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.

Except Codex has not been the gold standard for an army since the start of 6th ed. For a long time now it has been codex + supplement + ally + fortification.....

Why is it ok for a codex to be very powerful (and likely not play tested) and a Codex + formation not to be?

Why is it ok for some codices to have more units than others?

Why are wave serpents ok, but skyblight nids not, other than the money grab aspect of formations?

Why are allies accepted as OK but formations are bad?

You continue to make some sort of assumption that codex units are costed appropriately (they're not) and balanced (they're not).

If we are concerned about equal distribution why do we allow vehicles in competitive events? Not every army has equal access to vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That's only true if you weren't going to take those units in the first place.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the Broadsides and a Riptide?

I have seen many Tau armies without 2 Broadside teams (which are required). It is certainly less taxing than other formations, but it still limits your options in your army build.

 IK Viper wrote:
A codex contains all the rules for a given army. That is the golden standard for what those units should cost. Is it not reasonable to make every one play out of their codex until and unless everyone has access to formations tailor made for them?

Why do they have to be tailor made? You seem to be moving from a theoretical opposition to all Formations to a opposition only to the ones that "matter"

Some formations are not as bad as others, but that is not the point, Codexes should not require a formation/ dataslate to be competitive.

Agreed. That's demonstrably not the case so I'm not sure why you're tilting at that windmill.

If every codex gets formations of roughly the same power then sure, play with them.

What codex doesn't have access to the Tau Firebase?

Note: I have left out Stronghold Assault on purpose because each army except Nids has access to these rules. I think that Stronghold could be allowed in tournaments fairly, so long as[u] Nids are allowed to use them in the same way the other armies in the game do. That way every army has equal access.

There are no rules forbidding Nids from using SA. Not even forbidding Nids from shooting emplaced weapons (anymore).

Why is this so hard?

Each army has a codex, each army has access to fortification. The codicies are (in theory) play tested and point costed appropriately.

I am not saying that I agree with how units are costed, there are an almost endless list of example of both over and under costed units and GW is to blame for their failings in this departments.

What I am driving at is the simple idea that in competitive game, each army needs equal resources to draw from.

Every army has a codex so use that to build an army with.

Each army can use all the fortifications now so include that in competitive play.

Anything else that is not EQUALLY available to every army, only serves to imbalance the game further than what the inherent codex based differences are.

I am ok with armies being better at one thing and worse at others, specialization gives us variety, instead of playing really expensive, complicated chess. But there is a vast difference between specialization, and out right breaking the rules and doing something no one else can. aka create units, teleport in out of a flyer with laser accuracy and not actually be there, rally and act as moral when falling back, etc.

Allies is widely accepted in the 40k world and I know this would never fly, but allies are another part of the game that is not equally distributed. I would be fine with tournaments events being "no allies" as it again brings the game back toward a state where everyone has equal access to all tools needed to compete. (Yes I realize this would hamper many weaker armies, please don't blast me with this fact, it is obvious to everyone, I am just stating that in order to have fair competition everyone needs the same restrictions)

 IK Viper wrote:
Why is this so hard?

Each army has a codex, each army has access to fortification. The codicies are (in theory) play tested and point costed appropriately.

It's "so hard" because you keep trotting this out as if it's true. It's demonstrably not.

What I am driving at is the simple idea that in competitive game, each army needs equal resources to draw from.

Every army has a codex so use that to build an army with.

Each army can use all the fortifications now so include that in competitive play.

Anything else that is not EQUALLY available to every army, only serves to imbalance the game further than what the inherent codex based differences are.

Again, what codex doesn't have access to the Tau Firebase? Or Skyblight?

Essentially what rigeld said. The thought that codices are playtested and appropriately costed is a false premise, so using it as the basis for your argument is where you fall apart.

Your notion that all armies have equal resources is incorrect unless you allow allies, and formations etc. If not than Sisters have far fewer resources than say eldar (there are fewer units in their codex, and most of those units are fairly similar).

You could argue that use of formations and allies, blances the game more than the inherent codex based difference. i.e. Skyblight Nids stand a chance against eldar, which they don't really otherwise.

 IK Viper wrote:

Some formations are not as bad as others, but that is not the point, Codexes should not require a formation/ dataslate to be competitive.

But this is simply not the case. Some codexes are just bad and need something to put them on par with the top tier codexes.

