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.

My biggest problems with formations (other than that they are/will turn into a moneygrab) is that they don't affect the FOC.
I mean... if they intend to continue make stuff better by using them in dataslates, which is very likely, why even have a FOC at all? It does not have to be excessive but at least make them noticeable. Cypher or Belakor could take up a HQ slot and still be pretty awesome (or 1 elite slot if you go with Cyphers formation maybe).

Now the real power in these formations/dataslates is to make crappy units at least viable. Helbrute formations is a great example of this. Not only are they playable but they are also fluffy and fun. Sadly more than a few of the dataslates (that i've read) is not aimed at units that needs buffs.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SM Tac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.

Except you have no idea what you're taking about. A 10 man tac squad from either army with a plasmagun and missile launcher with veteran sgt is 180 pts. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to whine about random things. The only thing the current marines have other the Blood angels is more options. These options will surely follow into the Blood Angel codex when it is released again.

BA HAVE to take the vet sarge. They HAVE to be a full ten man to get ANY weapon upgrades. They also, as you say, have less weapon options, and lack any form of chapter tactics (unless you roll a 6 for the squad at the start of the game to grant them FC). All of these combined make them FAR less flexible than a vanilla tac squad.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:

A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SM Tac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.

Except you have no idea what you're taking about. A 10 man tac squad from either army with a plasmagun and missile launcher with veteran sgt is 180 pts. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to whine about random things. The only thing the current marines have other the Blood angels is more options. These options will surely follow into the Blood Angel codex when it is released again.

Grav? TFCs? WTH are you talking about?

I really don't get the point of this thread. To the OP: how many times have you actually played at a competitive venue? Dakkadakka is full of whining in theory with little real experience behind the imagined offense.

Almost every GT has already limited or banned formations
Most RTTs have done the same
Any club can do the same

What's the problem? It's like whining about the ingredients in a dish that other people like. If it really is good, that's why they like it. If it isn't, don't eat it. If your local meta likes formations then the majority are having fun with them and it's all good. If most don't like them, they won't use them. Again, where are you actually experiencing this problem?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
Well, I for one agree with the opening post. The whole Dataslate policy and those plug-in supplements that the IoM is being buried in (Knights, Tempestus, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, - to be continued) can only be described as a huge scam by GW and I will not pay a single cent as long as they keep this up.

You should see all the allies they had in 2nd edition if you for a second think they're being buried now. Space Marines (and this is before they split into a bunch of separate codexes) allied with: Imperial Agents (which included: Adeptus Arbites, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, Officio Assassinorum and the Inquisition), Imperial Guard, Squats and Eldar the same way regardless of any distrust you might expect between those factions.

Each of those Imperial Agents could basically be a mini-codex these days. Honestly it looks more like GW is pushing to go back to the more open ended feel of RT and 2nd Edition where the game is a tool box for playing whatever you want (something that's supported by the "Spirit of the Game" in the early part of the core rule book) rather than just having to play one specific way.

Can't claim to be a veteran of those days gone by, so enlighten me: Did GW charge you 30 bucks for every single one of them or was there some sort of imperial codex for all of this...? I don't have a problem with these supporting troops. I have a problem with paying for a full codex every time i want to use a single unit that belonged into the dex in the first place.
If GW released something along the lines of "Codex: Auxilliaries" where all the things I named were bundled and had their rules as additions to IoM factions, this would be OK i think. Inquisition could have been combined with SoB, LotD could have been part of SM, Stromies should be part of IG, but whatever. It makes sense that these subfactions are lend-leased to other imperial forces. Making them a single expansion-dex would be fair enough.
Releasing formations as dataslates and tons of supplements that can be boiled down to two pages of rules is just a rip-off, nothing else.
I'm not a competetive player. Mostly, I just play orks vs a buddy of mine for fun, so even without the ballance issues and the implications for tournament play, this is not ok with me.

I played in 2nd and the only army I recall having built in allies was IG (up to 25% could have been Eldar/Squat and maybe SM allies). Anything else was as far as I remember a mutual agreement with your opponent and not something you could just show up with. Possibly assassins after they were revamped but not like there is now.

