40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**Kanluwen**

v0iddrgn wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.

You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.

Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.

You missed the point I was making.

It wasn't an issue with Unbound by itself. It was an issue with certain units. You didn't hear people saying "Oh god look at that cheese list of Scouts with no HQs".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Verviedi wrote:
Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.

Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".

**Vaktathi**

Formations, as the concept has existed in 7E, are apparently dead.

Nothing of value was lost.

This pleases me. 8E might be playable...

**Imateria**

Kanluwen wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
warboss wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.

You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.

Formations were far, far superior.

Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army ~~purchasing~~ building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.

It's only 21%. 3 out of 14. Less than 10 words of his last 3 posts have been factually accurate,

Warhammer Community wrote:
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.

Source
Where has the "14 Detachments" been coming from?

From the streamed QnA session with Pete Foley and Andy Smilie where they specifically said there will be 14 FOC's.

**ZebioLizard2**

I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.

**Kanluwen**

Imateria wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
warboss wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's unwelcome to me. I enjoyed formations.

I despise the "1 HQ 2 Troops" methodology. I loved Skitarii for not having an HQ.

These are three of a great many detachments to choose from though.

You cannot tell me that I can build a list using my Stealth Suits, Pathfinders, Piranhas, and Ghostkeels under the showcased Detachments.

Formations were far, far superior.

Formations were far, far more open to abuse and wild swings of power with no extra points paid for abilities. If that is your definition of "superior", I'll have to disagree. In any case, your example doesn't fit into the 25% of the rumored 12 formations that will be included free in the rules. Luckily for you, you still have 75% more to look at before you can make a real determination. Or you can just fly off the handle jumping to conclusions and instead praise the worst (and fortunately outgoing!) army ~~purchasing~~ building mechanic the marketing department at GW ever came up with.

It's only 21%. 3 out of 14. Less than 10 words of his last 3 posts have been factually accurate,

Warhammer Community wrote:
If your army is built using Formations right now, you’re going to be fine. In their place are a dozen new game-wide Detachments that are available to all factions. These are flexible enough that all of your current forces can be fit into them to form a Battle-forged army. The advantage of these is that all factions now have an even playing field of list building mechanics, rather than some having loads and some having to stick with the trusty Combined Arms option for every game.

Source
Where has the "14 Detachments" been coming from?

From the streamed QnA session with Pete Foley and Andy Smilie where they specifically said there will be 14 FOC's.

And today says 12 new ones.

Maybe the Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachments are still in?

**ClockworkZion**

insaniak wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?

Who says they missed it?

The fact that GW are using outside playtesters is in no way proof that everything the playtesters flag as an issue is acted upon.

There is no proof that the issues weren't resolved either. We're shooting in the dark when it comes to his and the most we can do is speculate. Assuming the new editon to be a paragon of design or a fustercluck of brokenness gets us nowhere and we need to take a step back anytime we start getting worked up in either direction.

**Verviedi**

Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.

You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.

Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.

You missed the point I was making.

It wasn't an issue with Unbound by itself. It was an issue with certain units. You didn't hear people saying "Oh god look at that cheese list of Scouts with no HQs".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Verviedi wrote:
Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.

Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".

Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys? Unless 2 detachments were dummied out today, I'd say 14 is the correct amount.

**docdoom77**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
In case it hasn't been mentioned before, if you click on the "Imperium" link out of the keyword faction examples, EVERY single Imperium faction, including all the Marines, is pre-selected in the product filter.
But as Blood Angels are given as another example, I wonder how the differentiation for the organization chart will be between the Imperium keyword and the individual factions. There must be a benefit for picking e.g. fielding an IG or Space Wolves only army without any other Imperium picks, otherwise they wouldn't have given those two examples, as Blood Angels are included in the store filter as well. Of course with Marines likely getting their own "Grand Alliance" book the store link might not be an indication for the final rules after all.

