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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
We seem to be remembering the rose-colored salad days of 5 months ago differently. Back then, Eldar was Codex: Wave Serpents and could summon fething Daemonettes. Necrons had mindshenanigan scarabs and Tesla proc on snapshots. Tyranids could now fit 5 FMCs in their lists. Centstar and TWC dominated the popular deathstar builds.

In short, we didn't have balance. Warhammer 40,000 is not and has never been a balanced game. The only "balance" that was achieved was via house rules and gentleman's/woman's agreements not to bring lists of a certain power level. GW has made it clear that "balanced rules" are somewhere below "reducing prices" on their list of priorities. It's up the the players to balance the game, and banning certain armies/factions/formations is not the way to do it.

I'll take 2014's cheese over 2015's any day. At least that was limited to single units and wargear options which were easily house ruled or potentially avoided. The problem with the current power imbalances is that it's much more widespread, haphazard, and greatly separated from "normal" builds with no sign of slowing down. We were "this" close to having an acceptable level of external balance when 2015 started but instead of patching up the few remaining holes that were Wraiths and WS they tore the whole thing apart and decided to just go back to gouging their customers for money.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Yarium - the Formations *are* FREE. Unlike early Apoc, there is on +X points per formation on top of the models. Take the units as a group, and it gets the bonus. Simple as that.

And why do they get the bonus? Because these particular units have trained and drilled together with linked comms so that they don't get in each other's way or whatnot. It's Fluffy that only specific groupings get bonuses vs units at their base configuration.

As for Kill Team being more thematic, that's simply an argument for 1500 vs 1850/2000, or 750/1000 vs 1500, wherein armies won't have as many options or redundancy, so you need to do more with less. Leman Russes are more iconic Guard, so a Chimera doesn't quite cut it.

I know formations are free - I'm saying that's the problem is you have game mechanics that do no translate well into how armies play differently. A Space Marine Rhino and an Ork Trukk play almost 95% the same - you have a transport that moves units close up, and then they disembark. If they're lucky, you'll use that same transport to re-embark units again later. In the meantime, they get pot-shots off at things. There's some minor other adjustments like Rhinos having slightly higher armour values and Ballistic Kill, while a Trukk is open-topped and has a stronger (but less accurate) gun, but fundamentally these two units play the same way. A Chimera is slightly different because it has two guys. A Devilfish is a skimmer and has no fire points. The details may slightly vary, but the gameplay is largely the same.

Now, the Necron Ghost Ark is very cool, and very different compared to most transports! It has high armour, is a skimmer, is open-topped, has lots of guns that can shoot at multiple targets, can repair nearby Warriors, and in the Decurion it gets IWND. That Ghost Ark is very much a NECRON vehicle. I can't imagine that vehicle or even something close to it in any other force. It's not just that the fluff includes it (because it didn't back in 3rd), it's that the game mechanics match a game-play feel that is unique to Necrons.

In Kill Team I find it easier to get that unique game play feel even with the current rules. Take Tyranids. The unique FEEL of Tyranids, in my opinion, comes from fielding a largely infantry-based army that uses small units to capture objectives while big units do the killing and take the fire from the enemy, all while trying to balance out your needs to maintain an effective Synapse blanket. This is a play-style that is unique to Tyranids - no other force in the game has to try and maintain this same kind of balancing act. If the next codex gives Tyranids heavy bonuses for being in Synapse Range, that'll be great - because it will encourage that kind of unique play style. I just don't want to have to take a formation to achieve something that should be in-born to the rules of the Tyranids.

I like the bonuses forces are now receiving - but I wish that the formations weren't what you used to get the ones that really accentuate that play style. Having Eldar always run 6 inches is phenomenal. It gives Footdar something massively unique, similar in line to what their original play style was. Arguably, their newest codex is one of the best for the new feel, as you can achieve the "Eldar Playstyle" without even using formations (though again, the 6 inch run is actually what's most unique to them now).

I'd rather formations be like you said - a unique detachment that's trained together to accomplish things they normally couldn't do. This would be the "the turn they arrive their weapons cause Pinning" rules, or the "shoot together to make a super-attack" rules, or the "harness the warp on a 3+" rules. Those are things that the army DOESN'T normally do - things that AREN'T enforcing unique play-styles specific to that army.

