I can see it now, the Living tide dataslate formation becomes a Decurion esque formation.
If you kill anything it immediately re-enters ongoing reserves. No matter if it's a termagant brood or a Heirophant. Everything has objective secured and you get a free tervigon with every troop choice that never runs out of termagants. Then everyone can get free biomorphs because screw you.
It'd be fitting with the general trend of the game.
Necrons, Eldar and SMs all get the decurion-style detachment, which puts them head and shoulders above any army that doesn't have it.
You can deal with
-unkillable Necron hordes and wraiths.
-lightning fast Eldar with every unit getting 6" JSJ and unlimited busted wraithknights
-and now, 50 points of free razorback for every 75 points of marine in the full company.
-Honorable mention to 1000 free points of skitarii AdMech and knight upgrades for a 2000pt list.
Formationhammer is a completely different game than Warhammer at this point, and we just gotta sit tight until it's our turn to receive a busted decurion.
Tamwulf wrote: So... what does this have to do with Necrons again?
Also, you are basing all this over rumors. Typical knee-jerk reaction: "New codex coming out! My army is dooooooomed!"
I don't think you'll have much to worry about. They are still just Space Marines, the most bland army in the game.
Necron was the first codex that got the ridiculous power-spike. Everything after that has followed the trend of getting very powerful formations. So, everything pre-Necron is one game and everything post-Necron is another game.
Tamwulf wrote: So... what does this have to do with Necrons again?
The Necron codex, released in February 2015, was the last main faction to be updated from black&white 4th/5th edition paperback to full-color hardback format.
Even if it was the first codex to feature the decurion style alternate force organization, it still was the last codex needed to complete the first hardback cycle, and thus many players might be seeing it at the last thing to get to have a "codex cycle" completed by GW.
Ofc this is pretty wonky since about halfway into the 1st hardback cycle, the game transitioned from 6th to 7th edition and the codexes changed their internal layouts quite a bit (going from artwork to photographs and creating the lord of war slot), and then once more, beginning with the Necron dex to include the decurion formations.
Listen, the rise of Formations/Detachments in Warhammer 40k was plain for everyone to see. Remember back when 7th edition first dropped and people were wondering why the standard Force Organization Chart was now a "Combined Arms Detachment"? This is why. Formations and alternate Force Org Charts were coming to 40k.
My personal theory was that the GW design team was experimenting with this in small doses with the earlier 7th edition releases, and then with that success decided to go all the way with the Necron codex, and introducing an entirely new way to build an army.
Let's also seriously take a look at these new Formations-of-formations. The Decurion is probably the most powerful, but excluding Wraiths is balanced. The Khorne Daemonkin Slaughtercult fundamentally ties into the Blood Tithe system. Believe it or not, the Warhost is not one of the broken things in the Eldar codex. Free upgrades sounds broken in the combined Mechanicus formation, until you look at the mandatory units you take with it.
And really, how many Space Marine players fielded Captains with the last codex? Devastators? Assault Squads? Let's also not forget that, according to many on this website, Tac Marines suck. GW really had no other way to go to make these units more viable on the tabletop, short of buffing them to movie marine levels. Let's also remember that while the METAL BOXES are free, their upgrades are not.
TL;DR formations are here to stay, it's a L2P issue, and with GW's release schedule your army will get one soon too.
Listen, the rise of Formations/Detachments in Warhammer 40k was plain for everyone to see. Remember back when 7th edition first dropped and people were wondering why the standard Force Organization Chart was now a "Combined Arms Detachment"? This is why. Formations and alternate Force Org Charts were coming to 40k.
My personal theory was that the GW design team was experimenting with this in small doses with the earlier 7th edition releases, and then with that success decided to go all the way with the Necron codex, and introducing an entirely new way to build an army.
Let's also seriously take a look at these new Formations-of-formations. The Decurion is probably the most powerful, but excluding Wraiths is balanced. The Khorne Daemonkin Slaughtercult fundamentally ties into the Blood Tithe system. Believe it or not, the Warhost is not one of the broken things in the Eldar codex. Free upgrades sounds broken in the combined Mechanicus formation, until you look at the mandatory units you take with it.
And really, how many Space Marine players fielded Captains with the last codex? Devastators? Assault Squads? Let's also not forget that, according to many on this website, Tac Marines suck. GW really had no other way to go to make these units more viable on the tabletop, short of buffing them to movie marine levels. Let's also remember that while the METAL BOXES are free, their upgrades are not.
TL;DR formations are here to stay, it's a L2P issue, and with GW's release schedule your army will get one soon too.
And the armies with formations are at such a higher powerlevel that splitting it into two "games," one for the haves and one for the have-nots, would make perfect sense. Everything you said is all the reasons why I think facing them against each other is silly.
It's not an L2P issue, it's a "wait for your codex"-issue. By claiming it's L2P I can only assume you've gotten yours.
edit: And I see the sig shows Eldar. What a surprise.
Listen, the rise of Formations/Detachments in Warhammer 40k was plain for everyone to see. Remember back when 7th edition first dropped and people were wondering why the standard Force Organization Chart was now a "Combined Arms Detachment"? This is why. Formations and alternate Force Org Charts were coming to 40k.
My personal theory was that the GW design team was experimenting with this in small doses with the earlier 7th edition releases, and then with that success decided to go all the way with the Necron codex, and introducing an entirely new way to build an army.
40k Formations would have been a whole lot cooler if they went about it in the Horus Heresy "Rites of War" style. I.e. you can have access to these nasty special rules, but they will fairly severly restrict the units you can bring.
The Decurion kinda sorta does this, but literally every unit in the codex can be brought inside a Decurion detachment, so not really.
For example, if the Decurion worked differently, and was a restriction like "only units with the Reanimation Protocols special rule may be taken in a Decurion detachment", I doubt most people would have reacted so negatively to it.
Oh well...I'm wishlisting on a train that has already left the station.
Listen, the rise of Formations/Detachments in Warhammer 40k was plain for everyone to see. Remember back when 7th edition first dropped and people were wondering why the standard Force Organization Chart was now a "Combined Arms Detachment"? This is why. Formations and alternate Force Org Charts were coming to 40k.
My personal theory was that the GW design team was experimenting with this in small doses with the earlier 7th edition releases, and then with that success decided to go all the way with the Necron codex, and introducing an entirely new way to build an army.
Let's also seriously take a look at these new Formations-of-formations. The Decurion is probably the most powerful, but excluding Wraiths is balanced. The Khorne Daemonkin Slaughtercult fundamentally ties into the Blood Tithe system. Believe it or not, the Warhost is not one of the broken things in the Eldar codex. Free upgrades sounds broken in the combined Mechanicus formation, until you look at the mandatory units you take with it.
And really, how many Space Marine players fielded Captains with the last codex? Devastators? Assault Squads? Let's also not forget that, according to many on this website, Tac Marines suck. GW really had no other way to go to make these units more viable on the tabletop, short of buffing them to movie marine levels. Let's also remember that while the METAL BOXES are free, their upgrades are not.
TL;DR formations are here to stay, it's a L2P issue, and with GW's release schedule your army will get one soon too.
And the armies with formations are at such a higher powerlevel that splitting it into two "games," one for the haves and one for the have-nots, would make perfect sense. Everything you said is all the reasons why I think facing them against each other is silly.
It's not an L2P issue, it's a "wait for your codex"-issue. By claiming it's L2P I can only assume you've gotten yours.
edit: And I see the sig shows Eldar. What a surprise.
Yes, I have gotten mine, with the massive stigma that being an Eldar player carries. Fortunately, I don't use the broken units. Trust me, space elves are more than strong enough without them.
Now, with the new Space Marine codex, the majority of players will have gotten one of the new Formation-of-formations. So they don't get to complain anymore.
The only armies that have really been left in the dust in terms of power are the ones that were already underpowered (Sisters, CSM, Dark Angels, Orks). Funnily enough, there are rumors that three of those might be updated soon...
Space wolves, blood angels, inquisition, dark Eldar....
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
I wouldn't say this is necessary, most armies can still hold their own against eldar/necrons etc so far. Admittedly the new kind of formation can be a fair bit stronger than some of the older books, but there doesn't seem to be a massive gap between the two types
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
The formation thing is simply to sell models that no-one wanted before. I imagine there is a warehouse full of razorback upgrade sprues circa 2002 somewhere and it needs shifting.
The power spike is unfortunate, for a while there back in the previous edition things looked hopefully level but it was never going to last long. However I don't really play tournament or pick-up games where people are simply looking to beat my face and call me up on every slip-up!
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P. If this keeps up, I might just have to change my signature to something that will decrease my credibility even more!
The main problem is, as it almost always is, GW. Their rapid release schedule has, as an unintended consequence, not allowed for there to be any sort of "cooling off" period where people can try and figure out how to deal with the shift in the meta the latest codex has caused. We have had six new codexes in the past six months or so. By previous standards, that's insane!
I wonder if this means that Dark Angels will actually be a much more powerful army to field and a heck of a lot more competitive when they get their book. I really hope so, those shady dudes need some time in the spotlight.
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P. If this keeps up, I might just have to change my signature to something that will decrease my credibility even more!
Nobody has really been clamoring about "Aspect Warriors" as a whole. There have been issues with certain ones(Dark Reapers and Swooping Hawks off the top of my head), but the main focus has been on the fact that ranged D-Weaponry is no longer an Apocalypse thing.
Remember how when Knights was getting redone, there was an insistence by Eldar players that they "only got ranged D-Weaponry because Imperial Knights were going to get it too"? That didn't pan out.
In an edition already pretty hostile to non-skimmer/flying or superheavy vehicles, it got even MORE hostile towards them with the Eldar book.
The main problem is, as it almost always is, GW. Their rapid release schedule has, as an unintended consequence, not allowed for there to be any sort of "cooling off" period where people can try and figure out how to deal with the shift in the meta the latest codex has caused. We have had six new codexes in the past six months or so. By previous standards, that's insane!
Many of those "six new codices" weren't that big of a deal.
Ranged D-Weaponry that is relatively cheap and relatively easy to utilize(such as WWP Wraithguard) is a BIG shift, no matter how you try to play it off.
So at this point should we just split pre and post Necron codexes into two different games?
Or we could just wait until the rest of the codicies get updated which is very likely (easily) by the end of 2015 and then assess the lay of the land / meta game?
There have always always been codicies that have been "left behind" with release schedules. This is no different whatsoever. The only positive point this time is that GW actually seem to be belting out releases quite quickly so likely it will balance out.
Kanluwen wrote: Do people really think that Knights had that much of an impact on the game?
the_scotsman wrote:Honorable mention to 1000 free points of skitarii AdMech and knight upgrades for a 2000pt list.
What are you doing to get 1000 points worth of upgrades?
Genuinely curious, as Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus upgrades are on the fairly low side(with the exception of Skitarii weapons that aren't Arc Rifles).
1000 points seems fairly accurate. With the War Convocation you are literally getting 600 free points of upgrades, you are also getting a no hot on plasma upgrade, Canticles of the Omnissiah special rule on generally 8 units (probably worth 20 points/unit) at 2K, and Scout/Crusader on your 6 skitarri unit. So all in all its like 600 + 160 + lets say 60 to ignore plasma on your army (of course you probably are only taking plasma on vanguards, but other models have the option) and then scout/crusader which is worth like what 10-15 points? so another 70-100 for a grand total of roughly 900-1000 points between literal free points and special rules. There is also this leadership thing from the maniple as well, but its most irrelevant.
Kanluwen wrote: Many of those "six new codices" weren't that big of a deal.
Ranged D-Weaponry that is relatively cheap and relatively easy to utilize(such as WWP Wraithguard) is a BIG shift, no matter how you try to play it off.
Which is why I'm not defending ranged D. That and Scatbikers and a criminally undercosted GC are the biggest problems with the Eldar codex. Which is why those particular parts need to be FAQed/house-ruled out (1 in 3 can take a cannon, Distort weapons use 6th ed. rules, ban the Wraithknight) so that Eldar have something resembling balance against other armies.
Honestly, I really like the new "Decurion-style" force org chart. It makes list building that much more interesting compared to the bland old CAD.
Kanluwen wrote: Do people really think that Knights had that much of an impact on the game?
the_scotsman wrote:Honorable mention to 1000 free points of skitarii AdMech and knight upgrades for a 2000pt list.
What are you doing to get 1000 points worth of upgrades?
Genuinely curious, as Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus upgrades are on the fairly low side(with the exception of Skitarii weapons that aren't Arc Rifles).
1000 points seems fairly accurate. With the War Convocation you are literally getting 600 free points of upgrades, you are also getting a no hot on plasma upgrade, Canticles of the Omnissiah special rule on generally 8 units (probably worth 20 points/unit) at 2K, and Scout/Crusader on your 6 skitarri unit. So all in all its like 600 + 160 + lets say 60 to ignore plasma on your army (of course you probably are only taking plasma on vanguards, but other models have the option) and then scout/crusader which is worth like what 10-15 points? so another 70-100 for a grand total of roughly 900-1000 points between literal free points and special rules. There is also this leadership thing from the maniple as well, but its most irrelevant.
So you're slapping points costs on the USRs and Canticles...?
By the way--Plasma Culverin are the base option on Kataphron Destroyers, which is likely why you have the "no gets hot". To encourage Plasma Culverin instead of Heavy Grav Cannons.
I think a thread needs to be made suggesting ideas to give the other races Decurion style formations at least until the hopeful day comes that some external balance is made.
Kanluwen wrote: So you're slapping points costs on the USRs and Canticles...?
By the way--Plasma Culverin are the base option on Kataphron Destroyers, which is likely why you have the "no gets hot". To encourage Plasma Culverin instead of Heavy Grav Cannons.
I didn't post that original amount, just giving you an idea how he got to the 1000 points. Compared to a CAD based armies his 1000 points was fairly accurate on the higher end in bonuses, but this seems to be the nature of the game now days with formations that armies just get inherent point bonuses either in literal points or in special rules hence the entire OP.
Kanluwen wrote: So you're slapping points costs on the USRs and Canticles...?
By the way--Plasma Culverin are the base option on Kataphron Destroyers, which is likely why you have the "no gets hot". To encourage Plasma Culverin instead of Heavy Grav Cannons.
I didn't post that original amount, just giving you an idea how he got to the 1000 points. Compared to a CAD based armies his 1000 points was fairly accurate in bonuses, but this seems to be the nature of the game now days with formations that armies just get inherent point bonuses either in literal points or in special rules hence the entire OP.
I'm having a hard time of reaching "1000 points" of upgrades using the criteria being put forward, but sure. Why not.
Slaphead wrote: I wonder if this means that Dark Angels will actually be a much more powerful army to field and a heck of a lot more competitive when they get their book. I really hope so, those shady dudes need some time in the spotlight.
My guess is that DA will be SM-1 and the new SM will be SM+1. Just to balance things out.. Oh, and L2P, ok?
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P.
Lets be real here, we can find some pretty silly things about Aspect Warriors too things like Fire Dragons getting BS5 in formations and a total of +3 on vehicle damage chart, for zero additional points cost, is pretty absurd. They were hardly broken or in need of a buff before, and they simply got massively buffed.
ProwlerPC wrote: I think a thread needs to be made suggesting ideas to give the other races Decurion style formations at least until the hopeful day comes that some external balance is made.
It's pretty simple... make a rule at your table that everyone plays with a CAD. Disallow all formations. Consider allowing for dual CADs and an Allied Detachment, and keep it at that.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
Slaphead wrote: I wonder if this means that Dark Angels will actually be a much more powerful army to field and a heck of a lot more competitive when they get their book. I really hope so, those shady dudes need some time in the spotlight.
Wasn't there a rumor that Dark Angels are getting nerfed by 1 in every stat, but if you take their decurion detachment they get +1 in every stat, though it requires at least 8 of the new dark angels battleforces, new kits only.