GW prefers to write codexes that, in theory, are "fluffy" and allow you to create armies that match the 40K universe. However, this translates to some codexes simply lacking the firepower or durability to match other codexes. And, in other cases, allows players to make combinations that simply make it impossible to lose, especially if they go first.

If you want a more balanced game, go try Warmachine. However, if you want to play competitive 40k, expect rulings by TOs to level the playing field. You may agree with some. You may disagree with others.

Heck - remember that in 7th CtA allies can be in the same army. And there's not a huge penalty for doing so (over what Desperate Allies already is).

So literally every army has access to literally every formation. Literally every army has access to literally every model in the game.

Crying about some having access and some not is being willfully incorrect.

If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.


Maybe I am not aware of the force org requirements for Formation as I have only skimmed it once, knowing that I would never use them but surely there is at least some requirement that you be Convenient Allis to use a formation right? Has the game really gone that far that you can literally pull in what ever you want, from where ever you want in a Battle Forged list? And if so, does this not seem really silly, like you said, there is very,very little difference between Desprate and Apoc. allies. There is basically no structure/ usefulness at all to the Allies Matrix to begin with unless your BB's, I was at least hoping there was some restrictions governing formations.

Why even bother with classifying things into codexes and force org slots at this point? Why not just publish one big book with all the units in the game in it and say "take whatever you want, but make sure you have an HQ and 2 troops, " (this is Battle Forged) or "take what ever, just have an HQ," this is Unbound.

Unbound would sadly create a balanced game since every one can take everything, but at that point what army you play/ all the fluff and flavor of each army, becomes basically worthless. 40k becomes one homogenous mass of unit entries that you mash together into a combat force.

At that point, he/she who cherry picks best, stands the best chance of winning, but at least we are all cooking with the same ingredients.

To me you either need to limit everyone to their codex and fortifications, or go completely unbound. Either of these if closer to actual balance in 40k than what we have now. Problem is, we all like to build/ play/ and be proud of our armies and Unbound undermines that. So the other option is sticking strictly to the codex and Stronghold.

All these suggestions are very extreme and quite harsh, but it makes much more sense then the "GW giveth and taketh away," approach where GW picks which armies rise and fall in power in order to sell the newest models/ army and we simply accept everything they pump out without question.

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

How is list building not a player skill?

And when literally everyone has access to literally every unit in every codex how is that not balanced?

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

Should be and ARE, unfortunately are not the same. If you think this has been the case for 40k you have been wrong going on at least 3 editions now. List building is one of the largest parts of the game right now. If you want another type of competition you need to seek it elsewhere. I have no illusions about things being equal and decided purely on skill. I have illusions that I can play enjoyable games against other skilled players, and that sometimes things just aren't fair.

Just the way things are, but railing on about what is SUPPOSED to be the case, doesn't make it the case, and banning allies, formations, data slates, Forgeworld, Lords of War, Warp charges, or anything else isn't going to change this. In fact I would argue going to "one codex only" would only amplify some of the issues in the current game. Right now what needs to be looked at is making the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, if you want balanced, unfortuantely nothing you can do short of rewriting a lot of the game will achieve that.

Breng77 wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

Should be and ARE, unfortunately are not the same. If you think this has been the case for 40k you have been wrong going on at least 3 editions now. List building is one of the largest parts of the game right now. If you want another type of competition you need to seek it elsewhere. I have no illusions about things being equal and decided purely on skill. I have illusions that I can play enjoyable games against other skilled players, and that sometimes things just aren't fair.

Just the way things are, but railing on about what is SUPPOSED to be the case, doesn't make it the case, and banning allies, formations, data slates, Forgeworld, Lords of War, Warp charges, or anything else isn't going to change this. In fact I would argue going to "one codex only" would only amplify some of the issues in the current game. Right now what needs to be looked at is making the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, if you want balanced, unfortunately nothing you can do short of rewriting a lot of the game will achieve that.

Sounds like you agree with me in that 40k in it's current state is not balanced. The logical response to a video game imbalance is a Patch. Some times the game dev. team won't patch the game or goes out of business. Sound familiar to anyone who has played DoW 2? So what did the competitive community do? ELITE MOD. Which has been revisited and redone many, many times, and will never be a perfectly balanced game, but by the same token, has become the widely accepted form of the game for competitive play. If they can do it, why not 40K? ELITE mod is way better than the retail game in terms of game balance because it is done by people that actually play the game and have no financial stake in game sales.