Murrdox wrote:


Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.

This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.

Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.

 zgort wrote:

Murrdox wrote:


Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.

This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.

Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.

Foul thread! Rise up and I shall strike you down, again and again!

I feel that it's on your opponent to decide if they want to play against formations. Sure, for a nice and laid-back game I can understand wanting to play with just the CAD. But for anything more competitive than that, like my scene's pick up/semi-competitive games, formations and alternate detachments are fine. With Space Marines and Dark Angels now getting their own formation-of-formations, there's a lot less reason for complaining.

Also, most of the armies aren't any more broken with their formations. Only the Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and Space Marines with the dual Battle Company for free transports are arguably too nasty for friendly play, but they are hardly broken. Like it or not, formations are now an integral part of Warhammer 40,000.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 zgort wrote:

Murrdox wrote:


Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.

This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.

Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.

Foul thread! Rise up and I shall strike you down, again and again!

I feel that it's on your opponent to decide if they want to play against formations. Sure, for a nice and laid-back game I can understand wanting to play with just the CAD. But for anything more competitive than that, like my scene's pick up/semi-competitive games, formations and alternate detachments are fine. With Space Marines and Dark Angels now getting their own formation-of-formations, there's a lot less reason for complaining.

Also, most of the armies aren't any more broken with their formations. Only the Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and Space Marines with the dual Battle Company for free transports are arguably too nasty for friendly play, but they are hardly broken. Like it or not, formations are now an integral part of Warhammer 40,000.

Tau firebase cadre formation is pretty stupid good. That thing wrecks me up and down to this day. Skyhammer is brutally good. War convocation is pretty crazy. If you play RAW the angel's fury BA formation can break games on turn 1. The eldar "bunch of mooks with BS5" formations are pretty out there.

Overall I hate what formations have brought to the game. Units that are worth more than their normal point cost due to free bonuses that don't use the force org slots. Things like the decurion amplify the issue the larger point value you get to. If you ever want to bang your head against a brick wall, play against an apoc sized decurion without D weapons.

I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 zgort wrote:

Murrdox wrote:


Eldar don't need the Warhost formation. Necrons don't need the Decurion. They won't break if they don't use them.

This. So much this. If you don't enjoy competitive scene, don't use it. If your friends are using crazy OP stuff and you get tabled - maybe stop playing with those people or ask em to tone it down. My main opponent uses one heldrake, instead of spam. They don't use 9 nurgled oblits - because we understand if we take the optimized meta list, that is not always fun.

Make it fun. Don't wait for GW to write it for you.

Foul thread! Rise up and I shall strike you down, again and again!

I feel that it's on your opponent to decide if they want to play against formations. Sure, for a nice and laid-back game I can understand wanting to play with just the CAD. But for anything more competitive than that, like my scene's pick up/semi-competitive games, formations and alternate detachments are fine. With Space Marines and Dark Angels now getting their own formation-of-formations, there's a lot less reason for complaining.

Also, most of the armies aren't any more broken with their formations. Only the Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and Space Marines with the dual Battle Company for free transports are arguably too nasty for friendly play, but they are hardly broken. Like it or not, formations are now an integral part of Warhammer 40,000.

Tau firebase cadre formation is pretty stupid good. That thing wrecks me up and down to this day. Skyhammer is brutally good. War convocation is pretty crazy. If you play RAW the angel's fury BA formation can break games on turn 1. The eldar "bunch of mooks with BS5" formations are pretty out there.

Overall I hate what formations have brought to the game. Units that are worth more than they're normal point cost due to free bonuses that don't use the force org slots. Things like the decurion amplify the issue the larger point value you get to. If you ever want to bang your head against a brick wall, play against an apoc sized decurion without D weapons.

I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.

Exalted. You mimic my feelings exactly on the issue.

Without formations, you have exactly the same cheese and spam but in different flavors.

Formations have the problem of opportunity cost, meaning that bonuses are offset by having to take units and numbers that are sub-optimal as laid out in the codex. Also, apoc cannot and is not supposed to be balanced.