 Kosake wrote:

Can't claim to be a veteran of those days gone by, so enlighten me: Did GW charge you 30 bucks for every single one of them or was there some sort of imperial codex for all of this...? I don't have a problem with these supporting troops. I have a problem with paying for a full codex every time i want to use a single unit that belonged into the dex in the first place.

It varied a lot. Some were from articles in White Dwarf or Citadel Journal (and some of those were later summarised in annual supplements for about £10). There were basic army lists included in the 2E boxed game, including odd ones like Genestealer Cults or Adeptus Arbites. Imperial Guard and Sisters had their own full codexes, and imperial assassins got a mini-codex at half the usual price (for 4 units).
There was little in the way of 'free' rules, at the very least you had to buy WD or something. But everything back then was in print so it's hard to compare with today. On the other hand they also threw out tons of ideas that weren't tied to product releases. Converting and scratch-building models was actively encouraged back then, so if someone in the studio had a crazy new idea he'd just type up some rules in an afternoon, get them thrown in WD or Citadel Journal and that would be that.

Between current technology and their pricing model, I personally think GW are missing out on a huge opportunity. Rules should be used to push the game and model sales, and therefore should be free whenever possible. GW have the capability these days to throw out free PDFs with formation rules on their website to encourage people into buying new models. They can offer premium versions on iPads and such with interactive features, but should keep in mind that these still exist to push model sales, and offer then at pocket money / app store style prices.
These days I'd say that even codexes should be offered for free to some extent, as a PDF download with reduced content and lots of product photos. That way bored players can casually browse through other codexes and get excited over things they like, giving them cause to start a new army. If they're feeling really flush they can then buy the paid version of the codex, as either a hard-backed book or interactive app with army builder.

It's a shame GW's business model leans more towards the idea of "charge as much as you possibly can", regardless of what they're selling. It's sad and very short-sighted.

 xttz wrote:
It's a shame GW's business model leans more towards the idea of "charge as much as you possibly can", regardless of what they're selling. It's sad and very short-sighted.

Unfortunately they are unable to see that this method is not working for them.
We are not in a position to know either.
All I can do is look at my own behavior: try to find a way to get a peek at the Dataslate and see if it is anything I would want.
Typically the answer is no.
Using Black Templar and Imperial Guard I have not used any Dataslates so-far.
I feel no need to buy these as a collector for "completeness" since they seem to be "spamming" product and the quality does not equal the money.
They also clearly state in their business plan that their customer base is not concerned with cost and only concerned with "collecting high quality GW models".
Codex's and all the other material is not even acknowledged as another major revenue stream even though looking at cost, it clearly is (cost to make vs. sales price).

The formations are bad because they seem to be made as one-offs unto themselves and seem to have no consideration to the overall impact to the game = cash grab is the perception.

I want books.

kronk wrote:I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.

kronk wrote:I just want rules in a book.

kronk wrote:Compile them in a book!

kronk wrote:I want books.

I scene a trend as to what Kronk may want... But i'm not sure...

Brother Weasel wrote:

kronk wrote:I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.

kronk wrote:I just want rules in a book.

kronk wrote:Compile them in a book!

kronk wrote:I want books.

I scene a trend as to what Kronk may want... But i'm not sure...

I think he's saying he doesn't want them in a book. GW better start making some more digital exclusives then.

I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.

I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.

I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".

Exalted

The extreme narrowing of what is seen at tournaments, which became utterly undeniable in 5th with GK psyback / rifleman spam bored-shitless armies, is helped out by these slates. There isnt time for a meta to really establish before something else challenges it - while I dont think the helbrute slate is overpowered, you may see chaos dreads taken, and having them land in your opponents lines mean they havea chance to doing something, unlike now, and cant be ignored so easily.

If you dont like it, dont play with it That means not attending tournaments that allow them, and *importantly* statnig *why* you are not attending.

I also dont think printed makes sense for this format - theyre changing too quickly for that. I think we should all get used to more rapid changes

I love formations/dataslates.

