Surely you do not think this would be ok, because if it is I want to run this at the next event you host.

I am not saying that Gargs are as good as Tac. Marines, but the principle is the same.

 IK Viper wrote:
You are pointing to chapter tactics as if they are not already in the codex. CT are in the SM codex right now, no formation needed. You pay the same points for each chapter but they each have different CT based abilities.

Let me be very specific then. If you buy a IH Tac. Squad, you pay X points. You should not be able to go get a formation that allows you to buy that same IH Tac. Squad for the X points, but now that squad respawns from their board edge on a 4+ Surely you do not think this would be ok, because if it is I want to run this at the next event you host.

I am not saying that Gargs are as good as Tac. Marines, but the principle is the same.

Do you understand the concept of Opportunity Cost?

Being shoehorned into certain selections to unlock certain bonus rules comes with a cost, the cost is anything you would have bought with the points that have effectively been selected for you. Is every formation etc balanced, no, but certainly no worse than the original book. If I am forced to select X number of Units, I'm losing out on everything I could have bought with those points. Sometimes they are even subpar units, all comes with an opportunity cost

Remember, Warmachine does this too... Field X units in combination with Y Warcaster, receive Z bonus benefit.



This is also a thread about Conjuring, which comes at a steep Opportunity Cost, all of those points spent on Psykers could have been spent on something else, and all of those Warp Charges could have been used to cast something else.


Using your Ironhands example, if that formation etc required me to down many points on subpar units it could very well be acceptable. The ability to resplendent Tacticals would require a pretty steep cost in requirements, and if well balanced would be far far from an automatic decision.

Opportunity Cost, I strongly suggest you look it up.

When we set down to play a game of 40k we must agree between ourselves that we are willing to at least pretend that 1 point of any codex is equal to one point of another codex. (this is how it should be, as we all agree)
We all know this not to be true, but we must assume this if we play with equal points. If we do not agree to function as if 1 point is equal across all books, then we MUST, agree on what sort of exchange rate we need to set up in order to have a fair game.

If you believe that 1 point of Orks is worth 1/2 a point of Eldar then Orks need to have 2 times the points of the Eldar player in order to have a fair game where both sides have equal resources.

We obviously do not do this, so we are all at least subconsciously agreeing to the idea that 1 point is inherently equal, otherwise we would not apply the same points limit to every army equally.

Same goes for a codex. GW assigns the points values of things in this game, and they do a spotty job of it too, but again, in order for use to cling to the concept that each player should bring an equal number of points to a game, (with the intent being to create a situation where both players have equal resources) we must accept this basic assumption of point equality.

By saying "lets play 1850," we are agreeing that we both feel that if both armies have 1850 points to spend, each player will end up having roughly the same amount of resources, thus making the game fair.

This assumption of equality must apply to all units, and all codices, otherwise the assumption breaks down. I am not trying to convince anyone that this is in fact the case. I would agree that a Wave Serpent brings more resources to the table than a Baal Predator, despite being roughly the same points cost. However, if we as a community want fair games, and want to cling to the concept of each army bringing the same number of points to a game in order to achieve this fair game, we must at least agree between ourselves to act and function as if 1 point is equal across all of 40k, otherwise the equal points limit system we have in place utterly falls on it's face.

We in the community often complain that a unit is over or under costed. This complaint stems from our desire for 1 point to be of equal value across the 40k universe. This is a gripe about how GW has assigned points costs up front. There is a great difference between this, and complaining about the functional improvement in a unit while maintaining the same cost. GW either needs to FAQ the main codex Gargs to be cheaper, or increase the cost of the Skyblight version, in order to insure there is in fact a correlation between points and the resources they purchase, but without a direct correlation between points cost and a unit's functional usefulness on the table, again, the whole assumption that we should both bring the same amount of points to a game is false and we need to work out some form of exchange rate to create a fair game.

With this assumption in mind, there is no opportunity cost, The points used on Harpies for example, take a different form, but represent the same amount of resources on the table. That is why I am opposed to a previously costed unit, getting more rules without costing more points. It is illogical. If we are to believe that 1 point of Codex Gargs. is equal to 1 point of Skybligh Gargs, there can be absolutely no difference in how they function on the table, but their is. This is a direct, and blatant violation of the points equality assumption, an assumption that is required to be true if we are to continue to play games with exactly equal points limits.