Also regarding those three charts, no reason to panic yet considering we only have seen 3 out of 16 (I think) organization charts.
Also jumping on the "good riddance" train concerning formations as well, stuff like the Gladius Strike force shouldn't have existed in the first place, it was one of the main reasons balance in 7th edition was so fethed up. I think it also means I'll pick up two 'start collecting Tau' boxes when I come back home in two and a half weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull those boxes from the market considering they all have formation sheets included.

I think it is also save to assume that "lords of war" are former Apocalypse stuff like Superheavies and gargantuan Creatures? If yes then I'll be super happy if those organization charts keep them out of snormal matches and confined to "pretty much 2500+ points matches because of minimum troop/HQ/other requiements" charts, considering there are zero slots for them in the three charts shown and the last one is pretty big pointswise.

I wouldn't make this assumption. It's a valid theory for sure, but no more valid than: Superheavies are simply Heavy Support now. Or Superheavies are HS which use multiple slots.

Without more info, it's impossible to tell. Especially since they said there blurring (or removing) the distinction between Superheavies and non-superheavies.

**v0iddrgn**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I will miss the more fluffy detachments.. But I can say this is for the better overall. So long as I keep my Legion benefits.

I'm 100% positive fluffy stuff will be available for those who want to play that way because there's now 3 different modes of play now plus campaign books to look forward to and stuff.

**Mr Morden**

Youn wrote:
I would assume items like Rhino actually will say.

ASTARTES units may embark on these transports. Which means Black Templars could load up on a Dark Angels transport because they are both ASTARTES. While the ADEPTUS MILTARIUM unit would not be able to climb onto the Rhino because they aren't.

I also, would guess that their Chimera says ADEPTUS MILTARIUM units may embark and not IMPERIAL units may embark.

Hmm slightly more complicated as other Imperial forces use various vehicles.

Sisters and Inquisitors use Rhinos - in the fluff so do Mechanicus
Chimera's used by Inquisition, Genestealer Cult,

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Verviedi wrote:
Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.

Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".

Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys?

Pete Foley:
Book & Box Games Manager at Games Workshop, I tweet about Warhammer 40,000 and Age of Sigmar... and nothing else!

Andy Smillie:
Head of Warhammer Community Team & Sometimes Black Library Author.

They are the PR guys.

**ERJAK**

Verviedi wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.

You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.

Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.

You missed the point I was making.

It wasn't an issue with Unbound by itself. It was an issue with certain units. You didn't hear people saying "Oh god look at that cheese list of Scouts with no HQs".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Verviedi wrote:
Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.

Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".

Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys? Unless 2 detachments were dummied out today, I'd say 14 is the correct amount.

This^. 'A dozen' just sounds good, doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Which applies to all if these posts btw.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Verviedi wrote:
Source on the 14 detachments is the Q&A livestream.

Then that is contradicted by today's "dozen".

Who has more credibility, game designers or the PR guys?

Pete Foley:
Book & Box Games Manager at Games Workshop, I tweet about Warhammer 40,000 and Age of Sigmar... and nothing else!

Andy Smillie:
Head of Warhammer Community Team & Sometimes Black Library Author.

They are the PR guys.

They are game designers as well and are very clealy not the ones writing these posts. Keep digging that hole though, I'm working on monetizing fact checking you.

**Smellingsalts**

The thing is, if they are using the AOS prototype, you really aren't going to see armies with more than one faction in them in tournament play because 1) The incentives an army made from one faction gets are too powerful for a mixed army to deal with and, 2) You rarely have enough points to buy a second detachment. AOS works really well with 1 faction per army, and because the armies are smaller, people who like to play with different factions are probably going to have multiple armies.

**Nightlord1987**

So glad I didnt (literally) buy in to that whole Free Transports hype. I've been using a CAD for all 3 of my armies anyway, so there's not much shift in my composition which I'm happy about!

**Smellingsalts**

I think smaller armies are actually a good thing for tournament players. You can carry their bag onto the plane with you instead of checking it, which will help avoid all the broken models.