What is the 40k analog of the DoW2 ELITE mod? Community implemented comp, targeted at balancing the game. But before anyone can take up the task of trying to change the game via comp. we as a community need to first see the problem and acknowledge that a "Patch" is needed. Rather then accepting and assimilating everything GW gives us in to competitive play. Formations, Dataslates, Supplements, etc. are all essentially DLC that GW is pumping out and most of it is ok, some of it is utter garbage and we the discerning community need to either make it a point to filter the good from the bad, or if not filter them, at least stop all of these analog DLC products GW is pushing on the community. After all Exterminatus is the only way to be sure...

 IK Viper wrote:
What is the 40k analog of the DoW2 ELITE mod? Community implemented comp, targeted at balancing the game. But before anyone can take up the task of trying to change the game via comp. we as a community need to first see the problem and acknowledge that a "Patch" is needed. Rather then accepting and assimilating everything GW gives us in to competitive play. Formations, Dataslates, Supplements, etc. are all essentially DLC that GW is pumping out and most of it is ok, some of it is utter garbage and we the discerning community need to either make it a point to filter the good from the bad, or if not filter them, at least stop all of these analog DLC products GW is pushing on the community. After all Exterminatus is the only way to be sure...

Tell me - what major tournaments have played 7th edition yet? Zero.
So other than assuming, how do we know what problems are going to exist? We don't.
I'm not saying there won't be problems - there will. But you're making some wild accusations and assumptions here.
And what does any of that have to do with your original premise?

 IK Viper wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
If you do not subscribe to the idea that each point spent in a codex is SUPPOSED to equal a point spent in another codex, how do you see 40k as anything more than an exercise in jumping from codex to codex seeking the most efficient combos possible? That is by and large what it has turned into, but it should not be. Competition should be about ... competition, actually playing the game, not list building. Anyone can net list, the player skill involved in the game should be the deciding factor, not the list or army.

Should be and ARE, unfortunately are not the same. If you think this has been the case for 40k you have been wrong going on at least 3 editions now. List building is one of the largest parts of the game right now. If you want another type of competition you need to seek it elsewhere. I have no illusions about things being equal and decided purely on skill. I have illusions that I can play enjoyable games against other skilled players, and that sometimes things just aren't fair.

Just the way things are, but railing on about what is SUPPOSED to be the case, doesn't make it the case, and banning allies, formations, data slates, Forgeworld, Lords of War, Warp charges, or anything else isn't going to change this. In fact I would argue going to "one codex only" would only amplify some of the issues in the current game. Right now what needs to be looked at is making the game enjoyable for as many people as possible, if you want balanced, unfortunately nothing you can do short of rewriting a lot of the game will achieve that.

Sounds like you agree with me in that 40k in it's current state is not balanced. The logical response to a video game imbalance is a Patch. Some times the game dev. team won't patch the game or goes out of business. Sound familiar to anyone who has played DoW 2? So what did the competitive community do? ELITE MOD. Which has been revisited and redone many, many times, and will never be a perfectly balanced game, but by the same token, has become the widely accepted form of the game for competitive play. If they can do it, why not 40K? ELITE mod is way better than the retail game in terms of game balance because it is done by people that actually play the game and have no financial stake in game sales.

What is the 40k analog of the DoW2 ELITE mod? Community implemented comp, targeted at balancing the game. But before anyone can take up the task of trying to change the game via comp. we as a community need to first see the problem and acknowledge that a "Patch" is needed. Rather then accepting and assimilating everything GW gives us in to competitive play. Formations, Dataslates, Supplements, etc. are all essentially DLC that GW is pumping out and most of it is ok, some of it is utter garbage and we the discerning community need to either make it a point to filter the good from the bad, or if not filter them, at least stop all of these analog DLC products GW is pushing on the community. After all Exterminatus is the only way to be sure...

I agree with you that the game is not balanced....where I disagree is the method you think will "balance it", I agree we could patch, if the community could agree, but I think there are things in codices/core rules that need patching more than Conjuration, more than Formations, more than Data Slates. Why am I patching Skyblight (arguably a patch that allows nids to compete), by removing it and saying...hey those wave serpents they're ok. Oh those conjuration powers, need to ban them, but 2++ re-rolls are ok. Invisibility...gotta change that one, but Fortune, we can leave that alone.

I think the game needs a near wholesale rewrite in many aspects, that we just are not going to see.

Also we lack playtesting to determine "broken" yet, how many years/games did it take before Elite MOD was put out? I'm guessing more than one month.

