Following the post of how formations hold the power to balance 40k. I've been thinking on the subject, and decided formations should be removed.
1: much of the "OP"ness in 40k has been caused by formations
The ability to take 45 Warp Spiders in aspect hosts that give them all BS 5
The ability to take 5 Wraithknights
Decurion army wide 4+ RP 2+ rerollable jink
Free transports!
Free upgrades!
This is what comes to mind currently.
All of our terriors are currently caused by formations
2: also formations have removed the strategic process of list building. Even if formations were balanced, one would be at a disadvantage if they decided not to take them, and so have reduced the process of list building to picking 3-4 formations and the units that come with them.
Formations do present interesting pros- being able to take tons of elites for instance without all the required HQ and Troops in a CAD. Perhaps I'm not a fan of the large formations like decurion or the SM free transports as I am of aspect hosts or Judiscar Batallions
I agree, especially considering they exist solely to sell more models rather than actually adding anything interesting to army composition or gameplay. Formations and the various other radical changes to the game lately are the reason I play 30k now. I'm about to eBay my Eldar and SM, already got rid of the SW. Formation hammer is killing 40k.
I think this is half-right. Sure, some formations have some big troubles, but good numbers of them are reasonable. Or, say, there's one specific exploit in a formation is broken, but otherwise it's not bad (Guardian Battlehosts, for example, with multi-WK's). Or things like the 2+ rerollable jink are more a function of the units' rules than formation(I'm looking at you, Darkshroud).
It's an issue of formations being fine in theory, but designers having a poor ability to see the consequences. Not sure where I'm going with this, other than to say don't throw the whole batch out with the bad apples.
Edit: yeah, in retrospect, it's probably well more than half-right; the few bad ones are the biggest offenders b/c they offer such massive force multipliers, rather than sheer number of bad formations.
They're mechanisms to move web bundles and specific kits, nothing more. They're awful game mechanics. There's essentially zero merit to them from a proper game design perspective.
Any upsides they have (such as making certain units more desireable that otherwise would not be) are really poor ways of solving those problems. The game functions at the unit level, fixes should be implemented at the unit level, formations are just an extra layer that has no need to exist.
Vaktathi wrote: They're mechanisms to move web bundles and specific kits, nothing more. They're awful game mechanics. There's essentially zero merit to them from a proper game design perspective.
Any upsides they have (such as making certain units more desireable that otherwise would not be) are really poor ways of solving those problems. The game functions at the unit level, fixes should be implemented at the unit level, formations are just an extra layer that has no need to exist.
Some armies are literally unplayable without formatioms
Vaktathi wrote: They're mechanisms to move web bundles and specific kits, nothing more. They're awful game mechanics. There's essentially zero merit to them from a proper game design perspective.
Any upsides they have (such as making certain units more desireable that otherwise would not be) are really poor ways of solving those problems. The game functions at the unit level, fixes should be implemented at the unit level, formations are just an extra layer that has no need to exist.
Some armies are literally unplayable without formatioms
Which armies are those? Last time i checked all the armies that can't take a CAD stil have their own detachment they can take
Formations have not caused the imbalance in 40k. They have, however, done nothing to fix it and only made it worse. Which was to be expected, since as other posters have already said, they were never aimed towards balancing the game.
Could it be probable that tournaments move to disallow formations? This said, detachments such as the Skitarii maniple would be allowed because it is not considered a formation in the Codex/ in the formation section. For those that don't know, it is like a CAD, only without the HQ requirnment, as Skitarii don't have any.
Vaktathi wrote:They're mechanisms to move web bundles and specific kits, nothing more. They're awful game mechanics. There's essentially zero merit to them from a proper game design perspective.
Any upsides they have (such as making certain units more desireable that otherwise would not be) are really poor ways of solving those problems. The game functions at the unit level, fixes should be implemented at the unit level, formations are just an extra layer that has no need to exist.
Korinov wrote:Formations have not caused the imbalance in 40k. They have, however, done nothing to fix it and only made it worse. Which was to be expected, since as other posters have already said, they were never aimed towards balancing the game.
Said all that needs to be said between the two here.
Was the game balanced before formations?
Afaik it was way worse.
Greg Knights had like an 70% win rate in tournaments at the end of 5th.
At least now many armies compete with each other.
Even the 7th Ed eldar are not as dominant as pre formation 6th Ed eldar. Serpent spam was worse than warp spider spam which is arguably debatable how many times they are allowed to warp jump aka flicker jump.
gungo wrote: Was the game balanced before formations?
Afaik it was way worse.
Having lived those days, it could be bad, but it's definitely far worse now.
Greg Knights had like an 70% win rate in tournaments at the end of 5th.
Their win rate was nowhere near that, and they weren't appreciably more powerful than several other armies of the era, like SW's, IG, BA's and SM's.
At least now many armies compete with each other.
Have you seen tournament results of late? If you're not playing Eldar, SM's, Necrons, Tau, or a very narrow slice of Daemon builds, you might as well not show up.
Even the 7th Ed eldar are not as dominant as pre formation 6th Ed eldar. Serpent spam was worse than warp spider spam which is arguably debatable how many times they are allowed to warp jump aka flicker jump.
Eldar are dominating at least as hard as they were in 6th, and if you look at basically all the top armies from Adepticon, the LVO, and other events, it's multi-detachment formation armies that are winning events, with Eldar clearly at the head.
The problem is that formations aren't even balanced with each other. The formation that lets Stormtroopers get twin linked and pinning on the turn they jump out of their Tauroxes, provided you take them in a special formation with a Commissar tax, is fluffy, cool, and encourages you to play the army the way they're meant to be played. The formation that lets a bunch of berserk cultists be fearless near their Hellbrute is similar. Then there's the stuff that gives you free units and wargear, which I think is absolutely stupid and not good for game balance at all. Points are there to balance the game, and if you get more points than the other guy, then you're actively unbalancing it.
What if I changed the title to: formations have only furthered the imbalance in 40k and thus should be removed. The units must be balanced first before formations are. Also, any model that is not in a formation will be at a sever disadvantage if they were all balanced
Brother SRM wrote: The problem is that formations aren't even balanced with each other. The formation that lets Stormtroopers get twin linked and pinning on the turn they jump out of their Tauroxes, provided you take them in a special formation with a Commissar tax, is fluffy, cool, and encourages you to play the army the way they're meant to be played. The formation that lets a bunch of berserk cultists be fearless near their Hellbrute is similar. Then there's the stuff that gives you free units and wargear, which I think is absolutely stupid and not good for game balance at all. Points are there to balance the game, and if you get more points than the other guy, then you're actively unbalancing it.
Special rules are points. I agree that those are fluffy and fun, but it makes the unit worth more points than you are paying for it. For some reason you are ok with cultists being fearless if it's something they just get that they couldn't get before, but what if they could pay 5pt each to get "Helbrute Pride" and be fearless next to their Helbrute, and then the formation gives it to them without that cost. Would it then not be a fluffy and fun mechanic anymore?
gungo wrote: Was the game balanced before formations?
Afaik it was way worse.
Having lived those days, it could be bad, but it's definitely far worse now.
This GK where strong in 5th. So strong that did not like facing them, but the gab between 5th GK and Orks was small compared to the current gab between Eldar, Tau, Necron or Marines and Orks.
The op things back then where Terminator deathstars with a poor inv save, models with 2 wounds and vehicles with assault cannons. Assault cannons for god sake. Eldar now have troop jet bikes with a higher rate of fire.
zerosignal wrote: Formations are fine, the damn codexes need fixing.
Formations without point costs are not fine because of this.
Frozocrone wrote: When you offer something for nothing then you know you have a problem.
.
Any upsides they have (such as making certain units more desireable that otherwise would not be) are really poor ways of solving those problems. The game functions at the unit level, fixes should be implemented at the unit level, formations are just an extra layer that has no need to exist.
The current balance in 40k is bad and formations just made it a whole lot worse by further decoupling points from effectiveness on the board.
gungo wrote: Was the game balanced before formations?
Afaik it was way worse.
Having lived those days, it could be bad, but it's definitely far worse now.
This GK where strong in 5th. So strong that did not like facing them, but the gab between 5th GK and Orks was small compared to the current gab between Eldar, Tau, Necron or Marines and Orks.
That's true. GK was universally hated, mostly because the Draigo-star was virtually untouchable. They rolled around the table, killing things while rarely dying, and when kills are basically the only things that give you victory points, you're in a bad spot when you can't crack the star. They weren't fun to play (I know, I did.) And they weren't fun to play against. It didn't last very long, because then came fliers...
But even then, *every army in the game had a chance* to blow up the star. Obviously it wasn't equal, but it was possible for everyone. Now, certain armies, if played to their full potential, are vastly more potent than others, and some codexes just can't stand up to it.
40k has never been balanced, but I honestly don't think it has ever been as bad as it is right now.
But there are also more threats now. It used to be that there was always one top codex that was better than all the others... now we have a multiple threat situation where several codex are simply in a class way above others (and allying muddies the waters further.) So while it's bad, there is hope that it will get better if everyone is brought to around the same level. Then maybe we will just see a return to the "bad" balancing, rather than the tragic balancing we have now. Maybe GW are trying to teach us a lesson for our whining. Maybe they're saying "it can always be worse, so swallow the horse **** and stop complaining."
gungo wrote: Was the game balanced before formations?
Afaik it was way worse.
Having lived those days, it could be bad, but it's definitely far worse now.
This GK where strong in 5th. So strong that did not like facing them, but the gab between 5th GK and Orks was small compared to the current gab between Eldar, Tau, Necron or Marines and Orks.
That's true. GK was universally hated, mostly because the Draigo-star was virtually untouchable. They rolled around the table, killing things while rarely dying, and when kills are basically the only things that give you victory points, you're in a bad spot when you can't crack the star. They weren't fun to play (I know, I did.) And they weren't fun to play against. It didn't last very long, because then came fliers...
But even then, *every army in the game had a chance* to blow up the star. Obviously it wasn't equal, but it was possible for everyone. Now, certain armies, if played to their full potential, are vastly more potent than others, and some codexes just can't stand up to it.
40k has never been balanced, but I honestly don't think it has ever been as bad as it is right now.
But there are also more threats now. It used to be that there was always one top codex that was better than all the others... now we have a multiple threat situation where several codex are simply in a class way above others (and allying muddies the waters further.) So while it's bad, there is hope that it will get better if everyone is brought to around the same level. Then maybe we will just see a return to the "bad" balancing, rather than the tragic balancing we have now. Maybe GW are trying to teach us a lesson for our whining. Maybe they're saying "it can always be worse, so swallow the horse **** and stop complaining."
The bold part rings particularly true.
Players: Eldar are OP gak with the silly serpent Shields
GW: Introducing 7th edition Eldar, we listened and got rid of serpent shields, but made everything else OP instead MWHAHAHA
Players: Orks are under powered Gak except for the Deff Rolla and Nobs/nob bikers
GW: Introducing 7th edition orks, We nerfed Deff Rollas into oblivion so you will never see them again, and we made nob bikers with Pks so expensive that you will never see them fielded again...Ohh and we didn't buff anything in the Ork codex, we did however nerf a bunch of other things, mwahahahahahah!
Reavas wrote: Depends on the fomation, your forgetting some formations make armies viable (harlequins)
Because GW intentionally made them that way to sell more of certain models that wouldn't have sold otherwise. You act like they couldn't have made a solitaire and/or shadowseer HQ choices. Boom, problem solved. Armies are only unplayable without formations as long as GW wants them to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: Was the game balanced before formations?
Afaik it was way worse.
Greg Knights had like an 70% win rate in tournaments at the end of 5th.
At least now many armies compete with each other.
Even the 7th Ed eldar are not as dominant as pre formation 6th Ed eldar. Serpent spam was worse than warp spider spam which is arguably debatable how many times they are allowed to warp jump aka flicker jump.
I'd like to think that (and I know this is not their intended purpose and never will be and OP is more or less right about this) that formations are to make otherwise stupid unit builds playable.
I like formations in theory. Just not in execution. Formations *should* be a way to make themed armies work. For instance, I might want to play an assault marine heavy army, but that's not necessarily a very potent option. With a formation, I might get a benefit such as the ability to jink my jump pack units (or whatever) to make them more viable. Things like Death Wing should be represented with formations.
What I don't like are formations/detachments that basically just give away free rules for taking already good options.
Removing formations would definitely not solve all of 40k's problems. Scatbikes and wraith knights would still be problematic (if less so), and grav cent stars would still be possible.
The superior option for creating abnormal or specifically themed armies is 30k's rites of war (and the militia equivalent). Downside is that I imagine it'll be quite burdensome sifting through all of them by the end of the series. It'll still be less than all the formations for even a single book though, so there's that.
1: much of the "OP"ness in 40k has been caused by formations The ability to take 45 Warp Spiders in aspect hosts that give them all BS 5 The ability to take 5 Wraithknights Decurion army wide 4+ RP 2+ rerollable jink Free transports! Free upgrades! This is what comes to mind currently. All of our terriors are currently caused by formations
The ability to take 5 Wraithknights has nothing to do with a formation, and could easily be done in a CAD(s) as well.
2+ Rerollable jink is tame compared to 2++ rerollable saves with invisibility which is easily doable without formations.
Formations do present interesting pros- being able to take tons of elites for instance without all the required HQ and Troops in a CAD. Perhaps I'm not a fan of the large formations like decurion or the SM free transports as I am of aspect hosts or Judiscar Batallions
You say an issue with formations is being able to take 45 Warp Spyders with BS5. Then you say that a "pro" of formations is being able to take a ton of elites "for instance". You then go on to say that you like the Aspect Host, which is the definition of what is wrong with formations (I like formations, but the Aspect Host is the main one that gives them the bad name of all of this imbalance). Please proceed to make up your mind, sir.
I agree with Wyldhunt. The idea of formations is fine - not too many people were lining up to play units with large numbers of Eldar Guardians, or comprised primarily of SMTac, Assault, and Dev squads without the formation bonuses, but according to the background material, armies from those factions should overwhelmingly have large percentages of those units. GW may have bolloxed the execution, but since when is that unusual?
Wyldhunt wrote: I like formations in theory. Just not in execution. Formations *should* be a way to make themed armies work. For instance, I might want to play an assault marine heavy army, but that's not necessarily a very potent option. With a formation, I might get a benefit such as the ability to jink my jump pack units (or whatever) to make them more viable. Things like Death Wing should be represented with formations.
What I don't like are formations/detachments that basically just give away free rules for taking already good options.
Removing formations would definitely not solve all of 40k's problems. Scatbikes and wraith knights would still be problematic (if less so), and grav cent stars would still be possible.
I agree completely. If someone is prepared to not take thier armies most powerful units, then they should be thrown a bone to at least give them a fighting chance, Failing fixing the unit itself, formation bonuses are the next best way to do this.
Blacksails wrote: Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.
Exactly. If each unit in the game served it's purpose and had a niche role, then there would be no redundant units. If Vespids were just as viable to bring as Broadsides, then the game would be far better to work with.
Formations are nice from a fluff standpoint, but should not be used for a balancing one.
Wyldhunt wrote: I like formations in theory. Just not in execution. Formations *should* be a way to make themed armies work. For instance, I might want to play an assault marine heavy army, but that's not necessarily a very potent option. With a formation, I might get a benefit such as the ability to jink my jump pack units (or whatever) to make them more viable. Things like Death Wing should be represented with formations.
What I don't like are formations/detachments that basically just give away free rules for taking already good options.
Removing formations would definitely not solve all of 40k's problems. Scatbikes and wraith knights would still be problematic (if less so), and grav cent stars would still be possible.