ProwlerPC wrote: I think a thread needs to be made suggesting ideas to give the other races Decurion style formations at least until the hopeful day comes that some external balance is made.
It's pretty simple... make a rule at your table that everyone plays with a CAD. Disallow all formations. Consider allowing for dual CADs and an Allied Detachment, and keep it at that.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
I mean are Eldar actually taking the Warhost formation? In general if your Eldar opponent is taking the Warhosts they are probably playing pretty nice if you are using any sort of tournament rules as your general list standard in your area. Even if they are playing mean (Warhost to get 5 WKs, they are literally gaining no benefit from the Warhost bonuses other then the ability to take 5 WKs (which they could just take anyway in an Unbound list and be way better off since you are playing without any standard meta list rules to begin with). When you look at it your general competitive Eldar player is taking a CAD as his primary and then adding one or some of a Seer Council, Aspect Host, or Crimson Death formations combined with allies and avoiding the "decurion" entirely.
IMO competitive play should be based around CADs and allies with 0 formations. The formations are nice, fluffy, etc, but they are clearly imbalanced and are designed purely to sell models by enticing you with broken things.
SilverSaint wrote: I mean are Eldar actually taking the Warhost formation? In general if your Eldar opponent is taking the Warhosts they are probably playing pretty nice if you are using any sort of tournament rules as your general list standard in your area. Even if they are playing mean (Warhost to get 5 WKs, they are literally gaining no benefit from the Warhost bonuses other then the ability to take 5 WKs (which they could just take anyway in an Unbound list and be way better off since you are playing without any standard meta list rules to begin with). When you look at it your general competitive Eldar player is taking a CAD as his primary and then adding one or some of a Seer Council, Aspect Host, or Crimson Death formations combined with allies and avoiding the "decurion" entirely.
IMO competitive play should be based around CADs and allies with 0 formations. The formations are nice, fluffy, etc, but they are clearly imbalanced and are designed purely to sell models by enticing you with broken things.
Nope.gif
Welcome to Formationhammer 40,000. Yes, it is a total model-sell on GW's part, but I would argue that with lots of factions now having access to formations in one form or another something resembling balance has been achieved. Formations are here to stay, just like Forgeworld models. Really, the formations we're talking about are not as broken as people make them out to be. The unit taxes and restrictions often serve as a balancing factor for the benefits of the formation.
As a side note, Eldar are apparently the opposite of Necrons: don't play them if they aren't taking their Decurion!
Slaphead wrote: I wonder if this means that Dark Angels will actually be a much more powerful army to field and a heck of a lot more competitive when they get their book. I really hope so, those shady dudes need some time in the spotlight.
My guess is that DA will be SM-1 and the new SM will be SM+1. Just to balance things out.. Oh, and L2P, ok?
Actually I'm pretty sure that's being saved up for the new Chaos Marine codex... along with nerfing our currently OP marks of Chaos back to a snipable flag that'll cost 75pts/squad to include.
Murrdox wrote: It's pretty simple... make a rule at your table that everyone plays with a CAD. Disallow all formations. Consider allowing for dual CADs and an Allied Detachment, and keep it at that.
I would agree with this, except that formations seem to be the new way of doing FOC swaps. For example, IG players have been asking for a "rough riders as troops" option for a long time, and we finally got it in IA:Vraks. Except instead of saying "rough riders are troops" it's an alternate FOC that has mandatory HQ + fast attack slots (with rough riders required for the mandatory FA) instead of HQ + troops. It's only bonus is fear (lol) when charging, otherwise it's just a normal FOC. But under a "CAD only" rule that option would be banned. And of course the armies with no HQs and special no-HQ detachments would be impossible to play.
I'd rather keep the formations and simply add decurion types to the ones who don't have it until such time as they do get one published too. I also am in the belief that formations is the direction 40k is going, willing to embrace it, and work with others to make tweaks as needed (like temporary made up decurions for the others that don't have it). Because quite frankly, Orks are screwed with Codex and Rule Book alone.
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P.
Lets be real here, we can find some pretty silly things about Aspect Warriors too things like Fire Dragons getting BS5 in formations and a total of +3 on vehicle damage chart, for zero additional points cost, is pretty absurd. They were hardly broken or in need of a buff before, and they simply got massively buffed.
The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
I agree that formation gives an edge. But separating the 2 game is a bit to harsh I think. I was playing Ork before, and now I'm Dark Angels. I know what it is to be underwhelming lol.
At my local store, we plan our game beforehand on facebook, then meet at the shop and find the other player, and play. So it's easier for everybody to find a game which is fun. If I play my DA, and I can ask an Necron player if he could play a Combined Arm instead of his formation. If he does, we play, if he don't we don't. When my codex will be updated, and if I have good formation and option, I could decide to advertise for game on a more competitive side.
Until then, it's a matter of waiting for your codex to be updated, or pre-plan your game to get the most out of it. Remember that 90% of the fun you get out of a boardgame is coming out from the interaction between you and the other player. If you find someone that think alike you to play the game, I can garanty you that GW poor balance won't ever bother you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And man do I love your profile pic JohnHwangDD
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P.
Lets be real here, we can find some pretty silly things about Aspect Warriors too things like Fire Dragons getting BS5 in formations and a total of +3 on vehicle damage chart, for zero additional points cost, is pretty absurd. They were hardly broken or in need of a buff before, and they simply got massively buffed.
The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
I can't tell if this was intended to be a sarcastic imitation of a late night 4chan post or not.
If not, the L2P argument is essentially a non-argument, it says nothing and adds nothing.
Most codex books are relatively new, less than a couple of years old. However, there's a stark and clear divide in books even less than a year old in terms of power level and capability, and it's gigantic. Talking about such issues doesn't make one a bad player. You can hand-wave away every argument as "sour grapes", it doesn't make them any less valid. Hell, I've got probably over 4,000pts worth of Eldar sitting around that I could absolutely run around and wreck face with if I wanted to, but that's not really what I'm into.
So, if you have an argument that amounts to something other than "you're just bad", I'll listen to it, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you're getting out of a post like the above other than projecting your issues onto me.
Vaktathi wrote: I can't tell if this was intended to be a sarcastic imitation of a late night 4chan post or not.
If not, the L2P argument is essentially a non-argument, it says nothing and adds nothing.
Most codex books are relatively new, less than a couple of years old. However, there's a stark and clear divide in books even less than a year old in terms of power level and capability, and it's gigantic. Talking about such issues doesn't make one a bad player. You can hand-wave away every argument as "sour grapes", it doesn't make them any less valid. Hell, I've got probably over 4,000pts worth of Eldar sitting around that I could absolutely run around and wreck face with if I wanted to, but that's not really what I'm into.
So, if you have an argument that amounts to something other than "you're just bad", I'll listen to it, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you're getting out of a post like the above other than projecting your issues onto me.
I will agree that there is a definite disparity in power between the pre-Necron and post-Necron codexes. Again, It's my theory that GW's design team was testing the waters with the earlier 7th edition codexes and then went all the way with Necrons onward. In any case, this is likely to be remedied via GW's new release schedule.
However, I don't believe that this power level is "broken" or insurmountable for the remaining 6th edition codexes. These types of formations are probably too strong to be used in casual/friendly play. I think that it's a combination of the rapid release schedule and the changing meta that is causing so much uproar. The game is changing in ways that people haven't seen before, and there's naturally same resistance to these changes.
There is also the factor of new players to consider. To outsiders, list building in 40k can seem like an extremely esoteric art, akin to preparing taxes or math beyond calculus. With these formations, list building is much more approachable. Just take these specific units, season to taste with upgrades, and there's your army. You even get a nice bonus for doing this!
I'm not defending how imbalanced the various codexes are against each other. Orks, Dark Angels, CSM, Sisters, and IG have definitely drawn the short stick in terms of this edition, both in terms of formations and in changes to the core rules. But I don't think that formations in Warhammer 40k are a bad thing, and it wouldn't serve any purpose to arbitrarily divide the game into "pre-formation" and "post-formation" codexes.
ProwlerPC wrote: I think a thread needs to be made suggesting ideas to give the other races Decurion style formations at least until the hopeful day comes that some external balance is made.
It's pretty simple... make a rule at your table that everyone plays with a CAD. Disallow all formations. Consider allowing for dual CADs and an Allied Detachment, and keep it at that.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
And Skitarri and Harequins are apparently banned as they cannot take a CAD or Allied Detachment.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
I can't tell if this was intended to be a sarcastic imitation of a late night 4chan post or not.
The entire thread is a sarcastic imitation of the earlier "refuse to play against Eldar" thing, is it not? That's what it boils down to, just more trollish, as it's now adding Necrons, Khorne, Knights and SMs to the list of things that are "too broken" to play against.
The metagame is far less broken than certain Fantasy eras of DE/Daemon domination, and it's not like playing any of these newer Codices is auto-win. Didn't Orks and/or Nids come out on top post-Necrons? Eldar's been out for a month, are they auto-winning events, tabling everybody by Turn 2? No? Then this overblown whining should stop.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
I can't tell if this was intended to be a sarcastic imitation of a late night 4chan post or not.
The entire thread is a sarcastic imitation of the earlier "refuse to play against Eldar" thing, is it not? That's what it boils down to, just more trollish, as it's now adding Necrons, Khorne, Knights and SMs to the list of things that are "too broken" to play against.
It's a discussion of the clear, and radical, change in codex design paradigm GW decided to enter into about 7 or 8 months into a new edition after having a nearly diametrically opposed paradigm for the ~year before that. That distinction is readily clear to most people.
The metagame is far less broken than certain Fantasy eras of DE/Daemon domination
I would say it's more diffuse, we certainly have balance issues just as big, but it's spread over a wider number of things and even within individual books .In my experience, at local events, in pickup play in various cities, and the like, games are increasingly one-sided than in previous editions. 40k has always had this problem, but tablings are much more common than I can recall them being in the past. As I've mentioned in other threads, the stuff that's possible now was literally pure hyperbolic exaggeration, you'd only see when people were being intentionally silly, just three years ago.
and it's not like playing any of these newer Codices is auto-win. Didn't Orks and/or Nids come out on top post-Necrons?
At specific events? Possibly. But overall? I certainly don't think available data would support that. When we look at large events like Adepticon and the like, armies like Necrons and Eldar did extremely well in terms of overall rankings, which is far more indicative than simply whatever managed to pull 1st place alone.
Eldar's been out for a month, are they auto-winning events, tabling everybody by Turn 2? No? Then this overblown whining should stop.
Are we defining auto-winning as tabling by turn 2 only?
Two weeks ago I was witness to a relatively sub-par player (who routinely needs to be reminded of rules, even those to his own benefit) coming out as Best General at a local event running a D-weapon spam Eldar army against far more experienced players running KDK, Tau, and Space Wolves. I didn't play him in that tournament, but he swept all three games and he certainly never did as well at any other event against similar players with other builds.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
I can't tell if this was intended to be a sarcastic imitation of a late night 4chan post or not.
The entire thread is a sarcastic imitation of the earlier "refuse to play against Eldar" thing, is it not? That's what it boils down to, just more trollish, as it's now adding Necrons, Khorne, Knights and SMs to the list of things that are "too broken" to play against.
The metagame is far less broken than certain Fantasy eras of DE/Daemon domination, and it's not like playing any of these newer Codices is auto-win. Didn't Orks and/or Nids come out on top post-Necrons? Eldar's been out for a month, are they auto-winning events, tabling everybody by Turn 2? No? Then this overblown whining should stop.
I disagree. The poster who started that thread seemed like they were a 4chan operative. The OP for this one is just annoyed and upset to the point of being misguided.
Orks and Tyranids might have come out on top in recent tournaments, but from what people have been posting Eldar and Necrons have been dominating the meta of local scenes. I would agree that, at least for more friendly games, I would not want to face one of the new types of Decurion-style detachments unless I had one of my own ( ). Fortunately, with the new Space Marine codex, the majority of players will have access to some form of this type of detachment. But for more laid-back games, I could understand why people would want to just stick to the standard CAD.
TheNewBlood wrote: I would not want to face one of the new types of Decurion-style detachments unless I had one of my own ( ).
Fortunately, with the new Space Marine codex, the majority of players will have access to some form of this type of detachment. But for more laid-back games, I could understand why people would want to just stick to the standard CAD.
Sure, I get that. But armies go up and down all the time. As for CAD, that's banning certain armies outright, which is far worse. Given the truly unprecedented pace at which GW is rolling out formations, there really is no basis for complaint. It's not like Eldar are getting a couple years head start over everyone else like when GW took 3 years to update 2/3 of the books. It's a month, maybe 2, with the vast bulk of players having a new Codex within 8 months.
It's pretty simple... make a rule at your table that everyone plays with a CAD. Disallow all formations. Consider allowing for dual CADs and an Allied Detachment, and keep it at that.
Shortsighted, sweeping rulings like this that haven't been thought out are why I'm not allowed to play Harlequins at 2 of the gaming stores here in town. When you attempt to make rules changes to a game that someone else designed, you have to account for EVERY army that's available, and all the rules that will still effect the game. Otherwise you're excluding people, models, and armies that you really have no reason to exclude.
I don't think the decurion style detachments is really the problem in and of itself. It IS concerning that GW is getting into the habit of awarding taking certain formations with free points worth of stuff though, instead of a quirky special rule. The space marine formation that let's everyone take free obsec dedicated transports of their choice is certainly worthy of mention. As an Eldar player, I was excited to see many of the changes in the codex, but disappointed with other things. To be honest, I'd be willing to play D-weapons as they were in last edition, and take only 1 heavy weapon per jetbike. Without the 2 main things people have complained about, I think the Eldar Codex would still be good without being considered OP. As it is now, I think it's a sign of things to come for future codices, such as the Space Marine codex we're seeing now. Over a thousand free points worth of vehicles in a formation is definitely OP. It'd be the points equivalent of the Craftworld Warhost getting 3 Free Wraithknights and an Avatar of Khaine instead of automatic 6" run moves.
My concern, then, is that the power creep of the game is going into hyperdrive, paired with massive price spikes from GW(10 Man Assault Marine Squad is now over $80). What this means for us players is that, in order to keep up with the power creep and equip our armies with the free stuff GW is giving us in our codex, we're going to need to buy more models, which GW is also raising the prices on. So, GW's strategy seems to be: Double the number of models we need to buy + Double the Prices = Quadruple the profit.
All this ridiculousness actually makes me wonder if someone has offered or is considering a complete purchase of the IP from GW or something. If the GW board knew for sure they were going to sell the 40k IP, it would make sense for them to make a bunch of quick changes to the game in order to cash in on fistfuls of models and inventory before the sale. Then, if someone else buys the IP and owns the rights to all of the games, it's no longer GW's problem to try to fix the game or reverse the massive power creep they initiated right before selling out.
Then again, it COULD be a fairly effective strategy, making players say the following to themselves: "Ok, so now I have to pay hundreds of dollars to be able to effectively play using the thousands of dollars of models I already have..."
The trick is getting people invested to begin with. Once someone has thousands of dollars invested in the hobby, what is another $300-400 to be able to continue to use it? The long-term viability of that strategy, however, is questionable. It creates a massive barrier to entry for new players, on top of the already daunting amount of work it takes to produce a tabletop standard army.
I play Mass Infantry Guard with a Lord Commissar leading my forces. I had a 750 point army with mostly Infantry Squads and a Chimera with a Multilaser and a Heavy Flamer.
His army was a Necron Decurion with 2 squads of warriors, 1 flying ship thing that gives them +1 reanimation, 5 immortals with some lord that gives them better reanimation, 3 wraiths and some ignores cover bikes.
I killed 5 necron warriors with a heavy flamer. He killed my entire army of massed infantry by turn 3.