Cool new groups of models that get a benefit for acting together, it helps that I love the Tyranid Warrior models and they were a core part of the 2nd Nid slate. Looking forward to the 3rd one too. Plus they also mean that an army has something to look forward to other than their codex release every X years. I haven't even bothered to look at the IG rumours because 2 of my armies Nids/Chaos are still getting fancy updates on a regular basis so I read up about them instead.

Skyblight is maybe a little too good but generally they aren't OTT power wise and just make a nice fluffy addition to a list that lets you do something neat with your army. Now you could argue about how the Tau one lets you add some of the most powerful of toys in the game be added to virtually every army and they can be used purely for power advantage. If that's how your meta plays, go for it, it's what they are there for. Options are good in my eyes and dataslates are just another word for options

Skyblight really isnt amazing - youre still banking on keeping gargoyles alive, the 4+ to bring them back will fail frustratingly often, and the tax to take them - the other models - is hugely expensive.

The ability to take 3 flying Hive Tyrants and double your amount of Harpies/Hive Crones isn't exactly what I'd call a tax. Unless you're talking about a tax on the wallet, of course

I see no difference between the Data-Slates from back when White Dwarf used to put out Units and Mini-Codex’s in White Dwarf back in the late 80’ and 90’s other than the price. There were very few cries of “That is broken or Over Powered. Most of us just went “Cool” and either got the new Unit/Models and kept on playing or we did not.

The only issue I am seeing personally now is Availability and Cost, but the internet seems to make that a moot point if you have the tools and the Will to search.

As for using them in your local META, you either will or will not use them. If you choose not to use them or play anybody that does not, then eventually everyone will figure it out and start to play your way or you will adapt to their way of playing.

Our group has handled it this way
Billy Bob: “So I am planning on taking some Flyers Today.?”
Rebecca: “Cool, I was thinking of try out one of my Knights, you have a problem with that?”
Billy Bob: “Not today, but how about next time, I can pull out my Baneblade then?”
Rebecca: “Ok, then I will just take new Flyer Data-Slate I got.”
Billy Bob: “Sounds Good.”
And then both make or pull out their list and armies and play.

So I don’t see them as good or bad, but then again we are not that competitive. The most we do is Play to who does not have to pitch in for Pizza.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.

I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".

Funny, having a balanced ruleset that was conditioned for actual balanced tournament play would do this. You could have a "core" set of rules that was meant for tournaments, and then have optional extras to loosen up the restrictions.

Instead, GW pisses on tournament players and pretends they don't exist to throw out options that break the game because balance is secondary. I guarantee with a balanced ruleset you'd see a lot less of a "meta" in the tournament; there would still be stronger/weaker combos but nowhere near the level that you see now.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.

I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".

Funny, having a balanced ruleset that was conditioned for actual balanced tournament play would do this. You could have a "core" set of rules that was meant for tournaments, and then have optional extras to loosen up the restrictions.

Yes you could, but with how heavy the tournament player pressure is on the game I have a strong feeling that the expanded extras wouldn't get used.

I mean how many people honestly use mysterious terrain or objectives? Those are expanded extras that are largely ignored, and I have a feeling the rest would be too.

While I'll never deny that tight and balanced rules would be good, I don't think the core of the rules needs to be designed for tournament play, or should be designed for tournament play. But that's just me.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Instead, GW pisses on tournament players and pretends they don't exist to throw out options that break the game because balance is secondary. I guarantee with a balanced ruleset you'd see a lot less of a "meta" in the tournament; there would still be stronger/weaker combos but nowhere near the level that you see now.

I very much doubt you'd see less "meta". Every game has a meta, it's just that some games have a meta that moves faster or slower than others.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Yes you could, but with how heavy the tournament player pressure is on the game I have a strong feeling that the expanded extras wouldn't get used.

I mean how many people honestly use mysterious terrain or objectives? Those are expanded extras that are largely ignored, and I have a feeling the rest would be too.