I agree completely. If someone is prepared to not take thier armies most powerful units, then they should be thrown a bone to at least give them a fighting chance, and formation bonuses are the perfect way to do this.
they just add an extra layer of complexity, its an awful way to do that.
If a unit needs fixing, it should be fixed at the unit level which is what the core rules are based entirely around. If certain types/categories of units need fixing, that should again be at the unit level or in the core rules.
The game also has a problem with scale that needs to be addressed, as of course people wont take lots of tac or assault marines when those units strengths are evident at a skirmish or platoon level and the game wants to increasingly play at what once was an Epic/Apocalypse level.
Blacksails wrote: Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.
And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.
And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.
Blacksails wrote:And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.
1. kill formations with fire
2. punch some of the top units in the game with nerf gloves.
3. wait a few tournaments for a meta to settle
4. Look through results and army lists from like the top third of players. If there's a unit you see all over the place, repeat step 2. When you start to not be able to predict which armies and/or units will be in the top tables, voila, the game is now at least respectable in terms of balance!
Blacksails wrote: Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.
And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.
tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.
now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad
Blacksails wrote:And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.
I agree with this. Every bit of this.
Less buffs. More nerfs!
I think some of your responses in this thread disagree.
But yes. Nerf what must be nerfed to a far more manageable level, and make every unit a viable option for it's niche (Tacs for heavy infantry Jack-of-all-trades, Vespid as fast MEQ killers, Leman Russes as the indomitable battle tanks they're supposed to be)
marcman wrote: Following the post of how formations hold the power to balance 40k. I've been thinking on the subject, and decided formations should be removed.
1: much of the "OP"ness in 40k has been caused by formations
The ability to take 45 Warp Spiders in aspect hosts that give them all BS 5
The ability to take 5 Wraithknights
Decurion army wide 4+ RP 2+ rerollable jink
Free transports!
Free upgrades!
This is what comes to mind currently.
All of our terriors are currently caused by formations
2: also formations have removed the strategic process of list building. Even if formations were balanced, one would be at a disadvantage if they decided not to take them, and so have reduced the process of list building to picking 3-4 formations and the units that come with them.
Formations do present interesting pros- being able to take tons of elites for instance without all the required HQ and Troops in a CAD. Perhaps I'm not a fan of the large formations like decurion or the SM free transports as I am of aspect hosts or Judiscar Batallions
No, 40k has always been broken. Formations didn't start the fire in afraid!
Blacksails wrote: Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.
And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.
tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.
now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad
And die slightly slower to scatter lasers and ion accelerators. They pay a huge points amount only to be killed off like cannon fodder. Honestly, for the amount of boyz you can take, in some situations rather have the three boyz than a single marine, if only to saturate my opponent with bodies.
G00fySmiley wrote:tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.
now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad
Have you played a marines army?
If you play a marines army, you'll get why we don't think that atsknf isn't the most amazing buff ever. Useful? Occassionally. Game breakingly awesome? No.
G00fySmiley wrote:tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.
now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad
Have you played a marines army?
If you play a marines army, you'll get why we don't think that atsknf isn't the most amazing buff ever. Useful? Occassionally. Game breakingly awesome? No.
Started GK, quickly went to Sisters and now Skitarii. Can't say I have ever felt that "man, I wish I had atsknf." Not once.
G00fySmiley wrote: They pay a huge points amount only to be killed off like cannon fodder. Honestly, for the amount of boyz you can take, in some situations rather have the three boyz than a single marine, if only to saturate my opponent with bodies.
So would Ork players, but they get 2 Boyz and 2 points to spare.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: They pay a huge points amount only to be killed off like cannon fodder. Honestly, for the amount of boyz you can take, in some situations rather have the three boyz than a single marine, if only to saturate my opponent with bodies.
So would Ork players, but they get 2 Boyz and 2 points to spare.
Ah, forgot the points again. Sorry, that's 7 Boyz to 3 Marines. My mistake.
Well, it doesnt necessarily mean curbstomping, losing by 1 wound in an assault or losing 2 scouts in a 5 man squad will trigger it. Theres all sorts of things that can trigger it. Going to ground behind an aegis line for example.
The bigger issue is that most infantry in general, be they guardsmen or marine, are becoming increasingly pointless. The balance between most troop units is largely ok, but when we're playing games with stuff like Necron Wraiths, TWC superfriends, armies of superheavy walkers, D weapons, and jetbike units that can spit out 40 s6 shots a turn from across the board, it makes it hard for the PBI to have much utility. Guardsmen for instance really only have value as board control at this point, as even thr most massed and aggressive of lasgun barrages isnt going to scratch the deathstars and GC/SH units that are common now.
The game is trying to play at an Epic level with a skirmish scale ruleset.
Vaktathi wrote: Well, it doesnt necessarily mean curbstomping, losing by 1 wound in an assault or losing 2 scouts in a 5 man squad will trigger it.
Yes.
But note, this is my point:
If you are saying: "ATSKNF is so broken, you are using it left and right," it's because you are probably winning the game.
Going to ground behind an aegis line for example.
ATSKNF has nothing to do with GTG, so far as I'm aware.
The bigger issue is that most infantry in general, be they guardsmen or marine, are becoming increasingly pointless. The balance between most troop units is largely ok, but when we're playing games with stuff like Necron Wraiths, TWC superfriends, armies of superheavy walkers, D weapons, and jetbike units that can spit out 40 s6 shots a turn from across the board, it makes it hard for the PBI to have much utility. Guardsmen for instance really only have value as board control at this point, as even thr most massed and aggressive of lasgun barrages isnt going to scratch the deathstars and GC/SH units that are common now.
Yes. I agree.
That's why I'm strongly in favor of:
1. Nerfs as opposed to buffs.
2. Rigid formations as I've described in my thread.
If your good stuff is less powerful and you HAVE to take a ton of troops, guess what? Infantry have stopped being pointless.
A complication to unit balance is the issue of the intended gearing of their parent armies (towards close combat, speed, firepower, resilience, etc.) and whether that should impact the values of their various units:
e.g. Tau are a shootier army than space marines. So is it right and proper that Fire warriors, being Tau's main ranged troop, should points for points be more effective than a tactical squad?
Likewise Tyranid's strength is close combat / superior numbers. So is it ok that imperial guard close combat units are worse value, points for points, than genestealers or hormagaunts.?
In short while serious balancing of units is obviously sorely needed, complete value "equality" between units is arguably undesireable (even if it is possible), as it would take away from the strengths and weaknesses that a given army is supposed to have.
It''s no excuse for making drastically OP'd units, but a factor to consider nonetheless.
thegreatchimp wrote:e.g. Tau are a shootier army than space marines. So is it right and proper that Fire warriors, being Tau's main ranged troop, should points for points be more effective than a tactical squad?
No. Tactical marines pay a premium to be good at everything.
The standard of comparison should be IG vs. tau, not marines vs. tau.
Tau should shoot better than imp guard.
Likewise Tyranid's strength is close combat / superior numbers. So is it ok that imperial guard close combat units are worse value, points for points, than genestealers or hormagaunts.?
No. If the unit is specifically for close combat, then its points effectiveness should be comparable to other units of that kind and points cost.
[In short while serious balancing of units is obviously sorely needed, complete value "equality" between units is arguably undesireable (even if it is possible), as it would take away from the strengths and weaknesses that a given army is supposed to have.
I disagree. Even if, points for points, the close combat IG unit were comparable to a similarly costed tyrranid unit, that wouldn't make the IG better, in general, at close combat than tyrranids.
Furthermore, that flies in the face of what the points system is to effect.
The points system is supposed to effect an A = B kind of thing.
G00fySmiley wrote:tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.
now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad
Have you played a marines army?
If you play a marines army, you'll get why we don't think that atsknf isn't the most amazing buff ever. Useful? Occassionally. Game breakingly awesome? No.
I never said it was the most important thing ever, but it is certainly useful. when I see tac marines compared to normal troops marines players usually never include this in what makes the unit cost more points. I do have SM models not oen of my most played armies though have at least 10k points of them though (76 terminator models, 15 tac squads, a few of every vehicle and special marine types for all chapters not including 4 unopened dark vengeance boxes and a few other yet to be built boxes) their choice of transports is also the most versatile in the game,,, want to deep strike more accurately than most? drop pod, want a decent way to move the whole squad forward sure... want a stand alone firepower tank on the cheap no problem. think they are one of the strongest troop choices in the game right now.
Also I play CSM more than I do regular marines and boy do I miss atsknf when it would come in handy.
I disagree. Even if, points for points, the close combat IG unit were comparable to a similarly costed tyrranid unit, that wouldn't make the IG better, in general, at close combat than tyrranids.
Furthermore, that flies in the face of what the points system is to effect.
The points system is supposed to effect an A = B kind of thing.
14 points of this = 14 points of that.
The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them. The bonuses armies like that enjoy over their regular counterparts is counterbalanced by restrictions, so if they lost those advantages while still retaining the restrictions, you just end up with a crappy army.
You can extend that thesis to the mainline armies too. For example Dark Eldar lack almost any access to Tough Vehicles, so to compensate their fast, light vehicles need to be better, points for points, than what's available to the average army. Likewise tyranids can't field as effective firepower as many other amies, so they need more efficient close combat ability.
A further complication is that if a unit benefits or can be benefited by certain other units (or the entire army) then their points value is far less concrete.
I disagree. Even if, points for points, the close combat IG unit were comparable to a similarly costed tyrranid unit, that wouldn't make the IG better, in general, at close combat than tyrranids.
Furthermore, that flies in the face of what the points system is to effect.
The points system is supposed to effect an A = B kind of thing.
14 points of this = 14 points of that.
The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them.
Not necessarily true, if that 1000pts is truly equal, then ideally there's fewer Ravenwing bikers or they have fewer upgrades or something to make the 1000pts equal. That said, Ravenwing bikers shouldn't necessarily be *that* much better than normal bikers, the DA's are still a relatively Codex adherent chapter and there's only so much that can be done with a bike really.
So it seems the majority of the feedback these past several months has largely been ignored by GW again. With CSM's new formation, it appears they are doubling down on formations rather than burning them with fire. Is this really the direction this hobby is heading? Will the literal plethora of issues in every codex ever get resolved or are we just doomed to deal with GW's incompetence until they go under & the 40K brand is bought by another company?
Commissar Benny wrote: So it seems the majority of the feedback these past several months has largely been ignored by GW again. With CSM's new formation, it appears they are doubling down on formations rather than burning them with fire. Is this really the direction this hobby is heading? Will the literal plethora of issues in every codex ever get resolved or are we just doomed to deal with GW's incompetence until they go under & the 40K brand is bought by another company?
Since Tau its been pretty clear that instead of new codexs and rules updates; they're just adding more rules for the previous codex to use.
I like formations, I really do as they enable some really fuffy force compositions, enable entire armies to be fielded that otherwise wouldn't be possible (ala Harlequins and Skittari) and in some cases change the entire dynamic of a faction and how they play.
Many people will probably disagree with what I have just mentioned, but to bring it into context I play at a club that disallows formations and whilst this may be an ideal situation for some all I can see is less balance and variation in list. I'm someone who who plays Eldar and Harliequins, and all I've seen without formations are the top Codexes getting stronger because at their very core the those factions are broken at the unit and the equipment level.
I love my Eldar guys but without formations do my opponents stand much of a chance with the standard CAD?
Torus wrote: top Codexes getting stronger because at their very core the those factions are broken at the unit and the equipment level.
Which only gets exacerbated by formations.
If your opponents get formations the same as you do, then you get a bonus on top of already powerful units while your opponent playing a sub par codex gets a bonus on mediocre units. Either way they're battling upstream.
ATSKNF has nothing to do with GTG, so far as I'm aware.
If your enemy is using ATSKNF in some connection to going to ground, then the reason you feel it's very powerful is because your opponent is cheating.
ATSKNF makes you pass Fear tests (who even causes fear?) and Regroup tests. It more importantly allows them to act normally after regrouping. And if they are caught by a sweeping advance, they go back to fighting instead of dying.
So one thing makes them immune to maybe the least used USR in the game, Fear. And the others are all things where you have to beat them first in order for it to kick in. Meaning if it's happening left, right and center... well you're winning, like Traditio said.
Greg Knights had like an 70% win rate in tournaments at the end of 5th.
Their win rate was nowhere near that, and they weren't appreciably more powerful than several other armies of the era, like SW's, IG, BA's and SM's.
It was 50%, not 70% We can look at the Adepticon 2012 results to see.
Warhammer 40K Championships (Top 16)
Alexander Fennell – Necrons
Tony Grippando – Grey Knights
Mike Mutscheller – Space Wolves
Justin Cook – Grey Knights
Bill Kim – Chaos Daemons
Jose Mendez – Dark Angels
Joakim Engstrom – Grey Knights
Doug Johnson – Orks
Brett Perkins – Imperial Guard
Paul Murphy – Grey Knights
Tony Kopach – Space Wolves
Dave Ankarlo – Grey Knights
Brad Chester – Grey Knights
Nick Nanavati – Grey Knights
Reece Robbins – Eldar
Tim Gorham – Grey Knights
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: dominating at least as hard as they were in 6th, and if you look at basically all the top armies from Adepticon, the LVO, and other events, it's multi-detachment formation armies that are winning events, with Eldar clearly at the head.
Yep. 50% of the top 16 players at the 2016 adepticon were Eldar.
You know, it's funny. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Purifier wrote:If your enemy is using ATSKNF in some connection to going to ground, then the reason you feel it's very powerful is because your opponent is cheating.
ATSKNF makes you pass Fear tests (who even causes fear?) and Regroup tests. It more importantly allows them to act normally after regrouping. And if they are caught by a sweeping advance, they go back to fighting instead of dying.
So one thing makes them immune to maybe the least used USR in the game, Fear. And the others are all things where you have to beat them first in order for it to kick in. Meaning if it's happening left, right and center... well you're winning, like Traditio said.
Yes. And to be clear, it doesn't even allow you to auto-pass morale tests. Space marines can still get pinned and forced to fall back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thegreatchimp wrote:The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them. The bonuses armies like that enjoy over their regular counterparts is counterbalanced by restrictions, so if they lost those advantages while still retaining the restrictions, you just end up with a crappy army.
You can extend that thesis to the mainline armies too. For example Dark Eldar lack almost any access to Tough Vehicles, so to compensate their fast, light vehicles need to be better, points for points, than what's available to the average army. Likewise tyranids can't field as effective firepower as many other amies, so they need more efficient close combat ability.
A further complication is that if a unit benefits or can be benefited by certain other units (or the entire army) then their points value is far less concrete.
I disagree with this. There should be strict points for points equality, but different specializations.
An eldar close combat unit shouldn't be better, points for points, than an IG one. They should play differently.
The eldar one should have greater mobility and higher initiative.
The IG one should have a relatively low points cost (while being proportionately less capable).
And, of course, the space marine should be able to match them both, but have a higher points cost.
Keep in mind, if you remove formations, Eldar and Daemons will utterly dominate the game. The game will become more homogenous without formations because most of the newer codices were written with formations in mind. Codex Tau is a great example, there were essentially no changes made to the units, but a ton of formations added. Space Marines, Crons, Tau, etc, would not be able to compete with by the book Eldar. And guess what, formations don't affect how good scatter bikes are, how good warp hunters are, how good wraithknights and warp spiders are (and you can still fit at least 6 squads with a double CAD of eldar...). Daemons don't care either, grimoire still exists, fateweaver exists, summoning, cursed earth. Daemons can get a 2++ rerollable with little to no effort as well as guaranteed Invis.