I feel as if there's something wrong here. I'm under the impression when a new Guard codex comes out, it will have a huge power spike like the Necron and post Necron codexes have.
I don't agree with formations that give armies large bonuses for nothing. Even without formations, with a simple CAD, I'm sure Necrons are perfectly fine destroying the army I have without problem.
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P.
Lets be real here, we can find some pretty silly things about Aspect Warriors too things like Fire Dragons getting BS5 in formations and a total of +3 on vehicle damage chart, for zero additional points cost, is pretty absurd. They were hardly broken or in need of a buff before, and they simply got massively buffed.
The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
The issue, is that a handful of armies actually do have their new books, but GW decided halfway through an edition to ramp up the power level of their books, leaving those that had just got a book in the dirt. 'They're all broken so none are' only works if everything is broken, not if half of it is and half isn't.
You know it's funny how many armies there are in the game when you just choose to ignore everything you don't play and say "L2P" when you have the single most universally broken army in the game.
How many times do I have to explain this? Eldar have broken units. As an army, however, they are hardly overpowered or broken. Anyone who's complaining about Aspect Warriors really does need to L2P.
Lets be real here, we can find some pretty silly things about Aspect Warriors too things like Fire Dragons getting BS5 in formations and a total of +3 on vehicle damage chart, for zero additional points cost, is pretty absurd. They were hardly broken or in need of a buff before, and they simply got massively buffed.
The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
The issue, is that a handful of armies actually do have their new books, but GW decided halfway through an edition to ramp up the power level of their books, leaving those that had just got a book in the dirt. 'They're all broken so none are' only works if everything is broken, not if half of it is and half isn't.
Exactly. Orks, IG, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels all got major "toning down" treatments over the last ~year or so. Many of these armies lost large numbers of units and wargear options. While some got Formations or unique Detachments, they don't have anything near the power or flexibility of those found in the newer books (mostly, a couple exceptions aside) and have a far lower average unit power level. These books likely aren't going to be updated for another couple of years yet, and that's assuming GW sticks to their current release schedule and codex design paradigm and don't change it yet again.
Kain wrote: I can see it now, the Living tide dataslate formation becomes a Decurion esque formation.
If you kill anything it immediately re-enters ongoing reserves. No matter if it's a termagant brood or a Heirophant. Everything has objective secured and you get a free tervigon with every troop choice that never runs out of termagants. Then everyone can get free biomorphs because screw you.
It'd be fitting with the general trend of the game.
Too optimistic for a cruddex. More like any gaunts without devourers killed enters ongoing reserves, which must enter from your board edge. 2 free pyrovores, 1 free spore mine. Formation cannot include anything with wings. (Also, pyrovore is now -1T, weapon is -1S, +1AP, because cruddace)
The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
I like how elf players love to cry and whinge that SM are on their power level, when elves far eclipses them. Also, khorne? seriously? knights? your wraithknight is cheaper, tougher and has better weapons. elves and necrons are on a whole other universe compared to the rest of the codexes.
Its alright, we're sour grapes and jealous. Have fun playing by yourself. The elven attitude has been grating on the nerves on many, won't be long till they're even boycotted from friendly play.
Vaktathi wrote: Exactly. Orks, IG, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels all got major "toning down" treatments over the last ~year or so. Many of these armies lost large numbers of units and wargear options. While some got Formations or unique Detachments, they don't have anything near the power or flexibility of those found in the newer books (mostly, a couple exceptions aside) and have a far lower average unit power level. These books likely aren't going to be updated for another couple of years yet, and that's assuming GW sticks to their current release schedule and codex design paradigm and don't change it yet again.
One could make the argument that the "toning down" treatment should have been given to certain other armies...
We have suffered a major paradigm shift halfway through 7th edition. We had the first half of the releases toning down and reducing armies' options, and then the design philosophy suddenly changes and the next few releases are increased in power level.
There have always been a top tier of armies due to the release schedule and poor external balance. Eldar, Necrons, Mechanicus, and potentially the new Space Marines are undoubtedly more powerful than the previous 7th edition releases. But I disagree that these weaker armies stand no chance as to be futile against the new "power" codexes, especially when those codexes are toned down with house rules and FAQs. But I don't think that banning formations will serve any purpose in balancing these codexes out externally.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The sour grapes and jealousy here is unreal. A handful of armies don't have their new Codex, and it's so unfair? Too bad.
40k has never been fair, never will be. Whining about Necrons / Khorne / Eldar / Knights / Space Marines is ridiculous. They're all broken, which means that none of them are broken,
The issue, is that a handful of armies actually do have their new books, but GW decided halfway through an edition to ramp up the power level of their books, leaving those that had just got a book in the dirt. 'They're all broken so none are' only works if everything is broken, not if half of it is and half isn't.
Then I guess you have a couple options:
1. shelve your weak army and play one of your strong(er) armies.
or
2. talk to your opponent and negotiate a "balanced" game.
GW knows that most of their players lack the social skills for 2, so they make the purchase of multiple armies the preferred solution. Easy and fair.
And, yes, it's no accident that I own multiple armies for 40k, and have shelved each of them in turn for various reasons.
1. shelve your weak army and play one of your strong(er) armies.
or
2. talk to your opponent and negotiate a "balanced" game.
GW knows that most of their players lack the social skills for 2, so they make the purchase of multiple armies the preferred solution. Easy and fair.
And, yes, it's no accident that I own multiple armies for 40k, and have shelved each of them in turn for various reasons.
So if we segregate the two you get to play your shelved armies with far less frustration and still get to enjoy your post-Necron Armies with competent enemies. I don't see why you are even complaining.
If the solution to balance issues is to buy another army, something is wrong. There are a gigantic number of reasons why people wouldn't want to buy another army. Most people don't have multiple different armies, those of us that do are in the minority. Preference, feel, look, and cost really are all very powerful factors here.
Likewise, implying that people "lack the social skills" to talk about a balanced game is being disingenuous. The problem isn't with players lacking social skills. First and foremost, that really shouldn't be necessary, and isn't when any other game I can think of really. There's a ton of reasons why negotiating stuff about a game just doesn't really work in the real world. The other player might not have anything else with them. They may be at a tournament or playing a league game where such would be both counterproductive and ruled illegal by the organizer. There's a huge number of other reasons one could go into. Ultimately, it makes it easier on everyone when the game addresses those imbalances fundamentally instead of relying on the players to negotiate it.
As far as I recollect, 40k has only ever been balanced for the 1 month when everybody played out of the 40k3 rulebook. As long as there are Codices, there will be imbalances. Also, as long as players have varying luck and varying skill.
And the idea that you can't accept an imbalanced game? That's kinda immature. Hope you never play a Trasimene scenario in Ancients, or really, any WW2 scenario. Even Chess is hopelessly imbalanced because White has Always Moves First...
Yes, every game is imbalanced but 40k doesn't have to be that way. Through space wolves, guard, CSM, grey knights, dark Eldar, orks, we had balance. Everyone was relatively happy because every army could be played against everyone else.
And then we got frickin' Decurion and busted ass wraiths, and then we got Eldar. Overnight, that one guy whose army had two wraithknights because he thought they were cool suddenly has the option of A) not playing one or both of his 100+$ purchases, or never having a fun game because that 600 points of his army can table whole 2000 point lists of other peoples stuff
This is power creep beyond the previous "tiers". Before, you might play bottom tier orks against top tier SM and go "damn, Smashbane is annoying." Now, every single unit of the Necron army fielded against you gets enormous blanket buffs to become this uncrackable juggernaut, and you're lucky if you can down 10 warriors in a 2k game.
So yeah. I guess we just sit here, twiddle our thumbs and wait our turn to hand 66$ so our armies can be playable again. If they decide to make them playable again. I half expect the ork decurion to be similar to many of the ork "benefits". Maybe if we take 500 boyz we can get "you can waaaagh every turn!!!!!1!!! Twice! And Ghazgkull gets a 6++!"
JohnHwangDD wrote: As far as I recollect, 40k has only ever been balanced for the 1 month when everybody played out of the 40k3 rulebook. As long as there are Codices, there will be imbalances. Also, as long as players have varying luck and varying skill.
And the idea that you can't accept an imbalanced game? That's kinda immature. Hope you never play a Trasimene scenario in Ancients, or really, any WW2 scenario. Even Chess is hopelessly imbalanced because White has Always Moves First...
Same old fallacies from the same old elf players.
WW2 scenarios, or military scenarios have asymmetrical victory conditions. US marines win if they kill 20 IS troops, or IS wins if they kill 3 marines. Soviets win if the Germans don't cross a line, Germans win if they do.
All games have imbalance, and most good game designers accept them and try to improve on them. People complain, but they still feel happy, because the gap is narrowing across editions. The difference is not so large that games are unwinnable.
The reason certain games, like 40k, have editions, is because players expect power levels and imbalances to be smoothed out. We are in our 7th iteration of rules.
40k is broken. Certain matchups are effectively unwinnable, while requiring the same victory conditions from both parties (DA/nids/orks VS elves) Discrepancies in power levels are not narrowed down across editions, but rather enhanced, with elves being supercharged, and tyranids being stomped to the ground. There is little point for certain armies to play because they have a near 90% chance of losing through no fault of their own. There is also little point for decent players of overpowered factions, because they have a near 90% win rate, and playing is pointless.
The ones without shame will continue stomping others with their 90% win rate codex, because perhaps, they have nothing else going for them in life?
I believe that the reason it feels like two different games for some, and less so for others, has to do with where you fit in the player spectrum.
Casual-Only Player: (COP) - Rules are good, but fun is better. (see - piling Orks over models to show that more are getting into close combat)
- Never uses Forge World
- Only uses alternate detachments if it makes sense.
- Tends to have one single army, maybe few small ones.
Casual-And-Tourney: (CAT) - Tries to keep current with rules, but doesn't know them inside-out.
- Plays multiple armies.
- Uses Forgeworld as necessary.
- Likes using alternate rules to experience new things.
Tourney-Only Player (TOP) - Thoroughly knows the rules.
- Plays tons of armies, but only with the top models/units from each.
- Uses Forgeworld extensively.
- Plays to win (because it's a tourney, duh)
COPs and TOPs aren't overly affected by the new codex. COPs don't care, because codex changes are just things that happen, and they're playing for the love of their fluff anyways. So what if Siam Hann have the best bikes in the game? They're playing Alaitioc, and by golly, they're going to use those Pathfinders!
TOPs don't care, because codex creep just means a new change to the tourney scene, and things at that level are fundamentally ridiculous. They need to be at the edge of power creep so they can win, and they face others doing the same, and that's a fun game too!
But CATs... they care, a lot! CATs play both COPs and TOPs. Against TOPs they need to bring the super A-game, and these new detachments allow them to compete while staying true to their roots. Finally they can take a "classic" army list and it'll go toe to toe with the TOPs. But then they play COPs, and because they want to still take this "classic" army list, they end up beating the COPs so bad that it's no fun. CATs are now in a situation where they have to be a lot more aware of their meta and who they're playing against if they way to have fun.
Which is unfortunate, because I think myself and most other players are CATs, with COPs and TOPs being far less common.
Now, it's not enough to say it's a different game, but you can definitely say that 7th has moved into a new "Decurion" era.
Yarium wrote: Casual-Only Player: (COP) - Never uses Forge World
Casual-And-Tourney: (CAT) - Uses Forgeworld as necessary.
Tourney-Only Player (TOP) - Uses Forgeworld extensively.
What does FW use have to do with casual vs. tournament? If anything the opposite should be true, since a lot of tournaments still have their "no FW" rules (for a variety of stupid reasons). And TBH "uses FW extensively" is going to be a drawback most of the time if you want a competitive list.
COPs and TOPs aren't overly affected by the new codex. COPs don't care, because codex changes are just things that happen, and they're playing for the love of their fluff anyways. So what if Siam Hann have the best bikes in the game? They're playing Alaitioc, and by golly, they're going to use those Pathfinders!
Until the "COP" player plays a game against someone who happens to have a more powerful army, gets wiped off the table in 1-2 turns, and wonders why they play 40k at all. Even if it's entirely a "COP" group and nobody tries to abuse the broken rules there's still the opportunity for someone to bring their fluffy Eldar jetbike army and massacre everyone.
Yarium wrote: I believe that the reason it feels like two different games for some, and less so for others, has to do with where you fit in the player spectrum.
Casual-Only Player: (COP)
Casual-And-Tourney: (CAT) - Tries to keep current with rules, but doesn't know them inside-out.
- Plays multiple armies. - Uses Forgeworld as necessary.
- Likes using alternate rules to experience new things.
Tourney-Only Player (TOP)
COPs and TOPs aren't overly affected by the new codex.
But CATs... they care, a lot!
Which is unfortunate, because I think myself and most other players are CATs, with COPs and TOPs being far less common.
Now, it's not enough to say it's a different game, but you can definitely say that 7th has moved into a new "Decurion" era.
The vastly overwhelming majority of 40k players do not play tournaments. You can compare GW sales with Tournament events and see that there is very minimal overlap. GW knows this, which is why they flat out do NOT care about tournament play. They are, however, very aware of those players who obsess over tournaments and balance, particularly the tournament crowd that used to cry for No Comp!! GW took them at their word, and decided that casual players should have Forgeworld, Flyers, Apocalypse, Superheavies, Gargantuans, Unbound and Formations as part of the base game. GW has been pretty successful at allowing COPs play with everything that they purchased, and it's been a great decision.
CATs have multiple armies, so they should have no problem adapting.
GW was smart and dropped ALL support for tournament play, and tournaments now take care of themselves. Another win-win for GW and casuals alike.
The handful who believe in "balanced" competitive games outside of a tournament? Eh, not something to worry about. Either play tournament style or simply have fun. If you can't have fun, quit. But expecting others to cater to you? Nope.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The vastly overwhelming majority of 40k players do not play tournaments.
And why is this? Why are 40k tournaments such a minority when other games manage to do better? Could it possibly be that GW sucks at writing good rules, so only the most stubbornly competitive players would even consider having a tournament? I think this seems likely.
GW knows this, which is why they flat out do NOT care about tournament play.
No, GW doesn't care about tournament play because making a good tournament game is hard. And investing the time and money to make a good game directly conflicts with their current approach of treating the rules like one of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. Making a good tournament game would improve the game for everyone else at the same time, but current GW management is not capable of doing it.
GW has been pretty successful at allowing COPs play with everything that they purchased, and it's been a great decision.
Only if you define "allowing" as "it is legal to put it on the table according to the rules" rather than "you can use this and have a game that is fun for both people." If you define it in a more sensible way then this has been an utter failure.
The handful who believe in "balanced" competitive games outside of a tournament? Eh, not something to worry about. Either play tournament style or simply have fun. If you can't have fun, quit. But expecting others to cater to you? Nope.
Yeah, how dare people expect a game that works properly. The minority with higher standards should just STFU and get out of the game. Have your Citadel™ FineFun™ and buy more Games™ Workshop™ Products™.
the_scotsman wrote:Yes, every game is imbalanced but 40k doesn't have to be that way. Through space wolves, guard, CSM, grey knights, dark Eldar, orks, we had balance. Everyone was relatively happy because every army could be played against everyone else.
And then we got frickin' Decurion and busted ass wraiths, and then we got Eldar. Overnight, that one guy whose army had two wraithknights because he thought they were cool suddenly has the option of A) not playing one or both of his 100+$ purchases, or never having a fun game because that 600 points of his army can table whole 2000 point lists of other peoples stuff
This is power creep beyond the previous "tiers". Before, you might play bottom tier orks against top tier SM and go "damn, Smashbane is annoying." Now, every single unit of the Necron army fielded against you gets enormous blanket buffs to become this uncrackable juggernaut, and you're lucky if you can down 10 warriors in a 2k game.