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
AP 1 weapons (do they have any I don't recall but I'm pretty sure they don't)

Nope. Our only AP1 (Warp Lance) was nerfed with the new codex.
And now that I say that I'm not sure it was AP1 in the old codex - I never ran Zoeys.

2.) Even the Powerful Tau formation pays a price in opportunity cost (sure it is composed of powerful units, and is over powered, but so are other things in the game.), in that it limits what other units you can take because you run out of points. This assumption that you need to take a terrible unit as cost is false, Draigo is hardly terrible, Azreal = not terrible, Chaptermaster on bike to unlock bikes etc. The cost is not "I buy this terrible unit" its "I cannot buy something else because I spent points on x."

That's only true if you weren't going to take those units in the first place.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the Broadsides and a Riptide?

What does this have to do with the original post?

The conversation has gone from gaining mid-game units to formations, to whether or not 1 point in fact is equal to another point. There appears to be a collective feeling that summoning units if fine, that Formations are fine, and that nothing needs to be done, while at the same time basically everyone on this thread has agreed with me and said that 40k out of the box in NOT balanced. Yet no one but me is advocating any sort of action to correct the issue.

My initial post was aimed at getting people to consider not just "oh look what a cool new trick I can do with my CD's," but to look at the entire game and see if we really want more units being created mid-game in 40k. Is this type of thing healthy for the game from a competitive standpoint? I was hoping to convince people that points do in fact count for something and that creating more in the middle of the game is not ok. It has never been ok, but in typical GW addict fashion we as a community have allowed this stuff in the game since 3rd ed. and it is getting to the point that if we do not step up and stop this trend, it will only get worse as GW more aggressively attempts to render the game into a children's bedroom pass time. The link between the points you bring to the table, and the effectiveness of your army is getting looser and looser. Some armies can easily create more points in game while others cannot. Some armies can take formations and gains more useful special rules, and others cannot. Where does it stop?

The only way for it to ever stop is with community involvement. Hence the ELITE Mod example.
No action, and no complaint against the status quo = you approve of what GW is doing.

Also: No action, no complaining, or thoughtlessly embracing everything GW puts out without evaluating if these new things are good not just for you, but the game as a whole = approving of what GW is doing, or at the very least being selfish because you are only concerned about the power of your own army.

And we have all collectively established that GW has published an unbalanced game so none of use should be approving of what they are doing right?

You do realize only one army (without allies) is incapable of creating new units, and all fo them can take formations. You are also the only one arguing that it needs to stop. Like I said a ton of other stuff IMO needs fixing before I feel the need to address what you are concerned with.

 IK Viper wrote:
The conversation has gone from gaining mid-game units to formations, to whether or not 1 point in fact is equal to another point. There appears to be a collective feeling that summoning units if fine, that Formations are fine, and that nothing needs to be done, while at the same time basically everyone on this thread has agreed with me and said that 40k out of the box in NOT balanced. Yet no one but me is advocating any sort of action to correct the issue.

Because we have no real evidence that there's a problem with any one thing - or what that problem is. Banning/"comping" before you even know what problems exist is just dumb.

I was hoping to convince people that points do in fact count for something and that creating more in the middle of the game is not ok. It has never been ok, but in typical GW addict fashion we as a community have allowed this stuff in the game since 3rd ed. and it is getting to the point that if we do not step up and stop this trend, it will only get worse as GW more aggressively attempts to render the game into a children's bedroom pass time.

I have a 1000 point unit that does nothing on its own, but creates a Hive Tyrant per turn.
Creating units is fine as long as the creating unit is costed with the expectation that it will create units. (in other words, the 5th ed. Tervigon was too cheap, the 6th edition one is slightly too expensive).

Some armies can easily create more points in game while others cannot.

I assume (from your other sentences) that by armies you mean codexes.
This might be true, but is irrelevant.

Some armies can take formations and gains more useful special rules, and others cannot.

This is completely wrong. Have you read the new allies rules?

The only way for it to ever stop is with community involvement.

If there's a problem, sure. But how do you know that what you're bringing up is an actual problem?

Breng77 wrote:
You do realize only one army (without allies) is incapable of creating new units, and all fo them can take formations. You are also the only one arguing that it needs to stop. Like I said a ton of other stuff IMO needs fixing before I feel the need to address what you are concerned with.

I am assuming you are referring to the fact that all but GK can use Malific.

