There's nothing wrong with saying no to a game of 40k.

However, there's also nothing right with it, either.

The game has moved from percentages of your force, to slots in a chart, to formations in a army. It's the new gimmick of the game. Like it or not, it's here, it's now, it's not yester-edition. Embrace it or deny it, it's what the game currently is.

I have always advocated for voting with your wallet. If you don't like, don't buy into it. It you do like it, support it. Pining for a return to yesteryear when things are "better" is being in denial about how similar changes polarized the hobby back then, too.

SJ

But my army didn't get any formations and others did. It is easy to play an army with a good formation and say embrace it. What am I suppose to embrace beside the fact that my opponents get yet another way to beat up my already nerfed army?

LordBlades wrote:

Have you thought that maybe toning down the list to a point your list doesn't get crushed might not be fun for them? Maybe it involves using units/models they don't have and/or don't want to buy?

In.the end, I feel.that when such a problem arises, your opponent has just as much right to expect you to improve your army as you have to expect them to downgrade theirs. If you can reach a middle ground, great. If you can't, you're both equally right and equally wrong.

If you have the models to field formations then you usually have the models to make a CAD as well so that is not the problem. In my situation it is the necron decurion that is the issue. I thought about improving my army but it would involve a total rework of my usual lists and would have to purchase several new models and expensive super heavies if I wanted to compete. I might as well start eldar and spam D weapons. I have toned down my list several times to not use maulerfiends since they think they are cheese. Is it so wrong of me to ask the same.

Makumba wrote:
But my army didn't get any formations and others did. It is easy to play an army with a good formation and say embrace it. What am I suppose to embrace beside the fact that my opponents get yet another way to beat up my already nerfed army?

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little. You'll have your new codex soon, with your own formations to use and abuse. : )

SJ

It's OK to say no to decurions, Gladius and Eldar. If your opponent wants to play one of these, just steer him to one of the other players with a similar list. You are then free to seek out another player.

What if it is bad like the harlequin or the BAs did? I could also have to more or less buy a whole new army to get a working one under a new codex? Am waiting since the end of 6th for a good codex and the only time when my army was ok, was for a short time between 6th and 7th, and only if no one in the area had the cash to buy recast D weapon carriers.
What then wait another 2-3 years ? I can't even sell my army, because no one wants to buy IG here.

If you have the models to field formations then you usually have the models to make a CAD as well so that is not the problem.

Unless marines changed more then I know, am almost sure that it is impossible to have a list made out of devsators drop pods and assault marines supported by centurions. The same goes for the necron formation and the eldar one. In fact eldar without their formation can't play with the 2 WK each one of them used under the old codex.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

It is a good thing that the Demi-Company nothing at all like you described. You need Six tactical squads, two assault squads (or equivalents), two Devastator squads (or equivalents), a Captain, and a Chaplain to get the free transports. Don't spread misinformation just because you are butthurt.

Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

 Likan Wolfsheim wrote:
There's nothing wrong with saying no to a game of 40k.

However, there's also nothing right with it, either.

There's actually plenty right with it if someone doesn't want to waste a couple hours doing something they won't enjoy.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

It is a good thing that the Demi-Company nothing at all like you described. You need Six tactical squads, two assault squads (or equivalents), two Devastator squads (or equivalents), a Captain, and a Chaplain to get the free transports. Don't spread misinformation just because you are butthurt.

Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

Dude, he said you get free transports for 2 TAC squads and a captain+chaplain. That is straight up wrong. You need, minimum, chaplain, captain, 6 tactical squads, 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastators squads. That's a dude whining because he doesn't know the rules. I've played against this with my orks (I did use one formation, Blitz Brigade) but the marines got utterly obliterated.

 Kiggler wrote:
This is kinda the issue. I have had the discussion and they seem to think since its part of the rules that is fair game and I should just deal with it. I had built a Tau army that was too powerful for everyone to deal with it. Since I didn't want to buy new models to tone the list down I instead just shelved the army. I am mostly not being shown the same respect I show them when it comes to enjoyment of the game.

It is really hard to compete when your army does not have access to similar formations. I have already played against it to show how one sided it is and instead I get it rubbed in my face on how I got crushed . My one friend says to think of it as playing hard mode but it is already hard mode when you want to play CSM.

Yeah, your friends are being douches. I certainly wouldn't drive 2 minutes, let alone 2 hours to be treated like that. They're right about it being part of the game now and that you should adapt, but they're wrong about how they're playing with you. If none of your armies are part of the new wave of codexes, they should be cutting you slack until your codex can compete. Friends don't hammer friends into the dirt because GW chose to give a shot in the arm to their codex first. You're in the right to say "Mother fether, I drove 2 hours for this game, the least you can do is run something balanced so I can enjoy it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

And your myriad of cheap superheavy choices, and your ObSec tank armies, and your cheap air support, and your Infantry blobs...

 Massawyrm wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

And your myriad of cheap superheavy choices, and your ObSec tank armies, and your cheap air support, and your Infantry blobs...

500 points for a Super Heavy... Sure its cheap, just keep telling yourself that *cough* fellblade *cough*.

Obsec armies? Never head of them. As for our tanks though, they have been significantly gimped since the last codex as we lost the Lumbering Behemoth rule on them. For no real reason. And ourtank special character is a joke whom costs a total of 70 points plus his tank for a minor buff to the turret and preferred enemy. Remind me again how much the marine variant costs?

Cheap air support? Have you been mistaking the Stormguppy for a IG unit again?

Infantry blobs..... Yeah, we do these well. At about 250 plus upgrades. And a commissar for morale so 380 plus upgrades. Just pray that there is enough terrain to hide in almost every weapon ignores your armour and with a kill rate of about 7 per every 10 shots fired tactical squads can eat these rapidly. And HB devestators just mince them.

 master of ordinance wrote:
500 points for a Super Heavy... Sure its cheap, just keep telling yourself that *cough* fellblade *cough*.

Obsec armies? Never head of them. As for our tanks though, they have been significantly gimped since the last codex as we lost the Lumbering Behemoth rule on them. For no real reason. And ourtank special character is a joke whom costs a total of 70 points plus his tank for a minor buff to the turret and preferred enemy. Remind me again how much the marine variant costs?

Cheap air support? Have you been mistaking the Stormguppy for a IG unit again?

Infantry blobs..... Yeah, we do these well. At about 250 plus upgrades. And a commissar for morale so 380 plus upgrades. Just pray that there is enough terrain to hide in almost every weapon ignores your armour and with a kill rate of about 7 per every 10 shots fired tactical squads can eat these rapidly. And HB devestators just mince them.

Ah, well this makes a lot more sense then: you don't actually know the full scale of your own army.

* Malcador pattern superheavies start at around the price of a Land Raider; Macharian patterns start at 325; and Baneblades - even outside of FW rules - start at 410, not 500. But since you compared it to a FW model, you should already know all that.

* Check out IMPERIAL ARMOUR 1. We have a CAD based armoured army that rocks. Our Troop Choice Russes get ObSec. How do you know what a Fellblade is but never heard of the Armoured Battle Group?

* Nope. Valks get beefy quick for very few points. Vendettas are awesome for their price. And the FW variant flyers are INCREDIBLE for their cost. Vultures are AAAAWWWWWWWESOME.

* Not to mention we have Elysians, D-99, DKoK, and MT as legit choices for our armies/allies, so we're not exactly hurting for choice.

AM may not have gotten their big update yet, but it's coming. But we ain't hurtin'. We've actually got a hell of a lot more options than any other army in the game right now.

To be fair, Malcador suerpheavies are usually pretty terrible however, and and an actual Baneblade starts at 525pts, 575 with traditional single-sponson set.

Yes IA1 has an armoured battlegroup list, but it's still all stuck using the 5E book's pricing, meaning all those Russ tanks are ~15-20% more than in the basic IG codex

Likewise, while Vendettas are solid, Valkyries are rather expensive for what they offer, 125pts for an AV12 flyer with a single Multilaser and two one-shot S8 missiles that prevent anything else from firing? 135 to swap them out for some S4 blast weapons? Not terribly inspiring particularly as a dedicated Fast Attack choice.

And while IG has a large number of "alternate" style armies, most of them are pretty terrible.

They're an army that got balanced around a 5E paradigm about 5 or 6 weeks before 7E hit. Lots of options, but most of them are bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Malcador suerpheavies are usually pretty terrible however, and and an actual Baneblade starts at 525pts, 575 with traditional single-sponson set.

Yes IA1 has an armoured battlegroup list, but it's still all stuck using the 5E book's pricing, meaning all those Russ tanks are ~15-20% more than in the basic IG codex

Likewise, while Vendettas are solid, Valkyries are rather expensive for what they offer, 125pts for an AV12 flyer with a single Multilaser and two one-shot S8 missiles that prevent anything else from firing? 135 to swap them out for some S4 blast weapons? Not terribly inspiring particularly as a dedicated Fast Attack choice.

And while IG has a large number of "alternate" style armies, most of them are pretty terrible.

They're an army that got balanced around a 5E paradigm about 5 or 6 weeks before 7E hit. Lots of options, but most of them are bad.

* Sure, but I didn't say Baneblade. The Banehammer is 410, built from the same kit these days.

* The tanks are pricier, but come with ObSec. The elite choices include some pretty beefy upgrades like Monster Hunter shells. It's a great list that plays very well - and can be used as allies BEAUTIFULLY.

* You forgot to mention the 10pt Lascannon swap and the 20pt Heavy Bolters, which are arguably the best mods, depending on your needs.

* Pretty terrible? Both Elysians are great Alpha Strike armies/allies and DKoK are AMAZING. MT is a terrible list on its own, but solid allies, as I believe was intended.

I strongly disagree that most of the options are bad. They're bad in the Tourney meta, but not any of standard 8 recognized styles of play. They do very well - and will of course do better when we get our shiny new codex (probably later this year.)