So yeah. I guess we just sit here, twiddle our thumbs and wait our turn to hand 66$ so our armies can be playable again. If they decide to make them playable again. I half expect the ork decurion to be similar to many of the ork "benefits". Maybe if we take 500 boyz we can get "you can waaaagh every turn!!!!!1!!! Twice! And Ghazgkull gets a 6++!"
We seem to be remembering the rose-colored salad days of 5 months ago differently. Back then, Eldar was Codex: Wave Serpents and could summon fething Daemonettes. Necrons had mindshenanigan scarabs and Tesla proc on snapshots. Tyranids could now fit 5 FMCs in their lists. Centstar and TWC dominated the popular deathstar builds.
In short, we didn't have balance. Warhammer 40,000 is not and has never been a balanced game. The only "balance" that was achieved was via house rules and gentleman's/woman's agreements not to bring lists of a certain power level. GW has made it clear that "balanced rules" are somewhere below "reducing prices" on their list of priorities. It's up the the players to balance the game, and banning certain armies/factions/formations is not the way to do it.
Peregrine wrote:What does FW use have to do with casual vs. tournament? If anything the opposite should be true, since a lot of tournaments still have their "no FW" rules (for a variety of stupid reasons). And TBH "uses FW extensively" is going to be a drawback most of the time if you want a competitive list.
COPs and TOPs aren't overly affected by the new codex. COPs don't care, because codex changes are just things that happen, and they're playing for the love of their fluff anyways. So what if Siam Hann have the best bikes in the game? They're playing Alaitioc, and by golly, they're going to use those Pathfinders!
Until the "COP" player plays a game against someone who happens to have a more powerful army, gets wiped off the table in 1-2 turns, and wonders why they play 40k at all. Even if it's entirely a "COP" group and nobody tries to abuse the broken rules there's still the opportunity for someone to bring their fluffy Eldar jetbike army and massacre everyone.
Exalted for truth.
Having massive imbalances in the game is equally bad for players at all levels of competition. It's up to the players themselves to balance the game. Also, restrictions on Forge World products (other than Titans/ranged D) is just stupid. Why should I not be able to play with my massive hunk of overpriced resin just because "it isn't in the codex"?
@ TheNewBlood. Your examples are all from 6th edition codexes.(And Leviathan which came out just before the Necrons)
The first 5 books of 7th made it seem they had learned their lesson from the missteps of 6th until the drastic shift in design philosophy. Not completely surprising but really disappointing for those with those armies (Though they don't have long to wait for the chance at a power book I suppose.)
Eldarain wrote: @ TheNewBlood. Your examples are all from 6th edition codexes.(And Leviathan which came out just before the Necrons)
The first 5 books of 7th made it seem they had learned their lesson from the missteps of 6th until the drastic shift in design philosophy. Not completely surprising but really disappointing for those with those armies (Though they don't have long to wait for the chance at a power book I suppose.)
Conspiracy theory time: everything has been leading up to this.
GW was testing the waters when 7th edition released, expanded it slowly form Orks through Blood Angels, and went all the way with Necrons (and turned it up to 11 with Eldar).
Am I disappointed that certain armies aren't competitive in the current playing environment and some were used as the design team's guinea pigs? Of course. Ideally, the game should be balanced externally between the factions. The problem is that GW could care less about balance.
Formations are now a fundamental part of Warhammer 40,000. As players, all we can really do is to try to tone down the most egregious offenders in the balance department: Eldar, and to a lesser extent Necrons. Getting rid of a faction's formations, on the other hand, is going a step too far.
I think you are giving them far too much credit. It's crazy to watch them over this last year. They have no clear idea what to do.
The first three books get a simultaneous supplemental book released full of formations (Blood Angels also get one in the sense that Exterminatus fits with the same paradigm). This seems like a winning formula as they get every player to buy two books now.
Yet suddenly this is abandoned with the Necron release and a new Detachment type created from multiple formations. With the lead time required with printing Codexes it is not feasible that backlash or a change of heart based on seeing the books in action on the table had any part to play in the shift.
It is frustrating that they seemingly have no vision for how they want the game to function and the way they approach the way armies are conceived and presented. We are on what should be the 7th attempt to refine something here.
Eldarain wrote: It is frustrating that they seemingly have no vision for how they want the game to function and the way they approach the way armies are conceived and presented. We are on what should be the 7th attempt to refine something here.
Actually, GW has a very clear idea of what they want - they want everyone to buy whatever they find interesting, and to play with it without any restrictions. From 5E to 7E, GW has done an exceptional job at permitting players to craft forces according to their own whims and desires.
The "problem" is not with GW, but with the players. Given the history of GW and the very clear patterns that they have shown and consistently demonstrated, it is laughable that anyone would expect otherwise.
Blame yourself, not GW. Stop blaming GW for your misuse of their product in unsupported ways (i.e. competitive tournament play).
JohnHwangDD wrote: Actually, GW has a very clear idea of what they want - they want everyone to buy whatever they find interesting, and to play with it without any restrictions.
That's not what GW wants. GW wants everyone to buy. Playing the game is optional, just like playing the game on the back of a cereal box is optional as long as you buy the cereal. GW treats the rules like this annoying obligation they have left from a previous version of the company and maybe a little free advertising, but their primary goal is to sell plastic toys to people who will probably never play the game attached to them.
Stop blaming GW for your misuse of their product in unsupported ways (i.e. competitive tournament play).
Casual/narrative games are just as unsupported as competitive tournament play.
... (1 in 3 can take a cannon, Distort weapons use 6th ed. rules, ban the Wraithknight) so that Eldar have something resembling balance against other armies.
Honestly, I really like the new "Decurion-style" force org chart. It makes list building that much more interesting compared to the bland old CAD.
As an eldar player myself, I do exactly what you describe. 1 in 3 bikes with a heavy. D-weapon using previous chart. And I don't even own (and have no plans yet to buy) a WK. To me... stuff THAT f'n big just doesn't belong on a normal 40K table. Those things on up... just ridiculous, in my opinion.
Regardless, I agree that the new 'Dec style' force org does make building more interesting, that's for sure. I find myself looking (as required) at units I normally wouldn't.
Eldarain wrote: It is frustrating that they seemingly have no vision for how they want the game to function and the way they approach the way armies are conceived and presented. We are on what should be the 7th attempt to refine something here.
Actually, GW has a very clear idea of what they want - they want everyone to buy whatever they find interesting, and to play with it without any restrictions. From 5E to 7E, GW has done an exceptional job at permitting players to craft forces according to their own whims and desires.
The "problem" is not with GW, but with the players. Given the history of GW and the very clear patterns that they have shown and consistently demonstrated, it is laughable that anyone would expect otherwise.
Blame yourself, not GW. Stop blaming GW for your misuse of their product in unsupported ways (i.e. competitive tournament play).
Ah so we're back to blaming the players for poorly written rules? The rules are just as bad, if not worse, when you're playing casually. Competitive players will just play what's strong, it's casual players that get randomly punished (or rewarded) just for happening to like a certain theme for their army.
The BALANCE is fine for casual play. In pure casual play, players adapt the game to suit themselves, and that may mean a deliberately asymmetrical game.
Indeed, in certain ways, the balance suits the Fluff. Orks should always be a Tier 2 power, simply because their numbers are unbounded, but they don't really represent a threat to the galaxy. Ergo, they're inefficient at what they do, so un-compeititive Tier 2 play level.
The BALANCE is fine for casual play. In pure casual play, players adapt the game to suit themselves, and that may mean a deliberately asymmetrical game.
Indeed, in certain ways, the balance suits the Fluff. Orks should always be a Tier 2 power, simply because their numbers are unbounded, but they don't really represent a threat to the galaxy. Ergo, they're inefficient at what they do, so un-compeititive Tier 2 play level.
Gee I guess the Imperium must have imagined the Beast's WAAAGH destroying the golden age of the Imperium forever and ending the era of progress under the Emperor and Guilliman, leaving the organization we all know and love today in its wake, and that Gazghkull is set on surpassing even the Beast's WAAAGH!
The BALANCE is fine for casual play. In pure casual play, players adapt the game to suit themselves, and that may mean a deliberately asymmetrical game.
Indeed, in certain ways, the balance suits the Fluff. Orks should always be a Tier 2 power, simply because their numbers are unbounded, but they don't really represent a threat to the galaxy. Ergo, they're inefficient at what they do, so un-compeititive Tier 2 play level.
I think plenty of Ork players would disagree with you on that point. Besides, the lore does not have a literal effect on the rules. Otherwise we would have movie marines and Tyranids and Eldar never winning any games. The lore and rules are separate while sharing indirect influences, and in an ideal game the rules would balance out all armies.
As Peregrine pointed out, casual players are just as hurt by poor rules, If not more. I know plenty of people for whom assembling the most competitive force possible is simply something they're not interested in. They would much rather try to emulate the lore on the tabletop, even if it means taking sub-optimal units. These are also the kind of people most likely to be put off by the recent changes in power level, as their army can suddenly no longer compete with those of other factions.
I think at least one solution would be to allow those codexes that don't have a formation-of-formations to go double CAD. That and put a limit of two detachments or formations per army. I feel that this might at least force some balance and equality on the various factions.
I think at least one solution would be to allow those codexes that don't have a formation-of-formations to go double CAD.
This is already allowed. Per the main rulebook, you can take 50 CADs if you have enough points available to pay for an HQ and 2 Troops for each of them.
If you're referring to tournament rules, tournaments will catch up. Eventually, the cap on number of formations/detachments is just going to have to be discarded as the bad idea that it was when tournaments first started it. I knew right away what direction the game was going when it implemented the detachment system. Massive customization of battle-forged armies via multiple detachments that each make you pay a little tax. That's it. But all the TOs out there thought they'd try to keep the game from changing, trying to limit that. The game isn't designed to be limited #s of formations and detachments. It's designed to allow you to pick and run the formations and detachments you want.
I'm hoping tournies wise up and eventually ban formations, including decurion/warhost/gladius types. Yes I realize eldar still have a foot in the winner circle from round 1 even running a cad, but I think that's a better situation than what we have now.
It's just silly that we have "your entire army gets better" and "your entire army gets free stuff and turn by turn abilities" next to "take 3 units of overcosted BA terminators and they can RUN AND SHOOT after a deep strike!"
Of course, I'm one of the unfortunate souls to be playing blood angels, who were the last "balanced and blanded" 7e book right before they decided to nix that plan and go nuts on necrons. Many dark days ahead.
I think at least one solution would be to allow those codexes that don't have a formation-of-formations to go double CAD.
This is already allowed. Per the main rulebook, you can take 50 CADs if you have enough points available to pay for an HQ and 2 Troops for each of them.
If you're referring to tournament rules, tournaments will catch up. Eventually, the cap on number of formations/detachments is just going to have to be discarded as the bad idea that it was when tournaments first started it. I knew right away what direction the game was going when it implemented the detachment system. Massive customization of battle-forged armies via multiple detachments that each make you pay a little tax. That's it. But all the TOs out there thought they'd try to keep the game from changing, trying to limit that. The game isn't designed to be limited #s of formations and detachments. It's designed to allow you to pick and run the formations and detachments you want.
I agree that this is true, but at the same time not all armies at the moment have equal access to either the number or kind of formations as GW's more recent codex releases. I would still argue for some sort of limit to be put in place, at least for organized play. Perhaps something like this:
Each player has access to three "Detachment Slots" per army. These slots may be used as follows:
Slot 1: The Primary Detachment. An army must have a detachment of this type in order to be a legal Battle-Forged army. Acceptable detachments in this slot include the standard CAD, modified faction-specific CADs, and formations labeled from their codex as "Core".
Slot 2: Secondary Formation. An army may bring a formation defined as belonging to their codex from any GW publication that is allowed for play under the general rules. Alternatively, an army can include a formation from their codex labeled as "Command".
Slot 3: Secondary Detachment. An army may bring an additional detachment or formation as an add-on to their Primary Detachment. Acceptable detachments in this slot include Allied Detachments and formations labeled from their codex as "Auxiliary"
Alternatively, if a player brought a standard CAD in Slot 1, they may forgo Slots 2 and 3 in order to bring a second standard CAD.
I feel this is at least a start toward balancing formations. It doesn't cover everything; certain armies will have to be FAQed in, and some specific formations should probably be prohibited. But I think that this is a step in the right direction. With any luck, I might just post this in Proposed Rules!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: I'm hoping tournies wise up and eventually ban formations, including decurion/warhost/gladius types. Yes I realize eldar still have a foot in the winner circle from round 1 even running a cad, but I think that's a better situation than what we have now.
It's just silly that we have "your entire army gets better" and "your entire army gets free stuff and turn by turn abilities" next to "take 3 units of overcosted BA terminators and they can RUN AND SHOOT after a deep strike!"
Of course, I'm one of the unfortunate souls to be playing blood angels, who were the last "balanced and blanded" 7e book right before they decided to nix that plan and go nuts on necrons. Many dark days ahead.
I would argue that this is not a good idea. As you pointed out, certain armies are more powerful in the CAD than in their formations, while some have the opposite problem. I think that my proposal might go some way toward at least solving some of the nonsense some armies can pull off with their formations.
As a side note, Terminators gaining what amounts to free Battle Focus does not strike me as completely useless from a tactical perspective...
The COP - CAT - TOP concept is a scale; few, if any, players will fit exactly in them, so debating the finer points of what's in each spot isn't worth the time. The point is, players of different outlooks will interact with these few Decurion-Detachments in different ways. Those who have always preferred fluffy battles won't find too much change. Sure one of them may come around with the uber-powered force (probably by accident), but the COPs will be able to self-regulate pretty easily. They'll just say "well, don't be that guy, communicate with your opponent, if something's not fun don't play it" etc. They'll "fix" it by doing what they've always done - just have fun. Again, it doesn't matter if this is the majority or minority, because of these self-correcting social mechanisms.
The TOPs likewise won't have a problem, because they also self-regulate through survival of the fittest. To a TOP, it doesn't matter too much if they play a bunch of mirror matches, because that just confirms for themselves that they're playing with a tournament-quality list if other TOPs are playing this way. Again, it doesn't matter if these TOPs play once a week or just twice a year - this is their mindset during these games that matter.
But CATs have a problem. CATs want to bring their casual lists to tournaments and bring their tournament lists to casual games. Even if they're not playing tournaments - if they have this mindset that they like to play both fluffy and competitively, then they may run into these issues.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The BALANCE is fine for casual play. In pure casual play, players adapt the game to suit themselves, and that may mean a deliberately asymmetrical game.
No, balance is not fine for "casual" play. A game where both players have to carefully analyze the rules and read forums/blogs/etc as a full-time job so they can understand GW's balance issues well enough to negotiate a solution is not "fine". Nor does "the players can fix the balance issues themselves" mean that those balance issues don't exist.
Indeed, in certain ways, the balance suits the Fluff. Orks should always be a Tier 2 power, simply because their numbers are unbounded, but they don't really represent a threat to the galaxy. Ergo, they're inefficient at what they do, so un-compeititive Tier 2 play level.
This is a joke, right? You can't seriously believe that ork players should just accept that they're going to lose most of their games because of some absurd "fluff" justification that doesn't even match the fluff.
Poly Ranger wrote: Blood Angels came out after necrons... whats wrong with BA?
I believe that you're mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Blood Angels were released in December 2014/January 2015. Necrons were released in January/February 2015.
One could make the argument, as many on this forum have, that Blood Angels are underpowered compared to the new Necrons, Eldar, and Space Marine codexes.
They lack a "Decurion" formation-of-formations, units the internet considers as OP as Necrons/Eldar, overpriced Terminators, Scouts with WS/BS 3, the list goes on.
Poly Ranger wrote: Blood Angels came out after necrons... whats wrong with BA?
They came out before but there is nothing wrong with them.