In summary, if we agree to bring the same point value army to a game, we are operating under the assumption that points carry the same weight and value across all of 40k. We may not consciously feel this way, or we may avoid pointing out the logical error in the current system just to allow things to move quickly and smoothly (it is a game after all), but at it's core we are at least agreeing to function as if all points translate into equal resources on the table. We all know this is NOT true, but we currently function under a system that assumes this.

 IK Viper wrote:
You are pointing to chapter tactics as if they are not already in the codex and considered when pricing the unti. CT are in the SM codex right now, no formation needed. You pay the same points for each chapter but they each have different CT based abilities, that should in theory (not in practice) be of equal value.

Let me be very specific then. If you buy a IH Tac. Squad, you pay X points. You should not be able to go get a formation that allows you to buy that same IH Tac. Squad for the X points, but now that squad respawns from their board edge on a 4+ Surely you do not think this would be ok, because if it is I want to run this at the next event you host.

I am not saying that Gargs are as good as Tac. Marines, but the principle is the same.

You just have an insane double standard between..."It's in the codex" and "It is somewhere else." The Theory that all CT are equivalent and as such you are getting nothing for "free" is silly. Saying that it is OK because selecting your chapter at no cost, has apparently been slotted into the points cost of every unit (Which if we compare to the most base marine the Chaos Space Marine at 13 points) means you think things like ATSKNF, Auto pass dangerous terrain, and hit and run are worth 1 point. Of ATSKNF, 6+ FNP and IWND on Vehicles and Characters,....

I get that Respawn on a 4+ is a good rule, but are you saying that if this was a chapter tactic it would somehow be ok?

at which point we are discussing what is and is not broken, and not are formations the problem.

You just seem to have set an arbitrary standard that the codex rules are somehow balanced, and anything that adds rules to them is broken.

Either you want to play a balanced game...at which point you need to rewrite rules from the codex up, re-point cost nearly everything, and play test a ton.

Or you just have some vision of how "The Game Should be" that you want to force on people and it has nothing to do with balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IK Viper wrote:
When we set down to play a game of 40k we must agree between ourselves that we are willing to at least pretend that 1 point of any codex is equal to one point of another codex. (this is how it should be, as we all agree)
We all know this not to be true, but we must assume this if we play with equal points. If we do not agree to function as if 1 point is equal across all books, then we MUST, agree on what sort of exchange rate we need to set up in order to have a fair game.

If you believe that 1 point of Orks is worth 1/2 a point of Eldar then Orks need to have 2 times the points of the Eldar player in order to have a fair game where both sides have equal resources.

We obviously do not do this, so we are all at least subconsciously agreeing to the idea that 1 point is inherently equal, otherwise we would not apply the same points limit to every army equally.

Same goes for a codex. GW assigns the points values of things in this game, and they do a spotty job of it too, but again, in order for use to cling to the concept that each player should bring an equal number of points to a game, (with the intent being to create a situation where both players have equal resources) we must accept this basic assumption of point equality.

By saying "lets play 1850," we are agreeing that we both feel that if both armies have 1850 points to spend, each player will end up having roughly the same amount of resources, thus making the game fair.

This assumption of equality must apply to all units, and all codices, otherwise the assumption breaks down. I am not trying to convince anyone that this is in fact the case. I would agree that a Wave Serpent brings more resources to the table than a Baal Predator, despite being roughly the same points cost. However, if we as a community want fair games, and want to cling to the concept of each bringing the same number of points to a game in order to achieve this fair game, we must at least agree between ourselves to act and function as if 1 point is equal across all of 40k, otherwise the equal points limit system we have in place utterly falls on it's face.

With this assumption in mind, there is no opportunity cost, The points used on Harpies for example, take a different form, but represent the same amount of resources on the table. That is why I am opposed to a previously costed unit, getting more rules without costing more points. It is illogical. If we are to believe that 1 point of Codex Gargs. is equal to 1 point of Skybligh Gargs, there can be absolutely no difference in how they function on the table, but their is. This is a direct, and blatant violation of the points equality assumption, an assumption that is required to be true if we are to continue to play games with exactly equal points limits.