These threads are such a waste of time. No one is going to remove all formations from the game. Perfect balance is impossible in a game with this many choices. Accept the game for what it is or sell your models and quit playing...
LValx wrote: Keep in mind, if you remove formations, Eldar and Daemons will utterly dominate the game. The game will become more homogenous without formations because most of the newer codices were written with formations in mind. Codex Tau is a great example, there were essentially no changes made to the units, but a ton of formations added. Space Marines, Crons, Tau, etc, would not be able to compete with by the book Eldar. And guess what, formations don't affect how good scatter bikes are, how good warp hunters are, how good wraithknights and warp spiders are (and you can still fit at least 6 squads with a double CAD of eldar...). Daemons don't care either, grimoire still exists, fateweaver exists, summoning, cursed earth. Daemons can get a 2++ rerollable with little to no effort as well as guaranteed Invis.
Eldar already dominate the game. It might allow armies like DE, IG, Orks, CSM's, etc to have a fighting chance against Necrons and SM's however and get a greater semblance of balance, not to mention ease pickup play.
niv-mizzet wrote: 1. kill formations with fire
2. punch some of the top units in the game with nerf gloves.
3. wait a few tournaments for a meta to settle
4. Look through results and army lists from like the top third of players. If there's a unit you see all over the place, repeat step 2. When you start to not be able to predict which armies and/or units will be in the top tables, voila, the game is now at least respectable in terms of balance!
I've never played a tabletop, board, video or card game that did not have HUGE imbalances. The only way to balance a game as large as 40k is to kill half or more of the armies and reduce choices within codices. Plus, if you are constantly nerfing and changing units, you will increase the cost to players, which will also hurt the game.
I've been playing since 5th and I find it ridiculous that anyone acts as though the game is significantly less balanced than it was in 5th or 6th.
5th was by a large margin, more homogenous than 6th or 7th. And I, personally, prefer 7th over 6th by a fair margin.
There are fixes that are easy to make that I think would help the game, but most of the suggestions ITT and in other threads of this kind are mere pipe dreams. More pragmatism, please!
LValx wrote:I've never played a tabletop, board, video or card game that did not have HUGE imbalances. The only way to balance a game as large as 40k is to kill half or more of the armies and reduce choices within codices.
This was essentially my argument in the "MAKE FORMATIONS MANDATORY" thread.
Vaktathi wrote:Eldar already dominate the game. It might allow armies like DE, IG, Orks, CSM's, etc to have a fighting chance against Necrons and SM's however and get a greater semblance of balance, not to mention ease pickup play.
If you're playing CSM or Orks, you could simply ask your opponent to run a CAD.
Not a tournament solution, but for casual games? Seems viable enough.
LValx wrote: Keep in mind, if you remove formations, Eldar and Daemons will utterly dominate the game. The game will become more homogenous without formations because most of the newer codices were written with formations in mind. Codex Tau is a great example, there were essentially no changes made to the units, but a ton of formations added. Space Marines, Crons, Tau, etc, would not be able to compete with by the book Eldar. And guess what, formations don't affect how good scatter bikes are, how good warp hunters are, how good wraithknights and warp spiders are (and you can still fit at least 6 squads with a double CAD of eldar...). Daemons don't care either, grimoire still exists, fateweaver exists, summoning, cursed earth. Daemons can get a 2++ rerollable with little to no effort as well as guaranteed Invis.
Eldar already dominate the game. It might allow armies like DE, IG, Orks, CSM's, etc to have a fighting chance against Necrons and SM's however and get a greater semblance of balance, not to mention ease pickup play.
Eldar, Necrons, SM, Tau, Daemons and TWC based lists are fairly well balanced against one another. What you are proposing will just increase the amount of Eldar...
Also, for all the dominating that Eldar do, I find it funny that Daemons/TWC lists are winning GTs at a very similar rate.
I don't think weakening the few armies that can challenge Eldar is a good way to increase balance, I'd argue that it would have the exact opposite effect and just further push players towards Eldar...
LValx wrote: Perfect balance is impossible in a game with this many choices.
Good thing no reasonable person expects perfect balance.
Accept the game for what it is or sell your models and quit playing...
No? God forbid somebody offer criticism of a product.
Criticism is fine, but there is a new thread like this posted nearly every day, how much time are people going to waste tapping on their keyboards? You want to fix the game, get started. Re-write the codices and install a new format in your local area, test and report results. Complaining on the internet fixes nothing. I see tons of folks on here agreeing that things need to change, lamenting on the awful state of the game, yet it seems that no one is willing to do anything to fix it. I have a theory as to why that is the case, balancing games is much more difficult than the average gamer realizes and to do so with a game of this size is a herculean task. You would require a very large coordinated effort and countless hours of testing, furthermore, it would be a consistent effort that would require support throughout its life-cycle. If this were feasible, I'd think it'd have happened by now, as I have seen this same sort of complaining since I started playing the game around 10 years ago.
I've never been part of a community that spends as much time complaining about the state of their game as 40k, its a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Blacksails wrote: Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.
And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.
And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.
Except we are still taking Scouts and Bikers instead. You're not defending Tactical Marines in this case.
Also I play CSM more than I do regular marines and boy do I miss atsknf when it would come in handy.
I play Dark Angels and CSM, and for my money CSM not getting Combat Squads is more of a detriment than them not getting ATSNKF. Sure, it's great to not get swept - except when you want the unit in question to get swept so you can shoot at the unit doing the sweeping. As often as not, not getting swept is a detriment, as it keeps the assaulting unit safe from your shooting for a turn.
Combat Squads, on the other hand, are what make a 10-man Tac Squad work. Being able to separate them so the special weapon and the sarge with the matching combi-weapon can go after one target while the heavy goes after another is a huge benefit, and makes an otherwise-pointless unit worth having. Admittedly, most of the Tac Squad heavy weapon options suck - about the only two I consider worthwhile are the multimelta and the grav cannon - but Tac Squads do have those, so it's not all bad. If basic CSM squads could combat-squad, that'd make them far more useful.
Vaktathi wrote:Eldar already dominate the game. It might allow armies like DE, IG, Orks, CSM's, etc to have a fighting chance against Necrons and SM's however and get a greater semblance of balance, not to mention ease pickup play.
If you're playing CSM or Orks, you could simply ask your opponent to run a CAD.
Not a tournament solution, but for casual games? Seems viable enough.
all depends on what they brought...people often just bring models for a specific list which may or may not work in a CAD, and telling people to radically change their lists is often rather socially awkward, especially in pickup play.
LValx wrote: Keep in mind, if you remove formations, Eldar and Daemons will utterly dominate the game. The game will become more homogenous without formations because most of the newer codices were written with formations in mind. Codex Tau is a great example, there were essentially no changes made to the units, but a ton of formations added. Space Marines, Crons, Tau, etc, would not be able to compete with by the book Eldar. And guess what, formations don't affect how good scatter bikes are, how good warp hunters are, how good wraithknights and warp spiders are (and you can still fit at least 6 squads with a double CAD of eldar...). Daemons don't care either, grimoire still exists, fateweaver exists, summoning, cursed earth. Daemons can get a 2++ rerollable with little to no effort as well as guaranteed Invis.
Eldar already dominate the game. It might allow armies like DE, IG, Orks, CSM's, etc to have a fighting chance against Necrons and SM's however and get a greater semblance of balance, not to mention ease pickup play.
Eldar, Necrons, SM, Tau, Daemons and TWC based lists are fairly well balanced against one another. What you are proposing will just increase the amount of Eldar...
Also, for all the dominating that Eldar do, I find it funny that Daemons/TWC lists are winning GTs at a very similar rate.
I don't think weakening the few armies that can challenge Eldar is a good way to increase balance, I'd argue that it would have the exact opposite effect and just further push players towards Eldar...
having fewer grossly overpowered things ia easier to work around than having many, especially when it may then force pressure on TO's and/or GW to then more actively look at the remaining one big issue, and outside of tournament play it would certainly make a huge difference for the majority of games that dont include Eldar.
LValx wrote: Perfect balance is impossible in a game with this many choices.
No? God forbid somebody offer criticism of a product.
Criticism is fine, but there is a new thread like this posted nearly every day, how much time are people going to waste tapping on their keyboards? You want to fix the game, get started. Re-write the codices and install a new format in your local area, test and report results. Complaining on the internet fixes nothing. I see tons of folks on here agreeing that things need to change, lamenting on the awful state of the game, yet it seems that no one is willing to do anything to fix it.
we're not professionally employed game designers working for the largest tabletop gaming company on the planet. This is a place where people come to express frustrations with a hobby, not take on another job doing what GW gets paid to do.
No game is perfectly balanced, but I cant think of any other game that has anything near the complete absense of balance that 40k has.
I have a theory as to why that is the case, balancing games is much more difficult than the average gamer realizes and to do so with a game of this size is a herculean task.
it can be, but GW isn't even making the attempt. Its one thing to have something slip through once in a while, its another whdn the game is chocked full of stuff any idiot with a brain can see is absurdly busted at first casual glance.
I've never been part of a community that spends as much time complaining about the state of their game as 40k, its a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Then clearly youve never spent time on boards for gamrs like WoW, League of Legends, Mass Effect, CoD, Battlefield, etc.
And if you dont like the conversations, nobody is forcing you to participate.
Formations worked well... in apocalypse games. They promote heavy purchases of large units, and rewarded those purchases with unique bonuses... that you had to pay points for to get. I completely agree with the OP.
Free bonuses, free transports, first turn alpha strike rules, is all ridiculous and causing the game to come to ruin. I miss building 'fluffy' lists that would still do well against most other armies. I have seen 40k nights at my flgs and at our private houses go from a 20 person group to less than six on average. Everyone's complaint is the necessity of formations, the necessity of mass spending to play (even after owning 20k points of balanced units from a faction), and the utter spam trash rules with formations.
Oh, the other issue is the use of allies. Adepticon had one player who's army was made up of 9... count it, 9 different codex books. He cherry picked the best units from different armies that could ally in any way possible. Talk about multiple death stars. This is not fluffy, makes no sense, and is utter trash. Then there was the guy who ran deathwing terminators, dante for hit and run (can't tarpit them), a brother captain and driago for psychic powers (2+ re-rollable storm shields) and hamerhand. One large trash squad that bounced around the board and smashed everything to pieces. I am a fan of the deathwing and dark angels, and have been playing them since 3rd edition, but I don't dick around like that. Why would dante, draigo, and a brother captain leave their chapters to join a 10 man squad of deathwing terminators?
I mean, WTFGW, really? Is this what 40k has become? tansport spam, deathstars, codex spam, elder warpspiders and jetbikes, and riptide spam?
I guess my next army will be made up of allies - some thunderwolf cavalry, ravenwing black knights, a riptide or two, some elder jetbikes... and a gravcannon loaded stormhammer formation. I'm sure my opponent will love that
Having fewer overpowered units fixes nothing. Formations don't make Wraithknights, Scatterbikes, Warp Hunters, Warp Spiders or Swooping Hawks good. Eldar are the army you see that is by far the most likely to run a CAD.... So once again, you wouldn't fix a single thing by removing formations, you will simply be punishing a few armies that rely HEAVILY on them (SM, Crons, Tau, DA, Skitarii/Cult all come to mind).
40k is no less broken now than it was in 5th, when even MORE codices were completely obsolete. I remember those days vividly and it was Rhinos and Chimeras everywhere at max amounts with 5 man units inside... How is 7th worse than that?
I want to see some examples of "balanced" games...
and please spare me the MTG example, because if you think that game is balanced ive got some sweet swampland to sell you...
LValx wrote: Criticism is fine, but there is a new thread like this posted nearly every day, how much time are people going to waste tapping on their keyboards? You want to fix the game, get started. Re-write the codices and install a new format in your local area, test and report results. Complaining on the internet fixes nothing. I see tons of folks on here agreeing that things need to change, lamenting on the awful state of the game, yet it seems that no one is willing to do anything to fix it. I have a theory as to why that is the case, balancing games is much more difficult than the average gamer realizes and to do so with a game of this size is a herculean task. You would require a very large coordinated effort and countless hours of testing, furthermore, it would be a consistent effort that would require support throughout its life-cycle. If this were feasible, I'd think it'd have happened by now, as I have seen this same sort of complaining since I started playing the game around 10 years ago.
There are also threads every day like 'who would win' or 'which chapter is your favourite'. Do you post in all of those complaining that they're too repititive and that they're wasting their time?
Further, discussing in threads like this is not mutually exclusive from also doing as you said, which, I've done in the past with my own group.
Not to mention you equally tapping away on your keyboard lamenting this thread and similar ones.
I've never been part of a community that spends as much time complaining about the state of their game as 40k, its a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Well, you and I have vastly different experiences. Every other video game community I've been in as been dramatically more toxic and bitchy.
Also I play CSM more than I do regular marines and boy do I miss atsknf when it would come in handy.
I play Dark Angels and CSM, and for my money CSM not getting Combat Squads is more of a detriment than them not getting ATSNKF. Sure, it's great to not get swept - except when you want the unit in question to get swept so you can shoot at the unit doing the sweeping. As often as not, not getting swept is a detriment, as it keeps the assaulting unit safe from your shooting for a turn.
Combat Squads, on the other hand, are what make a 10-man Tac Squad work. Being able to separate them so the special weapon and the sarge with the matching combi-weapon can go after one target while the heavy goes after another is a huge benefit, and makes an otherwise-pointless unit worth having. Admittedly, most of the Tac Squad heavy weapon options suck - about the only two I consider worthwhile are the multimelta and the grav cannon - but Tac Squads do have those, so it's not all bad. If basic CSM squads could combat-squad, that'd make them far more useful.
They don't need Combat Squad because they get to take two Special Weapons in the squad. It is literally the only thing they have over Loyalists.
It only makes sense on Carcharodon Tacticals, as you buy (or switch out the Bolter for) 5 CCW's, grab a Melta, Combi-Melta, and Grav Cannon. Squad them after the Pod lands and it is an okay tactic. Otherwise, I find the rule to be overly pointless.
455_PWR wrote: Formations worked well... in apocalypse games. They promote heavy purchases of large units, and rewarded those purchases with unique bonuses... that you had to pay points for to get. I completely agree with the OP.
Free bonuses, free transports, first turn alpha strike rules, is all ridiculous and causing the game to come to ruin. I miss building 'fluffy' lists that would still do well against most other armies. I have seen 40k nights at my flgs and at our private houses go from a 20 person group to less than six on average. Everyone's complaint is the necessity of formations, the necessity of mass spending to play (even after owning 20k points of balanced units from a faction), and the utter spam trash rules with formations.
Oh, the other issue is the use of allies. Adepticon had one player who's army was made up of 9... count it, 9 different codex books. He cherry picked the best units from different armies that could ally in any way possible. Talk about multiple death stars. This is not fluffy, makes no sense, and is utter trash. Then there was the guy who ran deathwing terminators, dante for hit and run (can't tarpit them), a brother captain and driago for psychic powers (2+ re-rollable storm shields) and hamerhand. One large trash squad that bounced around the board and smashed everything to pieces. I am a fan of the deathwing and dark angels, and have been playing them since 3rd edition, but I don't dick around like that. Why would dante, draigo, and a brother captain leave their chapters to join a 10 man squad of deathwing terminators?
I mean, WTFGW, really? Is this what 40k has become? tansport spam, deathstars, codex spam, elder warpspiders and jetbikes, and riptide spam?