The optional extras wouldn't be for tournaments at all, they'd be for the "forge the narrative" type of games, which IMO is where they belong. And if nobody uses them, then they were silly ideas to begin with but at least you have the option if you decide you want a change. The current rules style tries to encourage/force all this stuff on everybody, whether they want it or not, by not restricting them. If you don't want to play superheavies that's fine until you face somebody fielding an Imperial Knight just because the rules let them field it, and then you're faced with the choice of allowing it and likely not having fun, or denying it and either end up with nobody to play (if nobody else is there) or coming off as a jerk for not letting somebody use a model they paid a lot of money for.

While I'll never deny that tight and balanced rules would be good, I don't think the core of the rules needs to be designed for tournament play, or should be designed for tournament play. But that's just me.

I disagree, only because the tournament players want a balanced and relatively equal standing by the nature of being competitive (very few truly competitive players want to win by utterly beating their opponent without a chance to lose), so by designing rules for tournament play FIRST, you ensure that they're balanced and allow for superior tactics to rule the day versus list-building.

The reason why you focus on tournaments (even unofficially) at first is to make sure it's balanced at the most cutthroat level because those are the most likely to find the broken combos and abuse them, thereby making sure you minimize the number of broken combos and unclear rules that exist in the game in the first place. Instead of pretending those people don't exist, you tap them for feedback to close the loopholes and clarify the unclear rules, and everybody benefits as a whole even if you don't play the game in tournaments or even competitive atmospheres. I remember that Wizards of the Coast at one point decided to tap the powergaming community there to find loopholes because their rules had gotten so large and convoluted that there were many game-breaking combos that were done as theoretical experiments simply to illustrate how bad rules created in a vacuum without a thought to balance could be (and some of them were pretty ridiculous and kept in check only by virtue of the fact D&D has a human in control of what is and isn't allowed to occur at a given time).

I very much doubt you'd see less "meta". Every game has a meta, it's just that some games have a meta that moves faster or slower than others.

With more balanced rules, you'd see less disparity in the meta. In Warmachine, for example, there's certainly a "meta" but the gap between a netlist and another more laid-back/casual list is much less than the disparity between a 40k netlist and a casual list; that's what I'm talking about. I don't play WM/H but I have read a good bit about the meta and watched several streams from tournaments and even something that looks like it's unbalanced (e.g. Cygnar's Stormwall and one of the Haleys) just provides a new way to approach tactics without being near unbeatable - ironically that's what Jervis Johnson stated in White Dwarf Weekly that the Imperial Knight was meant to be in 40k games, but fell short of the mark because the rules themselves aren't balanced to allow for new things to be added and only change tactics versus pushing the entire meta. If you compare a top tier Warmachine list with a more casual list, I think you'd find that the "casual" list still has a chance at winning (especially!) in the hands of a superior player; on the contrary with 40k a Screamerstar or O'vesastar list will utterly demolish a casual list, even if the netlist is in the hands of a complete newbie, because the power disparity is that great. If an experienced player with a balanced army can get destroyed by a newbie with a powerlist, that's a major problem.

On another site I've read an anecdote from somebody who had a friend, an experienced player, that sold their army and got out of 40k when their balanced army was tabled by a kid who didn't know many of the rules simply because said kid was running a netlist that was "point and click". Something like that should never, ever happen.

Balanced rules would go a long way towards fixing that.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The optional extras wouldn't be for tournaments at all, they'd be for the "forge the narrative" type of games, which IMO is where they belong. And if nobody uses them, then they were silly ideas to begin with but at least you have the option if you decide you want a change. The current rules style tries to encourage/force all this stuff on everybody, whether they want it or not, by not restricting them. If you don't want to play superheavies that's fine until you face somebody fielding an Imperial Knight just because the rules let them field it, and then you're faced with the choice of allowing it and likely not having fun, or denying it and either end up with nobody to play (if nobody else is there) or coming off as a jerk for not letting somebody use a model they paid a lot of money for.

