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

Martel732 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We play a terrible game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


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

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

SJ

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

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

Breton wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


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

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

SJ

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

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

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

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breton wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


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

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

SJ

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

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

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

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

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breton wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


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

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

SJ

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

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

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

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

Don't give them any ideas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

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

SJ

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

Makumba wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

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

SJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

col_impact wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Vaktathi wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

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

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

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

CAD is a detachment (Combined Arms Detachment).

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets look at an analogy.

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

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

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

which essentially amounts to have no real argument...

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

SJ

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

including such "winners" as HWTs etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SJ

Well said

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