I guess my next army will be made up of allies - some thunderwolf cavalry, ravenwing black knights, a riptide or two, some elder jetbikes... and a gravcannon loaded stormhammer formation. I'm sure my opponent will love that
I'd love to see the army made up of 9 different codices, I do not see how that is possible with Adepticon's army building rules....
Also.. Free units/points existed pre-formations, e.g. Daemon Summoning. Free rules may not have, but you are ignoring the fact that just about every formation includes tax units. Formations make the game less homogenous by forcing players to bring units they otherwise would not. I mean seriously, if you remove the Gladius Battle Co., how often would you expect to see Tactical or Assault Marines?
How long have you been playing? 5th ed was transport spam, deathstars and missile/melta spam. 6th ed was riptides, night scythes, wave serpents, seer councils, screamerstars and fmcs. EVERY EDITION OF 40k HAS LACKED BALANCE. If the game has never been balanced, why do you expect it to suddenly become balanced?!
LValx wrote: Having fewer overpowered units fixes nothing. Formations don't make Wraithknights, Scatterbikes, Warp Hunters, Warp Spiders or Swooping Hawks good. Eldar are the army you see that is by far the most likely to run a CAD.... So once again, you wouldn't fix a single thing by removing formations, you will simply be punishing a few armies that rely HEAVILY on them (SM, Crons, Tau, DA, Skitarii/Cult all come to mind).
Basically you'd largely just have Eldar and a couple problem units from arouns the game to deal with, not the dizzying array of synergistic build combinations, freebies, and special rules.
Necrons would be far from crippled without Formations, likesise Tau and DA, particularly next to armies like IG, DE, CSM's, GK, etc.
40k is no less broken now than it was in 5th, when even MORE codices were completely obsolete. I remember those days vividly and it was Rhinos and Chimeras everywhere at max amounts with 5 man units inside... How is 7th worse than that?
I lived those days as well...they were *far* from perfect, but we didnt have anything like what we have now, with some armies getting hundreds of points worth of freebies over their opponents, no SH/GC units, dramatically less powerful psychic abilities, no D weapons, no allies or multiple detachments, etc. They werent perfect, and formations arent the only problem with 7th, but they were better than now and formations are heavily contributing to the mess.
want to see some examples of "balanced" games...
Dropzone Commander has extremely good balance and activrely runs errata based off tournament results. Other games like FoW, Warmahordes, Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada, Bolt Action, etc have *far* better balance than 40k has.
and please spare me the MTG example, because if you think that game is balanced ive got some sweet swampland to sell you...
I have never played it competitively so I couldnt comment.
LValx wrote: Criticism is fine, but there is a new thread like this posted nearly every day, how much time are people going to waste tapping on their keyboards? You want to fix the game, get started. Re-write the codices and install a new format in your local area, test and report results. Complaining on the internet fixes nothing. I see tons of folks on here agreeing that things need to change, lamenting on the awful state of the game, yet it seems that no one is willing to do anything to fix it. I have a theory as to why that is the case, balancing games is much more difficult than the average gamer realizes and to do so with a game of this size is a herculean task. You would require a very large coordinated effort and countless hours of testing, furthermore, it would be a consistent effort that would require support throughout its life-cycle. If this were feasible, I'd think it'd have happened by now, as I have seen this same sort of complaining since I started playing the game around 10 years ago.
There are also threads every day like 'who would win' or 'which chapter is your favourite'. Do you post in all of those complaining that they're too repititive and that they're wasting their time?
Further, discussing in threads like this is not mutually exclusive from also doing as you said, which, I've done in the past with my own group.
Not to mention you equally tapping away on your keyboard lamenting this thread and similar ones.
I've never been part of a community that spends as much time complaining about the state of their game as 40k, its a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Well, you and I have vastly different experiences. Every other video game community I've been in as been dramatically more toxic and bitchy.
Slow day at the office
Basically, I think all of the complaining and crying over the state of the game hurts our community, which is a bummer to me because I enjoy the community. Thread that discuss peoples favorite army/chapter or whatever don't (seem to) have a negative impact on the hobby, so I don't care about them, even if they may be redundant or pointless.
Back when I played StarCraft, there was a TON of complaining but there was also a MUCH larger playerbase. I experienced the same thing in the MTG community. But with 40k it sometimes feels as though the majority of 40k enthusiasts I meet/interact with complain more about the game/community than play it.
The level of discontent may be a good indicator that GW is not responding to the narket and their customerbase in an adequate manner, and that it is indicative of an issue with their product rather than something being wrong fundamentally with the 40k community.
@ Vaktathi, I cant speak to a lot of those tabletop games, but I've heard major complaints about both X-Wing and Warmachine's balance levels. Though I do hear both have much more involved developers which helps, no doubt. Heres my question though: Do any of those games feature ~20 distinct factions?
As to what you said about 5th, I simply don't agree. In my first ~3 years of playing 40k I never played against: Tyranids, Tau, SoB, Orks and very few times against Eldar or Daemons/CSM. If you weren't imperial you were pretty much boned because it was damn near impossible to pop rhinos/chimeras without Melta, CC was arguably even more ineffective due to needing a 6 to hit vehicles.
I think there is far more variation in lists at the top of events now than there was in 5th... I don't feel like it right now, but if someone wants to pull up some NOVA/Adepticon lists from 5th, 6th, 7th and compare, it'd make for an interesting study.
Also, keep in mind, yes armies are bigger, shootier and crazier than before, but that is a general trend in 40k that applies to every codex. Things are simply getting cheaper and more powerful every edition and so I don't think comparing the power levels of individual units between editions is useful (not to even mention the ability to ally). My bigger point is that 5th ed was more homogenous and therefore less balanced.
The freebies aren't nearly as bad as people make it out to be... How many GTs have Gladius or War Convo (the biggest abusers of freebie mechanics) won? I'm pretty sure its less than Eldar/Daemons, both of whom feature CADs very frequently in their lists...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: The level of discontent may be a good indicator that GW is not responding to the narket and their customerbase in an adequate manner, and that it is indicative of an issue with their product rather than something being wrong fundamentally with the 40k community.
I cant say that ive seen much of a change in discontent though.
In 5th I remember just about the same level of complaining/arguing/lamenting about balance, its a reoccurring thing within the 40k community.
Happens to all of us. I'm procrastinating when I should be doing real work.
Basically, I think all of the complaining and crying over the state of the game hurts our community, which is a bummer to me because I enjoy the community. Thread that discuss peoples favorite army/chapter or whatever don't (seem to) have a negative impact on the hobby, so I don't care about them, even if they may be redundant or pointless.
I don't think most of the 'complaining' are necessarily negative. Plenty have good discussions about interesting topics in game design and potential solutions that may turn up as house rules in some groups. That alone would mean they're a net positive for the community. Perspective and all that. When emotion is removed or when you understand the person behind the words and their love of the game, you realize the primary emotion is disappointment that 40k could be genuinely great in every way with some admittedly simple fixes. The comments that consist of nothing more than "game is gak, quit, play X instead" with zero explanation or room for discussion are trash and should be treated as such. But if someone is willing to discuss at length what they dislike about the game and offer why its a problem and maybe point out potential fixes, its because that person cares about the game.
Make no mistake, 40k is still enjoyable because its still a wargame (no matter how tactically shallow) with pretty models in a universe we all love. Communities this large will always have differing opinions and things you dislike, but that's the beauty of it. It'd be boring if every thread was a repeat of "What's your favourite chapter!".
Back when I played StarCraft, there was a TON of complaining but there was also a MUCH larger playerbase. I experienced the same thing in the MTG community. But with 40k it sometimes feels as though the majority of 40k enthusiasts I meet/interact with complain more about the game/community than play it.
My time spent in World of Tanks was filled with jingoism, endless hate at the parent company, never ending balance issues, and constant whining about whatever reward or bonus was being given out on a particular weekend. EVE Online was equally polarized between pvp and pve players, on top of the standard jingoism between Russians and the rest of the world, plus the neverending stream of "EVE is failing!" threads.
However, if you find that most of your interactions with 40k players are that they're negative towards the game, it does have to make you question the quality of the game and/or the policies of the company to make such a large amount of (assumed) former happy customers into bitter players.
But I'm off topic, and I should probably stop before I drag it further.
Also I play CSM more than I do regular marines and boy do I miss atsknf when it would come in handy.
I play Dark Angels and CSM, and for my money CSM not getting Combat Squads is more of a detriment than them not getting ATSNKF. Sure, it's great to not get swept - except when you want the unit in question to get swept so you can shoot at the unit doing the sweeping. As often as not, not getting swept is a detriment, as it keeps the assaulting unit safe from your shooting for a turn.
Yes. I'd much rather the remaining 2 tactical marines just get swept so that I can rapidfire hellfire rounds at whatever just attacked them.
In point of fact, that won't happen. They'll remain stuck in combat until my assault phase, die on my assault phase, and whatever just assaulted them is going to assault more stuff on my opponent's following turn.
Tactical marines aren't even good at dying for the emperor. IG do it better.
LValx wrote: 40k is no less broken now than it was in 5th, when even MORE codices were completely obsolete. I remember those days vividly and it was Rhinos and Chimeras everywhere at max amounts with 5 man units inside... How is 7th worse than that?
People seem to have selective memory. In summer of 2015, people in my area were complaining of the heat even though New England had "Snowmaggedon" just a few months before.
You see the same thing here, with people selectively forgetting how out of balance things were in the past -- such as when GK were dominating in 2012 in a similar way to Eldar today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LValx wrote: I think there is far more variation in lists at the top of events now than there was in 5th... I don't feel like it right now, but if someone wants to pull up some NOVA/Adepticon lists from 5th, 6th, 7th and compare, it'd make for an interesting study.
If you dig around a little you can find the results of big events like Adepticon or Nova.
I dont think theres all *that* much selective memory going on, most of us are entirely willing to admit 5E wasnt anything near a level playing field (and I still find myself surprised to be advocating for it with all the faults it had), just that it wasn't *as* stilted as it is today.
In my experience, games are substantially more win big/lose big, more likely to end in tabling, and decided far more by the end of turn 2 than they were in 5E. 5E was a mess, but not the complete disaster 7E has turned out to be. The near collapse of pickup gaming in many people's experiences is directly related to how messy 7E is, and for all its faults, pickup gaming was not a major issue in 5E.
From my own subjective experience, playgroups are becoming smaller and my local tournaments that used to be able to pull in two dozen people in 3E/4E/5E have trouble getting enough players to use 3 tables in 7th.
Vaktathi wrote:all depends on what they brought...people often just bring models for a specific list which may or may not work in a CAD, and telling people to radically change their lists is often rather socially awkward, especially in pickup play.
If your opponent is running a battle company, he can run a CAD. He might or might not have to play at a slightly lower points level, but he can run a CAD.
A battle company is:
2 HQs 6 troops
2 heavy support
2 fast attack
Of course, I'm sure that you'll find it only fair if your opponent requests that you don't spam heldrakes or use forgeworld units.
Vaktathi wrote:all depends on what they brought...people often just bring models for a specific list which may or may not work in a CAD, and telling people to radically change their lists is often rather socially awkward, especially in pickup play.
If your opponent is running a battle company, he can run a CAD. He might or might not have to play at a slightly lower points level, but he can run a CAD.
A battle company is:
2 HQs 6 troops
2 heavy support
2 fast attack
Of course, I'm sure that you'll find it only fair if your opponent requests that you don't spam heldrakes or use forgeworld units.
what does FW have to do with anything
That said, I dont think anyone is complaining about Heldrakes anymore since they got nerfed in their FAQ, and the only one I own (and rarely use) has the Autocannon so nobody cares anyway
Ultimately however, the issue is that telling people to change lists gets super awkward, and may not always be possible depending on what was brought, and wasnt an issue in previous editions the way it is now.
Vaktathi wrote:Ultimately however, the issue is that telling people to change lists gets super awkward, and may not always be possible depending on what was brought, and wasnt an issue in previous editions the way it is now.
True enough. That said, if you're playing CSM or orks, I personally would be so delighted that I am going to be facing a "fun," "casual" army that I'd be willing to make concessions to my opponent as appropriate.
Oh. You're playing orks? Yeah, i'll run this as a CAD, pay for my rhinos, and you see this Pedro Kantor "Feth the Orks" rule? Let's just pretend that doesn't exist.
Vaktathi wrote: From my own subjective experience, playgroups are becoming smaller and my local tournaments that used to be able to pull in two dozen people in 3E/4E/5E have trouble getting enough players to use 3 tables in 7th.
That's odd. In New England I've never seen 40k bigger.
I was at a local RTT at The Portal in Manchester Connecticut and 52 people showed up to play. They are expecting even more for their GT Event on May 7th.
Every area has different meta's. Maybe 40k is shrinking in yours, but it's growing here.
I'm with Labmouse, our area is as strong as its ever been. Of course im in the greater DMV area, so that may be the reason why.
I'll also say this: I think it is much harder to table people in 7th than it was in 5th. Armies are much larger now and the game takes much longer. I don't see too many tablings happening at RTTs or GTs and I attend tournaments pretty frequently.
The next thing I am about to say will be sure to draw some ire, but I feel that in 7th (remember that I only have played 5th/6th/7th) I have a better chance to compete with a low tier codex than I did in 5th or 6th ed. Mostly because I find that formations and allies allow players to fill in gaps in their codices.
But as always, YMMV, this entire conversation is subjective in nature and I don't want anyone to think that I am making statements rooted in objective principles or anything of that sort.
labmouse42 wrote: If you dig around a little you can find the results of big events like Adepticon or Nova.
Quick Google search:
Adepticon Top 16 per Adepticon.com
2011 (5th Edition)
1 Orks
2 Chaos Space Marines
3 Space Marines
4 Blood Angels
5 Space Wolves
6 Blood Angels
7 Imperial Guard
8 Dark Eldar
9 Orks
10 Blood Angels
11 Space Wolves
12 Blood Angels
13 Dark Eldar
14 Black Templars
15 Blood Angels
16 Orks
2012 (5th Edition)
1 Grey Knights
2 Orks
3 Grey Knights
4 Grey Knights
5 Orks
6 Grey Knights
7 Eldar
8 Dark Eldar
9 Blood Angels
10 Eldar
11 Grey Knights
12 Space Wolves
13 Necrons
14 Imperial Guard
15 Imperial Guard
16 Space Marines
2013 (6th Edition)
1 Necrons/Chaos Space Marines
2 Necrons
3 Necrons/Chaos Space Marines
4 Eldar/Dark Eldar
5 Grey Knights
6 Daemons
7 Tyranids
8 Necrons
9 Chaos Space Marines/Necrons
10 Eldar/Imperial Guard
11 Necrons/Grey Knights
12 Chaos Space Marines/Daemons
13 Grey Knights/Necrons
14 Space Marines/Eldar
15 Chaos Space Marines
16 Imperial Guard/Grey Knights
2014 (6th Edition)
1 Daemons
2 Space Wolves
3 Eldar/Dark Eldar
4 Space Marines/Space Wolves
5 Space Marines/Space Marines
6 IYN (?) /Dark Eldar
7 Tau/Space Marines
8 Tau/Space Marines
9 Dark Eldar /Eldar
10 Tau/Eldar
11 Eldar/Dark Eldar
12 Dark Eldar/Eldar
13 Daemons/Chaos Space Marines
14 Necrons/Tau
15 IG/Space Marines
16 Space Marines/Space Wolves
2015 (7th Edition)
1 Daemons
2 Daemons/Chaos Space Marines
3 Necrons/Eldar/Necrons
4 Space Marines/Dark Angels/Space Wolves
5 Eldar/Eldar/Dark Eldar
6 Tyranids/Tyranids/Tyranids
7 Necrons/Necrons/Necrons
8 Space Marines/Blood Angels
9 Necrons/Necrons/Necrons
10 Necrons
11 Space Marines/Astra Militarum/Space Wolves
12 Space Marines/Space Marines/Space Wolves
13 Grey Knights/Space Marines/Astra Militarum
14 Tau/Tau
15 Space MarinesM/Space Marines/Grey Knights
16 Tyranids/Eldar/Inquisition
2016 (7th Edition, obviously)
1 Dark Angels
2 Space Marines
3 Eldar
4 Eldar
5 Eldar
6 Eldar
7 Eldar
8 Dark Angels
9 Daemons
10 Eldar
11 Tau
12 Eldar
13 Tyranids
14 Daemons
15 Chaos Space Marines
16 Daemons
I copied these pretty much exactly as the site lists them. I can go back further if need be. They go all the way back to '03
LValx wrote: The next thing I am about to say will be sure to draw some ire, but I feel that in 7th (remember that I only have played 5th/6th/7th) I have a better chance to compete with a low tier codex than I did in 5th or 6th ed. Mostly because I find that formations and allies allow players to fill in gaps in their codices.