I don't have a problem with Necrons/Eldar/other OP stuff. Even when I play my favourite armies, Orks and DE (holding off Tyranids until updated Dex because that thing is so horribly internally balanced I've renamed it Codex: Flyrants).
Remember this is a game that involves two players and communication between them. If you don't like something, either refuse to play or ask them to tone down a list (but that goes both ways).
I may be wrong. I have both BA and Necrons so I could have got mixed up.
Problem with our formations (aside from being in another book) is that they require significant investment for any gain. 3 ravens and 3 tacs if you want assault from deepstrike; 20 vanguard, 10 sternguard and a raven if you want free gear, etc.
Poly Ranger wrote: Blood Angels came out after necrons... whats wrong with BA?
They came out before but there is nothing wrong with them.
I don't have a problem with Necrons/Eldar/other OP stuff. Even when I play my favourite armies, Orks and DE (holding off Tyranids until updated Dex because that thing is so horribly internally balanced I've renamed it Codex: Flyrants).
Remember this is a game that involves two players and communication between them. If you don't like something, either refuse to play or ask them to tone down a list (but that goes both ways).
Exalted for truth. People act like communicating with you opponent over what kind of game you want (outside of a tournament setting) is this impossible task.
Very true with the two player comment. And it applies to the majority of situations. Its the ones it doesnt such as tourneys and PUGs thats annoyed people I think. Plus the fact it sucks the fun out of list building somewhat. Eldar definitely reduced my enthusiasm for list building.
Poly Ranger wrote: Blood Angels came out after necrons... whats wrong with BA?
They came out before but there is nothing wrong with them.
I don't have a problem with Necrons/Eldar/other OP stuff. Even when I play my favourite armies, Orks and DE (holding off Tyranids until updated Dex because that thing is so horribly internally balanced I've renamed it Codex: Flyrants).
Remember this is a game that involves two players and communication between them. If you don't like something, either refuse to play or ask them to tone down a list (but that goes both ways).
Exalted for truth. People act like communicating with you opponent over what kind of game you want (outside of a tournament setting) is this impossible task.
No people don't act like that. People act like the amount of communication required before a game of 40k is ridiculous, and doesn't exist in any other game. And that's fine, if you have a gaming group and know what you all want from the game, but if you rely on pick up games, it just goes to crap. It's nothing to do with 'communication is impossible' and everything to do with 'why should we need to communicate this much?'
It's an exercise in futility to try and understand the motivations behind the decisions made by GW and their game designers.
One minute you think you see a pattern emerging, some kind of logical explanation coming into focus - and then it's gone, right in front of your eyes.
An example: "cash grab" gets thrown around a lot, and yet many others have shown how often the supposed "cash grabs" simply aren't that good at making GW any money, in the short or the long run, or simply make no sense. Is it just incompetence? Some kind of long-term scheme? I reckon we'll never know.
It's the same thing with rules. When you release FAQs for rules so infrequently, and often without even addressing major concerns voiced by customers... why do them at all? Sometimes units that get new models get improved rules and reduced costs to go with - sometimes they don't. It's a crapshoot as to whether or not a codex rewrite will be an improvement or not. And once again, the motivation behind any of it is unknowable: do they not understand their own game? Do they simply not care? In either case there's been evidence that they do, and that they don't. Nothing lines up perfectly to give us some insight.
GW is a boundless, unfeeling, unthinking entity that actively refuses any attempts to comprehend it. It's like an antidiluvian horror, existing at the fringes of space and time, it's occasional involuntary twitches sending ripples of raw energy and matter through our universe, confounding measurement and analysis, and forcing our naked minds to fold within themselves or become undone as truth and not-truth become inseperable.
There are some things man was not meant to know, and to save my sanity, I choose not to attempt to apply my vaunted "logic" to the practices of the company. Wallowing in blissful ignorance might not be the way most people enjoy their hobby, but it's worked out pretty well for the people I know that play 40k, and for me.
Jambles wrote: It's an exercise in futility to try and understand the motivations behind the decisions made by GW and their game designers.
One minute you think you see a pattern emerging, some kind of logical explanation coming into focus - and then it's gone, right in front of your eyes.
An example: "cash grab" gets thrown around a lot, and yet many others have shown how often the supposed "cash grabs" simply aren't that good at making GW any money, in the short or the long run, or simply make no sense. Is it just incompetence? Some kind of long-term scheme? I reckon we'll never know.
It's the same thing with rules. When you release FAQs for rules so infrequently, and often without even addressing major concerns voiced by customers... why do them at all? Sometimes units that get new models get improved rules and reduced costs to go with - sometimes they don't. It's a crapshoot as to whether or not a codex rewrite will be an improvement or not. And once again, the motivation behind any of it is unknowable: do they not understand their own game? Do they simply not care? In either case there's been evidence that they do, and that they don't. Nothing lines up perfectly to give us some insight.
GW is a boundless, unfeeling, unthinking entity that actively refuses any attempts to comprehend it. It's like an antidiluvian horror, existing at the fringes of space and time, it's occasional involuntary twitches sending ripples of raw energy and matter through our universe, confounding measurement and analysis, and forcing our naked minds to fold within themselves or become undone as truth and not-truth become inseperable.
There are some things man was not meant to know, and to save my sanity, I choose not to attempt to apply my vaunted "logic" to the practices of the company. Wallowing in blissful ignorance might not be the way most people enjoy their hobby, but it's worked out pretty well for the people I know that play 40k, and for me.
Ever seen the South Park episode where Manatees randomly write Family Guy episodes by selecting random balls... that's GW rule writing through and through.
TheNewBlood wrote: Exalted for truth. People act like communicating with you opponent over what kind of game you want (outside of a tournament setting) is this impossible task.
It isn't impossible, but it shouldn't be necessary. Other games don't require this pre-game negotiation between players, and the only reason 40k does is that GW is hopelessly incompetent at writing rules and doesn't care.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The BALANCE is fine for casual play. In pure casual play, players adapt the game to suit themselves, and that may mean a deliberately asymmetrical game.
No, balance is not fine for "casual" play. A game where both players have to carefully analyze the rules and read forums/blogs/etc as a full-time job so they can understand GW's balance issues well enough to negotiate a solution is not "fine". Nor does "the players can fix the balance issues themselves" mean that those balance issues don't exist.
Indeed, in certain ways, the balance suits the Fluff. Orks should always be a Tier 2 power, simply because their numbers are unbounded, but they don't really represent a threat to the galaxy. Ergo, they're inefficient at what they do, so un-compeititive Tier 2 play level.
This is a joke, right? You can't seriously believe that ork players should just accept that they're going to lose most of their games because of some absurd "fluff" justification that doesn't even match the fluff.
*looks at sig
You realize that's an Eldar player, right? You really think you should take them seriously on this matter?
TheNewBlood wrote: Exalted for truth. People act like communicating with you opponent over what kind of game you want (outside of a tournament setting) is this impossible task.
It isn't impossible, but it shouldn't be necessary. Other games don't require this pre-game negotiation between players, and the only reason 40k does is that GW is hopelessly incompetent at writing rules and doesn't care.
This. The rules in 40k are worse than any other TT game I have ever played. I play close to 20+ different board games a year, numerous video games etc & I can't think of a single instance where I have to sit down with my opponent for hours negotiating what should/should not be considered legal/acceptable. Sure its not as much of an issue if you play in your garage with a group of buddies you play with on a regular basis but good luck playing a pickup game at a FLGS or entering a tournament.
*looks at sig
You realize that's an Eldar player, right? You really think you should take them seriously on this matter?
This attitude is becoming trite. GW changes Eldar in a way that is percieved as OP, and what do players do? Do they get upset at GW for terrible rules writing and refuse to buy any of their OTHER models until they make it right? No, of course not. Instead, they start an internet trope where every Eldar player is a terrible, evil person who's opinions don't matter. They villify every person who ever bought an Eldar model prior to that, as if all such people should have known GW was going to do this. (Hint: Eldar players PLAY farseers, that doesn't mean they ARE farseers.)
Now, some people recognize this for what it is: Bull Excrement. But, the dumb ones don't. They buy into the hype about how OP everything is, even when they've never faced the new rules themselves, and they buy into the fact that Eldar players are the worst people on the planet. They perpetuate the fallacy with a fanaticism and religious zeal that can only be born of ignorance, recruiting even more dumb people to their cause until the sound of reason is drowned out amongst a sea of shouting stupidity. Now, GW is vindicated, and it's widely accepted that Eldar players are the scum of the earth. Heil GW! Heil the Imperium! Root out the Eldar player scum. Do not hide them. They are not people. They're a plague on society, and must be purged.
EDIT: My faith in the people of this place to pick up on references, and see the ridiculousness of this situation in order to enact change is probably misplaced, but here it is, all the same.
This attitude is becoming trite. GW changes Eldar in a way that is percieved as OP, and what do players do? Do they get upset at GW for terrible rules writing and refuse to buy any of their OTHER models until they make it right? No, of course not. Instead, they start an internet trope where every Eldar player is a terrible, evil person who's opinions don't matter. They villify every person who ever bought an Eldar model prior to that, as if all such people should have known GW was going to do this. (Hint: Eldar players PLAY farseers, that doesn't mean they ARE farseers.)
I agree. It's the same reason I get fed up with the argument about it bad rules somehow being the player's fault for taking broken stuff.
That being said, when Eldar players (or anyone else with a strong book, for that matter) adopts a general "I've got mine so screw you." attitude, they really don't help themselves.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: *looks at sig
You realize that's an Eldar player, right? You really think you should take them seriously on this matter?
Not saying I agree with the poster in question, either, but seriously, people like you are what's wrong with 40k. As noted above, GW are the ones who put out the rules, they are the ones that made Eldar better than everyone else (with no explanation or reason), and what do people like you do? Demonize the Eldar players for something completely out of their control, perpetuating the idea that they're all just bad people regardless of how long they've been playing Eldar or even what their lists look like, and then continue happily buying Spehss Mahreens from GW and rewarding them for their feth-ups.
This attitude cropped up around the time the new Tau codex dropped, too, and it killed what little interest I had in playing the game. You have any idea how much of a fething downer it is when you go online and see nothing but rampant hate for your army, and by extension, you? And all for something you had no say in? No one cares, though, because "Yay, one less OP Tau player! GOOD RIDDANCE!"...
Virtually every army-player gets hate SOMEWHERE though.
Anyone playing any branch of the IoM gets hated on just for having the POSSIBILITY of buying other IoM armies to abuse the ally mechanics, even though that seems to be exceedingly rare as far as I've seen.
(According to the internet, I have thousands of dollars of admech, skitarii, knights, AM, sisters, and other marine chapters hidden somewhere in my house. I've looked for them, but have only found my blood angel models. Even checked under the couch.)
It's not at all the same, though. The "hate" for IoM armies seems awful tame from what I've seen, more like gentle ribbing, most of which is aimed at Space Marines and it's almost entirely because of how popular they are more than anything else. You never see the kind of crap you see in regards to xenos armies, like people making thread after thread calling for Marine armies to be "banned" or constantly arguing about how Marines don't even have a right to exist. Worst thing Marine players have to deal with is the occasional comment about how there are too many Marine books and it would be better if they were all contained within a single book instead, which isn't really the same as removing an army from the game (no matter how much Black Templars players want you to think it is), and it's actually TRUE, because it would mean all Marines are consistently kept up to date instead of having many different books all with different rules, wargear, and design philosophies behind each one, which is the number one complaint from Marine players themselves it would seem. Not quite the same thing as a loud chorus of people constantly calling for your army to we wiped out and removed from the game simply because they don't like it, while arguing that it would be better for the game as a whole when there's nothing to really back that up at all. What xenos armies and people who play them get is legit, seething hate, and it's incredibly off-putting while being just plain disturbing to witness sometimes. I simply can't fathom how anyone can take any game that seriously, let alone 40k in particular.
I have zero problems with Eldar players or with anyone for playing any faction. The only exception might be someone playing with a buddy who picks Daemons choosing GK because he knows they stomp daemons.
What I hate is people who, when given the choice, choose to create an army that they know will always beat their opponent/the people they generally play. When it costs you NOTHING to not do it, I will judge you for playing Scatterbikes, or the new SM Skyhammer thing, if you're using it and you always win against your regular opponents.
People who aim to stomp are scum, and no amount of "muh competitive game" arguments will convince me otherwise. Because 40k takes time and money and telling someone to "adapt" when your units suddenly get super strong rules for free and you have the collection to weaken your list down is telling them they have to spend hundreds of dollars and hours painting and buying new gak because you want to always win.
"Mwa ha ha. Pinned or no overwatch + 1st turn charges? I'll never lose!"
For my part, it's simple. I'll ask opponents who play marines to please NOT bring an extra 400 points of free razors to kick the crap out of my chaos cult.
I'll ask TO's to ban formations that gives points for free.
If either answer is no, I just won't play. It's not hard to get along. Some people feel like not playing a game is punishing themselves somehow, that they deserve to play in every tournament they can afford, but that just isn't the case with how diverse 40k has become.
Sidstyler wrote: It's not at all the same, though. The "hate" for IoM armies seems awful tame from what I've seen
Most IoM armies don't have ludicrously overpowered abilities/weapons once restricted purely to the most powerful apocalypse units, and most don't have anything particularly outrageously scary outside of some allies shennanigans (Gravcents aside, which do get complaints), which is a core rulebook issue, not an army issue.
We're very definitely starting to see some concerns and open complaints with regards to some of the new Space Marine formations however.
I don't understand the logic where free stuff = "it's ok because you pay tax". Pre-this nonsense if we agreed to have a limit at e.g. 1500 pts we did not allow someone to enter with 1505 because they wanted to squeeze in that power fist without getting rid of anything. Now it's much worse. In essence it is 1500 pts plus these free units and upgrades. Why come up with a points mechanism if no one needs to follow it?
Naw wrote: I don't understand the logic where free stuff = "it's ok because you pay tax". Pre-this nonsense if we agreed to have a limit at e.g. 1500 pts we did not allow someone to enter with 1505 because they wanted to squeeze in that power fist without getting rid of anything. Now it's much worse. In essence it is 1500 pts plus these free units and upgrades. Why come up with a points mechanism if no one needs to follow it?
You've hit the nail on the head.
The "tax" is also suspect, it's a highly subjective valuation, and there are absolutely formations that have no sort of "tax" that anyone can reasonably point to. Ultimately, saying a formation has a "tax" because you have to take X is ignoring that X fundamentally has value (even if it's overvalued), and benefits from the formation rules, it's not worthless, it's just not as "optimal" as some might otherwise might want it to be. That's not a "tax".
The idea that 1500pts isn't necessarily 1500pts is very certainly causing significant problems and rumblings with many players at this point.
Naw wrote: I don't understand the logic where free stuff = "it's ok because you pay tax". Pre-this nonsense if we agreed to have a limit at e.g. 1500 pts we did not allow someone to enter with 1505 because they wanted to squeeze in that power fist without getting rid of anything. Now it's much worse. In essence it is 1500 pts plus these free units and upgrades. Why come up with a points mechanism if no one needs to follow it?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I wonder if one day a 1500pt army of 9th edition 40k will be equivalent to a 2500pt army in 7th...
As far as the hatred aimed at a fair amount of eldar Players? Well, I for one have played several games against Eldar players and my opponent in all but two games was a genuinely nice guy and I greatly enjoyed the game....even though he tabled me.