Sure some of the variants are cheaper, I'll grant, though also often much less intimidating.

Yeah, in the IA1 list your Russ Tanks can get Obsec, but ObSec is already highly situational on the first place, and on Heavy vehicles that can't move more than 6" a turn period (and where if anything makes it into base contact, they're dead) the value is essentially nill. I've run the list quite a bit, it's fun, but not really particularly effective. The Beasthunter shells are nice, but largely end up being the crutch that saves the army from total obliteration rather than a serious edge.

Yes, the Valkyrie can take a lascannon and heavy bolters, but then you're talking about a ~165pt Flyer that's relatively undergunned next to the Vendetta, and if it's running around acting as a transport, it's likely not utilizing that power super effectively.

DKoK are great at alpha striking against certain opponents, but absolutely fall apart against others (drop pods, FMC's, etc) and are extremely heavily dependent on getting first turn (and the Assault Brigade list is outdated...). They've also got obscenely expensive infantry for no good reason and are typically highly reliant on their artillery units (and if those are neuttralized, they army ceases to function). Elysians have similarly big problems with many common units seen on tables these days, and have artificially limited things like Veteran weapons upgrades (only one special weapon per Vet unit) and have to rely on Elites for pretty much all of their infantry based killing power.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

I won't defend Skyspear, but with the Demi-Company thing you're thinking about, you need tons of Tactical Marines, and they aren't worth the price of a free Razorback. It also isn't practical even at the 1850 range. Start hitting 2250+ and we start to have a problem.

It took a while but I found out who wrote the codex

For all the bashing I see of IG, I have to wonder if Manticores are only being used in my area. Backed up with units(tank or infantry)that strip armor off the table, I have seen Manticores every game eliminate entire infantry units per turn from the table.
What am I missing that makes it so hard for the IG to win games in your areas? There are really good players here for all factions, so it's not a sole question of competence on the part of everyone.

 Massawyrm wrote:
* Sure, but I didn't say Baneblade. The Banehammer is 410, built from the same kit these days.

It's also garbage. That's the problem with IG superheavies, they're either terrible (Malcador) or expensive but mediocre (the decent Baneblade variants). If you're taking a cheap IG superheavy it's because you love the fluff and/or model and don't care too much about winning.

* The tanks are pricier, but come with ObSec. The elite choices include some pretty beefy upgrades like Monster Hunter shells. It's a great list that plays very well - and can be used as allies BEAUTIFULLY.

It's also a very one-dimensional list that often either wins overwhelmingly (your opponent isn't prepared for lots of tanks) or gets massacred without any hope of winning (they are). It averages out to being a decent list, but it's far from the top tier of competitiveness.

* You forgot to mention the 10pt Lascannon swap and the 20pt Heavy Bolters, which are arguably the best mods, depending on your needs.

They're still not very impressive. You're paying ~150 points for some pretty underwhelming guns that are only useful against infantry. And TBH neither of the upgrades are all that great. The LC sucks because you're never using a Valkyrie against vehicles if you have any possible alternative, and the HBs suffer from limited firing arcs and the "four weapons at full BS" limit. It's not going to cripple your list to take a Valkyrie or three, but it's certainly not a unit that people are going get excited about.

* Pretty terrible? Both Elysians are great Alpha Strike armies/allies and DKoK are AMAZING. MT is a terrible list on its own, but solid allies, as I believe was intended.

Elysians are mediocre at best. Their alpha strike ability is worse than drop pod marines, even without considering the blatantly overpowered drop pod formation. It's a fun concept if you want to use normal human troops instead of space marines, but there are much better options if you want to win games.

DKoK just plain suck. The only thing they have that's even remotely useful is the death rider detachment, and even that mostly gets its favorable opinions from the long-unfulfilled desire to have rough riders be useful. Other than that everything else in their list can be done just as well, if not better, by a codex army.

 Massawyrm wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Malcador suerpheavies are usually pretty terrible however, and and an actual Baneblade starts at 525pts, 575 with traditional single-sponson set.

Yes IA1 has an armoured battlegroup list, but it's still all stuck using the 5E book's pricing, meaning all those Russ tanks are ~15-20% more than in the basic IG codex

Likewise, while Vendettas are solid, Valkyries are rather expensive for what they offer, 125pts for an AV12 flyer with a single Multilaser and two one-shot S8 missiles that prevent anything else from firing? 135 to swap them out for some S4 blast weapons? Not terribly inspiring particularly as a dedicated Fast Attack choice.

And while IG has a large number of "alternate" style armies, most of them are pretty terrible.

They're an army that got balanced around a 5E paradigm about 5 or 6 weeks before 7E hit. Lots of options, but most of them are bad.

* Sure, but I didn't say Baneblade. The Banehammer is 410, built from the same kit these days.

* The tanks are pricier, but come with ObSec. The elite choices include some pretty beefy upgrades like Monster Hunter shells. It's a great list that plays very well - and can be used as allies BEAUTIFULLY.

* You forgot to mention the 10pt Lascannon swap and the 20pt Heavy Bolters, which are arguably the best mods, depending on your needs.

* Pretty terrible? Both Elysians are great Alpha Strike armies/allies and DKoK are AMAZING. MT is a terrible list on its own, but solid allies, as I believe was intended.

I strongly disagree that most of the options are bad. They're bad in the Tourney meta, but not any of standard 8 recognized styles of play. They do very well - and will of course do better when we get our shiny new codex (probably later this year.)

Okay, let us dissect this for now:

*Banehammer - Requires you to get close. With a 6" move rate. Any sensible opponent will obliterate this long before it can do any real damage. Sure there is the Malcador and the Machirus. Just be prepared to pay far more than what they are worth, the Malcador, for instance, costs as much as a Land Raider, has 2SP and armour 13, 12, 10. And is slow and easy to immobilise.

*Our tanks are pricier. And just not worth it, as Peregrine pointed out it is either an all or nothing and once your opponent knows what you are bringing they just bring lots of anti tank and kill it.

*Ahhhh the Lascannon/Heavy Bolter swaps. So tell me oh might SM overlord, do you pay 50 points on your flyers for one Lascannon and two Heavy Bolters at BS 3? No? Didnt think so.

*DKoK.... Well, regular veteran squads are cheaper than engineers, most units are over priced and there is a general lack of great units. Death Riders suffer from being essentially slightly buffed Rough riders, and we all know just how terrible they are. Elysian's are wannabe SM drop pod assault troops. Just without the survivability and hitting power of SM's. But close to the same cost. Maybe not such a good choice after all.

So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. Ogryns for instance cost as much as a battle tank - yes, a BATTLE TANK, for THREE. And they are highly situational to use, and struggle against heavier units (no AP on their attacks and a 5+ save). And Bullgryns are even worse.
Our version of the Razorback, the Taurox, costs a hell of a lot more and is no where near as good.
And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Peregrine: In what world is a 25 troop transport with 14/13/12, 9 structure points and a S8 AP3 massive blast that also kills 1/6th of the survivors "garbage" for 410pts? Are there other variants I like better? Sure. But for 410, it's a GREAT tank. And the ABG is only 1 dimensional if you play it that way. Sure, it can be crippled by a heavy anti-tank army, but that's not the current meta. AV14 isn't the thing right now. People love their Gravcannons and their Scatterlasers. That's great for tank armies. I just shrug that gak off. And saying Elysian alpha strikes are worse than drop pod marines? What color is the sky on your world, P? 110pts gets me 10 DS dudes with 3 meltaguns at BS4. 15 more points gets me a ML with it or plasmaguns instead. Marines can't even touch that. For 110 they can get 5 DS dudes with 1 plasmagun. Elysians go down like chumps - just like every AS army - but they hit hard when they come down. Which is why you get more of them for the points. They hit WAY harder than SM. But if they can't wipe the opponent, they won't stick around long afterward. That's the tradeoff.

Master of Ordinance: Dude. Just....dude. Crack a codex, my man. We're talking about the Banehammer, not the Hellhammer. The Banehammer has a 60" range. It can deploy in the corner and hit almost anything on the board. The add ons on the Valk are 30, not 50pts, and yes, they're quite valuable when used right. But I was speaking more about the rest of the IG airforce than our standard workhorse. No one seems to want to gak on the Vulture. And for good reason. That thing is a beast for its points and at the heart of my initial comment. And the DKoK don't run. Which is why they cost more. You build them differently from standard IG, but their tenacity makes them amazing when used right.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Yes. Welcome to Warhammer 40k. Where your codex will always fall to the back of the pack only to get a new bright and shiny codex that everyone else will eventually whine about on release. Does it suck that the AM codex fell so far behind so quickly? Yep. Sure does. It took the design team a while to figure out what they thought 7th should be. But with 10 codexes released in the first 6 months of this year, I have no doubt will get our new bright and shiny detachment/formation filled codex soon enough. Until then, pour over a couple of books and learn that we have a lot more options than you think we do.

I can definitely understand not wanting to play against the "Decurion-style" Formation-of-formations in casual or friendly games, especially if you're playing a 6th edition/early 7th edition codex. Some of those formations, especially the Decurion, can be quite nasty against lists that aren't designed to be competitive.

There's also the problem of new players, as they might not understand the Decurion way of list-building. The CAD, Formations/FOCs, and Detachments can be hard enough to wrap one's head around.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Sure, decline game with people who are also trying to enjoy the hobby. Don't play games. Don't support the hobby. Complain that the hobby is dying. It's not like you can do anything to save the hobby, you know, like supporting it, promoting it, and playing games. Oh no! You have to decline to play ant aspect of the game you disagree with, so it's the game that's killing itself, not you for being critical of others and bring inclusively elitist.


SJ

I thought this was supposed to be a game for fun, not a proselytizing religion.
If it's not fun for him, why would he continue to "promote" (aka. play) the game?
I say, expand your horizons and look at other games and see if they strike your fancy.