That's because the concept of "tier codex" is antiquated in 7th.
Instead we should think of "tier lists". Some codex'es can crank out more "tier one lists" than another book, but a single formation may suddenly make a new "tier list" possible, making an otherwise non-used codex useful.
Right now we see that with Eldar. You can make a lot of "tier one" lists with Eldar, but that's can change quickly. I've been playing a lot lately with the "Infernal Tetrad" list, and it's a hard counter to warp spider spam.
Looks like a pretty similar amount of unique codices have been making the top 16 since 5th.
But once again, enjoyment is a purely subjective experience and I cant tell someone to enjoy something they don't. I can totally empathize with those who do not enjoy 7th. There are a ton of issues. For my personal experience, I prefer the issues that come with 7th more than the issues that came with 5th/6th.
LValx wrote: The next thing I am about to say will be sure to draw some ire, but I feel that in 7th (remember that I only have played 5th/6th/7th) I have a better chance to compete with a low tier codex than I did in 5th or 6th ed. Mostly because I find that formations and allies allow players to fill in gaps in their codices.
That's because the concept of "tier codex" is antiquated in 7th.
Instead we should think of "tier lists". Some codex'es can crank out more "tier one lists" than another book, but a single formation may suddenly make a new "tier list" possible, making an otherwise non-used codex useful.
Right now we see that with Eldar. You can make a lot of "tier one" lists with Eldar, but that's can change quickly. I've been playing a lot lately with the "Infernal Tetrad" list, and it's a hard counter to warp spider spam.
Agreed, I think a big reason so many folks are not happy with the state of the game is that they want the game to be as it was in the past and haven't fully accepted some of the newer mechanics, e.g. allies. Allies have such a huge impact on the game, it can't be understated. While I would agree that allies have in some ways decreased balance by offering up some ridiculous combos, I'd argue that allies have also helped balance the game by giving every army the ability to fill in some of their capability gaps.
It's more I refuse to accept gakky rules writing. I refuse to accept rules that are either written specifically with the agenda of forcing players into purchases to try and remain current rather than excited to add new things to their armies, or are a symptom of woefully incompetent design staff.
I'm from 2nd, I couldn't give a gak about allies, allies are what I cut my teeth on.
I want valid choices in howI run my lists if I want a fair game and not mathematical efficiencies meaning it's "take this or handicap yourself."
Automatically Appended Next Post: To address the OP directly - formations haven't caused imbalance, that was alive and well long before formations were a thing. They have, perhaps, exacerbated it in some contexts.
Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.
Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.
Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.
Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
This exactly. I wouldn't mind formations as much if they had a point cost like the apoc versions, but I would still prefer free-reign army choices inside of a FOC.*
*for competitive games obviously. If people want to see if strike force ultra can take on 3 riptides or whatever in their garage, they can go right ahead.
Azreal13 wrote: It's more I refuse to accept gakky rules writing. I refuse to accept rules that are either written specifically with the agenda of forcing players into purchases to try and remain current rather than excited to add new things to their armies, or are a symptom of woefully incompetent design staff.
I'm from 2nd, I couldn't give a gak about allies, allies are what I cut my teeth on.
I want valid choices in howI run my lists if I want a fair game and not mathematical efficiencies meaning it's "take this or handicap yourself."
Automatically Appended Next Post: To address the OP directly - formations haven't caused imbalance, that was alive and well long before formations were a thing. They have, perhaps, exacerbated it in some contexts.
Why is this line of thinking lost on so many players? They think that fixing the rules & creating some semblance of balance is impossible. That there is nothing wrong with a codex if it can take allies to fix all of its poorly written units. That formations somehow add depth to the game when in reality they are solely to promote sales, not enhance the quality of the game.
Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.
Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
Exactly. There are a plethora of units in 40k, that never make it to the tabletop because their rules are just garbage. Throwing them into formations does not all of the sudden make them more appealing or make anyone want to run out & buy them. If however, GW actually took the time to fix the poorly designed units to make them viable well then all of the sudden you have hundreds of models which sell poorly become popular. How GW has not realized this is lost on me.
Blacksails wrote: Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"
We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.
To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.
This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.
Tropic Thunder wrote: Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"
We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.
To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.
This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.
I'm not sure I follow. If I am reading this correctly, you believe that formations are a good thing because they force players to purchase models by bundling them. You believe its a necessary evil for GW to stay in business. I visit 3 FLGS & I haven't met one person who is buying into this. They hate formations & because this is the direction GW has chosen its made them spend less money because they do not have confidence in 40k's future. Its hard to be optimistic when the new rules that come out for each army are basically copy/pasted rules from the previous edition with just the new formations tossed in when massive holes in the codex do not get resolved. If on the other hand, GW went out of their way & did what a very large % of the community has been asking for, for over a decade (fix the rules for models that are terrible/balance the codices) it would incentivize not only new players to purchase existing unpopular models but veterans alike.
Regarding the correlation between how war isn't fair in real life and thus 40k shouldn't be that is just not comparable. 40k has one of the worst tabletop rulesets out there. The amount of pre-negotiation gymnastics that are necessary just to start a game is absurd. There are dozens of other systems out there where you can just sit down with an opponent & play with no negotiations beforehand and have an enjoyable competitive experience. The reason it is mandatory in 40k is because the point system doesn't even exist anymore. 1 point in one army, is 2-3 points in another in power. Which is not acceptable. Formations just exacerbate this further. You have armies where 1 point = 2-3 points in power via codex rules, then they get more free units from taking formations x,y,z.
If GW wants to get serious about re-invigorating interest in the hobby & making organized play a legitimate scene then each of the codices need to be baselined/revised to be equal in power. Until then its like trying to create an e-sport out of a game with no semblance of balance + RNG which is destined to fail.
Blacksails wrote: Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"
except such a model has and continues to work for other companies like Hawk, DP9, Battlefront, etc.
We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile.
There's zero evidence they do this, and, if the past four years have been any indication, they basically just keep piling gifts on the already strong armies and keeps crapping on the weak ones in most cases. Eldar & Space Marines are powerful...just like it are in most editions. Likewise with Necrons & Tau. Sisters, IG, Orks, CSM's, and DE all remain muppet armies just like they have been through most editions of the game.
To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced.
We're not playing War, we're playing a game. People don't usually run in to play games that are just going to be predetermined, one sided curb stompings.
No, the game has never been amazingly well balanced, but Formations active seek destroy balance.
At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different?
Again, because nobody wants to buy, build, paint and transport miniatures just to take them all off as soon as the other guy is done deploying. That certainly doesn't sound appealing to me.
Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments
If "hey we're playing an 1850pt game but I'm gonna deploy 2400pts worth of stuff" is a "curveball".
(remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?)
It wasn't a Lictor centric list, it was a Flyrant spam list that happened to have brought some Lictors and people just went bonkers over it.
and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.
Except the same lists are largely winning events today that they were 6 months ago
This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons.
Eldar have been top tier (if not *the* top tier) for every edition of the game they've gotten a codex release in, which was all but 5th, Likewise with Necrons, again, all but 5th. Meanwhile armies like IG or DE were only ever top tier for a single edition, if that.
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm not sure I follow. If I am reading this correctly, you believe that formations are a good thing because they force players to purchase models by bundling them.
Nope, I wasn't clear if this is what you got out of that. Formations are a good thing because they change the permutations of army composition. CAD only lists allowed people to really hone in on the power builds for each army and expect, with reasonable certainty, certain units to never touch the board. All comers lists were much easier to build because the possibilities were narrower. With formation options for many armies in play the possibilities broadened. Units that didn't perform well -- and likely didn't sell well -- were highlighted in these formations to (a) boost their effectivity on the board, which in turn (b) boosted sales for GW. That's the connection to selling product that I tried to point out in relation to formations but didn't make clear.
You believe its a necessary evil for GW to stay in business. I visit 3 FLGS & I haven't met one person who is buying into this. They hate formations & because this is the direction GW has chosen its made them spend less money because they do not have confidence in 40k's future.
For one, I don't think formations are evil. But even if I did the effort made to promote these to stay in business has no bearing on whether people are buying into it. GW did it because they thought it would promote more sales. If you're experience with customers indicates they're losing interest, then the effort has apparently failed in your area. But the point remains that GW can't make money if veteran players keep playing with the same models they have. What reason would you have as a veteran player to buy models if all your existing models worked just fine? Codex and rules sales don't keep GW afloat; model sales do. If the formation thing isn't working for you and your local community--and this echoes across other communities and stores--then they'll get the message.
Its hard to be optimistic when the new rules that come out for each army are basically copy/pasted rules from the previous edition with just the new formations tossed in when massive holes in the codex do not get resolved. If on the other hand, GW went out of their way & did what a very large % of the community has been asking for, for over a decade (fix the rules for models that are terrible/balance the codices) it would incentivize not only new players to purchase existing unpopular models but veterans alike.
Every edition attempts to do the fixes. Every edition pleases one group and displeases another. While I started in 4e I barely participated before I waited two years to pick up the hobby again at the tail end of 5e, so I can only speak to the last three editions. 5e was okay for me because I like close combat and the rules were favorable to that. 6e was a dramatic departure, so I hated 6e rules. 7e helped bring it back in line a bit but it's not like it was in 5e. Those who like ranged combat likely have the opposite impression of these last three editions. FInding an edition that'll please 75% of the community would be difficult based on the stark differences between these two modes of list building and personal preference.
Regarding the correlation between how war isn't fair in real life and thus 40k shouldn't be that is just not comparable. 40k has one of the worst tabletop rulesets out there. The amount of pre-negotiation gymnastics that are necessary just to start a game is absurd.
Not sure I understand what you mean by "pre-negotiation gymnastics", so I don't know how to respond to this.
There are dozens of other systems out there where you can just sit down with an opponent & play with no negotiations beforehand and have an enjoyable competitive experience. The reason it is mandatory in 40k is because the point system doesn't even exist anymore. 1 point in one army, is 2-3 points in another in power. Which is not acceptable. Formations just exacerbate this further. You have armies where 1 point = 2-3 points in power via codex rules, then they get more free units from taking formations x,y,z.
If GW wants to get serious about re-invigorating interest in the hobby & making organized play a legitimate scene then each of the codices need to be baselined/revised to be equal in power. Until then its like trying to create an e-sport out of a game with no semblance of balance + RNG which is destined to fail.
The biggest problem with GW is it's an old company that makes models with no real shelf life but earns its profit from the sales of models, not books. Newer companies that are out now learned from GW's growth errors and started on a stronger footing in terms of getting competitive balance to the system, but I expect each of them to come to a similar crossroads of balance vs sales.
Vaktathi wrote:except such a model has and continues to work for other companies like Hawk, DP9, Battlefront, etc.
You just named three companies I've never heard of before.
Sisters, IG, Orks, CSM's, and DE all remain muppet armies just like they have been through most editions of the game.
IG used to be a dominant army in 6e. Same with CSM. DE had a great push when they first came out. What's happened with the three of these armies is the quicker rate of codex releases GW has executed the last year or two.
No, the game has never been amazingly well balanced, but Formations active seek destroy balance.
Again, because nobody wants to buy, build, paint and transport miniatures just to take them all off as soon as the other guy is done deploying. That certainly doesn't sound appealing to me.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I really do. One thing that I believe hurts the game more than Formations is terrain, or lack thereof. I have never been tabled before Turn 3 in a game with a fair amount of terrain on the board. I have, however, been tabled twice before Turn 3, and in both situations it was because the board was woefully deficient in LoS blocking terrain features against heavily range-oriented lists. Formations aren't the cause of that infliction of pain if there's enough terrain on the board to mitigate it.
I participated in a local tournament and had a dismal performance. My previous performances with the same list at the same tournament were much better. The difference between them was that this latest tournament had much less terrain on the board. The top performers that day were all range heavy lists because they had free fire lanes from the get-go. I wonder how much of the Formation hate could be redirected to terrain deficiency.
Sincere question here to everyone: How much terrain is on the board for the big tourneys? I haven't seen photos to get a sense of it so I don't know if what I wrote extrapolates to that level of competition.
It wasn't a Lictor centric list, it was a Flyrant spam list that happened to have brought some Lictors and people just went bonkers over it.
2 Flyrants isn't Flyrant spam. 8 Lictors and a Deathleaper is quite a bit more than "some" Lictors. The Genestealers, Spore Mines and Mawlocs also weren't commonly used at the time. It was a dramatic departure from what Tyranid players usually fielded. Opponents hadn't faced so many targets that close to their grill that quickly before and exposed weaknesses in the general meta of builds at the time. It was out of the box thinking that paid off handsomely. Don't denigrate the player's innovative approach. That emulators couldn't replicate the success only speaks to the adaptation of the meta to that particular threat. What the original player did was brilliant. There are other formations that people haven't mined which can cause a similar sensation. Could they be flashes in the pan? Certainly, but for one tournament you can turn the meta on its ear. That's how formations have benefited the game.
Tropic Thunder wrote: Formations are a good thing because they change the permutations of army composition. CAD only lists allowed people to really hone in on the power builds for each army and expect, with reasonable certainty, certain units to never touch the board. All comers lists were much easier to build because the possibilities were narrower. With formation options for many armies in play the possibilities broadened. Units that didn't perform well -- and likely didn't sell well -- were highlighted in these formations to (a) boost their effectivity on the board, which in turn (b) boosted sales for GW. That's the connection to selling product that I tried to point out in relation to formations but didn't make clear.
I believe we both want the same outcome - variety, but I think we disagree how we get there. Even with the addition of formations we still have players doing stuff like bringing 45 warp spiders to the table. So with or without formations we have cheese/imbalance. The only way to truly eliminate that is by making everything viable & balanced. Point costs NEED to reflect the power/utility of each model. Currently they do not. Point costs are all over the place. Until that is resolved which can only be done at the codex level, 40k will never be a legitimate competitive scene.
For one, I don't think formations are evil. But even if I did the effort made to promote these to stay in business has no bearing on whether people are buying into it. GW did it because they thought it would promote more sales. If you're experience with customers indicates they're losing interest, then the effort has apparently failed in your area. But the point remains that GW can't make money if veteran players keep playing with the same models they have. What reason would you have as a veteran player to buy models if all your existing models worked just fine? Codex and rules sales don't keep GW afloat; model sales do. If the formation thing isn't working for you and your local community--and this echoes across other communities and stores--then they'll get the message.