I hate on certain Eldar players who come here in the forums and try and defend the new Eldar Codex saying things such as "its balanced" or "Its not OP" or my personal favorite "The WK isn't even that good" . When you try to downplay how amazingly broken GW made your codex to make yourself feel better about taking those broken units then I get upset. I had a game planned but had to cancel (ER Visit for daughter) where my eldar buddy was going to bring his 1,500 tourney list and told me to bring 2,500pts of orks and see if I could win. I wish I could have played so I could have shown you all the results, and because that would mean I didn't have to spend the day with my child in the ER :(
*SIDE NOTE: To those who care she is doing better now and should be well in a week or so
Naw wrote: I don't understand the logic where free stuff = "it's ok because you pay tax". Pre-this nonsense if we agreed to have a limit at e.g. 1500 pts we did not allow someone to enter with 1505 because they wanted to squeeze in that power fist without getting rid of anything. Now it's much worse. In essence it is 1500 pts plus these free units and upgrades. Why come up with a points mechanism if no one needs to follow it?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I wonder if one day a 1500pt army of 9th edition 40k will be equivalent to a 2500pt army in 7th...
Really, let's look at the free stuff that's currently available out there for armies:
Eldar-Free Guardian Defender weapon platforms. Basically a free weapon from the standard list of Eldar heavy weapons. Nothing too bad there.
Mechanicus: Free wargear upgrades and relics, subject to normal restrictions. Before you complain, I invite you to look up the relics for Knights/Skitarii/Mechanicus. Some aren't worth being free.
Spess Muhreens: Free Rhinos/Razorbacks/Drop Pods. Very nasty. Gives you lots of flexibility on the table, but none in list building. Also, everything is easy to kill.
Tyranids: Free gaunts. Honestly, gaunts needed the boost. Are just as easy to kill as gaunts people paid for.
Everyone: Free Daemons. Believe it or not, RAW says this is still the case. Ye olde Daemon Factory is the strongest of the bunch. Just ask last year's Adepticon GT players.
Yes, there is an argument to be made that free stuff violates the principle of agreeing to a points limit. But if you look at what people are and have been getting for free, there's not a whole lot to complain about. I myself would avoid the nasty ones, but everything else is relatively balanced.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: *looks at sig
You realize that's an Eldar player, right? You really think you should take them seriously on this matter?
Not saying I agree with the poster in question, either, but seriously, people like you are what's wrong with 40k. As noted above, GW are the ones who put out the rules, they are the ones that made Eldar better than everyone else (with no explanation or reason), and what do people like you do? Demonize the Eldar players for something completely out of their control, perpetuating the idea that they're all just bad people regardless of how long they've been playing Eldar
Generally I agree with this sentiment.
But.. you do realize what the Eldar player in question here was doing, right? They said that Orks (and other armies) should be second rate and not have much of a shot at winning, because in the fluff they're just the comic relief B-villain that always gets steam rolled / used by someone else and never accomplishes anything.
.. In this instance, I think the whole "You realize that's an eldar player, right?" thing is wholly justified, and right on the money.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: *looks at sig
You realize that's an Eldar player, right? You really think you should take them seriously on this matter?
Not saying I agree with the poster in question, either, but seriously, people like you are what's wrong with 40k. As noted above, GW are the ones who put out the rules, they are the ones that made Eldar better than everyone else (with no explanation or reason), and what do people like you do? Demonize the Eldar players for something completely out of their control, perpetuating the idea that they're all just bad people regardless of how long they've been playing Eldar
Generally I agree with this sentiment.
But.. you do realize what the Eldar player in question here was doing, right? They said that Orks (and other armies) should be second rate and not have much of a shot at winning, because in the fluff they're just the comic relief B-villain that always gets steam rolled / used by someone else and never accomplishes anything.
.. In this instance, I think the whole "You realize that's an eldar player, right?" thing is wholly justified, and right on the money.
The Eldar players who have adopted a "haters gonna hate, I'll play what GW lets me, you just need to l2p and stop being jelly" attitude aren't helping anybody. There's a reason there have been a flurry of TO rulings and FAQs lately, and it's not because they're bored.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: *looks at sig
You realize that's an Eldar player, right? You really think you should take them seriously on this matter?
Not saying I agree with the poster in question, either, but seriously, people like you are what's wrong with 40k. As noted above, GW are the ones who put out the rules, they are the ones that made Eldar better than everyone else (with no explanation or reason), and what do people like you do? Demonize the Eldar players for something completely out of their control, perpetuating the idea that they're all just bad people regardless of how long they've been playing Eldar
Generally I agree with this sentiment.
But.. you do realize what the Eldar player in question here was doing, right? They said that Orks (and other armies) should be second rate and not have much of a shot at winning, because in the fluff they're just the comic relief B-villain that always gets steam rolled / used by someone else and never accomplishes anything.
.. In this instance, I think the whole "You realize that's an eldar player, right?" thing is wholly justified, and right on the money.
Yeah, arguing that some armies should be second rate "because fluff" is fething stupid, hence why I said I didn't agree with the player in question, but that's still a bullgak attitude that's wrong the other 9 out of 10 times you see it, and I don't think being right in this one instance makes a difference.
Naw wrote: I don't understand the logic where free stuff = "it's ok because you pay tax". Pre-this nonsense if we agreed to have a limit at e.g. 1500 pts we did not allow someone to enter with 1505 because they wanted to squeeze in that power fist without getting rid of anything. Now it's much worse. In essence it is 1500 pts plus these free units and upgrades. Why come up with a points mechanism if no one needs to follow it?
Points have been largely meaningless for quite a while before GW started to hand out free stuff with formations.
It's not like let's say 500 points of Land Speeders were anyway near 500 pointsof Grav Bikes power wise.
Played 40k this weekend, and we talked about Skyhammer and formations in general over pizza.
The consensus, surprisingly, is we talked ourselves into liking the way they buffed assault and devastator marines. Here's the thought process.
If GW simply makes units better -- like assault or devastator squads -- then what invariably ends up happening is that people end up spamming them. Even if you're not a spammy player, you see that unit A is better than unit B, therefore you take more of A and less or none of B. Hence Centurions.
By giving units free stuff (like Company), or powerful buffs (like Skyhammer), you restrict the spam level of armies, while having useful and powerful units. If you had asked me two weeks ago, I would have said, "Give devastators relentless, because they suck without it and I'm gonna use Centurions". Enter Skyhammer, all the sudden, I'm looking at Devastators -- but in addition to, not to the exclusion of, Centurions.
Now, I know some of you don't like the "well it follows the fluff" argument, but there are also some of us players that don't like 40k just being a game of 1850 points, pick the best, fight. Doing powerful formations and finding synergies between formations and allies is just way more interesting than "fight my 4 imperial knights" and "fight my 7 wave serpents" and "kill my CentStar". It's a bonus when these formations follow iconic attacks that you imagine the armies to in, such as Angel's Fury, or Skyhammer. Or Seer Council, or Wraith Host.
To look at it the other way, it was sucky that you couldn't play ASM and Dev squads with any effectiveness before, certainly not in the way they're described in fluff.
For us, formations, decurion, and war host has actually revived a lot of more random, less scenario-based play, because a whole new depth of synergy is possible compared to CAD. Now, all this with a caveat -- most of us have so many models that when a cool formation comes out, we don't really need to buy anything. At most, it's usually playing with the odd model that was painted a different color scheme.
In a store where all our games are maelstrom of war, I don't care what kind of units you are forced to take, getting free points in actual models on that kind of scale is bs.
I don't mind power imbalance from army to army so much, when everyone is more or less either 2 or 3 points over or undercosted, and spamming is the main issue. I know when I go to plop my 1500 points of csm down vs his or her shiny new codex, I'm at a disadvantage. But when you take and get rid of the one semi restricting factor, a points limit agreed to by both players, that's where I have to be the jerk telling the space marine guy that if he's not paying for his razorbacks, I'm not playing him at all.
In a pick up game, whatever. There's other people to play. As soon as I have to start seeing this in tournaments, I'm going to get mad and stop giving my flgs my money on Sundays because I don't want to play with two disadvantages while paying money to boot.
I find it incredibly weird that people are complaining about 1500 points not being 1500 points anymore just because you get things that are easy to measure in points because it exists as something you buy, but if you get something that you can't quite put a number on, like +1 RP army wide, that's not considered an increase in army value?
It's the exact same thing.
Increasing army value is nothing new. And to be honest, the marine version of it isn't very good. It seems made entirely to sell models, because it sure isn't going to win them games against any other post-Necron codex.
Wouldn't you rather have had, say, togglabe skyfire on all razorbacks you bring in the formation, rather than free razorbacks?
To me, that would be a better and more flavourful bonus, but it wouldn't sell any additional models.
Purifier wrote: I find it incredibly weird that people are complaining about 1500 points not being 1500 points anymore just because you get things that are easy to measure in points because it exists as something you buy, but if you get something that you can't quite put a number on, like +1 RP army wide, that's not considered an increase in army value?
It's the exact same thing. Increasing army value is nothing new. And to be honest, the marine version of it isn't very good. It seems made entirely to sell models, because it sure isn't going to win them games against any other post-Necron codex.
Wouldn't you rather have had, say, togglabe skyfire on all razorbacks you bring in the formation, rather than free razorbacks?
To me, that would be a better and more flavourful bonus, but it wouldn't sell any additional models.
It is NOT the exact same thing.
Reanimation Protocols make existing units better, not add additional units to the board. RP aren't going to go claim an objective at the end of a turn, though they might help a unit the Necrons already paid for hold one. Special rules valuation is one thing, and it arguably is part of what goes into deciding a units base cost. The other guy getting 10 extra vehicles that are objective secured is ridiculous, even if every anti AV shot I have goes into killing them, that's a turn of wasted AV on points he didn't pay for, and even assuming the dice gods basically have sex with my rolls and I blow up every transport in one turn, it's a turn of shooting at distraction carnifex that WILL WIN HIM A GAME BY NOMMING OBJECTIVES if I don't deal with them. Codex imbalance meaning an uphill battle is one thing, the other guy getting (many)free units is a complete other barrel of fish.
I don't see how people who don't play marines don't have a problem with this.
Purifier wrote: I find it incredibly weird that people are complaining about 1500 points not being 1500 points anymore just because you get things that are easy to measure in points because it exists as something you buy, but if you get something that you can't quite put a number on, like +1 RP army wide, that's not considered an increase in army value?
Well, one difference is that the value of +1RP in exchange for Objective Secured and less freedom in building your army is hard to quantify.
In contrast, getting free gear is very easy to quantify - because, at the very least, you know the exact value of the gear you're getting for free. And, in many cases, it's a lot.
If you could buy different levels of RP, and the Decurion gave you 4+ for free, then it would be a lot easier to calculate its exact value.
Furthermore, your comment seems disingenuous to begin with. Whilst it's true that few/no people have commented on the Decurion as 'free stuff', many, many people have called it out as being OP - which typically amounts to the same thing. My point being that whilst the Decurion bonus is less quantifiable, its impact has hardly gone unnoticed.
Reanimation Protocols make existing units better, not add additional units to the board. RP aren't going to go claim an objective at the end of a turn, though they might help a unit the Necrons already paid for hold one. Special rules valuation is one thing, and it arguably is part of what goes into deciding a units base cost. The other guy getting 10 extra vehicles that are objective secured is ridiculous, even if every anti AV shot I have goes into killing them, that's a turn of wasted AV on points he didn't pay for, and even assuming the dice gods basically have sex with my rolls and I blow up every transport in one turn, it's a turn of shooting at distraction carnifex that WILL WIN HIM A GAME BY NOMMING OBJECTIVES if I don't deal with them. Codex imbalance meaning an uphill battle is one thing, the other guy getting (many)free units is a complete other barrel of fish.
I don't see how people who don't play marines don't have a problem with this.
By this logic, you'd rather play against Skyhammer, which gives buffs, than Company, which gives free transports.
It's exactly the same thing. Value is value. It doesn't matter if they get free transports, extra wounds, double points on objectives, free rerolls to all wound, free FNP, or Ignore Cover on all your weapons. What's happening is, you take a restrictive list (a penalty) and are rewarded with a something special of value (a bonus). Whether the restrictions are worth the freebies is the issue.
Purifier wrote: I find it incredibly weird that people are complaining about 1500 points not being 1500 points anymore just because you get things that are easy to measure in points because it exists as something you buy, but if you get something that you can't quite put a number on, like +1 RP army wide, that's not considered an increase in army value?
It's the exact same thing.
Increasing army value is nothing new. And to be honest, the marine version of it isn't very good. It seems made entirely to sell models, because it sure isn't going to win them games against any other post-Necron codex.
Wouldn't you rather have had, say, togglabe skyfire on all razorbacks you bring in the formation, rather than free razorbacks?
To me, that would be a better and more flavourful bonus, but it wouldn't sell any additional models.
It is NOT the exact same thing.
Reanimation Protocols make existing units better, not add additional units to the board. RP aren't going to go claim an objective at the end of a turn, though they might help a unit the Necrons already paid for hold one. Special rules valuation is one thing, and it arguably is part of what goes into deciding a units base cost. The other guy getting 10 extra vehicles that are objective secured is ridiculous, even if every anti AV shot I have goes into killing them, that's a turn of wasted AV on points he didn't pay for, and even assuming the dice gods basically have sex with my rolls and I blow up every transport in one turn, it's a turn of shooting at distraction carnifex that WILL WIN HIM A GAME BY NOMMING OBJECTIVES if I don't deal with them. Codex imbalance meaning an uphill battle is one thing, the other guy getting (many)free units is a complete other barrel of fish.
I don't see how people who don't play marines don't have a problem with this.
I disagree. I think they are the same thing. Any free points OR free bonuses anywhere in the army CAN lead to "free" models.
Using a decurion as an example: instead of grabbing a cryptek or orb of eternity of a lychguard deathstar, I can just save points because they're in a decurion. They are already getting the benefit of having a cryptek/relic in the squad for no cost, other than opportunity cost of building a decurion. Since I'm now okay with the squad's durability without a cryptek, I can use the points I would have spent on the cryptek on something else. Thus: free points.
That bonus to RP means that each of the necron units is up in durability, which means they take more firepower to bring down, which means the opponent has less firepower elsewhere.
Every effect, ability, and model in the game is worth points. Some of them may not have a point value assigned, but that doesn't stop them from being worth something.
Talys wrote: Played 40k this weekend, and we talked about Skyhammer and formations in general over pizza.
The consensus, surprisingly, is we talked ourselves into liking the way they buffed assault and devastator marines. Here's the thought process.
If GW simply makes units better -- like assault or devastator squads -- then what invariably ends up happening is that people end up spamming them. Even if you're not a spammy player, you see that unit A is better than unit B, therefore you take more of A and less or none of B. Hence Centurions.
By giving units free stuff (like Company), or powerful buffs (like Skyhammer), you restrict the spam level of armies, while having useful and powerful units. If you had asked me two weeks ago, I would have said, "Give devastators relentless, because they suck without it and I'm gonna use Centurions". Enter Skyhammer, all the sudden, I'm looking at Devastators -- but in addition to, not to the exclusion of, Centurions.
Now, I know some of you don't like the "well it follows the fluff" argument, but there are also some of us players that don't like 40k just being a game of 1850 points, pick the best, fight. Doing powerful formations and finding synergies between formations and allies is just way more interesting than "fight my 4 imperial knights" and "fight my 7 wave serpents" and "kill my CentStar". It's a bonus when these formations follow iconic attacks that you imagine the armies to in, such as Angel's Fury, or Skyhammer. Or Seer Council, or Wraith Host.
To look at it the other way, it was sucky that you couldn't play ASM and Dev squads with any effectiveness before, certainly not in the way they're described in fluff.
For us, formations, decurion, and war host has actually revived a lot of more random, less scenario-based play, because a whole new depth of synergy is possible compared to CAD. Now, all this with a caveat -- most of us have so many models that when a cool formation comes out, we don't really need to buy anything. At most, it's usually playing with the odd model that was painted a different color scheme.
Although I confess, I don't have 10 razorbacks.