My Daemonkin are waiting. We play whatever comes. I love this dex, but it's not OP. Especially looking at the new SM dex. Play and loose is to play and learn.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Peregrine: In what world is a 25 troop transport with 14/13/12, 9 structure points and a S8 AP3 massive blast that also kills 1/6th of the survivors "garbage" for 410pts? Are there other variants I like better? Sure. But for 410, it's a GREAT tank. And the ABG is only 1 dimensional if you play it that way. Sure, it can be crippled by a heavy anti-tank army, but that's not the current meta. AV14 isn't the thing right now. People love their Gravcannons and their Scatterlasers. That's great for tank armies. I just shrug that gak off. And saying Elysian alpha strikes are worse than drop pod marines? What color is the sky on your world, P? 110pts gets me 10 DS dudes with 3 meltaguns at BS4. 15 more points gets me a ML with it or plasmaguns instead. Marines can't even touch that. For 110 they can get 5 DS dudes with 1 plasmagun. Elysians go down like chumps - just like every AS army - but they hit hard when they come down. Which is why you get more of them for the points. They hit WAY harder than SM. But if they can't wipe the opponent, they won't stick around long afterward. That's the tradeoff.

Master of Ordinance: Dude. Just....dude. Crack a codex, my man. We're talking about the Banehammer, not the Hellhammer. The Banehammer has a 60" range. It can deploy in the corner and hit almost anything on the board. The add ons on the Valk are 30, not 50pts, and yes, they're quite valuable when used right. But I was speaking more about the rest of the IG airforce than our standard workhorse. No one seems to want to gak on the Vulture. And for good reason. That thing is a beast for its points and at the heart of my initial comment. And the DKoK don't run. Which is why they cost more. You build them differently from standard IG, but their tenacity makes them amazing when used right.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Yes. Welcome to Warhammer 40k. Where your codex will always fall to the back of the pack only to get a new bright and shiny codex that everyone else will eventually whine about on release. Does it suck that the AM codex fell so far behind so quickly? Yep. Sure does. It took the design team a while to figure out what they thought 7th should be. But with 10 codexes released in the first 6 months of this year, I have no doubt will get our new bright and shiny detachment/formation filled codex soon enough. Until then, pour over a couple of books and learn that we have a lot more options than you think we do.

I can count on one hand the number of times OS mattered, as can pretty much most of the forum. I really do think that it's such a minor benefit that you'd have to be bad for it to be that scary to you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can count on one hand the number of times OS mattered, as can pretty much most of the forum. I really do think that it's such a minor benefit that you'd have to be bad for it to be that scary to you.

Considering Dakka's aversion to MoW missions, this doesn't surprise me. ObSec's use is far rarer in EW missions than it is in MoW, in which it isn't uncommon to see it come into play more than once in any given game. Considering I regularly play both, I've found it's better to have ObSec than not to. Arguably, ObSec tanks aren't nearly as sexy as ObSec bikes or jetbikes, but they still get the job done.

IG has super heavies? Were those added in WD or something, because they sure are not in the codex.

Makumba wrote:
IG has super heavies? Were those added in WD or something, because they sure are not in the codex.

They're in Escalation and various FW books. As you should know by now "what is in the codex" has very little to do with what an army is able to bring.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Sure, decline game with people who are also trying to enjoy the hobby. Don't play games. Don't support the hobby. Complain that the hobby is dying. It's not like you can do anything to save the hobby, you know, like supporting it, promoting it, and playing games. Oh no! You have to decline to play ant aspect of the game you disagree with, so it's the game that's killing itself, not you for being critical of others and bring inclusively elitist.


SJ

I thought this was supposed to be a game for fun, not a proselytizing religion.
If it's not fun for him, why would he continue to "promote" (aka. play) the game?
I say, expand your horizons and look at other games and see if they strike your fancy.

I said it earlier in the thread. The complaints against people who decline a game because it wouldn't be fun for them remind me of a girl being called stuck up because she declines a date with someone she's not attracted to.
Good hell people, it's a big hobby, and if someone doesn't 't want to have a game with you, find someone who will and move on!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I can count on one hand the number of times OS mattered, as can pretty much most of the forum. I really do think that it's such a minor benefit that you'd have to be bad for it to be that scary to you.

You've got to be kidding. If this feeling is as widespread as you say it is, perhaps that's why I haven't lost a tournament since they introduced "Objective Secured".

It's the most game-winning rule I've had access to since it released. The only time it "doesn't matter" is when your opponent also has tons of Obsec units. If they don't, and you're fast MSU obsec in an objective based mission, you're virtually guaranteed victory. If none of your own units are obsec, and your opponent's are, with an intelligent opponent, they will deliver you the L, regardless of how well your army performs against theirs. So long as your opponent doesn't table you, Obsec is the most surefire way to eek out that skin of your teeth victory.

Makumba wrote:
IG has super heavies? Were those added in WD or something, because they sure are not in the codex.

The Escalation supplement has them, as well as the various Forge World books. Some folks still argue that Forge World doesn't exist in 40k, but the same can't be said for Escalation. The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

 Massawyrm wrote:
The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

So are the FW books. The anti-FW argument is just as "legitimate" as the anti-Escalation argument and the anti-decurion argument and the anti-tactical-squad argument. All of them are official rules and are part of the standard game as created by GW, but you can choose not to include them in your own army or play against people who use them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Massawyrm wrote:
The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

So are the FW books. The anti-FW argument is just as "legitimate" as the anti-Escalation argument and the anti-decurion argument and the anti-tactical-squad argument. All of them are official rules and are part of the standard game as created by GW, but you can choose not to include them in your own army or play against people who use them.

You and I are on the same page with this. I was just nipping it in the bud before this thread turned into a rehash of Dec '13.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Peregrine: In what world is a 25 troop transport with 14/13/12, 9 structure points and a S8 AP3 massive blast that also kills 1/6th of the survivors "garbage" for 410pts? Are there other variants I like better? Sure. But for 410, it's a GREAT tank. And the ABG is only 1 dimensional if you play it that way. Sure, it can be crippled by a heavy anti-tank army, but that's not the current meta. AV14 isn't the thing right now. People love their Gravcannons and their Scatterlasers. That's great for tank armies. I just shrug that gak off. And saying Elysian alpha strikes are worse than drop pod marines? What color is the sky on your world, P? 110pts gets me 10 DS dudes with 3 meltaguns at BS4. 15 more points gets me a ML with it or plasmaguns instead. Marines can't even touch that. For 110 they can get 5 DS dudes with 1 plasmagun. Elysians go down like chumps - just like every AS army - but they hit hard when they come down. Which is why you get more of them for the points. They hit WAY harder than SM. But if they can't wipe the opponent, they won't stick around long afterward. That's the tradeoff.

Master of Ordinance: Dude. Just....dude. Crack a codex, my man. We're talking about the Banehammer, not the Hellhammer. The Banehammer has a 60" range. It can deploy in the corner and hit almost anything on the board. The add ons on the Valk are 30, not 50pts, and yes, they're quite valuable when used right. But I was speaking more about the rest of the IG airforce than our standard workhorse. No one seems to want to gak on the Vulture. And for good reason. That thing is a beast for its points and at the heart of my initial comment. And the DKoK don't run. Which is why they cost more. You build them differently from standard IG, but their tenacity makes them amazing when used right.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Yes. Welcome to Warhammer 40k. Where your codex will always fall to the back of the pack only to get a new bright and shiny codex that everyone else will eventually whine about on release. Does it suck that the AM codex fell so far behind so quickly? Yep. Sure does. It took the design team a while to figure out what they thought 7th should be. But with 10 codexes released in the first 6 months of this year, I have no doubt will get our new bright and shiny detachment/formation filled codex soon enough. Until then, pour over a couple of books and learn that we have a lot more options than you think we do.

Sorry, I do get a bit toxic when talking about stuff like this. It is just that our codex was not even top tier to begin with and within a couple of months it had been reduced to a lower tier codex. Im also a bit peeved about a certain epic giant chainsword being blatantly stolen and given to the SM forces.
Without that the priest has lost most uses.

Within a few months??? It was low tier when it dropped. Now it looks like a speck of dust in a deep valley from the perch some of the new dexes have. And I'm not a guard player, so no bias there. In fact - my renegades outmatch you in every single slot.

The whole 'when your dex drops it'll be as amazing' falls flat on its face when you consider:
-AM
-MT
-BA
-Nids (aside from ONE unit)
-Orks
-Inquisition
-DE
-CSM
-KDK
-DA
And arguably
-SW
-GK
-SoB
-Tau (although admittedly WERE amazing when they dropped)

In fact the only ones who have been this astouding are:
-Crons
-CWE
-Skittari
-SMs

Don't know squat about harlies or Mechanicus to say anything about them. And deamons are an odd one, quite a few strong builds from them.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Within a few months??? It was low tier when it dropped. Now it looks like a speck of dust in a deep valley from the perch some of the new dexes have. And I'm not a guard player, so no bias there. In fact - my renegades outmatch you in every single slot.

The whole 'when your dex drops it'll be as amazing' falls flat on its face when you consider:
-AM
-MT
-BA
-Nids (aside from ONE unit)
-Orks
-Inquisition
-DE
-CSM
-KDK
-DA
And arguably
-SW
-GK
-SoB
-Tau (although admittedly WERE amazing when they dropped)

In fact the only ones who have been this astouding are:
-Crons
-CWE
-Skittari
-SMs

Don't know squat about harlies or Mechanicus to say anything about them. And deamons are an odd one, quite a few strong builds from them.

Yeah, the Cron dex was the beginning of a new 7th ed model at GW. The 6th ed codex model was bad - drop a dex in which the new units/kits were beefier than the old, add supplements later to give more options and correct any mistakes (like Nids). The new model of detachments and formations allows them to make every unit great and give a power boost to armies that buy a wide range of models - meaning they're pushing new models out the door with older kits. They're actually back in business of making armies great rather than focusing on specific units because, SURPRISE, that's how you sell models.