I agree with your reasoning. Its logical. What I do not understand however, if it is in GW's best interest to make money & sell models why do they go through the trouble of creating new beautiful models but then release absolute garbage rules for them? Like ogryn/bullgryn. They just came out with fantastic models, but the rules are so atrocious the moment you deploy your army you are at a significant points handicap/may have already lost the game. How about units like rough riders, vespids or warbuggies. I'm sure tons of players would love to buy those models & play them on the tabletop. Their rules however, put you at a major disadvantage the moment they are deployed. There is definitely a correlation between units with good/balanced rules & sales. They do not have to be overpowered but if they are terrible most players will not be fielding/buying them.
Every edition attempts to do the fixes. Every edition pleases one group and displeases another. While I started in 4e I barely participated before I waited two years to pick up the hobby again at the tail end of 5e, so I can only speak to the last three editions. 5e was okay for me because I like close combat and the rules were favorable to that. 6e was a dramatic departure, so I hated 6e rules. 7e helped bring it back in line a bit but it's not like it was in 5e. Those who like ranged combat likely have the opposite impression of these last three editions. FInding an edition that'll please 75% of the community would be difficult based on the stark differences between these two modes of list building and personal preference.
Its impossible to make everyone happy I agree. The rules will also never be perfect. However, that does not mean it could not be massively improved. There really is no reason/excuse why at any given time more than half of the existing armies should not be viable. There are many other systems out there that sport numerous variables/armies that maintain some semblance of balance.
Not sure I understand what you mean by "pre-negotiation gymnastics", so I don't know how to respond to this.
For example: You show up at your local FLGS. There is a bunch of 40k players standing around waiting to play. You go up to one of them & say "Hey man, you up for a game!?" He says "Yes of course!" You cannot just begin deploying your units and have a balanced competitive game for the simple fact that balance is way off/point costs are all over the place. Instead you each have to look at each others lists, make changes so that there it can be somewhat enjoyable for both parties & not a total blowout.
The biggest problem with GW is it's an old company that makes models with no real shelf life but earns its profit from the sales of models, not books. Newer companies that are out now learned from GW's growth errors and started on a stronger footing in terms of getting competitive balance to the system, but I expect each of them to come to a similar crossroads of balance vs sales.
I agree that the majority of GW's sales are the result of their high quality models & the need for players to purchase new models. With that in mind, would it not be in their best interest to make rules that would appeal to their target market? There is plethora of models in 40k that have outdated rules/point costs. Many of which have really nice looking sculpts. But if you can't use the models because its an auto-loss on the table is the player to blame for not buying them? I have never seen an IG player for example win using ogryn/rough riders. Never. There are units like this in every codex. Would it not be in GW's best interest to revise the codex's to not only fix these units but examine the point costs of every model within each codex to make everything viable/marketable?
Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.
And they can do that (and have done so for most of their 30+ years) without forcing bundles of units through their rules.
I don't begrudge a company for making a profit, but there's a world of difference between GW's practices and nearly every other miniatures wargaming company.
Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"
Except for the 30+ years they've been in business for without this formation nonsense. I don't get what point you're trying to make here. If its trying to highlight that formations somehow sell more models that weren't doing great, then its certainly not been implemented well at all. There are still dozens of formations and awful units that are in weak formations that no one wants. Its the same argument that GW releases overpowered units, except when they don't. Its not consistent, and frankly, my solution of just fixing the units is simpler and accomplishes the exact same thing.
We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.
You are giving GW way too much credit. A quick look at the history of balance among armies easily disproves this notion of GW noting sales and why the sales are the way they are. It also ignores the feedback loop and spiral of neglected armies not selling well therefore encouraging GW not to put effort into them because they weren't selling well which only makes them sell worse. See Sisters. But of course, there are a multitude of factors behind why any person buys what army(s) they do, and looking at sale numbers tells nothing about those reasons.
Which has been GW's problem for some time. No real knowledge of the why's, which leads us to GW's general inconsistency and decent ideas marred by poor execution.
To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.
Ah good, the classic 'war isn't fair' argument.
Its almost like a tabletop wargame isn't real war. And therefore a ridiculous argument to make.
This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.
Eldar have been top dog (or at their worst, mid) for most of their career. Chaos has been wallowing in the rear for three editions now.
Formations may not be the cause of imbalance, but they certainly did nothing to improve it.
The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them.
Not necessarily true, if that 1000pts is truly equal, then ideally there's fewer Ravenwing bikers or they have fewer upgrades or something to make the 1000pts equal. That said, Ravenwing bikers shouldn't necessarily be *that* much better than normal bikers, the DA's are still a relatively Codex adherent chapter and there's only so much that can be done with a bike really.
I follow you -I'm already taking model count and upgrades into consideration in that example. I'm talking purely points:effectiveness ratio, (not that that's an exact science or anything). What you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the sole benefit of having a specialised army like Deathwing should be the ability to field a quantity of units that isn't available to a regular / mainstream army.
But from a competitive point of view: if you take a force like that, you lose the ability to take certain units that are available to the regular army. For example I believe White Scars or Ravenwing are limited in their heavy support options. Likewise a Deathwing force lacks the flexibility of a regular DA force. So it needs some form of advantages to counteract that. If not by increased effectiveness:points ratio, then certainly by some means. Otherwise it's just a restrictive list, and therefore an inferior army.
I disagree with this. There should be strict points for points equality, but different specializations.
An eldar close combat unit shouldn't be better, points for points, than an IG one. They should play differently.
The eldar one should have greater mobility and higher initiative.
The IG one should have a relatively low points cost (while being proportionately less capable).
And, of course, the space marine should be able to match them both, but have a higher points cost.
That model of game design is perfectly fine, but I don't believe it works as well with armies that are very specialised, i.e. have restrictid options. The design philosophy I believe GW have gone with is that when you take specialised lists you sacrifice flexibility for increased power.
I will re-ittirate that I don't think they've put it into practice very well though, through a combination flawed core rules, existing unit imbalance, and then as others ahve stated, apllying a lot of these formation buffs to units that are already top tier.
pm713 wrote: I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?
Any formation that gives free bonuses is an abomination and should be purged. Even if it is just +1 ws, or a one use re roll to hit for a sarg.
If you want to know why look up my older posts.
pm713 wrote: I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?
Any formation that gives free bonuses is an abomination and should be purged. Even if it is just +1 ws, or a one use re roll to hit for a sarg.
If you want to know why look up my older posts.
Blacksails wrote: Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.
Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.
The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.
Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"
We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.
To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.
This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.
The problem with this is that the same armies have been Powerful for most of the game and the same armies have been relatively weak for most of the game.
DE had 1 edition where they weren't bottom tier, Tyrnids the same except for flyrant spam which is not much fun to play, Orks have never had an edition where they were "top tier" in comparison, SM's have always been mid to top tier, Eldar have almost ALWAYS been top tier, Tau were mid to top tier, Necrons the same. This has been true pretty much since 4th edition when Chaos had their codex smashed into itty bitty pieces.
Your model isn't really that accurate though, GW has been having sales problems for years, not because formations weren't out but because they never fixed the glaring problems in the power levels of armies. On top of that they increased the cost of models, even though for the most part they went from expensive metals to cheap plastic.
I for one picked up the Ork army when they were bottom tier, meaning I could have picked up orks in almost any edition . I also had a SM force, but because of how expensive they made the models, instead of BUYING more models for both armies I had to choose and sell off one army so I could buy stuff for my Ork army. Had GW kept the prices relatively cheaper and fixed the power levels I would probably be the proud owner of 2 decent sized Armies instead of 1 huge Ork Blob. Furthermore, because of the relative costs of the game they are making I buy almost exclusively from EBAY because its on average 15-30% cheaper then GW and usually can be found in "Like New" condition.
No GW has a lot of problems but Formations aren't fixing them, they are only exacerbating them. As I said once before the "Haves" Are getting more upgrades and bonuses, and the "Have Nots" Are getting useless formations that don't help them compete.
Yeah. Its quite simple really. If a unit is bad, the solution is to fix that unit. If a unit is too good, you also fix that unit. Constructing a bunch of formations that consist of the right mix of units with the right bonuses with no associated points costs and hoping for it to balance the units within it is not a clean solution.
Further, if GW is having a hard time moving models because the rules suck, the above solution of just fixing that unit would accomplish the goal of moving more of that model (assuming model rules are the primary or at least a significant factor in purchase reasons) while not having the downside of forcing other potentially unwanted units on the player.
This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.
I don't know what you've been playing, but it hasn't been 40K. Eldar have been top tier/broken since 3rd edition, except maybe in 5th edition, when they may have been mid-tier, but they definitely weren't bottom tier.
Vaktathi wrote:except such a model has and continues to work for other companies like Hawk, DP9, Battlefront, etc.
You just named three companies I've never heard of before.
Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Flames of War? We can also get into Mantic with Kings of War, Spartan Games with a grip of games like Firestorm Armada/Halo: Fleet Battles/Dystopian Wars, and more.
Sisters, IG, Orks, CSM's, and DE all remain muppet armies just like they have been through most editions of the game.
IG used to be a dominant army in 6e.
Artillery park IG using gobs of non-codex units (that unintentionally benefited from a core rules change) with allies did well in early 6E tournaments, but IG as a whole was not dominant in 6E, the units that the codex was built around took a gigantic beating by the core rules and continue to.
Same with CSM.
A single build, Baleflamer Helturkey spam, was powerful, largely because of an overly broad FAQ that allowed it a 360* field of fire on its Torrent flamer, and such dominance came to an end after just a few months, the 2013 Adepticon results show this beautifully, as you basically see CSM's in there as allies a bunch (to get the Heldrake), but relatively few CSM armies on their own.
DE had a great push when they first came out.
Are we talking when they first came out in 3E, because they weren't spectacularly powerful in 3E except against MEQ armies, and then languished without a codex update for a decade.
What's happened with the three of these armies is the quicker rate of codex releases GW has executed the last year or two.
And you'll notice that the armies that are on top are the ones that keep getting new books while these armies do not. Eldar got a new 7E book like 19 months after their previous book, for CSM's it's going on 4 years, and when IG got their last new codex in 2014, they certainly didn't move anywhere in terms of power.
Again, because nobody wants to buy, build, paint and transport miniatures just to take them all off as soon as the other guy is done deploying. That certainly doesn't sound appealing to me.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I really do. One thing that I believe hurts the game more than Formations is terrain, or lack thereof. I have never been tabled before Turn 3 in a game with a fair amount of terrain on the board. I have, however, been tabled twice before Turn 3, and in both situations it was because the board was woefully deficient in LoS blocking terrain features against heavily range-oriented lists. Formations aren't the cause of that infliction of pain if there's enough terrain on the board to mitigate it.
Terrain works in both players favor, and terrain isn't going to balance out a massive force imbalance, especially when both players are fighting over the same objectives. If I'm showing up with 2400pts worth of stuff and you've got 1850pts, no amount of terrain is going to equalize that unless the the 2400pt force is purely long range turn-1 alpha strike oriented, aside from that the 2400pt force is likely to get as much of a benefit from that terrain as the 1850pt force.
Sincere question here to everyone: How much terrain is on the board for the big tourneys? I haven't seen photos to get a sense of it so I don't know if what I wrote extrapolates to that level of competition.
Depends on the event, some have great terrain, some have very little.
It wasn't a Lictor centric list, it was a Flyrant spam list that happened to have brought some Lictors and people just went bonkers over it.
2 Flyrants isn't Flyrant spam.
I was thought it was 3, which was pretty standard at the time? I could be mis-remembering.
What the original player did was brilliant. There are other formations that people haven't mined which can cause a similar sensation. Could they be flashes in the pan? Certainly, but for one tournament you can turn the meta on its ear. That's how formations have benefited the game.
How does a single tournament result benefit the game? At that point we're talking law of averages and just something weird sneaking through, and hasn't changed the "meta" in any way.
Commissar Benny wrote:For example: You show up at your local FLGS. There is a bunch of 40k players standing around waiting to play. You go up to one of them & say "Hey man, you up for a game!?" He says "Yes of course!" You cannot just begin deploying your units and have a balanced competitive game for the simple fact that balance is way off/point costs are all over the place. Instead you each have to look at each others lists, make changes so that there it can be somewhat enjoyable for both parties & not a total blowout.
Ah, I understand now. Though I have to say our negotiations where I play aren't nearly that complicated. First is points, second is factions. If players don't have enough points or don't want to cut points out, they move on to the next player option. If points are good, they find out what factions are involved. Some people get tired of facing the same faction over and over and want to face something different. Others might have a built-in prejudice against a particular faction. I personally don't look at an opponent's list ahead of time after Faction is resolved. But I get your point.
Re: your other points about model costing they're fair points. The true problem comes when trying to point compare between ranged and close combat specialist units. The former has the greater advantage at the start of the game. The latter needs to get delivered into combat to pay off. The latter's value doesn't shine until that happens while the former's shines right away. That's why I brought up terrain as a factor in balancing things out. Not sure how to fix it universally, though.
Vaktathi wrote:Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Flames of War?
Only heard of one of those games (Flames of War), and good things, too. The first two aren't popular at all within my gaming area. Not to say they're bad, but I can't speak to whether the sales model works for them.
Vaktathi wrote:Are we talking when they first came out in 3E, because they weren't spectacularly powerful in 3E except against MEQ armies, and then languished without a codex update for a decade.
Sorry, I meant to qualify that with the 6e release.
Vaktathi wrote:And you'll notice that the armies that are on top are the ones that keep getting new books while these armies do not. Eldar got a new 7E book like 19 months after their previous book, for CSM's it's going on 4 years, and when IG got their last new codex in 2014, they certainly didn't move anywhere in terms of power.
The IG received new formations just this year. While the core codex remains the same there have been additions to bring them up from where they were. Ideal? No, but it is something recent that's been done for them.
I agree that CSM hasn't received much of anything unless you count Khorne Daemonkin. Doesn't help those of us who like the other Chaos Gods, but they do have an update coming. Other armies receiving more updates more often is due to sales figures, though the higher rate of update speaks well to trying to give something to all instead of to a limited few.
Vaktathi wrote:Terrain works in both players favor, and terrain isn't going to balance out a massive force imbalance, especially when both players are fighting over the same objectives. If I'm showing up with 2400pts worth of stuff and you've got 1850pts, no amount of terrain is going to equalize that unless the the 2400pt force is purely long range turn-1 alpha strike oriented, aside from that the 2400pt force is likely to get as much of a benefit from that terrain as the 1850pt force.
Actually, terrain can play a crucial role in balancing that out. Those extra points you speak of come from free vehicles, vehicles that have a footprint which can be restricted by impassable terrain features on the board. with true LoS some vehicles won't be able to shoot sponsons because there are other vehicles or buildings in the way. Bad deployment choices could jam up units in the back who can't move because of the parking lot in front. This is what I refer to when I bring up the terrain question. Far too many video batreps have sparse terrain on the board. when that happens of course the point disparity will work against you. If you want to balance things out against an opponent bringing a Gladius Strike Force with a bunch of free vehicles, increase the building count on the board.
Vaktathi wrote:How does a single tournament result benefit the game? At that point we're talking law of averages and just something weird sneaking through, and hasn't changed the "meta" in any way.
The common approach to list building for tournaments focuses on a netlist approach that gets spammed by players of that particular faction. As you pointed out, you can count on Tyranid lists fielding flyrant spam. You can count on Eldar fielding at least one Wraithknight, Psykers and jetbikes. Each faction has their preferred loadout. There are formations out there that don't get much love because they don't have the immediate all-comers OP feel to them but do happen to fill a function that can take advantage of certain common builds across multiple factions. It's this that I'm calling out as a hidden benefit to formations as a whole.