In generality, I agree with this. I like it when GW releases rules that make the armies feel more like themselves. I often would tell people that the #1 reason I like playing Kill Team is because each army really feels like their army! Tyranids are hordes tenuously supported by synapse, or infiltrating genestealers. Marines are one-man armies, each capable of taking on anything Kill Team can throw at them, an Assault Squad is fast and dangerously well equipped, and Sternguard are terrifying with ignores cover ammo. The Imperial Guard either swarm the table with lots of dudes, or have a tank (the Chimera is a TANK in Kill Team) backed up by infantry that protect it from grenade attacks. Necrons just keep getting back up. Etc, etc.
Having rules that back up the army's feel is great. Given the influx of deathstars, the game could feel very samey between armies. "strong shooting unit A" fires at "fast but powerful unit B" while "tough unit C" holds a critical objective. That may give some great play (and it TOTALLY does), but it doesn't capture the essence of what a Space Marine is, and how their sudden descent is devastating. It doesn't make you feel the true horror of a Necron onslaught, impossible to put down for good. It doesn't amaze you with the incredible deftness and terrifyingly effective weapons and training of the Eldar.
Where I disagree with you is on formation bonuses. These should be the base rules - not a requirement of achieving a certain unit/model threshold. If Marines should have free transports, relentless devastators, and deep-strike + charge assault marines, just give that to them! If Necrons should all have 4+ RP saves, preferred enemy everything, and be required to bring jetbikes, then just do that! Presumably then, you'll price them out accordingly. Just don't make it formation only, but make the formations "free".
@Yarium - the Formations *are* FREE. Unlike early Apoc, there is on +X points per formation on top of the models. Take the units as a group, and it gets the bonus. Simple as that.
And why do they get the bonus? Because these particular units have trained and drilled together with linked comms so that they don't get in each other's way or whatnot. It's Fluffy that only specific groupings get bonuses vs units at their base configuration.
As for Kill Team being more thematic, that's simply an argument for 1500 vs 1850/2000, or 750/1000 vs 1500, wherein armies won't have as many options or redundancy, so you need to do more with less. Leman Russes are more iconic Guard, so a Chimera doesn't quite cut it.
TheNewBlood wrote: We seem to be remembering the rose-colored salad days of 5 months ago differently. Back then, Eldar was Codex: Wave Serpents and could summon fething Daemonettes. Necrons had mindshenanigan scarabs and Tesla proc on snapshots. Tyranids could now fit 5 FMCs in their lists. Centstar and TWC dominated the popular deathstar builds.
In short, we didn't have balance. Warhammer 40,000 is not and has never been a balanced game. The only "balance" that was achieved was via house rules and gentleman's/woman's agreements not to bring lists of a certain power level. GW has made it clear that "balanced rules" are somewhere below "reducing prices" on their list of priorities. It's up the the players to balance the game, and banning certain armies/factions/formations is not the way to do it.
I'll take 2014's cheese over 2015's any day. At least that was limited to single units and wargear options which were easily house ruled or potentially avoided. The problem with the current power imbalances is that it's much more widespread, haphazard, and greatly separated from "normal" builds with no sign of slowing down. We were "this" close to having an acceptable level of external balance when 2015 started but instead of patching up the few remaining holes that were Wraiths and WS they tore the whole thing apart and decided to just go back to gouging their customers for money.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @Yarium - the Formations *are* FREE. Unlike early Apoc, there is on +X points per formation on top of the models. Take the units as a group, and it gets the bonus. Simple as that.
And why do they get the bonus? Because these particular units have trained and drilled together with linked comms so that they don't get in each other's way or whatnot. It's Fluffy that only specific groupings get bonuses vs units at their base configuration.
As for Kill Team being more thematic, that's simply an argument for 1500 vs 1850/2000, or 750/1000 vs 1500, wherein armies won't have as many options or redundancy, so you need to do more with less. Leman Russes are more iconic Guard, so a Chimera doesn't quite cut it.
I know formations are free - I'm saying that's the problem is you have game mechanics that do no translate well into how armies play differently. A Space Marine Rhino and an Ork Trukk play almost 95% the same - you have a transport that moves units close up, and then they disembark. If they're lucky, you'll use that same transport to re-embark units again later. In the meantime, they get pot-shots off at things. There's some minor other adjustments like Rhinos having slightly higher armour values and Ballistic Kill, while a Trukk is open-topped and has a stronger (but less accurate) gun, but fundamentally these two units play the same way. A Chimera is slightly different because it has two guys. A Devilfish is a skimmer and has no fire points. The details may slightly vary, but the gameplay is largely the same.
Now, the Necron Ghost Ark is very cool, and very different compared to most transports! It has high armour, is a skimmer, is open-topped, has lots of guns that can shoot at multiple targets, can repair nearby Warriors, and in the Decurion it gets IWND. That Ghost Ark is very much a NECRON vehicle. I can't imagine that vehicle or even something close to it in any other force. It's not just that the fluff includes it (because it didn't back in 3rd), it's that the game mechanics match a game-play feel that is unique to Necrons.
In Kill Team I find it easier to get that unique game play feel even with the current rules. Take Tyranids. The unique FEEL of Tyranids, in my opinion, comes from fielding a largely infantry-based army that uses small units to capture objectives while big units do the killing and take the fire from the enemy, all while trying to balance out your needs to maintain an effective Synapse blanket. This is a play-style that is unique to Tyranids - no other force in the game has to try and maintain this same kind of balancing act. If the next codex gives Tyranids heavy bonuses for being in Synapse Range, that'll be great - because it will encourage that kind of unique play style. I just don't want to have to take a formation to achieve something that should be in-born to the rules of the Tyranids.
I like the bonuses forces are now receiving - but I wish that the formations weren't what you used to get the ones that really accentuate that play style. Having Eldar always run 6 inches is phenomenal. It gives Footdar something massively unique, similar in line to what their original play style was. Arguably, their newest codex is one of the best for the new feel, as you can achieve the "Eldar Playstyle" without even using formations (though again, the 6 inch run is actually what's most unique to them now).
I'd rather formations be like you said - a unique detachment that's trained together to accomplish things they normally couldn't do. This would be the "the turn they arrive their weapons cause Pinning" rules, or the "shoot together to make a super-attack" rules, or the "harness the warp on a 3+" rules. Those are things that the army DOESN'T normally do - things that AREN'T enforcing unique play-styles specific to that army.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.
Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.
Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.
Foul thread! Rise up and I shall strike you down, again and again!
I feel that it's on your opponent to decide if they want to play against formations. Sure, for a nice and laid-back game I can understand wanting to play with just the CAD. But for anything more competitive than that, like my scene's pick up/semi-competitive games, formations and alternate detachments are fine. With Space Marines and Dark Angels now getting their own formation-of-formations, there's a lot less reason for complaining.
Also, most of the armies aren't any more broken with their formations. Only the Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and Space Marines with the dual Battle Company for free transports are arguably too nasty for friendly play, but they are hardly broken. Like it or not, formations are now an integral part of Warhammer 40,000.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.
Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.
Foul thread! Rise up and I shall strike you down, again and again!
I feel that it's on your opponent to decide if they want to play against formations. Sure, for a nice and laid-back game I can understand wanting to play with just the CAD. But for anything more competitive than that, like my scene's pick up/semi-competitive games, formations and alternate detachments are fine. With Space Marines and Dark Angels now getting their own formation-of-formations, there's a lot less reason for complaining.
Also, most of the armies aren't any more broken with their formations. Only the Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and Space Marines with the dual Battle Company for free transports are arguably too nasty for friendly play, but they are hardly broken. Like it or not, formations are now an integral part of Warhammer 40,000.
Tau firebase cadre formation is pretty stupid good. That thing wrecks me up and down to this day. Skyhammer is brutally good. War convocation is pretty crazy. If you play RAW the angel's fury BA formation can break games on turn 1. The eldar "bunch of mooks with BS5" formations are pretty out there.
Overall I hate what formations have brought to the game. Units that are worth more than their normal point cost due to free bonuses that don't use the force org slots. Things like the decurion amplify the issue the larger point value you get to. If you ever want to bang your head against a brick wall, play against an apoc sized decurion without D weapons.
I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.
Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.
This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.
Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.
Foul thread! Rise up and I shall strike you down, again and again!
I feel that it's on your opponent to decide if they want to play against formations. Sure, for a nice and laid-back game I can understand wanting to play with just the CAD. But for anything more competitive than that, like my scene's pick up/semi-competitive games, formations and alternate detachments are fine. With Space Marines and Dark Angels now getting their own formation-of-formations, there's a lot less reason for complaining.
Also, most of the armies aren't any more broken with their formations. Only the Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and Space Marines with the dual Battle Company for free transports are arguably too nasty for friendly play, but they are hardly broken. Like it or not, formations are now an integral part of Warhammer 40,000.
Tau firebase cadre formation is pretty stupid good. That thing wrecks me up and down to this day. Skyhammer is brutally good. War convocation is pretty crazy. If you play RAW the angel's fury BA formation can break games on turn 1. The eldar "bunch of mooks with BS5" formations are pretty out there.
Overall I hate what formations have brought to the game. Units that are worth more than they're normal point cost due to free bonuses that don't use the force org slots. Things like the decurion amplify the issue the larger point value you get to. If you ever want to bang your head against a brick wall, play against an apoc sized decurion without D weapons.
I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.
Exalted. You mimic my feelings exactly on the issue.
Without formations, you have exactly the same cheese and spam but in different flavors.
Formations have the problem of opportunity cost, meaning that bonuses are offset by having to take units and numbers that are sub-optimal as laid out in the codex. Also, apoc cannot and is not supposed to be balanced.
Let this thread die. There are plenty of other places to discuss the impact formations have had on the game.
Sidstyler wrote: It's not at all the same, though. The "hate" for IoM armies seems awful tame from what I've seen, more like gentle ribbing, most of which is aimed at Space Marines and it's almost entirely because of how popular they are more than anything else. You never see the kind of crap you see in regards to xenos armies, like people making thread after thread calling for Marine armies to be "banned" or constantly arguing about how Marines don't even have a right to exist. Worst thing Marine players have to deal with is the occasional comment about how there are too many Marine books and it would be better if they were all contained within a single book instead, which isn't really the same as removing an army from the game (no matter how much Black Templars players want you to think it is), and it's actually TRUE, because it would mean all Marines are consistently kept up to date instead of having many different books all with different rules, wargear, and design philosophies behind each one, which is the number one complaint from Marine players themselves it would seem. Not quite the same thing as a loud chorus of people constantly calling for your army to we wiped out and removed from the game simply because they don't like it, while arguing that it would be better for the game as a whole when there's nothing to really back that up at all. What xenos armies and people who play them get is legit, seething hate, and it's incredibly off-putting while being just plain disturbing to witness sometimes. I simply can't fathom how anyone can take any game that seriously, let alone 40k in particular.
I don't see that hate for orks, nids and dark eldar. IoM don't deserve any flak, because they were not overpowered for 7 editions straight. In fact, the only overpowered IoM army is BA in 3rd, with their rhino rush, and that is still far weaker than the starcannon spam from elves in that very same edition.
Instead, you see a bunch of elf players running their mouth about "muh tacticool hard to use armiez", and whinging hard the moment IoM get any goodies, because "they ultra smrufz, not tactiool elves" The whole elf attitude of superiority and entitlement doesn't help. Numerous elf players here has advocated for incorporating as much D and scatbikes as they can, because they're entitled to it and "the smurfz oveerparwered1!!" Fact is, to date, no army can even come close to the level of firepower and abuse of the elf codex. Even the recent SM codex is a kitten compared to the abomination that is the elf codex.
Ironic you should mention that people has said elves has no right to exist when your elf compatriot has just said orkz deserve to be tier-2 lose all the time armies, because that's how they are in the fluff. Also, they're right, elves in outer space is downright stupid. orkz fit in a comedic theme, but elves in a grimdark sci-fisetting is just dumb. They're leading the charge for GW to be a child-friendly wargame, with the bright and noble elves leading the charge against darkness. They're everything that is wrong with 40k. The sooner they drop them as a faction, the better off for everyone.
I mentioned this in the Dakka Discussions thread about GW stuff.
Basically, 6.0 and 7.0 codices up to the end of 2014 (Blood Angels) are pretty much balanced against each other reasonably well, excluding a few abusable design flaws such as Wave Serpents, MSS, and invisible deathstars. Even with them in, it's not too bad.
Then came 7.5; someone at GW had this wonderful idea of superformations -- an extension of really good formations like what Blood Angels got in Shield of Baal and White Dwarf: it's a way to make factions both powerful AND fluffy, and encourage the use of traditionally weak models.
In comes the Decurion, and Necron players absolutely love it. After that bright idea, GW decides, this will be the new norm, and all the codex releases afterwards are pretty well balanced against Necron. Space marines, Dark Angels, Sktarii/Cult, Eldar, Imperial Knights-- any of these, and Necron, can go head to head without being embarrassed, and there are a ton of good things you can field. Weak units are buffed (some not enough), and formations and superformations create some buzz and interest. The only faction that's not really complete is Harlequins, but really, that's partly because they don't have enough models. I don't know anyone that plays them as an unallied force anyhow.
Also, each major faction gets its "thing" -- Necron with Gauss and RP, Eldar with Distortion and mobility, Space Marines with Graviton, Mechanicus with Arc/Grav/Torsion, and Harlequins with Kiss/Caress/ID and supermobility. And Knights are your mini Titan force.
This is a huge departure from pre 7.5, and in my opinion, these are GOOD buffs. I mean, everyone who played Space Marines, Necron, Dark Angels, Eldar, and Imperial Knights before 2015 are happy as a pig in mud. Mechanicus players are thrilled.
The problem, really is that in the middle of an edition, half the factions are somewhat more powerful and way, way more flexible than the other half.
And this is a sore spot with GW and 40k -- they have a tendency, mid cycle, to come up with a really cool idea, and BAM presents! But half the players feel screwed out of the presents.
Now, mind you, it wouldn't be all that much better if they waited til 8e to start buffing them, because still, at the beginning of the cycle, the first faction to get a codex is really lucky, and it sucks to be the last faction.
*cough* Blood Angels *cough*. Oh well, we really wanted to be the Brood Angels instead anyways, right? That red vanilla successor chapter.
And this is a sore spot with GW and 40k -- they have a tendency, mid cycle, to come up with a really cool idea, and BAM presents! But half the players feel screwed out of the presents.
Now, mind you, it wouldn't be all that much better if they waited til 8e to start buffing them, because still, at the beginning of the cycle, the first faction to get a codex is really lucky, and it sucks to be the last faction.
nids has been the first in line for "reasonable, balanced" codex for 2 editions already, orks for 4. elves has been the first few in the line of "insanely overpowered codex" for 7 editions straight. GW always go in waves, but it seems they start the weak, bland waves with nids or orks, and start the strong waves with elves or crons. SM has always been in the middle.
the next "balanced, reasonable, bland" wave will start with orks or nids, mark my words.
But I shall hold the faith! Orks are getting some buzz in the tournament scene atm though. Nids have so many awesome models that need (rules) love. And Guard too, they have fallen by the wayside.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Chaos, sorry. The Daemonkin codex looks solid, and they got their Decurion wannabe, but nobody in our group plays Khorne or Chaos anymore, so I can't say from firsthand experience.
My real question is: once everything is in 7e format... what happens to the factions without superformations? Do they get screwed? Does it go 8e? Do they get new 7e books? Do we get free new command-core-auxiliaries in White Dwarf? Will there be a plastic Thunderhawk kit?
JohnHwangDD wrote: Now that DA and SM are getting the love, that's the overwhelming majority of Codices updated, right? ,
CSM on deck having the oldest Codex makes them logically next after WFB AOS, what with Chaos being in the AOS box.