How many armies have Warp charge to actually use those powers? Never mind the fluff heresy involved.

rigeld2 => besides nit picking my statements, what is YOUR point, what is your suggestion to fix 40k. Do you not want/expect a game where 1 point of Eldar = 1 point of Sisters? We are paying customers who have a right to expect a game that offers a variety of equally powerful armies. The balance will never be exact, but certainly we should expect better than what we now have? Formations may be GW's way of "fixing" Nids, but if that were the case they have neglected many other armies along the way. I am a paying customer and I have a right to expect a consistent, quality product every time, and if GW is going to create content to help one race, they should do it for every race or not at all.

I for one am leery of the "wait and see" approach because people get used to playing the game one way (regardless of how broken something is or is not) and changing the way they paly after a few months is not going to be easy, much cleaner for the community to act now and limit the spread of this renewable resource cancer that is spreading through 40k.

BTW: when I say "create a formation for each army," I do NOT mean, just allow every army to ally in that formation. I mean GW should create an equally powerful formation for each army. Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete.

The issue is what you are suggesting does not ammount to 1 point of Eldar = 1 Point of Sisters.

What you are suggesting causes fewer armies to rise to the top and thus makes the game more imbalanced. I just don't understand the "Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete. " train of thought. So nids should not get to use official rules that improve their book because other codices don't yet have these rules?

SO you would prefer Eldar Dominaton, followed by maybe GK, Daemons, Tau, SM, AM...then have a bunch of bottom tier armies like BA, DA, Nids and Sisters. Rather than throwing in some rules and having a smaller bottom tier of BA, DA, Sisters (all assuming no allies, because guess what all those armies other than nids get that nids don't: battle Brothers.) and raising nids up the ladder.

In fact one could argue that Battle Brothers is the things that those other armies have that makes them higher tier than they would otherwise be.

 IK Viper wrote:
rigeld2 => besides nit picking my statements, what is YOUR point, what is your suggestion to fix 40k.

Aside from armchair generaling, prove it's broken.
Now, before you get all uppity about that statement, remember that small metas are going to shake out differently from large tournaments. We have literally zero knowledge of what's going to rule the tables at 7th edition tournaments. We can make educated guesses (ie - Sisters won't be up there) but preemtively banning/buffing things because they seem good is silly.
Want an example?

Vehicles just got significantly better. So what needs to go up in number for competitive armies? Anti-Armor weapons. Eldar Wave Serpents were at the top of the power curve before, mainly because of the Serpent Shield and the fact that Anti-Armor weapons weren't as prevalent. Maybe - just maybe - more anti-armor will equal out the power of Wave Serpents. (They can't fire the shield because they need it for the 2+ "save" so it's truly a survivability vs damage scenario) We won't know how that shakes out for at least a couple of major events.

Do you not want/expect a game where 1 point of Eldar = 1 point of Sisters? We are paying customers who have a right to expect a game that offers a variety of equally powerful armies. The balance will never be exact, but certainly we should expect better than what we now have? Formations may be GW's way of "fixing" Nids, but if that were the case they have neglected many other armies along the way. I am a paying customer and I have a right to expect a consistent, quality product every time, and if GW is going to create content to help one race, they should do it for every race or not at all.

You sure do. I'm not saying you shouldn't expect it. You can only expect it from GW so many times before I start to quote the definition of insanity at you (repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result)

I'm not telling you to play a different game - there's hundreds of reasons not to. But expecting GW to publish a balanced and well written rule set is, at this point, insane.

BTW: when I say "create a formation for each army," I do NOT mean, just allow every army to ally in that formation. I mean GW should create an equally powerful formation for each army. Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete.

So allies should be ignored when discussing balance? Yeah - no. That's not how you actually balance things. You need to look at all options - and allies is an option.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is what you are suggesting does not ammount to 1 point of Eldar = 1 Point of Sisters.

What you are suggesting causes fewer armies to rise to the top and thus makes the game more imbalanced. I just don't understand the "Until BA, SoB, DA, etc. have something that makes them top tier, Nids have no right to whine that they need formations to compete. " train of thought. So nids should not get to use official rules that improve their book because other codices don't yet have these rules?

SO you would prefer Eldar Dominaton, followed by maybe GK, Daemons, Tau, SM, AM...then have a bunch of bottom tier armies like BA, DA, Nids and Sisters. Rather than throwing in some rules and having a smaller bottom tier of BA, DA, Sisters (all assuming no allies, because guess what all those armies other than nids get that nids don't: battle Brothers.) and raising nids up the ladder.

In fact one could argue that Battle Brothers is the things that those other armies have that makes them higher tier than they would otherwise be.