Tropic Thunder wrote: I agree that CSM hasn't received much of anything unless you count Khorne Daemonkin.
Khorne Daemonkin is not a supplement, but an independent codex on its own. It fixed nothing anyway, the core units are the same, and Berzerkers still suck balls. The most common competitive builds focus on Hounds spam and almost as little chaos marines as possible.
Doesn't help those of us who like the other Chaos Gods, but they do have an update coming.
The update of Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter supplements for 7th edition pretty much confirms CSM will see no new codex in this edition.
An update coming eventually? Yeah, I guess, eventually, some day, CSM will get an update. In a decade perhaps, who knows.
Other armies receiving more updates more often is due to sales figures, though the higher rate of update speaks well to trying to give something to all instead of to a limited few.
The basic CSM kit is among the top selling kits in the whole GW range (at least as long as their online shop is concerned).
It's all formations fault, clearly. Oh, and don't forget detachments generally! Formations are basically just mini detachments. The CAD gives out a free reroll of warlord trait AND free ObSec for troops! Something for nothing! Blasphemy!
Clearly the only fair way to run the game is unbound, if everyone just plays unbound, 40k would be balanced!
Well, except for super heavies, they break the game anyway, of course.
Oh, and battle brothers. Don't really need formations to make those superfriends TWC lists work.
And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...
And even if you removed all formations, the proliferation of weapons that outright ignore vehicle armor (gaus, heywire, D, grav) would still leave most tanks and walkers unplayable, and...
Look, 40k is a mess. Its a gods foresaken, nigh-unplayable wreck. Worst play experience that it's been... practically ever. And while badly designed formations are certainly part of the problem, badly designed everything else means just removing formations isn't going to fix anything.
Vaktathi wrote:Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Flames of War?
Only heard of one of those games (Flames of War), and good things, too. The first two aren't popular at all within my gaming area. Not to say they're bad, but I can't speak to whether the sales model works for them.
They seem to be doing fine, GW on the other hand has been dealing with declining revenue (particularly once adjusted for inflation) for over a decade now.
Vaktathi wrote:Are we talking when they first came out in 3E, because they weren't spectacularly powerful in 3E except against MEQ armies, and then languished without a codex update for a decade.
Sorry, I meant to qualify that with the 6e release.
Dark Eldar? They didn't have a 6E release, they got a 7E release and their successes in high end tournaments is pretty much exclusively as allies to Eldar, usually as a WWP bomb of some sort. I can't recall a DE army placing well that wasn't allied to an Eldar detachment.
The IG received new formations just this year. While the core codex remains the same there have been additions to bring them up from where they were. Ideal? No, but it is something recent that's been done for them.
And there's no evidence from any recent tournament that they're placing any better. They're certainly not riding to the top as the "armies with recent updates do best cycle" theory would have us believe.
I agree that CSM hasn't received much of anything unless you count Khorne Daemonkin. Doesn't help those of us who like the other Chaos Gods, but they do have an update coming. Other armies receiving more updates more often is due to sales figures, though the higher rate of update speaks well to trying to give something to all instead of to a limited few.
IG as a whole are one of GW's best selling lines despite crappy rules, as are CSM's (IIRC the basic CSM kit is one of their top 5 sales kits). There's no sales problems with these armies that cause them to be neglected, and the fact that they've been hitting the same high end armies multiple times while allowing others to languish is difficult to find any real logic behind aside from trying to ride short term gains (which, has merit as Mr.Kirby is one of the top GW shareholders and GW *always* pays out dividends, going so far as to *borrow* money to do so a couple of times...which neatly doubles Mr.Kirby's take-home).
The KDK book didn't change any stats or unit rules as far as I know, just took all the Khorne stuff from two books and mashed it together. It's an instance where GW seems to be actively trying to avoid the license to print money that would be Legion books.
Vaktathi wrote:Terrain works in both players favor, and terrain isn't going to balance out a massive force imbalance, especially when both players are fighting over the same objectives. If I'm showing up with 2400pts worth of stuff and you've got 1850pts, no amount of terrain is going to equalize that unless the the 2400pt force is purely long range turn-1 alpha strike oriented, aside from that the 2400pt force is likely to get as much of a benefit from that terrain as the 1850pt force.
Actually, terrain can play a crucial role in balancing that out. Those extra points you speak of come from free vehicles
Only with the Gladius really gives free vehicles IIRC, others give different units or free wargear, upgrades, stat boosts, special rules, etc.
, vehicles that have a footprint which can be restricted by impassable terrain features on the board. with true LoS some vehicles won't be able to shoot sponsons because there are other vehicles or buildings in the way. Bad deployment choices could jam up units in the back who can't move because of the parking lot in front. This is what I refer to when I bring up the terrain question. Far too many video batreps have sparse terrain on the board. when that happens of course the point disparity will work against you. If you want to balance things out against an opponent bringing a Gladius Strike Force with a bunch of free vehicles, increase the building count on the board.
Even if we hold this to be true (and as an IG player who generally tries to take no fewer than a dozen tank hulls in most games, usually 15-18, terrain is not going to make up a 300-700pt difference in points values), it only applies to the Gladius, not things like the AdMech War Convocation, Skyhammer Annihilation Force, Aspect Hosts, Decurions, Canoptek Harvests, etc.
Vaktathi wrote:How does a single tournament result benefit the game? At that point we're talking law of averages and just something weird sneaking through, and hasn't changed the "meta" in any way.
The common approach to list building for tournaments focuses on a netlist approach that gets spammed by players of that particular faction. As you pointed out, you can count on Tyranid lists fielding flyrant spam. You can count on Eldar fielding at least one Wraithknight, Psykers and jetbikes. Each faction has their preferred loadout. There are formations out there that don't get much love because they don't have the immediate all-comers OP feel to them but do happen to fill a function that can take advantage of certain common builds across multiple factions. It's this that I'm calling out as a hidden benefit to formations as a whole.
Even if we grant that, it doesn't balance out the fundamental problems of free stuff at no cost nor the excesses of the more abusable formations.
Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...
I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.
The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.
Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.
Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...
I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.
The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.
Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.
Again, undercosted, maybe. But overpowered?
D weapons on T6 Fearless infantry for 35pts apiece really is pretty absurd.
Why try and argue undercosted or overpowered are different things?
Excepting perhaps the extreme ends of the curve, they mean exactly the same thing in 40K ie. the points you invest in the unit are disproportionately represented in the on-table effect.
Azreal13 wrote: Why try and argue undercosted or overpowered are different things?
Excepting perhaps the extreme ends of the curve, they mean exactly the same thing in 40K ie. the points you invest in the unit are disproportionately represented in the on-table effect.
That's not entirely true. Some things have rules that just shouldn't be in the game, regardless of points cost. Invisibility comes to mind. Rerollable saves come to mind. Warp spiders come to mind.
Some things would be perfectly fine if they were more or less costly in terms of points. The wraithknight comes to mind.
Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...
I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.
The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.
Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.
Again, undercosted, maybe. But overpowered?
Lets break down this insanity.
Eldar Scat Bikes are TROOPS, on a jetbike, with a 4shot S6AP6 gun that fires 36inches, they are T4, have solid stats across the board and ohh for laughs GW gave them a 3+ Armor save because "reasons". All of this for 27pts a model
DE Jetbikers on the other hand. are significantly CHEAPER, of course they also are limited to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes and instead of a 3+ armor save they get a 5+, meaning they will be jinking almost every turn, negating the heavy weapons they do in fact take. Another way to look at this is that your Eldar jetbike without a heavy weapon is 17pts or 1 point more expensive, and gets a 3+. how about that.
So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.
Wraithguard, S5, T6, 3+ armor save ohh and Did I mention a D weapon or a FLAMER D weapon that is -1 on the destroyer table? So they are a bit pricey at 32pts a model but realistically they are signifiantly under priced for what they are capable of doing. MC and GMC run in fear from these things, vehicles and super heavies just melt in front of them. Throw in a delivery system and you have a one shot wonder that can kill a Stompa in a single turn if they roll well enough.
So for 32pts a model (8pts less then my Meganobz) you get a T6 model with a 3+ armor save and a D weapon. I know which one I would take if I had the option. Clearly OP as hell. Tradito stop trying to convince us that things aren't as gakked up as they are
SemperMortis wrote:Eldar Scat Bikes are TROOPS, on a jetbike, with a 4shot S6AP6 gun that fires 36inches, they are T4, have solid stats across the board and ohh for laughs GW gave them a 3+ Armor save because "reasons". All of this for 27pts a model
Jetbike =/= scatter bike =/= scatter bike as a troop choice
There's nothing overpowered about an eldar jetbike with a shuriken cannon. Undercosted? Again, maybe. But not overpowered.
So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're practically repeating what I said.
Wraithguard, S5, T6, 3+ armor save ohh and Did I mention a D weapon or a FLAMER D weapon that is -1 on the destroyer table? So they are a bit pricey at 32pts a model but realistically they are signifiantly under priced for what they are capable of doing. MC and GMC run in fear from these things, vehicles and super heavies just melt in front of them. Throw in a delivery system and you have a one shot wonder that can kill a Stompa in a single turn if they roll well enough.
So for 32pts a model (8pts less then my Meganobz) you get a T6 model with a 3+ armor save and a D weapon. I know which one I would take if I had the option. Clearly OP as hell. Tradito stop trying to convince us that things aren't as gakked up as they are
If wraithguard were 8 points more expensive per model and couldn't ride in wave serpents, nobody would care about them.
Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...
I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.
The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.
Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.
Again, undercosted, maybe. But overpowered?
Undercosted and overpowered amount to the same thing. Synonyms as far as game balance is concerned.
No one cares about DE bikes because yes, they don't have lasers, but also because they aren't troops. As a tourney player, I can tell you that I prioritize killing eldar bikes not because they sting if they're alive, (and they DO sting,) but because they actively win games at the end by being obsec.
I don't know what kind of language is fitting to describe the difference, but that's ultimately what I'm getting at.
No one cares about DE bikes because yes, they don't have lasers, but also because they aren't troops. As a tourney player, I can tell you that I prioritize killing eldar bikes not because they sting if they're alive, (and they DO sting,) but because they actively win games at the end by being obsec.
I think that there's a similar complaint about white scars bike armies.
My only point is that there's nothing broken about the jetbikes as such. The problem boils down to the fact that they can spam lasers.
If they couldn't spam lasers, even if they remained troop choices, nobody would find them OP.
Sure, they have ridiculous mobility...but are shuriken cannons really ruining anyone's day?
Azreal13 wrote: Why try and argue undercosted or overpowered are different things?
Excepting perhaps the extreme ends of the curve, they mean exactly the same thing in 40K ie. the points you invest in the unit are disproportionately represented in the on-table effect.
That's not entirely true. Some things have rules that just shouldn't be in the game, regardless of points cost. Invisibility comes to mind. Rerollable saves come to mind. Warp spiders come to mind.
Some things would be perfectly fine if they were more or less costly in terms of points. The wraithknight comes to mind.
Aside from the fact I'd already addressed that?
As I said, most things could be costed into balance, there's one or two more extreme examples that could not.
However, you're not debating those, Wraithguard was the unit you were immediately commenting on, and whether they're OP or undercosted (if either) is just semantics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Equally, most of the examples you're citing don't cost any points at all.
SemperMortis wrote:Eldar Scat Bikes are TROOPS, on a jetbike, with a 4shot S6AP6 gun that fires 36inches, they are T4, have solid stats across the board and ohh for laughs GW gave them a 3+ Armor save because "reasons". All of this for 27pts a model
Jetbike =/= scatter bike =/= scatter bike as a troop choice
There's nothing overpowered about an eldar jetbike with a shuriken cannon. Undercosted? Again, maybe. But not overpowered.
So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.
You're not disagreeing with me. You're practically repeating what I said.
Wraithguard, S5, T6, 3+ armor save ohh and Did I mention a D weapon or a FLAMER D weapon that is -1 on the destroyer table? So they are a bit pricey at 32pts a model but realistically they are signifiantly under priced for what they are capable of doing. MC and GMC run in fear from these things, vehicles and super heavies just melt in front of them. Throw in a delivery system and you have a one shot wonder that can kill a Stompa in a single turn if they roll well enough.
So for 32pts a model (8pts less then my Meganobz) you get a T6 model with a 3+ armor save and a D weapon. I know which one I would take if I had the option. Clearly OP as hell. Tradito stop trying to convince us that things aren't as gakked up as they are
If wraithguard were 8 points more expensive per model and couldn't ride in wave serpents, nobody would care about them.
There's nothing overpowered about an eldar jetbike with a shuriken cannon. Undercosted? Again, maybe. But not overpowered.
Yes there certainly is, those are jetbike troops that cost 27ppm, can now put out 3 S6 AP 4? (Cant remember with cannonz) that have bladestorm IE AP2, they still have a 3+ armor save, they can still jink for a 4+ cover save and they are literally the fastest unit in the game. Still wildly OP.
AND again under-costed = OVER POWERED , Ork boyz aren't OP but if I reduced their price to 1pt a model you better believe they would be called OP!
If wraithguard were 8 points more expensive per model and couldn't ride in wave serpents, nobody would care about them.
Yes they would, let me put that in perspective for you. If my 40ppm T4 Meganobz were able to carry D Flamers around, and they weren't allowed in trukkz, I would simply take them in BW (just as Eldar take Wraithguard in DE vehicles all the time) But even if the game specifically said "Can't be in a transport" people would still pee their pants every time I fielded them and they would quickly become bullet magnets. So in conclusion you are wrong, and they would still be OP as hell.
Azreal13 wrote:Aside from the fact I'd already addressed that?
As I said, most things could be costed into balance, there's one or two more extreme examples that could not.
However, you're not debating those, Wraithguard was the unit you were immediately commenting on, and whether they're OP or undercosted (if either) is just semantics.
I think that we're basically in agreement on the point of fact.
I do, however, think that OP and undercosted have different undertones. Overpowered means "too good."
Yes, a 300 points wraithknight is too good. A 500 points wraithknight is not (in fact, at that points level, it's probably underpowered/undercosted).
But yes, I do agree with this:
Practically speaking: Everything undercosted is overpowered.
I just wish for the caveat: It is not the case that: Everything overpowered is undercosted.
Perhaps formations aren't the future, eh?
Invisibility is a psyker ability. It has literally nothing to do with formations. The only formation that grants rerollable saves, so far as I know, is the DA ravenwing formation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.
I was mistaken. They start out with shuriken catapults. 12 inch range.
If you upgrade to shuriken cannons, their firing range goes all the way up to a whopping...24 inches. S6, AP 5, assault 3, bladestorm.
Even taking battle focus into account, that's really not that amazing. It's good, but not game-breakingly OP.
Yes they would, let me put that in perspective for you. If my 40ppm T4 Meganobz were able to carry D Flamers around, and they weren't allowed in trukkz, I would simply take them in BW (just as Eldar take Wraithguard in DE vehicles all the time) But even if the game specifically said "Can't be in a transport" people would still pee their pants every time I fielded them and they would quickly become bullet magnets. So in conclusion you are wrong, and they would still be OP as hell.
1. As far as I'm aware, the only transport that eldar have is the wave serpent.
2. I agree with you on this point: in practice, they would be bullet magnets. Very expensive bullet magnets. Essentially a distraction carnifex.
That's basically all that they would be.
It would be like giving terminators D flamers but removing their ability to deepstrike or ride in landraiders.
Yes, a very shiny target...that probably won't do much in game.