**RegulusBlack**

Like what i see so far, however:

IG (in my completely over reactive opinion) may have been somewhat watered down in comparison to other factions (I know its still early blah, blah, blah, wait and see)

1. Command Points seem similar too guard orders which was a cool mechanic that separated us from other factions, will we get Command "Orders" as well as Army "Orders" dunno
2. Most HQ in codexes (codexi?) had really strong units, Guard...eh not so much (other than 7th ed Pask) if they are dis-allowed to join units it could mean a squishy unit just got squishier
2a. In our latest codex we had numerous independent characters (Psyker, priest, Engineer, Commisar, Yarrick, etc.) if they are left in the cold... yikes
3. my hope is that IG keeps their feel and can be just as viable as a blob hack and slash (Priest Commisar attached) or a gunline (HQ Orders) and even a combination of the 2

wait and see is the mantra, but still, glad there is a change, but hope it makes my army fun again

#make40kgreatagain

**warboss**

v0iddrgn wrote:

What I meant by that is simple. When I started this hobby I had limited funds. I wanted to have a 2000 point army so I could play 40K at the concensus points level most everyone played and thus get in games more consistently. With my limited cash I was only able to hone my list into a TAC style since I didn't have a cache of models sitting around waiting for the right opponent or formation to come around. I bet a lot of new players have similar experiences with 40K as it IS very expensive.

*Edit* The TAC buff is nice also because I feel 7th has demolished casual play and TAC players typically play casually.

You're certainly not the only one who feels that way or built armies up in that fashion. I built and painted roughly 30k pts of figs across 8 armies during 3rd -5th ed in that fashion. I started out with limited funds from a part time job then supplemented by an occasional student loan boost (I was in grad school) and then paid for with my first post grad paycheck. Regardless of my personal income, it was a viable way of building first a 1500pt TAC list then 2k one then a 2.5-3k list with some real variety in each slot to choose from. With the stupid formation mechanic, I was largely relegated the 2nd class citizen player CAD because I didn't double or triple up on individual units therefore lost out on free models and rules those players got for zero points. 40k went from being a game to being gamed by Gw into buying models like groceries with buy two get one free coupons/sales. I will shed no tears seeing the worst and greediest edition of 40k masquerading as player choice be tossed into the wastebin.

**NamelessBard**

This is what you feel the need to not pick about? 12 or 14? Geez.

**Liberal_Perturabo**

Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

**BertBert**

Oh thank the throne formations are gone. Glad to see GW is stepping away from some of their shady marketing schemes.

**Latro_**

I'd laugh if some of the other force org charts are along the lines of:

1hq - 5 heavy support XD

**warboss**

Imateria wrote:

From the streamed QnA session with Pete Foley and Andy Smilie where they specifically said there will be 14 FOC's.

Thanks to you snd others for the clarification. I remembered around a dozen being thrown about in the initial rumors but I'm glad to see a few more. Hopefully they'll stick to mostly universal detachments instead of repeating the special snowflake bloat detachment schemes of the past few years.

**Vaktathi**

BertBert wrote:
Oh thank the throne formations are gone. Glad to see GW is stepping away from some of their shady marketing schemes.

it was a long time in coming, 7E's formation/detachment shennanigans were absurdly toxic both in terms of balance and trying to comprehend army construction.

**Pariah-Miniatures**

While formations are gone, I suspect something else will fill the role.

I certainly hope not though, free upgrades are bad and money grabbing.

**Mr Morden**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

One of the greatest sources of complaints about 7th ed was Formations - - specifically the power dex ones - are they the ones that you want kept in?

Many people will be very happy to see that exploit removed - of course it won't suit everyone.

Yeah the same company offering refunds on Codexes.

**Kanluwen**

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
While formations are gone, I suspect something else will fill the role.

I certainly hope not though, free upgrades are bad and money grabbing.