AM will no doubt get vehicle squadrons with nasty boosts and a detachment that does something on par with the others. Considering the success of the SM codex, free transports might become a thing. GW wants too sell kits. These detachments sell kits. Expect an update soon, and expect that it won't suck.

Relapse wrote:


I said it earlier in the thread. The complaints against people who decline a game because it wouldn't be fun for them remind me of a girl being called stuck up because she declines a date with someone she's not attracted to.
Good hell people, it's a big hobby, and if someone doesn't 't want to have a game with you, find someone who will and move on!

My problem is that where I live it is not a big hobby. It was in 5th and even parts of 6th. Had well over 80 players here, Now we have less then 30, and aside of me and one orc player, all of them have access to formations. If I say no to formations or decurion style list, I can have one opponent. And that is technily one opponent as the orc player doesn't realy come that offten to the shop.

The Escalation supplement has them, as well as the various Forge World books. Some folks still argue that Forge World doesn't exist in 40k, but the same can't be said for Escalation. The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

So IG is balanced around an out of print book and FW? So a bit like end of 6th where the only way to have fun was to load up on 9 saber weapon platforms. Nice thing, I guess.

Makumba wrote:
So IG is balanced around an out of print book and FW? So a bit like end of 6th where the only way to have fun was to load up on 9 saber weapon platforms. Nice thing, I guess.

No, IG is still balanced for 6th ed, with a very much still in print book, with FW providing a larger number of options than for any other army.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Just because a mission is objective based doesn't mean that ObSec is going to matter. Again, we're talking extremely mobility challenged tanks, that are likely to be auto-killed if anything is close enough to contest. On top of that, ObSec only matters IF:

1: you are within range of an objective to claim or contest it (if you're not on the objective, ObSec isn't doing anything)
2: the objective is contested (if an opponent isn't contesting it, then ObSec doesn't kick in)
3: you're at a point in the game where the contesting matters (e.g.turn 5+ in an eternal war mission, or a Maelstrom mission where someone has actually rolled the objective in question).
4: the objective in question actually matters in deciding the outcome of the game (e.g. you both hold an objective and are fighting over a third for the decision, if you're up 4-1, getting an ObSec unit to the 6th objective isn't changing the outcome).

If none of these are true, then ObSec does nothing. I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw ObSec make any difference to the outcome of a game. I know for sure it did not decide a single game in either of the last two tournaments I attended of ~16 players.

Is it worthless? No. Is it a gigantic, routinely game winning advantage? No. Is it tremendously useful on heavy battle tanks restricted to 6" movement a turn (with no Flat Out possible) and exceedingly vulnerable to close combat from a possible contesting unit? No.

 Massawyrm wrote:

Makumba wrote:
So IG is balanced around an out of print book and FW? So a bit like end of 6th where the only way to have fun was to load up on 9 saber weapon platforms. Nice thing, I guess.

No, IG is still balanced for 6th ed, with a very much still in print book, with FW providing a larger number of options than for any other army.

To be fair, they're a book released in 6E with balance changes centered entirely around 5E performance

The CSM book has many of the same issues, most of the units are built around a 5E or even 4E paradigm in many instances, and it's no wonder that they don't do well in 7E

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just because a mission is objective based doesn't mean that ObSec is going to matter. Again, we're talking extremely mobility challenged tanks, that are likely to be auto-killed if anything is close enough to contest. On top of that, ObSec only matters IF:

1: you are within range of an objective to claim or contest it (if you're not on the objective, ObSec isn't doing anything)
2: the objective is contested (if an opponent isn't contesting it, then ObSec doesn't kick in)
3: you're at a point in the game where the contesting matters (e.g.turn 5+ in an eternal war mission, or a Maelstrom mission where someone has actually rolled the objective in question).
4: the objective in question actually matters in deciding the outcome of the game (e.g. you both hold an objective and are fighting over a third for the decision, if you're up 4-1, getting an ObSec unit to the 6th objective isn't changing the outcome).

If none of these are true, then ObSec does nothing. I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw ObSec make any difference to the outcome of a game. I know for sure it did not decide a single game in either of the last two tournaments I attended of ~16 players.

Is it worthless? No. Is it a gigantic, routinely game winning advantage? No. Is it tremendously useful on heavy battle tanks restricted to 6" movement a turn (with no Flat Out possible) and exceedingly vulnerable to close combat from a possible contesting unit? No.

ObSec matters when you play as if it does. In a tournament meta like yours in which the meta doesn't care about ObSec, it's going to seem to mean diddly. But when you play to win with it, you focus your fire on opposing ObSec units to ensure the final objective grab is going to be unopposed. ABG played with only tanks is silly - that's why we have Centaurs. I usually run two, keep them hidden if need be, then run them out for a last minute objective grab. Tanks hold any mid to back field objectives, Centaurs go for the long distance ones. It doesn't matter how much of your army you have left if I control more objectives than you. Most players in tournament settings play to wipe. Consistent winners play the mission, not their opponent.

 Massawyrm wrote:

ObSec matters when you play as if it does. In a tournament meta like yours in which the meta doesn't care about ObSec, it's going to seem to mean diddly. But when you play to win with it, you focus your fire on opposing ObSec units to ensure the final objective grab is going to be unopposed. ABG played with only tanks is silly - that's why we have Centaurs. I usually run two, keep them hidden if need be, then run them out for a last minute objective grab. Tanks hold any mid to back field objectives, Centaurs go for the long distance ones. It doesn't matter how much of your army you have left if I control more objectives than you. Most players in tournament settings play to wipe. Consistent winners play the mission, not their opponent.

In Malifaux we talk a lot about objective runners. Units that in many cases are useless both at surviving and killing, but that are brought specifically to go collect points before dying. As Malifaux is won entirely on points with very few objectives awarding points for killing, these units are basically your bread and butter for winning games. New players often have a hard time grasping the concept of a unit that isn't killing anything being able to win the game. Luckily for my full Skitarii force, 40k players are exactly the type of people I am referring to. I'm able to play very casually because my force that can't get obsec is entirely valid since no one uses their obsec except by accident anyway.

I like the way it is done in infinity. A lot of models can do some of the missions, but specials do some very well and because missions are dynamic durning list building I wouldl have try to balance them. But to be honest skirmish systems don't compare well to a system based around IGYG and alfa strikes stun locking half of an army w40.

As object secured goes it is a good thing to have for transports, if they are cheap. An object secure rhino or pod are nice objective holders. At worse they draw fire power away from other stuff.

My major gripe is that formations have been introduced to drive sales. Nothing else. They should have stayed in Apoc and I think they are causing some severe balance issues. The powercreap is increasing rapidly in Wh40k imho.
(as an example that formation in the new sm codex, 2 assault squads, 2 dev squads in droppods, clearly designed to promote the new kits and with insane bonus...)

 aliusexalio wrote:
My major gripe is that formations have been introduced to drive sales. Nothing else. They should have stayed in Apoc and I think they are causing some severe balance issues. The powercreap is increasing rapidly in Wh40k imho.
(as an example that formation in the new sm codex, 2 assault squads, 2 dev squads in droppods, clearly designed to promote the new kits and with insane bonus...)

As Vaktathi put it earlier, GW are a miniatures company first and a game company second. They are more than willing to break the game if it means that they can sell more models. Formations are just GW's new way of getting people to buy models.

The power creep has been real, especially since Necrons. Dark Angels appear to be a step down, but still ahead of the pre-Necron codexes. However, none of these formations are either broken or unbeatable. The problem is that the pre-Necron codexes don't have formations of a similar power level, making it an uphill struggle when playing against some of the more recent 7th edition books.

 aliusexalio wrote:
My major gripe is that formations have been introduced to drive sales. Nothing else. They should have stayed in Apoc and I think they are causing some severe balance issues. The powercreap is increasing rapidly in Wh40k imho.
(as an example that formation in the new sm codex, 2 assault squads, 2 dev squads in droppods, clearly designed to promote the new kits and with insane bonus...)

Agreed and exalted

 Massawyrm wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just because a mission is objective based doesn't mean that ObSec is going to matter. Again, we're talking extremely mobility challenged tanks, that are likely to be auto-killed if anything is close enough to contest. On top of that, ObSec only matters IF:

1: you are within range of an objective to claim or contest it (if you're not on the objective, ObSec isn't doing anything)
2: the objective is contested (if an opponent isn't contesting it, then ObSec doesn't kick in)
3: you're at a point in the game where the contesting matters (e.g.turn 5+ in an eternal war mission, or a Maelstrom mission where someone has actually rolled the objective in question).
4: the objective in question actually matters in deciding the outcome of the game (e.g. you both hold an objective and are fighting over a third for the decision, if you're up 4-1, getting an ObSec unit to the 6th objective isn't changing the outcome).

If none of these are true, then ObSec does nothing. I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw ObSec make any difference to the outcome of a game. I know for sure it did not decide a single game in either of the last two tournaments I attended of ~16 players.

Is it worthless? No. Is it a gigantic, routinely game winning advantage? No. Is it tremendously useful on heavy battle tanks restricted to 6" movement a turn (with no Flat Out possible) and exceedingly vulnerable to close combat from a possible contesting unit? No.

ObSec matters when you play as if it does. In a tournament meta like yours in which the meta doesn't care about ObSec, it's going to seem to mean diddly. But when you play to win with it, you focus your fire on opposing ObSec units to ensure the final objective grab is going to be unopposed. ABG played with only tanks is silly - that's why we have Centaurs. I usually run two, keep them hidden if need be, then run them out for a last minute objective grab. Tanks hold any mid to back field objectives, Centaurs go for the long distance ones. It doesn't matter how much of your army you have left if I control more objectives than you. Most players in tournament settings play to wipe. Consistent winners play the mission, not their opponent.