Again your assumptions are incorrect. The reason we say "we are all playing 1850" is not because we believe it is fair, it is because an exchange rate system in competitive play is either overly complex, or unworkable. Either you need to find some kind of balance between all books such that x points of Orks= y points of Sisters = z points of Eldar = and so on or you need every codex to be compared individually and players to bring lists based on each army they face, and enough models to make it work. Both of these are fairly unreasonable so we accept "the game is not balanced and if you play BA you are probably going to lose....sorrry."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also by your argument if we believe that 1 point of Gargoyles = 1 point of something that costs the same points. There should be no difference in their function or performance on the table.

Essentially take "Formation" out of the question if Nids got gargoyles, and then Codex Hive Fleet Behemoth was released (simmilar to say DA and SM) and Hive fleet behemoth Gargoyles got the skyblight rules (much like Codex SM get Chapter Tactics when DA don't) would that be ok?

No, that is not ok. The new hive fleet gargoyles should be more expensive, to reflect their increased functionality.

This would be yet another example of GW willfully breaking the game by creating a disparity between the value of 1 point spent in codex A and a point spent in codex B.

It would not be fair, or balanced, but in order to play the game like we currently do, we can either change it ourselves (the best but most laborious solution), agree to create a points exchange rate, (again a very tough task), or we can continue to operate like we have and accept this clear breach of game balance, but still play the game with equal points limits, which basically means we chose to continue to act as if 1 point is equal across the game.

Formations function essentially like what you are describing with the Have Fleet Behemoth codex. The main difference between a codex and a formation, is that the codex is the new GW enforced base line for all units of that type. Bolting on formations on top of this, that again change the point value ratio only serves to exacerbate any balance problems present in the parent codex. My suggestion is that if you really want to change something to make Nids better, let the ally with themselves, that way they can almost replicate the Skyblight style list, but pay the base line points for all their stuff, without gaining new abilities. This I have zero problem with so long as and change made is applied to all armies. You have to allow the Tau/Tau if you want to allow the Nid/Nid as it were.

Again though the issue is that if those abilities are what level the field for those books. Why is that a problem, because due to losing some flexibility in the list, they are able to compete?

I don't get this All codices must have access to stuff thing, when codices are horribly imbalanced.

Is your argument that skyblight gargs, make regular gargs worse by comparison?

or

Nids shouldn't have a top tier list because their codex sucks?

or

Because formations are a money grab, we should let people have worse armies so we don't encourage gw?

Simply put, nids don't really get better, by allying with themselves if everyone else does too.

Lets look at it this way....Nids like formations.

They have a bunch (other armies have some, and some armies have codex supplements etc.).

They like their formations because they buff a lower tier book to mid to upper tier.

They also (in a restricted detachment environment) like the Tau Formation. Tau formation is good at killing Tanks, which nids don't have, and struggle to kill, so if Tau formation lessens tanks in the meta nids profit. (if we assume that you will already see broadsides, they don't get better Vs nids using the formation)

The issue is what you want is every army getting stronger by allowing everyone the same benefits, nids don't really improve that much.

I am just trying to be consistent in that, if one army can ally with itself, all should ally with itself. It makes good fluff sense for SM to ally with themselves, but absolutely no game sense.

To be fair to everyone, every one needs the same access. Everyone has Stronghold so allow it, if everyone can ally with themselves, this is just one more way that we standardize the game to insure that each army rises and falls based on the merit of its codex and general, not the variety of DLC like add-ons GW throws out at random to sell models. Everyone has a codex=> everyone gets to use a codex, everyone has stronghold => everyone can use stronghold. etc.

And you are correct, Skybligh Gargs do make normal Gargs worse by comparison. You are now getting less bang for your point with regular Gargs therefore making them worse arbitrarily in order to promote the newest product GW Digital has rolled out.

We can in typical GW gamer fashion, roll over and accept this tactic (for like the millionth time) or we can speak up and do something about it. You can't just out right ban the Nid Codex because that removes the army from the game all together, but you can take a stand against further bolt on products GW has spewed out. If GW wanted to make Nids more appealing, they should have done a better job with the actual codex. Or if they intend to patch up all their lazy codex writing with formations... DA, BA, SoB, DE, etc. are still waiting on theirs too.