Except that in your list of bottom tier armies, 3 of the 4 are battle brothers with three of the top tier armies, so it isnt necessarily battle brothers that are the problem so much as the ability for things to interact.

Even then I am not seeing many that are really bad. Most of the assumed top tier armies right now actually work the best running as a solo book, or with minimal allies. Allies just help the other books be propped up a bit.

As has been said by many a TO, conjuration powers will solve themselves. They are not conductive to a tournament setting, they are not going to win for a variety of reasons. If they are not going to win then they are not likely to be played often and will sort themselves out IMO.

rigeld2: the difference between a formation and an ally, is that an allied detachment is derived from another codex, using units that are points costed according to that dex, and limited to the rules that unit was initially costed for. I have a problem with things that alter/ enhance units from an existing codex.

For example:
You can ally in a tactical squad all day, but you have no right to ally in a tactical squad with FNP and Deepstrike at the same cost as the original squad.

In relation to Nids:

There is no reason you can't do double force org now and take roughly the same units as the Skyblight formation. That is completely fine, just don't ask for extra rules on top of the existing units and not expect to have to pay more for said units.

Tau Empire can't generate new allies and can't use Malefic Daemonology or any Psychic powers at all without allies.

And they don't Battle Brothers ally to ANY psykers, so they can't even benefit peripherally from most powers.

Just as an FYI. GK aren't the only ones who can't spawn additional mobs.

 Kriswall wrote:
Tau Empire can't generate new allies and can't use Malefic Daemonology or any Psychic powers at all without allies.

And they don't Battle Brothers ally to ANY psykers, so they can't even benefit peripherally from most powers.

Just as an FYI. GK aren't the only ones who can't spawn additional mobs.

Necrons here o/

Fact checking aside, the point is that there are many armies that either do not have the warp charge, or do not have the psychers period, in order to create units, fluff and personal reservations aside.

 Kriswall wrote:
Tau Empire can't generate new allies and can't use Malefic Daemonology or any Psychic powers at all without allies.

And they don't Battle Brothers ally to ANY psykers, so they can't even benefit peripherally from most powers.

Just as an FYI. GK aren't the only ones who can't spawn additional mobs.

a

So dont get invested in the arms race, get a talisman for the maledictions that might be thrown your way and then spend the rest of the points on ALL THE DAKKA

Shooting will work in every game, psykers wont.

 IK Viper wrote:
rigeld2: the difference between a formation and an ally, is that an allied detachment is derived from another codex, using units that are points costed according to that dex, and limited to the rules that unit was initially costed for. I have a problem with things that alter/ enhance units from an existing codex.

For example:
You can ally in a tactical squad all day, but you have no right to ally in a tactical squad with FNP and Deepstrike at the same cost as the original squad.

In relation to Nids:

There is no reason you can't do double force org now and take roughly the same units as the Skyblight formation. That is completely fine, just don't ask for extra rules on top of the existing units and not expect to have to pay more for said units.

but I can ally in a tactical squad with fnp for no additional cost, or hit and run, or re-roll ones to but or.....all for no additional cost (or at least some assumption that all chapter tactics are of the same value. In fact if I play BA I can ally in those things for less points than my tactical squad. I can also ally in psykers into armies with no psykers which then benefit from, psychic powers when they are not point costed for that synergy etc......or I can ally in battle bros to access special rules my codex does not otherwise have and was not costed for .

Essentially your argument is taking the units is ok, but if I receive some sort of advantage for taking specific units, that is bad....sorry but this is no longer the case, and as far as I can tell formations lead to a more balanced game right now not a less balanced one.

You are pointing to chapter tactics as if they are not already in the codex and considered when pricing the unti. CT are in the SM codex right now, no formation needed. You pay the same points for each chapter but they each have different CT based abilities, that should in theory (not in practice) be of equal value.

Let me be very specific then. If you buy a IH Tac. Squad, you pay X points. You should not be able to go get a formation that allows you to buy that same IH Tac. Squad for the X points, but now that squad respawns from their board edge on a 4+ Surely you do not think this would be ok, because if it is I want to run this at the next event you host.

I am not saying that Gargs are as good as Tac. Marines, but the principle is the same.

 IK Viper wrote:
You are pointing to chapter tactics as if they are not already in the codex. CT are in the SM codex right now, no formation needed. You pay the same points for each chapter but they each have different CT based abilities.