Vaktathi wrote: Dark Eldar? They didn't have a 6E release, they got a 7E release and their successes in high end tournaments is pretty much exclusively as allies to Eldar, usually as a WWP bomb of some sort. I can't recall a DE army placing well that wasn't allied to an Eldar detachment.
Ugh... That's what I get trying to multitask at work. I thought the 5e release was 6e. For some reason I thought it was more recent than 2010. I do remember they were pretty solid the first year and a half it was out. Just got my dates off.
Still can't believe that was six years ago...
Even if we grant that, it doesn't balance out the fundamental problems of free stuff at no cost nor the excesses of the more abusable formations.
If we want to be brutally honest about how GW got to where it currently is with formations, look no further than the introduction of Super Heavies into standard games. Once GW took that step they had to scramble to make up for it: D weaponry in standard games, MCs becoming GCs; then the wide scale addition of formations and detachments of formations. These conversations about "X has ruined the game" started with Super Heavies and D weapons. Interestingly, those problems were resolved with a new "X" to complain about.
I will concede that certain formations were unnecessary, particularly in forces that already had both GCs and plentiful D weaponry (Eldar). But let's not pretend that Formations are the straw that broke the camel's back here. The back was broken well before "Decurion" style detachments and plentiful formations came into the picture.
The leap of adding Super Heavies to the standard game led to a precipitous drop off a cliff GW shouldn't have stepped from. To their credit, the number of flame threads on here complaining about excessive Super Heavy/Gargantuan/D weapon abuse has plummeted greatly, so GW solved that problem (sorta). The abuse of certain formations will result in tweaks that will neuter them next edition, but as always some other configurations to be abused after that.
Tropic Thunder wrote:If we want to be brutally honest about how GW got to where it currently is with formations, look no further than the introduction of Super Heavies into standard games. Once GW took that step they had to scramble to make up for it: D weaponry in standard games, MCs becoming GCs; then the wide scale addition of formations and detachments of formations. These conversations about "X has ruined the game" started with Super Heavies and D weapons. Interestingly, those problems were resolved with a new "X" to complain about.
I will concede that certain formations were unnecessary, particularly in forces that already had both GCs and plentiful D weaponry (Eldar). But let's not pretend that Formations are the straw that broke the camel's back here. The back was broken well before "Decurion" style detachments and plentiful formations came into the picture.
The leap of adding Super Heavies to the standard game led to a precipitous drop off a cliff GW shouldn't have stepped from. To their credit, the number of flame threads on here complaining about excessive Super Heavy/Gargantuan/D weapon abuse has plummeted greatly, so GW solved that problem (sorta). The abuse of certain formations will result in tweaks that will neuter them next edition, but as always some other configurations to be abused after that.
Vaktathi wrote:D weapons on T6 Fearless infantry for 35pts apiece really is pretty absurd.
At 12 inch range.
With 1 wound a piece.
Without battle focus or fleet.
With weapons once relegated exclusively to the absolute more powerful, Apocalypse only, weapons, on tough, fearless infantry able to take stellar delivery systems and that can get access to battle focus through formations IIRC. A single squad able to slap a squad of tanks around like a Titan.
Again, I agree that they might be undercosted, but I have difficulty thinking that they're OP.
Is there a difference?
More to the point, the simple fundamental fact that they have D weapons is a fundamental failure of game design. It's not like they were considered underpowered, overcosted, or unusable with S10 guns.
Plasma weapons, sternguard ammunition, krak missiles and sniper rounds lay waste to them.
They lay waste to anything that isn't sporting a grip of overlapping saves, they can lay waste to Scatterbikes and free transports too, doesn't mean Wraithguard can't still be broken.
Azreal13 wrote: Why try and argue undercosted or overpowered are different things?
Excepting perhaps the extreme ends of the curve, they mean exactly the same thing in 40K ie. the points you invest in the unit are disproportionately represented in the on-table effect.
That's not entirely true. Some things have rules that just shouldn't be in the game, regardless of points cost. Invisibility comes to mind. Rerollable saves come to mind. Warp spiders come to mind.
Vaktathi wrote: Dark Eldar? They didn't have a 6E release, they got a 7E release and their successes in high end tournaments is pretty much exclusively as allies to Eldar, usually as a WWP bomb of some sort. I can't recall a DE army placing well that wasn't allied to an Eldar detachment.
Ugh... That's what I get trying to multitask at work. I thought the 5e release was 6e. For some reason I thought it was more recent than 2010. I do remember they were pretty solid the first year and a half it was out. Just got my dates off.
Still can't believe that was six years ago...
Right? holy crap.
If we want to be brutally honest about how GW got to where it currently is with formations, look no further than the introduction of Super Heavies into standard games. Once GW took that step they had to scramble to make up for it: D weaponry in standard games, MCs becoming GCs; then the wide scale addition of formations and detachments of formations. These conversations about "X has ruined the game" started with Super Heavies and D weapons. Interestingly, those problems were resolved with a new "X" to complain about.
IIRC they started to get introduced at the same time in late 6th, and the more truly absurdly undercosted SH/GC units started with taking all those D weapons down to where they didn't belong themselves.
I will concede that certain formations were unnecessary, particularly in forces that already had both GCs and plentiful D weaponry (Eldar). But let's not pretend that Formations are the straw that broke the camel's back here. The back was broken well before "Decurion" style detachments and plentiful formations came into the picture.
Sure, the game had major issues before, no argument, but formations are creating a whole grip of new problems layered on top of the old ones in a big way.
I mean, personally, I'm all for going back to the old 3E-5E single FoC, dumping allies, relegating SH/GC units and D weapons to Apocalypse and scenario games, and more, but Formations are a big part of the problem too.
The leap of adding Super Heavies to the standard game led to a precipitous drop off a cliff GW shouldn't have stepped from. To their credit, the number of flame threads on here complaining about excessive Super Heavy/Gargantuan/D weapon abuse has plummeted greatly, so GW solved that problem (sorta). The abuse of certain formations will result in tweaks that will neuter them next edition, but as always some other configurations to be abused after that.
The complaints about SH/GC units and D weapons has fallen off a lot because most events and many playgroups have houseruled their use. You can't take a full Knight army to most tournaments, some don't even let you bring more than 1. D weapons at most events are toned down in capability and otherwise restricted. Superheavies with ignores cover weapons are not allowed at many events. Essentially the community has acted to neuter these things.
Tamwulf wrote: So we went from "Formations break the game" to "Eldar break the game"? Just making sure I understand the current argument.
More like Eldar nearly broke the game, then formations came along and made it worse. The new Eldar formations are breaking the game along with Necrons and certain Space Marine formations.
Pretty sure the current argument boils down to "the game was already unbalanced and crammed full of stuff it didn't really need, formations exacerbated both of those issues without actually fixing or improving anything else".
Tamwulf wrote: So we went from "Formations break the game" to "Eldar break the game"? Just making sure I understand the current argument.
More like Eldar nearly broke the game, then formations came along and made it worse. The new Eldar formations are breaking the game along with Necrons and certain Space Marine formations.
Pretty sure the current argument boils down to "the game was already unbalanced and crammed full of stuff it didn't really need, formations exacerbated both of those issues without actually fixing or improving anything else".
Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...
I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.
The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.
Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.
If Cultists were 2 points a piece, they wouldn't be broken, but under costed.
I can't believe I'm using this, but per Urban Dictionary: Broken = 2. (Games) A game object or facility that is too good to exist. It is so powerful that it is unbalancing and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use this to be competitive.
Ergo, Overpowered/Broken = Undercosted. If something is undercosted, it's broken, because you're getting a better unit than what you're paying for it. If Cultists were 2 points a piece, they'd be broken, because of what you're paying for them, whether the units stats are great or not. Same would be the case if Mutilators or Tac Marines were 4 points a piece. Sure, the unit hasn't gotten any better in terms of stats, but it's value in terms of usefulness per points went WAY up.
How can we even debate that formations break the game?? I'm a TO and have banned them. The idea for a tourney is to show up and have a chance . It's not to show up and be steamrolled by cheeseeeeee...
Haldir wrote: How can we even debate that formations break the game?? I'm a TO and have banned them. The idea for a tourney is to show up and have a chance . It's not to show up and be steamrolled by cheeseeeeee...
The problem is complex. People that say that ban formations is not enough are right... in a way. But formations are part of the problem. Just not the only one.
Formation removal (or a very original and inventive repurposing of them) must happen, along with a new paradigm in codex writing along with an edition that rebalances melee and shooting along with a re-design of the most offending mechanics like grav or VP1 S10 Heavy 56 relentless rending weapons handed like candies along with removal or randumb.. and so on.
All of this must happen or the game will just be unbalanced in another direction.
This is why 40k is so f***ed.
Corollay: Alexander the Great did show us what to do with Gordian Knots. Problem being, for WFB, GW considered and accepted AoS as a solution to that Gordian Knot...
Haldir wrote: How can we even debate that formations break the game?? I'm a TO and have banned them. The idea for a tourney is to show up and have a chance . It's not to show up and be steamrolled by cheeseeeeee...
Bless you. We have a local TO that also tossed formations in the trash, and we have a great time where lists are diverse, and the power difference between the worst list and best list isn't insane. (As an example, I've won multiple times with BA, and one of my buddies has won with a fairly bland Ultramarines no-primarch HH list.)
I wish the broader tourney scene would try out nixing formations instead of constantly having war convo, battleco, gundam wing, decurions, and similar power lists all steamrolling most players that aren't lucky enough to have good formations in their army. After playing with no formations, the tournaments allowing them just feel like they're playing a straight up worse version of the game to me.
40k should have never been apoc. Apoc is apoc. Apoc can still be apoc, 40k could, in theory, go back to sorta being 40k. But things would have to change.
As has been pointed out again and again even apoc made you pay bloody points for formations. It also valued a strategic asset at roughly 250pts but gave multiple away for free in formations. Apoc is far from perfect, apoc is a gong show. I mean, two words: Flank March... Apoc and alcohol are sorta symbiotically intertwined. One cannot function without the other. And it makes you want to drink if you ever require persuasion.
All I see is on the pro formation end is people making the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes, removing formations does nothing to balance the myriad of ever growing esoteric factions in the bloated as feth mess that is 7th edition warhammer 40,000. It just steers us back towards some semblance of normalcy and a thorough re-acquaintance with the long since dead and buried force organization chart. Getting rid of formations does nothing to address cynically cutting a faction into two because reasons and making factions without hq's because reasons. Or factions that auto lose the game. I would also argue that although allies seem almost quaint at this point, that really is just evidence of how far we've fallen.
No matter what we know there is no concrete metric for points, it's the best worst system we have. But we all know damn well allies screws up the "this factions gets cheap x" concept, which is probably the only way you can even attempt to differentiate fairly similar sub-factions. Say bike or jump heavy marine lists.
I don't think we'll ever be able to perfectly equate unit efficacy to point cost because it's very difficult to account for synergy and complex special rule interaction. With that said, the game still improves without formations. I still much prefer special characters unlocking certain units as troops for foc swaps than convoluted shopping lists that range from imaginative to cynical to infuriating.
I'd much rather see rites of war or something similar in 40k than formations. Formations are fine, for apoc. Go. Play. Apoc.
Can we have 40k back now? You know, a skirmish game generally played from 1500-2000 pts involving hopefully less than like a hundred models and can be played in like 2-4 hours. 30k is where I want 40k to be, and yeah, just not playing with formations doesn't get it there or back to the glory days of 5th but its better than what 40k is currently and it's a good start.
But that's all it is, a good a start. Super heavies/non-character lords of war need to be indexed to point level. Ridiculous stuff like factions made entirely of super heavy walkers need to go and play apoc. Realistically, over 2000-3000 let the flood gates loose and go play apoc but make a functional ruleset for skirmish level gaming, take notes from 30k and go from there. I also think GW needs to make up its mind with the mini factions. Factions should be able to stand on their own. Allies are not a terrible mechanic given the insanity we see today but the allies matrix can't possibly account for all the bizarre allies that occur in the fluff. Nor should they in many cases, can I get a necron blood angels fist bump?
All I know is I'm enjoying 30k. Yes. it's more balanced by the simple fact that at the base of it most legions are playing essentially the same book with slight twists. Just like chapters in 40k they're not all perfectly balanced. But at the same time even the weakest legion can make a damn strong list. Part of that is the rigidity of the army construction and part of that is fw can write nuanced rules that have both benefits and downsides. Not perfect, no rule are perfect. In my experience most of the potential balance and enjoyment to be found in wargaming is good opponents played regularly enough that you can learn each other's play style and arsenals and find balance through sheer martial practice. Feedback. Discussion of tactics. A lot of that is obviously much easier when you're essentially playing mirror match with the same codex. That's a fair criticism of comparing 30k to 40k.
I think to fix 40kgw needs to really decide if regardless of if an army is imperial or heretic or xenos, will they enforce some semblance of combined arms warfare either through taxes (rigid foc) incentivized synergy and strong internal balance. Or will they allow the insanity of apoc's one size fits all approach to a game that used to not be a bloated mess.
I remember back in 5-6th in a GW that no longer exists playing a game of 40k (it was still 40k in those days) against a buddy of mine, I look over at a table in the main sales floor. A kid had 3 manticores on a skyshield landing pad. That used to be the mega battle stuff the kiddies would play on saturdays. And the adults with 900 dollar titans. But at least we had a word for it, it was called apoc and, it was all good. I played 40k, they played apoc. All good.
The game is balkanized and negotiation is annoying and unfortunately political and culturally polarizing. Even with honest intentions "casual" or" competitive" those words still have vastly graduated interpretation from basement to basement or store to store. Acceptable and inappropriate are the end result of culture filling the gaps in a ruleset. Cynically jamming in flyers or fortifications leads to everyone needing to weigh in. Army building is just one part of the problem. The other part is the vast array of scenarios that vary from enjoyable to insane. But none really form a baseline for what "the game" is at its core. BFG had a tonne of scenarios that were only ever fun in a campaign, 40k much the same.
With 7th came Maelstrom missions, which is a laughable attempt to "shake things up", adding twister to 40k or "my drunk commissar" or whatever you wanna call it only satiates individuals who think playing defensively or gun lining shouldn't be a valid tactic in a game that seems to clearly value shooting over close combat and cover over running through open ground in an active battlefield, sometime to the point of absurdity. Terrain density is another issue that should probably be addressed in concert with scenarios, especially if a tournament is going to include say a scenario/mission involving the relic, it's generally nice to not have it end up on some ungodly convoluted or large terrain piece. Any TO knows all considerations to balance that aren't obvious when it comes to terrain. Something gw utterly failed on in 7th.
Eternal war still has the usual crap fest. The relic is dumb, scouring is just a vp lottery. Emperor's will, 2 objectives was never fun once you couldn't assault on the outflank (something else that needs to be brought back). Big guns was better when every unit didn't score. Purge the alien, or, kill points, was my most hated mission, even more than relic, because the game handles kp very badly. KP's are not terrible for tie breakers, but as a core scenario mechanic it's awful. The old vp system was cumbersome but much better. The only mission I find tolerable in 7th is crusade. A lot of that has to do with placing objectives before knowing what deployment will be, it keeps everyone honest. That has been one of the few improvements of 7th, placing objective BEFORE knowing who will deploy where. But that gets lost in a lot of the maelstrom stuff those crazy kids are experimenting with these days.
Formations or not maelstrom is awful. But being the pragmatic fellow I am, I will equate modified maelstrom to playing 40k without formations. It's a mild improvement.
But yeah, formations need to go, but so does a lot of stuff. 40k is a bloated cow and needs to go on a diet and trim down and break it off with apoc. Apoc will just get her own place.
. I also had a 