I'm not debating that you need to play to the mission, but again, ObSec only makes a difference if all of the above conditions hold true. If you're holding an objective, on a turn it matters, and it's going to decide the outcome of the game, but it's not contested, then ObSec didn't do anything. If you hold an objective, with an ObSec unit, and it's contested, but you're losing 1-5, well, its effect technically kicks in, but in regards to the outcome of the game, you might as well not have it, you're still losing. If you're holding an objective that's contested with an ObSec unit that's critical to how the game turns out, but it's turn 2 in an Eternal War mission, it' not doing anything relevant yet. If you're holding an Objective with an ObSec unit, that's contested by a non-ObSec unit, in a Maelstrom mission, but nobody rolled for that objective, again, doesn't do anything for anyone.

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal. I think I've won a single game with it. One will notice that a lack of ObSec hardly makes players of other armies bat an eye to lose in exchange for formation or alternate detachment benefits, and this is because ObSec is a highly conditional rule, even if playing to the mission and primarily on objectives. Killing power usually just works better, especially when it's skyrocketing currently through formation benefits and the introduction of things like D weapons and squadron benefits.

Meanwhile, sure, Centaurs with armoured fist vets can be nice in Maelstrom missions, and can get you ObSec on something other than slow Russ tanks, but the original comment was made that while the tanks are pricier they get ObSec, which doesn't work very well on them. Likewise, AV11/10/10 HP2 non-skimmer transports with 5 T3 5+sv Ld7/8 models is a very easy objective nabbing unit toi neutralize that's not likely going to live in most games past turn 2 or 3.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win. Because of this, every point that ObSec wins you is vital. Now, granted, I'm a tournament player, so that may be why other people have a different view of the importance of ObSec. It might not always be the determining factor in an individual game. Many times, if you scored extra points by having ObSec, you may have very well won anyhow. But while ObSec isn't necessary to win a game, I'd say it's pretty instrumental in winning most tournaments, where very few points seperate the top 10 players.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Assuming they aren't shot to pieces, forced to fall back, and, most importantly, that the game ends when you need it to, etc. That's a lot of "if's".

*If* they're even on an objective. *If* the objective is contested. *if* it's at a point in the game where holding it matters. *if* holding that objective makes a difference in the winning objective count. *If* your unit survives. And another one, *If* the other unit also doesn't have ObSec (if both have it, it's the same as if neither had it). All of these conditions have to be met for Objective Secured to have had meaningful value.

People make it seem like this is something that others don't think about. I've very definitely thought about it. At the beginning of 7E, I was all hot on ObSec like everyone else. In the year since it's release, I just haven't seen it swing the outcome of many games, particularly non-Maelstrom missions. It's utility is also highly variable between armies. ObSec also can be far better leveraged by armies that have things that can move to objectives very easily, things like Fast Skimmers, Jetbikes, Deep Striking units like Drop Pods (honestly, probably 75% of the time I've seen ObSec make a difference in a game at all, it was Drop Pods) etc. For other armies that don't have these tools, it's simply much more economical and effective to just concentrate on destroying the scoring units, ObSec or no.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Maybe? I've played against armies with a dozen or more ObSec units and played *with* armies with roughly that many ObSec units, I've never found myself to be particularly crippled or advantaged either way except in one game where ObSec made the difference (and that was against another army that also had ObSec...just all their ObSec units were dead).

I'm not saying ObSec can't provide value, but it's not a meta-crushing super-rule. It can be useful, but is super conditional. Against many opponents, it may never matter, it only kicks in if they're contesting objectives, and if they're not doing that then ObSec isn't doing anything.

What I see quite often is a confusion of "playing to mission objectives" and ObSec being the same thing, when it's not. ObSec assists in that, but is a conditional bonus that aids in that, but does not define it.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

There are a gigantic number of conditionals here, lots of "if's" that are very easily not fulfilled.


You're hoping the game ends turn 5, because if it goes on to turn 6 it's likely those AV10/10/10 HP2 speeders are dead (and if anything could draw LoS to them before at all, or didn't need LoS, it's likely they're dead by this point anyway) and it's likely that the Scouts aren't going to survive combat much longer against most anything an opponent would throw into combat against a unit of Scouts in the opposing deployment zone.

Your troops are SM Scouts if they're taking a Land Speeder transport, What are they going to be locked in combat with that's not going to destroy them in rather short order, especially if softened up first?

Already, from the outset, the speeders are pointless if the two objectives in your opponents deployment zone are contested, you're holding 2-0, not 2-2. ObSec on the speeders changes nothing, it only mattered for the Scouts in your own deployment zone.

This entire thing is dependent on a very specific scenario that you're simply not going to see in most games, and relies on every conditional I put forward previously being true. The ObSec side is winning only because of its Scouts in its own deployment zone. If the game goes past turn 5 and the Scouts are killed in CC, then the Opponent is going to win unless you can somehow get those Land Speeders back across the board, intact, to contest the objectives in your own deployment zone, which they may not be able to do unless they survive to a turn 7 through a possible two additional shooting phases.

This a very specific scenario. Yes, ObSec can make a difference in a game like this. But if you change just about anything, then ObSec becomes dramatically less useful or completely irrelevant. If they're not contesting, then ObSec doesn't do anything. If you change up who holds what, then ObSec's value becomes much less relevant. If the game goes on beyond turn 5, ObSec is likely to become irrelevant as those fragile units are likely easily destroyed. If they just shot your units to death instead of getting in there with a CC unit, ObSec would mean nothing.

See what I'm getting at here? ObSec only matters because a number of very specific conditions hold true, a set of conditions that are relatively mutable. They change, and ObSec's importance becomes questionable.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win.

This is an artificial construct outside the core game rules that varies from event to event. We've absolutely seen that armies lacking ObSec have no problem placing very highly in tournaments like Adepticon, and that ObSec doesn't

The issue is that you're saying that the rule is conditional, but arguing that they're coincidental, ignoring the players who play toward achieving those conditions. Those conditions don't happen by accident. They are the soul of our strategy.

 Massawyrm wrote:
The issue is that you're saying that the rule is conditional, but arguing that they're coincidental, ignoring the players who play toward achieving those conditions. Those conditions don't happen by accident. They are the soul of our strategy.

I get that, but it's an extremely flimsy strategy if you're relying on ObSec to win you games on a consistent basis, especially in the example given, and the strategy of "lots of scoring units/lots of fast scoring units" works very often even without ObSec, and most armies don't feel crippled at all if they don't have it. You don't see Necron Decurion armies for instance running around feeling like the lack of ObSec is a crippling flaw, because it's not, just as its availability on overcosted Armoured Battlegroup Russ tanks is not much of a boon. ObSec is a nice "extra trim" option that can make or break a game at the margins, but will only very rarely decide a game on its own.

I am of the opinion that formations are a good thing happening to WH40K. I take formations with,a grain of salt in regards to how they are employed. It allows folks to field armies in another manner than unbound or CAD.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win. Because of this, every point that ObSec wins you is vital. Now, granted, I'm a tournament player, so that may be why other people have a different view of the importance of ObSec. It might not always be the determining factor in an individual game. Many times, if you scored extra points by having ObSec, you may have very well won anyhow. But while ObSec isn't necessary to win a game, I'd say it's pretty instrumental in winning most tournaments, where very few points seperate the top 10 players.

I see too many tablings for this to be a thing.

Martel732 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win. Because of this, every point that ObSec wins you is vital. Now, granted, I'm a tournament player, so that may be why other people have a different view of the importance of ObSec. It might not always be the determining factor in an individual game. Many times, if you scored extra points by having ObSec, you may have very well won anyhow. But while ObSec isn't necessary to win a game, I'd say it's pretty instrumental in winning most tournaments, where very few points seperate the top 10 players.

I see too many tablings for this to be a thing.

Between the absurd abilities and extra wargear that formations offer, and the increasing power level of stuff in general (6 shot grav weapons, D weapons, etc), I'm seeing a whole lot more games end in one-sided slaughters, and abilities that simply would have been inconceivable even just a year ago just turning the game into a disaster.

We play a terrible game.

I laughed at the moment when ObSec tanks where mentioned. ObSec tanks? You mean you actually think that moving your tanks from their prepared positions to an area closer to the opponents infantry is a good idea?

Yeah, sure. And then the Infantry assault your tanks with Krak Grenades/Melta Bombs. Have fun then.

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are? (original post)

So after reviewing peoples replies I have to agree about its not fair to decline games against all formations so lets slightly change the question. Is it wrong to decline a game against the new codex's decurion style formations?
These formations are usually the ones that are causing people jaws to drop and in my experience are one sided when it comes to a casual game.

In my situation I have two friends who want to use and think its fair game to use the necron decurion in a casual setting. I am the one who has spent the time and money into a table and terrain as well drive two hours just to play a game with my friends. I have spent the time and money to enjoy the game and for everyone as well to enjoy. Am I being unreasonable to only play my necron friends is if they agree to use a CAD only? I am only trying to achieve a more enjoyable experience not only for me but also my other friends that don't have formations on that power level yet.

I wish I went more in depth with my original post before since some people got the wrong idea so for that I apologize.

They are beyond reasoning - find new opponents or ask to play with their army while they play with yours? Maybe they'll have time to reconsider their position while you do your victory lap?

It's like hell on earth for a wargamer; "oh, you don't want to play this guy's necron decurion? well theres a second opponent choice; it's another necron decurion!"

The only time ObSec matters is on weak units that cannot remove opponents off an objective. ObSec lets them contest what they can't outright capture. For people running strong unit choices, ObSec is pretty meh.

On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models. GW is a company, after all, not a charity. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. If you do like it, support them by buying their product. Pretty darn simple.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

I can't help but wonder how many people complaining about the formation were the same ones saying Devs and Assault Marines were junk.