At that point, the handful of armies not having Decurion style Codices can be ignored.
at that point most armies eaither have a formation within formations approuch are a special detachment. Imperial guard are really the only army without one or the other.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Now that DA and SM are getting the love, that's the overwhelming majority of Codices updated, right? ,
CSM on deck having the oldest Codex makes them logically next after WFB AOS, what with Chaos being in the AOS box.
At that point, the handful of armies not having Decurion style Codices can be ignored.
There's Khorne Daemonkin, with the new formations too.
The reality of it is that with Space Marines and Eldar, they captured a huge percentage of the playerbase. Add Necron and Tau (everyone pretty much agrees they're coming up), and they'll have "most" of the players. I think that DA is a minor faction in terms of number of players.
Haves (10) - Space Marines, Eldar, Cult Mechanicus, Skitarii, Imperial Knights, Dark Angels, Necron, Khorne Daemonkin; In a fashion, Harlequins and Assassins.
Have Nots (10) - Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Chaos Daemons, CSM, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard/Militarum, Tau, Tyranid, Ork
Plastic Thunderhawk Will Come First - Sisters, Inquisition
Of the have nots, a bunch lot don't have 7e codex yet. So it's really the Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves and Dark Eldar that are really screwed.
The "have nots" need to be split into 6E and 7E, because the 6E Codices will get their books before the early 7E armies get redone:
CSM, Daemons, and Tau are, in that order, the 3 oldest active Codices going way back in to 6E. They are not much of the market, but they are important enough.
Then, it's just Nids and IG, ignoring the bottom tier things like Stormtroopers, Inquisition and Sisters.
Of the 7E things that will sit, it's BA, GK and SW - armies that can easily use the SM book as Red Marines, Grey Marines, and Furry Marines.
That just leaves the Orks and Dark Eldar, Given how DE got a revamp Codex, I wouldn't be surprised to see Orks and DE get an update with an extra couple pages of formations.
of the have nots it's worth a closer peak at them too.
of the Have nots I'd argue Tyranids are basicly haves once you factor in the gains from Levithan. which gained them multiple formations and a "formation of formations" in the form of the skytide (which upon consideration was perhaps the prototype "decurion") I imagine a new 'nid dex would just update and fold those formations into the 'cdex and maybe give us one or two new ones.
looking at that, blood angels, space wolves and grey knights all have their own detachment, so aren't as bad off as other factions in that regard as a GK player I'll take the Nemisis StrikeForce over something that would inevitably force me to take purgation squads. proably for a minimal advantage over a NSF. to my mind tihe biggest hurt about the new marine 'dex for the "other space marines" is the dreadnought buff and vehicle squadrons. although these ARE at least easily house ruled past.
of the big have nots I think CSMs are the most in need of a big update with formations. do it right and GW could even begin to give us a little taste of the legions. with stuff like a vindicator heavy "Iron Warriors bombardment squadron" formation etc
niv-mizzet wrote:
I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.
How would you beat let's say a bike focused eldar CAD that also includes a WK and 5-10 wraithguard with D-scythes, with DE allies so they can Deep Strike their Wraithguard without scatter without using formations in a 2 detachment context?
niv-mizzet wrote:
I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.
How would you beat let's say a bike focused eldar CAD that also includes a WK and 5-10 wraithguard with D-scythes, with DE allies so they can Deep Strike their Wraithguard without scatter without using formations in a 2 detachment context?
There are lots of ways to defeat such a force. My primary method would be to use chaff units to keep the wraithguard and wraithknight tied up while I dealt with the rest of their army. The points investment into those 3 units is incredibly high, so if you tie them up with cheap units, they might not die, but their army doesn't do well with their big guns being tied up against sub-optimal targets. Example:
The Expensive Units:
5 Wraithguard with d-scythes, with an archon w/Webway portal & agonizer: ~335
5 Wraithguard with d-scythes, with an archon w/Webway portal & agonizer: ~335
1 Wraithknight w/ Dual D-cannons & shoulder mounted scatter lasers: ~325
TOTAL: About 1k
So, in an 1850 list, the units you mentioned are going to cost over half the price of your army to field. They will be good, mean units. But all 3 units are vulnerable to being tied up by relatively cheap stuff. Here are things you could use with a few example factions:
IG:
Spoiler:
A 50 man blob of conscripts made fearless by a 25 point commisar. ~175 points that is able to tie up at least 1 of the above units for the entire game. Possible to tie up both wraithguard units for the entire game if you can manage a multi-charge. 2 of these units is enough to neutralize all 1k points from the WG and WK. Even if you disagree and don't think you could get a multi-charge, purchasing 3 of these units to ensure coverage would only cost 525 compared to the Eldar 1k, and this 525 points would be Obsec. The ability to purchase 3 point pseudo fearless conscripts alone nearly made me go spend hundreds of dollars on IG models. It's just sooo good.
Orks:
Spoiler:
Boys. Nuff said. They're 6 points each and with a bosspole basically fearless. Far fewer points in ork boys can tie these guys above up for the entire game, and with Objective secured, ork boys can score while WGs and WKs bang their head against the green wall.
DE:
Spoiler:
Wyches. Not super cheap at 10 points each, but with a 4+ invuln save in CC and respectable Ld values, they can tie up WG and WK for an entire game, while using fewer points than the WG & WK cost. Alternatively, an equal amount of points worth of basic DE Kabalite Warriors in transports would kill these units in short order. The WG would just die. The WK would take significantly more focus. For about the same points cost as the Eldar spent, you get: 60 Kabalite Warriors in 6 Raiders w/Dark Lances & Splinter Racks, and 2 Dual Cannon Venoms. All these vehicles have deep strike with decent range, so you can almost ensure they'd get to fire on target. Even if you lose 1 to bad luck from deep strike mishaps, you'd still be putting out: 124 poison shots, most of which are twin-linked. Without mishaps, you'd have 144 shots. You'd also have up to 6 dark lance shots. If you dump 124-144 poison shots and 6 dark lances into a WK, it is going to die. If you math hammer it out, a WK would suffer 3.5-4.7 unsaved wounds on average, including accounting for cover saves and FnP depending on whether or not you suffered deep strike mishaps. Details:
DLs with WK in cover:
3 dark lance hits
1.5 wounds
0.5 Wounds after cover + FNP
DLs without Cover:
3 dark lance hits
1.5 wounds
1 wound after FNP
The same amount of fire would just erase the units of WG. Just going with the lower numbers rather than the range, WG would suffer 87 hits, for 43.5 wounds, for 14.35 unsaved wounds without even counting the dark lance shots(which could instead put a wound on the WK), enough to kill both full squads along with their archon escorts in a single round.
That said, using this method would inevitably result in a battlefield with plenty of dead DE scattered around it as well. In the end, you may win, you may not win, but it's definitely not a forgone conclusion.
Space Marines:
Spoiler:
Grav Weapons make WK and WG both cry. Were I playing SM and NOT playing Skyhammer(But why?), I'd probably take a non-commital approach to grav weapons. They're REALLY good against the things they're good against, but garbage against anything they're not. As such, taking the combi-grav weapons on all the various models that have access to them gives you that 1 shot of ultra goodness against things it's great against without having to pay the super premium prices to have them en masse in specialized units of devastators. This also spreads your grav around, so you'll almost always have it where you need it. Compared to DE poison weapons that take something like 225 twin-linked shots to take down a WK, grav does the same thing in 20 shots. Now, I'm not discouraging anyone from taking a unit of pure grav devastators. A single unit of grav devs is capable of bringing down a WK in a single turn(with some luck). I'm just saying that this isn't the only way to get grav, and putting a combi-grav on characters and seargents can spread the grav love throughout your army so that your opponent can't easily eliminate your grav threats.
There are plenty more, but this thread isn't about me making a guide on how to deal with the possibility of WK and WGs with every army out there. Suffice to say that it is possible with almost every army without them tailoring or gimping themselves, as it should be.
Smaller games, will mitigate the formations as well. Play 1500 pts vs 2000, and there will be fewer formations, simply by the core force requirements and unwieldiness of formation blocks.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ... the bottom tier things like Stormtroopers, Inquisition and Sisters...
... BA, GK and SW - armies that can easily use the SM book as Red Marines, Grey Marines, and Furry Marines...
You do realize that GKs have always had a quite different "standard" setup compared to all other SMs, right? There's not much in the SM book that can easily represent entire units of PW+SB terminators/marines, not to mention that even if you do represent them well, they're won't perform well anyway because expensive hybrid (melee/ranged) units aren't very good in 7th edition, regardless of what codex you're using.
So basically my classic Daemonhunters (GK+Inq+Stormtroopers) are gonna go sit on the shelf for the next however many years until they get an update (or just get written out of the game).
honestly, GKs may not have formations, but their detachment is pretty good. I'd rather not have GK formations because unless the rules where stupid good, I'd rather use a NSF.
otherwise I'd have to take something like 1-2 termies 2-4 strike squads a purgation squad and a interceptor squad.
I'm going to ignore that snide remark and reiterate my point: SM terminators have either PF+SB, with ranged weapon options, or LC/TH/SS, with no ranged weapons at all. Neither of these can accurately represent a mixed unit some PWs, some THs, SBs, and heavy ranged options. Likewise, other than (AFAIK) command squads, you can't get entire non-terminator units with power weapons in the SM book.
Full PW units and mixed terminators is why I like GKs; it's an aesthetic that's very appealing to me. If I wanted to use bog-standard SMs with some IG support, I'd do that.
In other words, despite the fact that allies gave me some hope of having a decently fluffy Daemonhunters list (and by that I mean having units that can actually succeed at being used the way they are used in books and fluff), I'm now basically relegated to constantly getting blown off the table by everybody else's fancy toys for the rest of the edition. It's no different than it was back in early 5th when people were still having to use the 3rd edition Daemonhunters book, with the sole competitive list being that weird triple land raider rush gimmick.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If you pick a 3rd tier army, this is the level of support that you should expect.
And yet more snide remarks.
How are people supposed to magically know that their army is "3rd tier"? I started out playing with a group of all new players, playing in people's basements during 5th. Are you really gonna say it's our fault for not scouring the internet looking for the most broken stuff around? We thought it was a neat game and went over to the local GW to pick up a starter and moved on from there. At no point did anyone say to us: "Oh yeah, here's a list of armies in order of power, if you want to have fun, you should only play armies in these distinct brackets"
Besides, very quickly afterwards, there was a big upswing in new codexes, DE, Daemonhunters (becoming GK), Necrons, etc. Based on some big power-level increases (which were admittedly over the top, especially for GK), it seemed like there was going to be at least a cursory level of support going forward. Necrons have certainly continued to get a lot of attention since 5th.
I don't really see where this whole "Got mine, don't care" attitude comes from. I certainly hope it's not something you do in real life.
And come on, attacking someone's choice of army? That's very... low brow, to put it politely.
And I'm talking support tiers, not "power" tiers. GW will always support SM first and foremost.
But it is about power. That's the entire point; the new style of formations creates a problem for the "have-nots". You claimed (and I paraphrase): "Now that DA and CSM are up to bat, the balance issue is solved except for those books I don't care about."
I'm fine with the intermittent releases for GK (I mean, they did just get a codex), and frankly Inq/Stormtroopers don't really need any more units/models. I get that. My issue is that 7th GK (and the other early 7th books) were seemingly created with a different philosophy, having only a couple of middling formations/detachments in their newest books. Really, it costs practically nothing to produce a DLC formation dataslate, and it's not like they're opposed to making them. It would be extraordinarily cheap and easy to toss out a couple of high-power formations for most of the "ignored" books, charge $40 a pop, and call it a day. I cannot believe that releasing a such a product, which would easily make back its development cost, is somehow untenable for GW.
It's not all about power for everyone, at least not if you're a casual.
Please don't get GW back into the habit of selling add-ons to complete the Codex. We *just* got GW selling the whole Codex as a single, contained object instead of multiple non-trivial purchases.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't think it's that difficult, and it should be obvious to anybody:
1st tier = Space Marines (duh!)
2nd tier = Chaos, Eldar, Guard, Orks, Nids
3rd tier = sub-codices (GK, BT, BA, DA, SW) and minor forces (Harlies, DE, Tau, Sisters, Inquisition).
And I'm talking support tiers, not "power" tiers. GW will always support SM first and foremost.
As for "got mine", I'm still waiting for my CSM update.
Finally, it's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. GK are low priority. They don't move the needle in sales volume.
pretty obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.
orks has had fewer codices than GK since 3rd.
Tau has had more codices than orks, plus more FW support
SW is relatively well support compared to nids
nids? supported? LOL
also, elves are 1st tier, not SM, having been overpowered 7 editions straight, along with skipping the era of nerfs in 5th (did not get codex update) and 7th (got codex at peak of power curve) you elf players love to whinge and cry about SM a lot. I'd play a SM player, but I wouldn't play against elves, not only because they're overpowered, but also because elves in space is laughably stupid.
The feeling I get is that 40k has undergone a reboot which its all about formations with free super-powers or wargear as a bribe for spending money to facilitate the 40k reboot. Power creep is the new norm
JohnHwangDD wrote: We *just* got GW selling the whole Codex as a single, contained object instead of multiple non-trivial purchases.
The Skyhammer Annihilation Force was basically what I was talking about. A web-exclusive add-on containing a simple formation dataslate. Just have a design intern pump out a couple of these a week and throw them up on the webstore/BL, and they wouldn't even have to update half of the book range for the next 10 years.
I mean, I agree with you about the support thing. The "3rd tier" books, as you call them, don't have a hugely urgent need for new models or units (with the possible exception of some anti-air), despite what Sisters players will tell you. They could save tons just skipping new model releases for all those books, and instead just release new formations with big, bombastic special rules. It would cost next to nothing, make a little spare change, and keep players hooked. Seems like it would be a win to me; at least more so than right now, where casual players have been aggressively segregated from more competitive players.
I think the real question is whether GW should sell a Decurion / Demi-Company / Warhost thing for GK, Orks, etc., and how much they should charge for those 2 pages of rules.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I think the real question is whether GW should sell a Decurion / Demi-Company / Warhost thing for GK, Orks, etc., and how much they should charge for those 2 pages of rules.
Well it would certainly get me to dust off my models if they did.
As for how much it should cost? With GW I think the answer is always "~50-100% more than what everyone is thinking"
As for how much it should cost? With GW I think the answer is always "~50-100% more than what everyone is thinking"
And ~500% more than it's actually worth...
And just like the data slates, one guy would buy them and go "hey guys here's the two pages of rules on PDF."
Because why not? Honestly, when it comes to things like this, a few pages released seperate from the main codex release, only released in a digital format, and widely accepted to be necessary to make an army on par with the rest of the game, I don't think anyone should pay for those rules. GW shouldn't charge for them. That's like video game companies charging to patch their broken game.
If GW releases any rules that justify them publishing a physical copy of the rules for sale for armies I own, I'll buy those publications to have a physical copy of the rules. But if the contribution that they're putting forward is so miniscule that GW themselves can't justify printing it on real paper, and instead releases it only as a digital release, I have no compunction about taking a copy of the pdf from "that guy".
Alternatively, I AM of the opinion that every player should own the physical codex for any army they want to play against me, and have it present when they put their models on the table. If there is a rules debate, I don't want to try to navigate your tiny(or huge) phone to read the rules for your army. Further, some people are wierd about other people messing with their phones, and would want to hover over you the entire time while you're reading the rule. It's just much more relaxed if I can look through your codex while you're measuring your moves or whatnot. If I know ahead of time someone doesn't have their codex except in a digital format, I won't plan to play against them.
EDIT: Exception made for a digital only codex like sisters of battle, though it's always appreciated in those cases when someone who has such a codex prints and binds a copy.
). Fortunately, with the new Space Marine codex, the majority of players will have access to some form of this type of detachment. But for more laid-back games, I could understand why people would want to just stick to the standard 