Tournament players have a habit of pushing their preferred game type into all their games. That leads to my concern that we'll just see those "optional extras" ignored.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I disagree, only because the tournament players want a balanced and relatively equal standing, so by designing rules for tournament play FIRST, you ensure that they're balanced and allow for superior tactics to rule the day versus list-building. The reason why you focus on tournaments (even unofficially) at first is to make sure it's balanced at the most cutthroat level because those are the most likely to find the broken combos and abuse them, thereby making sure you minimize the number of broken combos and unclear rules that exist in the game in the first place. Instead of pretending those people don't exist, you tap them for feedback to close the loopholes and clarify the unclear rules, and everybody benefits as a whole even if you don't play the game in tournaments or even competitive atmospheres.

Balanced game or not, I don't think the core focus of the game should be based on tournament play. Make it possible to play fair and balanced games in tournaments? Yes. Cater to them first and everyone else second? No.

The difference honestly is the tone. I'm a fairly casual player (doesn't mean I don't like a good challenging game, I just don't play tournaments) and that tone of pushing the competitive too hard has honestly kept me from really getting into Warmachine. It creates a wall that's hard to get over, even if you're honestly interested in what you're looking at. I fear creating that wall for casual and new players who don't seek to just play the most cutthroat games possible.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Balanced rules would go a long way towards fixing that.

They'd help a lot of things.

You don't have to officially "cater" to the tournament scene, but IMO it's smart to let them playtest so they can say "This unit is way too good for its points" or "I can take three of these guys in an army and people have no chance" or even "This rule is vague and can be interpreted as working with Rule Y and thus Z happens which is broken"

Oh I understand that you don't have to officially support the tournament scene, but I think that avoiding that kind of tone that paints the game as being only about the most balls-to-the-wall competitive play is important too.

With the availability of things on the internet, I am kinda suprised people are still buying any of the rule books/dataslates/formations/etc.

As far as I am concerned they are just giving out free content. Keep it coming.

Storm Talon gets released with rules in WD. Nobody buys the WD, nobody picks up the rules. Everyone screams at GW to put them on-line. GW comes out with Dataslates for units rather than putting them in WD that nobody buys. Everyone screams at GW to give them for free.

GW is a business, they're supposed to attempt to make money. As gamers we all have a hobby. My personal definition of a hobby is "the thing you do with your disposable income". Some people snort it up their nose, some blow it on women, boats, cars, clothes what have you. If you don't understand why GW dares to make money off of us, you don't understand how exactly the world works.

I would love for them all to be compiled into a book on occasion, fill up 128 pages of data-slates and then put one out. I agree with Kronk, I like things I read to be on paper. I can get around it though. The data-slates I've purchased I've printed out and keep them in a folder just like my SoB codex.

Personally, no matter what GW does, it'll still be better than arguing over which of my little green army men shot my friends little brown army men while digging through the dirt in my mom's garden. It's your hobby, make of it what you want. GW is trying to make money off of providing you an outlet for your hobby. If you don't like it, please rage quit and sell us all your models for cheap.

Whatever happens, you won't be missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I disagree, only because the tournament players want a balanced and relatively equal standing by the nature of being competitive (very few truly competitive players want to win by utterly beating their opponent without a chance to lose), so by designing rules for tournament play FIRST, you ensure that they're balanced and allow for superior tactics to rule the day versus list-building.

I'll never understand this mindset. Competitive play has to have things start on an even playing field? Everything must be equal or it isn't fair? Tactics can only be superior when everything is equal? Things are fair when you've had the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit, and if you haven't they shouldn't be allowed? Really?

As regards competitive play, it is a given that both sides should have an even playing field. I don't see how that it is remotely deniable.

How many sports are there that give one team more players, or more points for scoring a goal, and so on? The interest of football is not that one team has 12 men and the other only 10 (but maybe stronger men), it is that each side has to decide what to do with the 11 men they have.

Competitive wargaming is built on the same basis. Theoretically, though GW don't mention it any more, 40K is also built on that basis. That is the point of the points system and org chart. The idea is derived from earlier rulesets like WRG Ancients. The principle of balance created by the points system, used to be specifically stated in the 40K rules.