Oh me, oh my, why is this unit so bad, oh me oh my why did they make such a strong formation on units that are so bad?

Breton wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

I can't help but wonder how many people complaining about the formation were the same ones saying Devs and Assault Marines were junk.

Oh me, oh my, why is this unit so bad, oh me oh my why did they make such a strong formation on units that are so bad?

You can make anything broken when you give it enough special rules, particularly when they've got some extremely powerful and versatile new weapons options.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breton wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

I can't help but wonder how many people complaining about the formation were the same ones saying Devs and Assault Marines were junk.

Oh me, oh my, why is this unit so bad, oh me oh my why did they make such a strong formation on units that are so bad?

You can make anything broken when you give it enough special rules, particularly when they've got some extremely powerful and versatile new weapons options.

I just hope they give us IG players a free tank per squad if we take a Tank Commander...

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breton wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

I can't help but wonder how many people complaining about the formation were the same ones saying Devs and Assault Marines were junk.

Oh me, oh my, why is this unit so bad, oh me oh my why did they make such a strong formation on units that are so bad?

You can make anything broken when you give it enough special rules, particularly when they've got some extremely powerful and versatile new weapons options.

I just hope they give us IG players a free tank per squad if we take a Tank Commander...

Don't give them any ideas.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The only time ObSec matters is on weak units that cannot remove opponents off an objective. ObSec lets them contest what they can't outright capture. For people running strong unit choices, ObSec is pretty meh.

Nah. Once you begin removing your opponents ObSec units from the board and roll a very tough ObSec unit onto an objective, it is yours. The only way of denying you that objective (or taking it) is to wipe the entire unit/squadron. ObSec isn't just about last minute stealing/contesting; it's also about reducing the amount of shenanigans your opponent has access to. The fewer roads your opponent has to victory, the easier it is to predict which one he'll go down so you can thwart it.

I've long felt that ITC-Hammer has had a profound effect on the the online community's views of power level and unit selection, but now I'm beginning to see that it is also warping its understanding of the fundamentals of the game itself.

I don't think it is wrong to not want to play certain lists, especially if you drive long distance and supply the board. However, I really believe 40k is designed to be enjoyable despite the outcome. It is possible you and your opponents need to look at what the goal of the game is. If the atmosphere is competitive, you may have to take on some competitive lists and deal with that.

Maybe next time, suggest a CAD game before even arriving, so everyone is clear of the expectations.

I admire your dedication though. I would not bother with the game portion of the hobby if my nearest opponents were 2 hours away.

I believe that most formations are fine, the decurion ones seem to be too powerful. I don't think it's bad to say no to decurion style formations.

My experience with Imperial Guard Infantry Blobs is that my entire army gets destroyed by around turn 3-4, and we usually don't play objectives. The only way I seem to be able to combat this is by requesting that I take extra points in my army to fight their decurions, or powerful list armies. That way we still play, but it's more fun for the both of us. (Even then It's still not very effective.)

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models. GW is a company, after all, not a charity. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. If you do like it, support them by buying their product. Pretty darn simple.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

But they knew in advance that formations are going to be in the game, then why did they my book crap? IG got no formations, no good supplements, and a ton of stuff removed. And due time doesn't help my army right now. Specialy if GW does something crazy again and suddenly armies without strong shoting and melee won't be good.

Makumba wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

On formations, it's the new way to build armies. Yes, it's a cash grab, yes it's intended to sell models. GW is a company, after all, not a charity. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. If you do like it, support them by buying their product. Pretty darn simple.

Personally, I like the new use of formations, and have no issue with the direction the game is trending. All of the weak codexes will see updates soon at the current release rate, so bitching about your army being left behind is a bit childish. Just keep calm and carry on. Your army will get its formation treatment in due time. It's not like you were winning any national tournaments with your army, anyway.

SJ

But they knew in advance that formations are going to be in the game, then why did they my book crap? IG got no formations, no good supplements, and a ton of stuff removed. And due time doesn't help my army right now. Specialy if GW does something crazy again and suddenly armies without strong shoting and melee won't be good.

I play the csm codex still from 2012 with no allies and maybe a helbrutes formation and still win games.

Winning isn't my only focus, enjoying the game is. Yes the necrons decurion is very difficult to beat for any army, but it isn't impossible.

Enjoy the ride, you will only be a better player for it, and people will respect you more for carrying on in good spirits instead of complaining.

it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

That's free points for zero investment. Can I just not pay for Chimeras, is that cool? Or the ability to drop Devastators and fire at full effect at up to four different targets and follow it up with deep striking assault units that can charge afterwards. Or the Decurion benefits that layer on top of each other such that Wraiths suddenly require more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound Titan while the core of the army gains Relentless, move through cover, rerolls of 1's on RP and +1 to RP to boot (increasing the effectiveness of RP by 75% over a non-Decurion unit).

These are not tiny boosts. These are not tiny advantages. These absolutely are insane advantages. These are gigantic bonuses that would have gotten someone laughed out of any gaming club if anyone other than GW had suggested them just a few months ago, and with good reason.

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

That's free points for zero investment. Can I just not pay for Chimeras, is that cool? Or the ability to drop Devastators and fire at full effect at up to four different targets and follow it up with deep striking assault units that can charge afterwards. Or the Decurion benefits that layer on top of each other such that Wraiths suddenly require more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound Titan while the core of the army gains Relentless, move through cover, rerolls of 1's on RP and +1 to RP to boot (increasing the effectiveness of RP by 75% over a non-Decurion unit).

These are not tiny boosts. These are not tiny advantages. These absolutely are insane advantages. These are gigantic bonuses that would have gotten someone laughed out of any gaming club if anyone other than GW had suggested them just a few months ago, and with good reason.

Why don't you try play testing first, mister chicken little? The new space marine formations are strong and are welcome inclusions but they are not format warping. If you feel otherwise, prove your case.

col_impact wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

That's free points for zero investment. Can I just not pay for Chimeras, is that cool? Or the ability to drop Devastators and fire at full effect at up to four different targets and follow it up with deep striking assault units that can charge afterwards. Or the Decurion benefits that layer on top of each other such that Wraiths suddenly require more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound Titan while the core of the army gains Relentless, move through cover, rerolls of 1's on RP and +1 to RP to boot (increasing the effectiveness of RP by 75% over a non-Decurion unit).

These are not tiny boosts. These are not tiny advantages. These absolutely are insane advantages. These are gigantic bonuses that would have gotten someone laughed out of any gaming club if anyone other than GW had suggested them just a few months ago, and with good reason.

Why don't you try play testing first, mister chicken little? The new space marine formations are strong and are welcome inclusions but they are not format warping. If you feel otherwise, prove your case.

I have played against many of these formations (and they're why I have made the decision to stop attending tournaments, and why almost nobody shows up for pickup games anymore at my FLGS). I still haven't seen a Decurion lose a game in person in the 5 or 6 months since that books release.

There's also just something fundamentally absurd however about free abilities, rules (particularly ones that break strong fundamental core rules that have been longstanding for many editions), and models for zero additional investment. You don't need extensive playtesting to see that there's something ridiculous about that.

I noticed you didn't actually address any of my points, you're just throwing out a reflexive comment with no argumentative value. If you have some sort of actual defense, please lay it out.

 Vaktathi wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

That's free points for zero investment. Can I just not pay for Chimeras, is that cool? Or the ability to drop Devastators and fire at full effect at up to four different targets and follow it up with deep striking assault units that can charge afterwards. Or the Decurion benefits that layer on top of each other such that Wraiths suddenly require more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound Titan while the core of the army gains Relentless, move through cover, rerolls of 1's on RP and +1 to RP to boot (increasing the effectiveness of RP by 75% over a non-Decurion unit).

These are not tiny boosts. These are not tiny advantages. These absolutely are insane advantages. These are gigantic bonuses that would have gotten someone laughed out of any gaming club if anyone other than GW had suggested them just a few months ago, and with good reason.

Why don't you try play testing first, mister chicken little? The new space marine formations are strong and are welcome inclusions but they are not format warping. If you feel otherwise, prove your case.

I have played against many of these formations (and they're why I have made the decision to stop attending tournaments, and why almost nobody shows up for pickup games anymore at my FLGS). I still haven't seen a Decurion lose a game in person in the 5 or 6 months since that books release.

There's also just something fundamentally absurd however about free abilities, rules (particularly ones that break strong fundamental core rules that have been longstanding for many editions), and models for zero additional investment. You don't need extensive playtesting to see that there's something ridiculous about that.

I noticed you didn't actually address any of my points, you're just throwing out a reflexive comment with no argumentative value. If you have some sort of actual defense, please lay it out.

I agree a lot with Vaktathi. A game that tries to be balanced around points and now starts giving away free points breaks the game. Its hard to have a fair game when some armies get huge benefits for little drawback while others don't have that option yet. It is like playing against a handicap.

I lot of formations are not that bad but others make over the top units even more powerful or push balanced units into the overpowered category. The people that say to just deal with it is like asking people to just deal with a unbound list consisting of just heavy support or a list with just wrathknights.

Just my opinion.

 jasper76 wrote:
It's not wrong, it's your hobby time.

Formations are becoming so ubiquitous now that I'd think you'd be turning down alot of games, though.

And all things considered, the CAD is actually also a formation.

CAD is a detachment (Combined Arms Detachment).

The fact of the matter is games workshop found a way to make "garbage" units like tacticals better by giving them their transports for free, but only if you take a pile of them. With the devestators/assault marines, you get the most bang for your buck if you drop your LONG RANGE fire support team point blank in the enemies face turn one in the hopes that a "terrible" assault unit can kill whatever iis threatening them.