Let me be very specific then. If you buy a IH Tac. Squad, you pay X points. You should not be able to go get a formation that allows you to buy that same IH Tac. Squad for the X points, but now that squad respawns from their board edge on a 4+ Surely you do not think this would be ok, because if it is I want to run this at the next event you host.

I am not saying that Gargs are as good as Tac. Marines, but the principle is the same.

Do you understand the concept of Opportunity Cost?

Being shoehorned into certain selections to unlock certain bonus rules comes with a cost, the cost is anything you would have bought with the points that have effectively been selected for you. Is every formation etc balanced, no, but certainly no worse than the original book. If I am forced to select X number of Units, I'm losing out on everything I could have bought with those points. Sometimes they are even subpar units, all comes with an opportunity cost

Remember, Warmachine does this too... Field X units in combination with Y Warcaster, receive Z bonus benefit.



This is also a thread about Conjuring, which comes at a steep Opportunity Cost, all of those points spent on Psykers could have been spent on something else, and all of those Warp Charges could have been used to cast something else.


Using your Ironhands example, if that formation etc required me to down many points on subpar units it could very well be acceptable. The ability to resplendent Tacticals would require a pretty steep cost in requirements, and if well balanced would be far far from an automatic decision.

Opportunity Cost, I strongly suggest you look it up.

When we set down to play a game of 40k we must agree between ourselves that we are willing to at least pretend that 1 point of any codex is equal to one point of another codex. (this is how it should be, as we all agree)
We all know this not to be true, but we must assume this if we play with equal points. If we do not agree to function as if 1 point is equal across all books, then we MUST, agree on what sort of exchange rate we need to set up in order to have a fair game.

If you believe that 1 point of Orks is worth 1/2 a point of Eldar then Orks need to have 2 times the points of the Eldar player in order to have a fair game where both sides have equal resources.

We obviously do not do this, so we are all at least subconsciously agreeing to the idea that 1 point is inherently equal, otherwise we would not apply the same points limit to every army equally.

Same goes for a codex. GW assigns the points values of things in this game, and they do a spotty job of it too, but again, in order for use to cling to the concept that each player should bring an equal number of points to a game, (with the intent being to create a situation where both players have equal resources) we must accept this basic assumption of point equality.

By saying "lets play 1850," we are agreeing that we both feel that if both armies have 1850 points to spend, each player will end up having roughly the same amount of resources, thus making the game fair.

This assumption of equality must apply to all units, and all codices, otherwise the assumption breaks down. I am not trying to convince anyone that this is in fact the case. I would agree that a Wave Serpent brings more resources to the table than a Baal Predator, despite being roughly the same points cost. However, if we as a community want fair games, and want to cling to the concept of each army bringing the same number of points to a game in order to achieve this fair game, we must at least agree between ourselves to act and function as if 1 point is equal across all of 40k, otherwise the equal points limit system we have in place utterly falls on it's face.

We in the community often complain that a unit is over or under costed. This complaint stems from our desire for 1 point to be of equal value across the 40k universe. This is a gripe about how GW has assigned points costs up front. There is a great difference between this, and complaining about the functional improvement in a unit while maintaining the same cost. GW either needs to FAQ the main codex Gargs to be cheaper, or increase the cost of the Skyblight version, in order to insure there is in fact a correlation between points and the resources they purchase, but without a direct correlation between points cost and a unit's functional usefulness on the table, again, the whole assumption that we should both bring the same amount of points to a game is false and we need to work out some form of exchange rate to create a fair game.

With this assumption in mind, there is no opportunity cost, The points used on Harpies for example, take a different form, but represent the same amount of resources on the table. That is why I am opposed to a previously costed unit, getting more rules without costing more points. It is illogical. If we are to believe that 1 point of Codex Gargs. is equal to 1 point of Skybligh Gargs, there can be absolutely no difference in how they function on the table, but their is. This is a direct, and blatant violation of the points equality assumption, an assumption that is required to be true if we are to continue to play games with exactly equal points limits.

In summary, if we agree to bring the same point value army to a game, we are operating under the assumption that points carry the same weight and value across all of 40k. We may not consciously feel this way, or we may avoid pointing out the logical error in the current system just to allow things to move quickly and smoothly (it is a game after all), but at it's core we are at least agreeing to function as if all points translate into equal resources on the table. We all know this is NOT true, but we currently function under a system that assumes this.

 IK Viper wrote:
You are pointing to chapter tactics as if they are not already in the codex and considered when pricing the unti. CT are in the SM codex right now, no formation needed. You pay the same points for each chapter but they each have different CT based abilities, that should in theory (not in practice) be of equal value.