All, or none. GW has not right to pick and choose who to help and who to leave in the dust. They will continue to see DLC products as a viable strategy so long as we the community buy into it and feed this craze. If we stopped using them, they would have to actually... do a good job on codices, or follow up with FAQ's instead of expecting use to pay more money after market to increase the power of a given codex and simultaneously imbalance the game more by contradicting their points cost decisions in the actual codex in the first place.

If we really believe that Skyblight has no effect on the relative power of a codex then Skyblight would not be so prevalent and Nid players would not assert that it is so critical to their codex on a competitive level. Clearly the formation is better than the basic book... so it should cost more points. The formation contradicts the points values used in the base codex. Skyblight is perceived to be better, so the units in it that got better should cost more so as not to contradict the base codex point cost. This is why I suggest that if you want Nids to be good so badly just let the ally, then they can take the extra FMC's that make the formation so good, but are now paying the same costs for these units as in the codex. There is no contradiction/ discrepancy between cost and rules/abilities now. And better yet, no need to shell out $5 to pay GW to fix THEIR mistakes.

The issue then is that you end up punishing players for GWs practices. So Nids got a crappy book, and because GW wants money for the "fix" we won't allow it, so Nid players suffer through getting beat down at events. The assumption that GW will fix it differently if we don't buy in is naive. They won't they never have.

We don't need all or none, why should we limit the number of competitive codices? SO DA, Sob (among 6th ed books) are worse off than Nids, so it is more fair that Nids wallow with them, rather than compete with the Taus and Eldars of the world? That is your solution?

Skyblight is good, and it does make them relatively stronger....that is the point, it puts them on a more even playing field with the good books. The gargoyles are a large part of what makes the formation good (not the MCs really). There is no evidence that just self allying (in a world where everyone can) will make Nids better.

Maybe those units are overcosted in the Nid book, and as such the added rules make them playable?

You just seem hung up on "fair" and "points balanced" and the game is neither of these things.

Would I prefer that GW fixed codices for free? Sure.

Would I prefer that they wrote good codices to begin with? yes

Would It be nice if the community could fix all the broken things? Sure

But none of these are likely to happen...so I'd rather use the fixes we are given, encourage GW to make more of them, and actually have more books competing.

This thread has gone way off topic and I am honestly played out over it at this point. Neither one of use will convince/ change the other one so let us simply agree to disagree and move on.

I am tired of GW pulling us around. I don't think we the community has demanded that they create a game that is fair. Enough people selfishly buy into what ever rules are available to them in order to field a more powerful army without considering the implications these rules have on the community at large.

DLC style products and codex creep are the marketing that drives GW. We could force them to create better rules by avoiding the ones that directly contradict the things they have previously done, but the community will never have that kind of pull unless we unite and collectively see what they are doing as a problem.

I cannot single handedly stop GW from sowing chaos and contradiction throughout the rules set, but I can try and explain why I see what they are doing as bad in as basic and as rational a manor as I can. Many will disagree with me as is clear, from this thread, but I honestly believe that if many of the ideas I have suggested were widely held, the game would be more enjoyable for everyone because every army would have the most fair chance at success that is possible in a game with this much variability in it. Though let's not kid ourselves, the variability is why we play this game and not chess. I don't want chess, I just want consistency across the rules set, which to me is vital in order to consider the game worthy of true competitive play.

BTW Yes I don play in lots of tournaments, I enjoy challenging games between honest lists always look to knock off some of the flavor of the month power gamers who rely on this game for their self worth.

The issue is though that short of mass quitting the game we don't have that kind of pull. You would need an organized boycott of DLC rules, among all players for it to have any effect (presumably those rules cost them very little). Codices are imbalanced, and people won't stop buying codices for their armies...unless they quit. So you would need an organized quitting of the game...which won't happen.

as for not wanting chess, if I had the option around here to play mid level competitive chess, I would probably do it a bit....I like chess but rarely get the chance to play.