This whole thing of 40K being a "narrative game" is a very new thing, put about by GW to excuse their lack of ability to make a balanced game.

 dracpanzer wrote:

I'll never understand this mindset. Competitive play has to have things start on an even playing field? Everything must be equal or it isn't fair? Tactics can only be superior when everything is equal? Things are fair when you've had the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit, and if you haven't they shouldn't be allowed? Really?

Yes, units must be ballanced, otherwise a game is not competitive, it turns into some crude sort of rock-paper-scissors. Thats the whole idea behind points for units and equipment. Not every unit must be equally powerfull as other units - they must only be generally able to have some use according to their points cost.
As for the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit - this is a competetive players responsibility. If you want to play competetive, but don't know the units you will be facing you haven't done your homework. A handbook of sorts to look the rules up is handy, but ultimately, if you forget that demons have an invul save, it's your own fault. If there are lots of barriers between a player and this relevant knowledge, this is obviously a detriment to competitive play. Even a professional player can not dump all his money on a flood of dataslates, minidexes and plug-in supplements. So yes, this slate-madness is bad, however you look at it.
I welcome the new formations and options and the like, but not for the money GW wants for them and not without any thought on ballance.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Storm Talon gets released with rules in WD. Nobody buys the WD, nobody picks up the rules. Everyone screams at GW to put them on-line. GW comes out with Dataslates for units rather than putting them in WD that nobody buys. Everyone screams at GW to give them for free.

GW is a business, they're supposed to attempt to make money. As gamers we all have a hobby. My personal definition of a hobby is "the thing you do with your disposable income". Some people snort it up their nose, some blow it on women, boats, cars, clothes what have you. If you don't understand why GW dares to make money off of us, you don't understand how exactly the world works.

I would love for them all to be compiled into a book on occasion, fill up 128 pages of data-slates and then put one out. I agree with Kronk, I like things I read to be on paper. I can get around it though. The data-slates I've purchased I've printed out and keep them in a folder just like my SoB codex.

Personally, no matter what GW does, it'll still be better than arguing over which of my little green army men shot my friends little brown army men while digging through the dirt in my mom's garden. It's your hobby, make of it what you want. GW is trying to make money off of providing you an outlet for your hobby. If you don't like it, please rage quit and sell us all your models for cheap.

Whatever happens, you won't be missed.

The issue I have with this like of thinking is that largely they are not releasing "units" in data slates. Few People had an issue with Belakor or Cypher being released as units via data slate. The issue most people have is that they are using data slates just to re-package existing units with a couple extra special rules and sell models. I don't have an issue with them making money. I'd just prefer they put some effort into the product they put out. If they want to invent new special characters Awesome. If they want to invent new "chapters" for races like the supplements....cool. If they want to say hey if you buy models X, Y and Z and play them together here is an extra rule for you...not so much. The larger issue with formations is the destruction of the FOC, same with Knights, same with Inquisition etc. Heck I'd even have less issue with formations if they were akin to if you take models X, Y and Z you get this special thing, but they still must fit in the FOC. That way you are making a sacrifice of something else to get those rules.

I also never appreciate people taking the tone of. "If you feel that GW is doing a bad job, please quit the hobby you have invested tons of time and money in" It is an immature stance, as a customer you have a right to complain if you feel things are being done poorly.

I don't think the data slates have to be balanced. Tournaments don't have to use them. I do think the core game and codexes should be balanced.

 Kosake wrote:

I welcome the new formations and options and the like, but not for the money GW wants for them and not without any thought on ballance.

The rules for pretty much all the units are available on line. For instance, look at the new Nid dataslate thread, tells you all you need to know if you're facing them. (Clue: just kill the synapse) .

For most games, you can play the formations without paying out for them. If you're playing at GW and you do have to buy the dataslate, well, that's not much different from shelling out for an extra allies codex. Yes, if you buy all new formations from scratch it will cost you a ton; but most people will use them just to season an existing list, as we have.

As for the more recent dataslates, Leviathan II and the Hellbrutes formations are pretty cool. Overpriced, maybe, but a consumer outrage and game-busting... not really.