The formations allow people to not look at those units as a tax or burden to get the "better" units. Now that the basic units are viable across the board for newer codecies, you will see more varied and viable builds all over. Nothing wrong with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, g.w. literally says in the rulebook that point limits are optional. So fudge it if you want with older armies, I'd play them

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The fact of the matter is games workshop found a way to make "garbage" units like tacticals better by giving them their transports for free, but only if you take a pile of them. With the devestators/assault marines, you get the most bang for your buck if you drop your LONG RANGE fire support team point blank in the enemies face turn one in the hopes that a "terrible" assault unit can kill whatever iis threatening them.

The formations allow people to not look at those units as a tax or burden to get the "better" units. Now that the basic units are viable across the board for newer codecies, you will see more varied and viable builds all over. Nothing wrong with that.

The issue isn't that they're making "crap" units better (which isn't really GW's goal either, they're not really targeting just the "bad" units with formations, rather, largely whatever they want to sell web bundles of). It's the way that they're doing these things is incredibly bad game design, and often ends up swinging the power of units into places they really shouldn't be.

Also, g.w. literally says in the rulebook that point limits are optional. So fudge it if you want with older armies, I'd play them

yeah, that seems rather indicative of the edition as a whole "Welcome to warhammer 40,000, where the points are made up and the rules don't matter..."

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The formations allow people to not look at those units as a tax or burden to get the "better" units. Now that the basic units are viable across the board for newer codecies, you will see more varied and viable builds all over. Nothing wrong with that.

But there is something very wrong with that. I'm going to guess you play one of the armies currently benefiting from these new power curves. Why not modify the point value or statistics of a "bad" unit rather than nullifying the point system entirely? Buffing a unit with free rules just for taking 3 of them makes the point system completely irrelevant in the long term. Some codex's are so full of trash units you'd end up seeing 4-5k of CSM in a 2k game "because CSM are so bad". How very American of you, not wanting to pay a "tax". Heard of unbound? You can take your spastic all-elite army as much as you want in that format without getting a bunch of rewards just for spending money.

Certainly just doing the math for the armies got a whole lot interesting with SM's and their Decurion reply.

I dunno, this might be their new way to "balance" the game by making certain configurations the "logical" choice so we now have 3 levels of play:
1) Formation
2) Objective Secured
3) Everything else

It has changed so much so fast I am beyond caring lately.
I read the codex, put stuff together, read some more, paint, read some more, go play.
Winning results may vary.

I don't think the formations are game breaking - I think we need to chill and appreciate this is an assymetric hobby from the very beginning - nothing has ever been truly "even" even before faction specific formations. If you require a perfectly balanced strategy game, try chess.

CSM usually womps me with heldrake and oblits, formation free. I try to get them back with ravenwing and deathwing. Short of taking identical armies on a symmetrical game board, this game cannot and will not ever be truly even. The variety is part of the beauty. Try to enjoy it for what it is - an interaction with some sweet grimdark future model collections.

TLDR: My response to Cron-plaining is "git gud or git rekt lel"

 zgort wrote:
I don't think the formations are game breaking - I think we need to chill and appreciate this is an assymetric hobby from the very beginning - nothing has ever been truly "even" even before faction specific formations. If you require a perfectly balanced strategy game, try chess.

CSM usually womps me with heldrake and oblits, formation free. I try to get them back with ravenwing and deathwing. Short of taking identical armies on a symmetrical game board, this game cannot and will not ever be truly even. The variety is part of the beauty. Try to enjoy it for what it is - an interaction with some sweet grimdark future model collections.

There's a difference between playing asymetrical armies and what formations offer however. You can have relatively balanced assymetrical fights. Formations just give extra resources (units/wargear/special rules/etc) that you don't have to pay for.

Lets look at an analogy.

Two guys have a fist fight. A small, agile guy with some fighting experience versus a a big strong powerful guy. Sure, it's an asymetrical fight, but it's not horrifically imbalanced, speed and experience can match strength and size.

When you give one side spiked brass knuckles, suddenly it's not so fair a fight. That's effectively what formations are doing, they're giving bonuses on top of whatever differences may already exist.

TLDR: My response to Cron-plaining is "git gud or git rekt lel"

which essentially amounts to have no real argument...

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

That's free points for zero investment. Can I just not pay for Chimeras, is that cool? Or the ability to drop Devastators and fire at full effect at up to four different targets and follow it up with deep striking assault units that can charge afterwards. Or the Decurion benefits that layer on top of each other such that Wraiths suddenly require more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound Titan while the core of the army gains Relentless, move through cover, rerolls of 1's on RP and +1 to RP to boot (increasing the effectiveness of RP by 75% over a non-Decurion unit).

These are not tiny boosts. These are not tiny advantages. These absolutely are insane advantages. These are gigantic bonuses that would have gotten someone laughed out of any gaming club if anyone other than GW had suggested them just a few months ago, and with good reason.

ok first off, I'd have NO PROBLEM with a formation granting free chimeras (or tauroxes) to an AM army if the restrictions basicly require you to spend the Lion's share of your points on an infantry army, including such "winners" as HWTs etc. heck, if it meant I saw something other then 2 vetern squads and as many LRs as you could fit in a list, I'd consider it a win for me as an opponent.

Secondly, do you refuse to play against detachments? because some detachment benifits are pretty damn nice. like the Grey Knights Nemisis Strike force. Deep strike on turn 1, and allow you to run and shoot the turn you deep strike in? pretty damn potent! seriously, has anyone here ever played against someone with a full battlecompany? How many people have the 8 odd razorbacks required for this "doom list" of tatical marines?

yeah formations grant benifits a little better then detachments, but they're also more restricting.


I yet again have to applaud GW, they're making people panic over tatical marines in rhinos.

if someone had told me 6 months ago that'd be the new "doom list" I'd have laughed at them

People are confused. Formations are a tax to get neat rules that make suboptimal units optimal. It's GW's current method of making every unit usable (rather than just making the units inherently usable via better writing/editing). Be under no illusions, it is a cash grab. However, it is a cash grab via increasing sales in low end units rather than their previous effort to force people to buy huge amounts of the same units to get neat rules, an attempt that failed <cough>Orks<cough>.

Necron Decurion drew a lot of positive feedback on interlocking formations added to the game, while also netting negative feedback from buffing an already buffed unit. Same thing occurred with Eldar, kudos for the new building format, villainy for added D to everything.

The SM Gladius seems to have gotten the mix right. No stupidly overpowered units getting buffs they don't need, while underperformers get boosts for seeing table time when taken in new ways. The DA book tried to do this, yet is still limp from poor editing.

Too Long; Didn't bother to Read: the new flavor of 7th is getting good things from odd places. You can either embrace it, or not. If you choose not, then vote with your wallet and stop rewarding GW for bad decisions.

SJ

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's not wrong to decline to play decurions tyle formations as it's not wrong to decline anything, but it is kinda panicy and stupid. most formation benifits aren't that insane. I mean the space marine stuff everyone's panicing about consists of tatical marines with free rhinos.

That's free points for zero investment. Can I just not pay for Chimeras, is that cool? Or the ability to drop Devastators and fire at full effect at up to four different targets and follow it up with deep striking assault units that can charge afterwards. Or the Decurion benefits that layer on top of each other such that Wraiths suddenly require more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound Titan while the core of the army gains Relentless, move through cover, rerolls of 1's on RP and +1 to RP to boot (increasing the effectiveness of RP by 75% over a non-Decurion unit).

These are not tiny boosts. These are not tiny advantages. These absolutely are insane advantages. These are gigantic bonuses that would have gotten someone laughed out of any gaming club if anyone other than GW had suggested them just a few months ago, and with good reason.

ok first off, I'd have NO PROBLEM with a formation granting free chimeras (or tauroxes) to an AM army if the restrictions basicly require you to spend the Lion's share of your points on an infantry army,

Ok, cool, lets assume this applies to Infantry Platoons, and lets say I've got to take a similar number to the Space Marine codex, along with associated command squads. So 6 platoons, and 2 CCS's. Too fulfill that I spend 1440pts to get 32 meltaguns, 14 autocannons, 14 grenade launchers, 36 Objective Secured units, and 1300pts worth of twenty free Chimeras, and 410-650pts left over (given a typical tournament points level) to spend on other things to fill out the formation or on other formations/detachments/upgrades/etc. Then plus I'm sure there'd be other bonuses too, like the "Tactical Flexibility" rules gives to demo-companies as part of a larger SM

So, assuming we were playing an 1850pt game, I'd really have 3150pts on the table...

including such "winners" as HWTs etc

They can't take Chimeras in the first place, but lets also not forget that GW isn't making formations just for the "crappy" units either. Even assuming you have to take a HWS in every platoon, you can totally fit that in.

heck, if it meant I saw something other then 2 vetern squads and as many LRs as you could fit in a list, I'd consider it a win for me as an opponent.

That's an issue you address with the bad units, not by making janky formations that give gobs of free stuff. There's all sorts of relatively simply solutions to the problems with IG units aside from Vets and Leman Russ tank.. Trying to hamfist a fix through formations is probably the worst possible method to fix that, you're just targeting the symptom not the root problem.

Secondly, do you refuse to play against detachments? because some detachment benifits are pretty damn nice. like the Grey Knights Nemisis Strike force. Deep strike on turn 1, and allow you to run and shoot the turn you deep strike in?

Initially I didn't have a problem with them, on the idea that they were to be a slightly modified version of the traditional FoC for each army under the misguided assumption that it would function like the traditional pre-7E army construction rules. Unfortunately once the fact that you can take as many detachments as you have points for sunk in (that took a few months for most players), it really just basically turns them into formations, and when coupled with other formations, makes them much more abusable than many players originally thought, particularly as the formations in a Decurion style setup can really synergistically double-down on the bonuses (e.g. rerolls of 1 for RP in a Reclamation Legion stacking with the Decurion bonus of +1 to RP rolls resulting in a net ~70% increase in RP effectiveness...on top of MTC and Relentless).