I would love the game to have every army with a fair chance at success, I just don't agree that your changes/views actually cause that to happen (I think it is the opposite to a large extent). I would love to see a competitive play ruling body, errata OP rules, or ban OP units/formations. But that is unlikely to happen.

What I am suggesting is that tournament play in particular not endorse formations or other add on rule sets. Unfettered 40k is great... just not when you are actually trying to give every army and every player an even footing for competition purposes. Right now there is a lot of picking and choosing about what rules will be included in large events. Some like LoW, some like them in small doses, other don't like them at all. Forgeworld, Stronghold, Dataslates, and Formations are all other examples of things that many events either allow, disallow, or modify. I would like to see the tournament scene revert back to strictly the codex as a rules source not because I see the codices as the most balanced thing out there, but because it is a baseline from which to fix the game.

With all the new rules sources coming out, some favor one army over another, some offer no help to most armies but greatly enhance one or 2. This is why Forgeworld was not widely accepted for a long time, it very clearly favors some armies while basically ignoring others. How will the community ever keep up? Would it not be easier to stick with the core codexes and then just make any comp changes the community wants to those books rather than trying to constantly churn out new rulings every time a new supplement, dataslate, or formation comes out? Rather then trying to tackle each and every new rules source, just bring everything back down to a codex baseline and make any changes need to that baseline. When a new codex is releases, let it play out for 6 months in a pre-competition testing phase, see what it can do, and then adjust the codex to match the rest of the game, then allow it into competitive play. (this is an extreme solution I know, and the practicality of it in questionable at best, but you must admit it would result in a better game if implemented)

Broadsides are OP.. ok change the points cost/ shots/ USR's on Broadsides etc.
Wave Serpents OP... make that Shield actually function only as a shield.

With the intent of bringing point value equality back into the game, these changes would at least be a proactive solution, rather than deciding to include or not include many various add-on rules onto an admittedly faulty baseline of core army books.

Strip 40k back down to it's core and make changes there before heaping un vetted DLC on top of it. Seams like a more lasting and meaningful solution then trying to construct a patchwork of inclusion/exclusion lists in an attempt to plug all the holes in an ultimately sinking ship.

The other option is to homogenize the game by playing strictly unbound which auto balances the game in the strictest sense, but realistically and logistically turn 40k into a wasteland where the people with the money to build the really abusive stuff will rule and the hobby aspect of building and playing your favorite army effectively dies.

While nice and utopian your suggestion will never happen...as there is no ruling body, and people don't agree on what needs fixing, or how to fix it.

So realistically we are better off allowing in GW rules that seem to give more codices a chance to compete, rather than limit to codices, and try to re-write the game.

 IK Viper wrote:
When we set down to play a game of 40k we must agree between ourselves that we are willing to at least pretend that 1 point of any codex is equal to one point of another codex. (this is how it should be, as we all agree)

No, I don't agree that we are willing to pretend that. It's obviously and demonstrably wrong and is the entire basis for your argument.
If anyone still wants to pretend that, they're insane.

I just bring the list I want to bring(within reason) and do my best to play to the lists strengths and minimize my opponents strengths.

The value of the unit can be mathmatically calculated, but it doesn't matter once the models hit the table for the most part.

Whats the point of shooting if I make it so you lose a shooting phase? Or use cover to limit your ability to shoot. How do you points cost that? How do you points cost me grabing 4 objective cards with one unit over the course of the game? Thats the problem with the one point arguement, that even something as simple as the battlefield will alter the value of units. Lots of forests? Kroot are better per point. Looks of difficult terrain? Move through cover units get better per point. Not a lot of enemy AP 2 shooting, armor saves got better. Lots of ignore cover? Aegis is worth less. Big units? Well that psyker buff is more valuable per point than it would be on a small unit or a unit with less shooting.

Points are just a guideline for how many models we can have in our army. Outside of that so many things modify their value that unless the models are SUPER similar then its barely useful comparison.

Additionally 1pt of an item might be worth more in another codex because for each army the value of an item might be more significant.

For example, giving a model with 6 wounds regenerate might be more valuable than giving a model with 2 wounds regenerate.

Or +1 inv save might be more valuable on a model that has a +3inv already instead of no save.

or a model with bs2 might pay less for an assault 2 weapon than other model with bs5