Let this thread die. There are plenty of other places to discuss the impact formations have had on the game.

.

They need to remove formations as a whole go back to Cad's would fix 80% of the issues.

 Sidstyler wrote:
It's not at all the same, though. The "hate" for IoM armies seems awful tame from what I've seen, more like gentle ribbing, most of which is aimed at Space Marines and it's almost entirely because of how popular they are more than anything else. You never see the kind of crap you see in regards to xenos armies, like people making thread after thread calling for Marine armies to be "banned" or constantly arguing about how Marines don't even have a right to exist. Worst thing Marine players have to deal with is the occasional comment about how there are too many Marine books and it would be better if they were all contained within a single book instead, which isn't really the same as removing an army from the game (no matter how much Black Templars players want you to think it is), and it's actually TRUE, because it would mean all Marines are consistently kept up to date instead of having many different books all with different rules, wargear, and design philosophies behind each one, which is the number one complaint from Marine players themselves it would seem. Not quite the same thing as a loud chorus of people constantly calling for your army to we wiped out and removed from the game simply because they don't like it, while arguing that it would be better for the game as a whole when there's nothing to really back that up at all. What xenos armies and people who play them get is legit, seething hate, and it's incredibly off-putting while being just plain disturbing to witness sometimes. I simply can't fathom how anyone can take any game that seriously, let alone 40k in particular.

I don't see that hate for orks, nids and dark eldar. IoM don't deserve any flak, because they were not overpowered for 7 editions straight. In fact, the only overpowered IoM army is BA in 3rd, with their rhino rush, and that is still far weaker than the starcannon spam from elves in that very same edition.

Instead, you see a bunch of elf players running their mouth about "muh tacticool hard to use armiez", and whinging hard the moment IoM get any goodies, because "they ultra smrufz, not tactiool elves" The whole elf attitude of superiority and entitlement doesn't help. Numerous elf players here has advocated for incorporating as much D and scatbikes as they can, because they're entitled to it and "the smurfz oveerparwered1!!" Fact is, to date, no army can even come close to the level of firepower and abuse of the elf codex. Even the recent SM codex is a kitten compared to the abomination that is the elf codex.

Ironic you should mention that people has said elves has no right to exist when your elf compatriot has just said orkz deserve to be tier-2 lose all the time armies, because that's how they are in the fluff. Also, they're right, elves in outer space is downright stupid. orkz fit in a comedic theme, but elves in a grimdark sci-fisetting is just dumb. They're leading the charge for GW to be a child-friendly wargame, with the bright and noble elves leading the charge against darkness. They're everything that is wrong with 40k. The sooner they drop them as a faction, the better off for everyone.

I mentioned this in the Dakka Discussions thread about GW stuff.

Basically, 6.0 and 7.0 codices up to the end of 2014 (Blood Angels) are pretty much balanced against each other reasonably well, excluding a few abusable design flaws such as Wave Serpents, MSS, and invisible deathstars. Even with them in, it's not too bad.

Then came 7.5; someone at GW had this wonderful idea of superformations -- an extension of really good formations like what Blood Angels got in Shield of Baal and White Dwarf: it's a way to make factions both powerful AND fluffy, and encourage the use of traditionally weak models.

In comes the Decurion, and Necron players absolutely love it. After that bright idea, GW decides, this will be the new norm, and all the codex releases afterwards are pretty well balanced against Necron. Space marines, Dark Angels, Sktarii/Cult, Eldar, Imperial Knights-- any of these, and Necron, can go head to head without being embarrassed, and there are a ton of good things you can field. Weak units are buffed (some not enough), and formations and superformations create some buzz and interest. The only faction that's not really complete is Harlequins, but really, that's partly because they don't have enough models. I don't know anyone that plays them as an unallied force anyhow.

Also, each major faction gets its "thing" -- Necron with Gauss and RP, Eldar with Distortion and mobility, Space Marines with Graviton, Mechanicus with Arc/Grav/Torsion, and Harlequins with Kiss/Caress/ID and supermobility. And Knights are your mini Titan force.

This is a huge departure from pre 7.5, and in my opinion, these are GOOD buffs. I mean, everyone who played Space Marines, Necron, Dark Angels, Eldar, and Imperial Knights before 2015 are happy as a pig in mud. Mechanicus players are thrilled.