Let me be very specific then. If you buy a IH Tac. Squad, you pay X points. You should not be able to go get a formation that allows you to buy that same IH Tac. Squad for the X points, but now that squad respawns from their board edge on a 4+ Surely you do not think this would be ok, because if it is I want to run this at the next event you host.

I am not saying that Gargs are as good as Tac. Marines, but the principle is the same.

You just have an insane double standard between..."It's in the codex" and "It is somewhere else." The Theory that all CT are equivalent and as such you are getting nothing for "free" is silly. Saying that it is OK because selecting your chapter at no cost, has apparently been slotted into the points cost of every unit (Which if we compare to the most base marine the Chaos Space Marine at 13 points) means you think things like ATSKNF, Auto pass dangerous terrain, and hit and run are worth 1 point. Of ATSKNF, 6+ FNP and IWND on Vehicles and Characters,....

I get that Respawn on a 4+ is a good rule, but are you saying that if this was a chapter tactic it would somehow be ok?

at which point we are discussing what is and is not broken, and not are formations the problem.

You just seem to have set an arbitrary standard that the codex rules are somehow balanced, and anything that adds rules to them is broken.

Either you want to play a balanced game...at which point you need to rewrite rules from the codex up, re-point cost nearly everything, and play test a ton.

Or you just have some vision of how "The Game Should be" that you want to force on people and it has nothing to do with balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IK Viper wrote:
When we set down to play a game of 40k we must agree between ourselves that we are willing to at least pretend that 1 point of any codex is equal to one point of another codex. (this is how it should be, as we all agree)
We all know this not to be true, but we must assume this if we play with equal points. If we do not agree to function as if 1 point is equal across all books, then we MUST, agree on what sort of exchange rate we need to set up in order to have a fair game.

If you believe that 1 point of Orks is worth 1/2 a point of Eldar then Orks need to have 2 times the points of the Eldar player in order to have a fair game where both sides have equal resources.

We obviously do not do this, so we are all at least subconsciously agreeing to the idea that 1 point is inherently equal, otherwise we would not apply the same points limit to every army equally.

Same goes for a codex. GW assigns the points values of things in this game, and they do a spotty job of it too, but again, in order for use to cling to the concept that each player should bring an equal number of points to a game, (with the intent being to create a situation where both players have equal resources) we must accept this basic assumption of point equality.

By saying "lets play 1850," we are agreeing that we both feel that if both armies have 1850 points to spend, each player will end up having roughly the same amount of resources, thus making the game fair.

This assumption of equality must apply to all units, and all codices, otherwise the assumption breaks down. I am not trying to convince anyone that this is in fact the case. I would agree that a Wave Serpent brings more resources to the table than a Baal Predator, despite being roughly the same points cost. However, if we as a community want fair games, and want to cling to the concept of each bringing the same number of points to a game in order to achieve this fair game, we must at least agree between ourselves to act and function as if 1 point is equal across all of 40k, otherwise the equal points limit system we have in place utterly falls on it's face.

With this assumption in mind, there is no opportunity cost, The points used on Harpies for example, take a different form, but represent the same amount of resources on the table. That is why I am opposed to a previously costed unit, getting more rules without costing more points. It is illogical. If we are to believe that 1 point of Codex Gargs. is equal to 1 point of Skybligh Gargs, there can be absolutely no difference in how they function on the table, but their is. This is a direct, and blatant violation of the points equality assumption, an assumption that is required to be true if we are to continue to play games with exactly equal points limits.

Again your assumptions are incorrect. The reason we say "we are all playing 1850" is not because we believe it is fair, it is because an exchange rate system in competitive play is either overly complex, or unworkable. Either you need to find some kind of balance between all books such that x points of Orks= y points of Sisters = z points of Eldar = and so on or you need every codex to be compared individually and players to bring lists based on each army they face, and enough models to make it work. Both of these are fairly unreasonable so we accept "the game is not balanced and if you play BA you are probably going to lose....sorrry."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also by your argument if we believe that 1 point of Gargoyles = 1 point of something that costs the same points. There should be no difference in their function or performance on the table.

Essentially take "Formation" out of the question if Nids got gargoyles, and then Codex Hive Fleet Behemoth was released (simmilar to say DA and SM) and Hive fleet behemoth Gargoyles got the skyblight rules (much like Codex SM get Chapter Tactics when DA don't) would that be ok?