If it was just the detachment bonus, on the army wide level, as a modified traditional FoC, that was palatable. building on other formations and/or being able to take other formations outside of that really just makes it all fall apart.

The GK also isn't typically super amazing, they're not coming in with tons of meltas or grav or plasma weapons, they've got storm bolters and might have maybe perhaps a handful rending S7 AP4 cannons and maybe a Torrent flamer or two. Also, unlike the Decurion style formations, they aren't building bonuses upon other bonuses as part of their inherent creation.

When you look at something like the Skyhammer formation, that can come in with 40 Grav shots engaging 4 different targets, and follow them up not only with turn 1 Deepstrike but turn 1 Deepstirke+assault, that's an entirely different level of power, especially when you can then take a CAD or other formations on top of it to boot to fill out the majority of the rest of the army.

yeah formations grant benifits a little better then detachments, but they're also more restricting.

There's typically plenty of points left over for other formations to take all those other things, or the formation allows you to bring just about everything anyway. Most aren't going to prevent you from bringing the models you want.

I yet again have to applaud GW, they're making people panic over tatical marines in rhinos.

if someone had told me 6 months ago that'd be the new "doom list" I'd have laughed at them

You're overfocusing on a single formation here. The Galdius Strike Force has the one saving grace of being somewhat awkward to fit into an 1850/2000pt game with two Demi-companies, but not so a Decurion, Eldar Warhost, or a Demi-Company with it's special rules run alongside a Skyhammer Annihilation force or the like.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
People are confused. Formations are a tax to get neat rules that make suboptimal units optimal.

It's hard to even consider it that, lots of formations are composed of units nobody ever thought were suboptimal. They're just making sure every unit is in at least one formation in most instances.

It's kinda like how in 5E, "KIll Points" came to be seen as some sort of anti-MSU balance mechanism, instead of just easier victory tabulation that didn't require calculators for counting the points of individual killed units and half points for immobilized tanks and whatnot.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
People are confused. Formations are a tax to get neat rules that make suboptimal units optimal. It's GW's current method of making every unit usable (rather than just making the units inherently usable via better writing/editing). Be under no illusions, it is a cash grab. However, it is a cash grab via increasing sales in low end units rather than their previous effort to force people to buy huge amounts of the same units to get neat rules, an attempt that failed <cough>Orks<cough>.

Necron Decurion drew a lot of positive feedback on interlocking formations added to the game, while also netting negative feedback from buffing an already buffed unit. Same thing occurred with Eldar, kudos for the new building format, villainy for added D to everything.

The SM Gladius seems to have gotten the mix right. No stupidly overpowered units getting buffs they don't need, while underperformers get boosts for seeing table time when taken in new ways. The DA book tried to do this, yet is still limp from poor editing.

Too Long; Didn't bother to Read: the new flavor of 7th is getting good things from odd places. You can either embrace it, or not. If you choose not, then vote with your wallet and stop rewarding GW for bad decisions.

SJ

Well said

I prefer the formations that make suboptimal units playable, than outright buffing the suboptimal units, because there are just too many places where that doesn't make sense, and in the end, it just leads to different min-maxing. At least with formations, you're rewarded for playing to the fluff (which is important to me).

Eh, the sky is always falling in forum land.
I see why people are afraid of the snazy new formations and how they think its all a cash grab ect. But I'm not too terribly worried, I play the game for fun and have it every game. You can talk with opponents and discuss such things before hand, and most people will say "sure I wolnt run my decurion if you really don't want it"
As for competitive play, (which I have no part in) these sort of things always seem to work themselves out, adlance serpent spam they have all come and gone with counters and new builds and the world has continued to spin.

You're overfocusing on a single formation here. The Galdius Strike Force has the one saving grace of being somewhat awkward to fit into an 1850/2000pt game with two Demi-companies, but not so a Decurion, Eldar Warhost, or a Demi-Company with it's special rules run alongside a Skyhammer Annihilation force or the like.

except the demi company by itself doesn't have very good special bonuses. if I take a demi company I get an extra tactical doctrine and OS on my units. a pretty minimal advantage. about the worst you get over a CAD is OS on a centurion squad.

the doctrines are nice, I play ultramarines and a gladius force to net me 7 uses of doctrines is very tempting (I'm a fluff bunny more then anything though, so I tended to often deploy along similer lines anyway) but yeah I don't see the GSF as being a "much have" for space marines. and depending on what I'm playing I'd be more inclined to use a CAD

 Gavik Dross wrote:
Eh, the sky is always falling in forum land.

"Discussion" which you clearly do not wish to have.

I see why people are afraid of the snazy new formations and how they think its all a cash grab ect. But I'm not too terribly worried, I play the game for fun and have it every game. You can talk with opponents and discuss such things before hand, and most people will say "sure I wolnt run my decurion if you really don't want it"

Nice you have an "understanding" group to play with and being able to have your way.

As for competitive play, (which I have no part in) these sort of things always seem to work themselves out, adlance serpent spam they have all come and gone with counters and new builds and the world has continued to spin.

Many of these configurations have not "worked themselves out" just new levels of power formations are "the new black" for GW.
Since you do not try to "compete" this discussion has little relevance to you.
This is a hobby of some import to people: precious free time.
Customer dissatisfaction has relevance.
Of course the world will spin, but the obvious tone of condescension is rude however.
Other than the advice of "Find relaxed people to play with." anything to add?

We are noticing a trend that GW is rolling the rules AND models into competitive formations you have to buy together to get.
Truly a "pay to win" style of game.
The "Skyhammer Annihilation Force" for instance for a mere $611 with rules not in your codex.
This is the nickers in a knot thing that you seemed to have missed.

 Gavik Dross wrote:
and how they think its all a cash grab

While I can agree with you, especially now that everyone is getting them, that the formations aren't the sky falling (and I used to think it pretty much was) it's naive in the extreme to think they are not cash grabs.

Look at what the past few formations are trying to make you buy to get to use it. "Guys, you can get like... 10 of these little vehicle-things for free in a normal sized army." but no one has 10 of those models, let alone the enormous amount of foot soldiers I need for the formation! "... yeah. I know."

It's like someone looked at Necron's Decurion and said "yeah, that's good, but it's not paying the bills, is it?... but it could be."

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lets look at an analogy.

Two guys have a fist fight. A small, agile guy with some fighting experience versus a a big strong powerful guy. Sure, it's an asymetrical fight, but it's not horrifically imbalanced, speed and experience can match strength and size.

I respectfully disagree with your analogy - to make fights fair they are classed by weight. You would not see a small experienced welterweight boxer fighting a newer heavyweight. It would not be a fair fight for the lighter guy. A case could be made that S-D weapons are like brass knuckles though haha.

The only way to make 40k a truly balanced strategy game is to have the same army. Nobody wants that.

I also like the point about 8 razorbacks - VERY few gamers have that many to throw around anyway. I like that they decided to buff the fluff. Brings disparate types of gamers together.

 zgort wrote:


I respectfully disagree with your analogy - to make fights fair they are classed by weight. You would not see a small experienced welterweight boxer fighting a newer heavyweight. It would not be a fair fight for the lighter guy. A case could be made that S-D weapons are like brass knuckles though haha.

Professional boxing is rather different than a simple fistfight, there are constraints that exist outside of a streetfight, and in a competitive sense like that, it's likely that even the less experienced guy has a good amount of training and experience before ever stepping into a professional fight. That' a little bit different of a scenario.

That said, brass knuckles would still make a pretty huge difference, all he'd need is one semi-competent blow to potentially inflict a major injury, dramatically offsetting the strength difference with the greater concentration of force allowed by the brass knuckles.

The only way to make 40k a truly balanced strategy game is to have the same army. Nobody wants that.

We're not talking perfect balance, but a reasonable center where it's up to the players to make best use of their advantages and minimize their disadvantages to achieve victory. However formations giving away huge special rules and abilities or sometimes units, for zero cost, isn't even trying, it's actively working against that, it's just getting to play with what is effectively a larger points sized army.

I also like the point about 8 razorbacks - VERY few gamers have that many to throw around anyway. I like that they decided to buff the fluff. Brings disparate types of gamers together.

I know plenty of gamers with that many Razorbacks, and there's plenty more willing to buy them. Hell, if they made such a formation for IG, I've got 16 Chimeras, I could rock it day 1.

Good point. _o|

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are? (original post)

So after reviewing peoples replies I have to agree about its not fair to decline games against all formations so lets slightly change the question. Is it wrong to decline a game against the new codex's decurion style formations?
These formations are usually the ones that are causing people jaws to drop and in my experience are one sided when it comes to a casual game.

In my situation I have two friends who want to use and think its fair game to use the necron decurion in a casual setting. I am the one who has spent the time and money into a table and terrain as well drive two hours just to play a game with my friends. I have spent the time and money to enjoy the game and for everyone as well to enjoy. Am I being unreasonable to only play my necron friends is if they agree to use a CAD only? I am only trying to achieve a more enjoyable experience not only for me but also my other friends that don't have formations on that power level yet.

I wish I went more in depth with my original post before since some people got the wrong idea so for that I apologize.

Really theres a fine line between decurion and cheese..its the decurions that are engineered into being cheese

I think it's worth asking how many SM players reasonably intend to run battle companies.

Most will, assuming they don't stick with a CAD, likely stick to a single demi company, backed by support elements.

a bare minimum battle company is worth ~900 points by itself. which doesn't give that many points when you consider the formations you have to take. unless you wanna build a seoperate CAD for it, if you want some tanks you need to take a tech marine and 3 tanks minimum, just for example.

May I pose a question?

It's pretty clear that, unless GW does another design shift, that everyone will get the Decurion-style setup. So the real question is whether they are unbalanced against each other, not against codexes that have yet to get the treatment.

Have people played Decurion vs, Warhost vs. Slaughtercult vs. vs. Mechanicus thingie vs. whatever the SM and DA ones are called? How do they stack up next to each other?