Yeah those free upgrades on the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company sure did make for a powerful reason to buy Sentinels.

**warboss**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

Lol, always one masochist in the bunch. The formations and the books that you're lamenting the passing of were too intertwined. 7th edition was the attempt at taking the flaws of 6th and doubling down on them; yet another tweak that kept the crap that Gw's marketing team threw at us intact would fix nothing and just be moisturizer applied to the rotting corpse gw's flagship golden line.

**Azreal13**

NamelessBard wrote:This is what you feel the need to not pick about? 12 or 14? Geez.

Kan was under pressure from having made some pretty difficult to defend to outright incorrect statements, going full pedant is kind of a defense mechanism.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

I apologize, it's taken me a while to realize that this is like one of those parody twitter accounts. Good show on taking literally everything positive and complaining about it, while also praising the remnants of the old system that have remained, despite being less popular with almost everyone else.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

Imateria wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally LOVE the part about "well rounded" armies receiving benefits. This puts more of an emphasis on TAC armies thus making it more accessible to new players who most likely don't have tons of $$$ to invest in this little hobby of ours. Plus it's another step away from Unbound abomination.

You could make just as nasty lists using Battleforged for the powerful army books as you could in many cases for Unbound.

Thats why 7th wasn't nearly fun enough to waste time on for a lot of players. Formations going away plus benefits for TAC = big win IMHO.

Isn't going to do a thing to make it cheaper though, cheap hobbies aren't easy to find.

It is going to make it cheaper for people, because most of the factions are part of the Imperium (and I think the now 4 Eldar factions will work similarly as well as all the Chaos factions amongst themselves). That means if you are a newish player who only got 750 points of Space Marines and then says: "I want to start Sisters of Battle!", he can just get 750 points of Sisters and already has a working 1500 points army which, thanks to the way that all factions are limited to the same detachements, won't be hamstrung because you get awful formations that get roflstomped by that guy with the Gladius Strike Force and other OP formations, while the lack of command points and likely keyword dependant synergies and buffs will keep your list balanced even though you get to cherry pick from two factions.

Compare that to the 5.Edition where if you wanted to play 1500 points with sisters you had to built up an entire 1500 points army of them. Remember what a massive problem building up an Imperial Guard army was because everything was so cheap pointswise and you had to buy a massive number of vehicles and infantry boxes to even get to 1500 points, making it unaffordable for many? Now you can just toss 600 points or so into a Marines army and still enjoy playing them (which is actually the case for me). It also massively increases the value of the starter box: Sure you start with non-legal amounts of models of an army you might not necessarily want in the long run but as long as you want to build up any army from the same alliance you can use them to efficiently fill up points.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

Aaaand straight to the ignore list.

**v0iddrgn**

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh nice, another moronic decision from GW. I wonder how far they will go in their idiocy?
"Hey Dave, since we are completery rebalancing every unit in our game maybe we should do the same for all the formations and detachements so we won't lose on huge amount of variety while simultaneously fixing balance issues they caused?
Nah, man, that would require actual effort on our part! Besides, fitiing your army into formation will make you spend more than 5 minutes on building a list and force strategical decisions and that's a no-go. And do I even need to tell you that all this will be too hard to play for lil Timmy who can barely tell left from right?
I guess so.
Yup. So just trow in in the pile, there is still some room left between armor values, proper melee and interesting setting. We'll make a nice campfire out of all of that once we are finished gutting our franchise into oblivion."

I also love GW's jolly attitude with all that.
Like "Hey guys, check this out! We've made this super cool thing that we are going to show you right now! Ready? Ok, here it goes: all the books that we've released for several past months, the ones that you've been extremely exited about and spent your own money on ARE NOW COMPLETELY USELESS PIECES OF JUNK! Hahaha, amazing, right? Yeah, we are just a bunch of geniuses. Consumer friendly too!
Also buy our models, you fething loser."

Devil's Advocate??