The problem, really is that in the middle of an edition, half the factions are somewhat more powerful and way, way more flexible than the other half.

And this is a sore spot with GW and 40k -- they have a tendency, mid cycle, to come up with a really cool idea, and BAM presents! But half the players feel screwed out of the presents.

Now, mind you, it wouldn't be all that much better if they waited til 8e to start buffing them, because still, at the beginning of the cycle, the first faction to get a codex is really lucky, and it sucks to be the last faction.

*cough* Blood Angels *cough*. Oh well, we really wanted to be the Brood Angels instead anyways, right? That red vanilla successor chapter.

 Talys wrote:

And this is a sore spot with GW and 40k -- they have a tendency, mid cycle, to come up with a really cool idea, and BAM presents! But half the players feel screwed out of the presents.

Now, mind you, it wouldn't be all that much better if they waited til 8e to start buffing them, because still, at the beginning of the cycle, the first faction to get a codex is really lucky, and it sucks to be the last faction.

nids has been the first in line for "reasonable, balanced" codex for 2 editions already, orks for 4. elves has been the first few in the line of "insanely overpowered codex" for 7 editions straight. GW always go in waves, but it seems they start the weak, bland waves with nids or orks, and start the strong waves with elves or crons. SM has always been in the middle.

the next "balanced, reasonable, bland" wave will start with orks or nids, mark my words.

@kburn - I'm sure not going to disagree with you.

But I shall hold the faith! Orks are getting some buzz in the tournament scene atm though. Nids have so many awesome models that need (rules) love. And Guard too, they have fallen by the wayside.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Chaos, sorry. The Daemonkin codex looks solid, and they got their Decurion wannabe, but nobody in our group plays Khorne or Chaos anymore, so I can't say from firsthand experience.

My real question is: once everything is in 7e format... what happens to the factions without superformations? Do they get screwed? Does it go 8e? Do they get new 7e books? Do we get free new command-core-auxiliaries in White Dwarf? Will there be a plastic Thunderhawk kit?

Now that DA and SM are getting the love, that's the overwhelming majority of Codices updated, right? ,

CSM on deck having the oldest Codex makes them logically next after WFB AOS, what with Chaos being in the AOS box.

At that point, the handful of armies not having Decurion style Codices can be ignored.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now that DA and SM are getting the love, that's the overwhelming majority of Codices updated, right? ,

CSM on deck having the oldest Codex makes them logically next after WFB AOS, what with Chaos being in the AOS box.

At that point, the handful of armies not having Decurion style Codices can be ignored.

at that point most armies eaither have a formation within formations approuch are a special detachment. Imperial guard are really the only army without one or the other.

Sure, although they can always take IOM friends, so it's not that bad.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now that DA and SM are getting the love, that's the overwhelming majority of Codices updated, right? ,

CSM on deck having the oldest Codex makes them logically next after WFB AOS, what with Chaos being in the AOS box.

At that point, the handful of armies not having Decurion style Codices can be ignored.

There's Khorne Daemonkin, with the new formations too.

The reality of it is that with Space Marines and Eldar, they captured a huge percentage of the playerbase. Add Necron and Tau (everyone pretty much agrees they're coming up), and they'll have "most" of the players. I think that DA is a minor faction in terms of number of players.

Haves (10) - Space Marines, Eldar, Cult Mechanicus, Skitarii, Imperial Knights, Dark Angels, Necron, Khorne Daemonkin; In a fashion, Harlequins and Assassins.

Have Nots (10) - Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Chaos Daemons, CSM, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard/Militarum, Tau, Tyranid, Ork

Plastic Thunderhawk Will Come First - Sisters, Inquisition

Of the have nots, a bunch lot don't have 7e codex yet. So it's really the Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves and Dark Eldar that are really screwed.

The "have nots" need to be split into 6E and 7E, because the 6E Codices will get their books before the early 7E armies get redone:

CSM, Daemons, and Tau are, in that order, the 3 oldest active Codices going way back in to 6E. They are not much of the market, but they are important enough.

Then, it's just Nids and IG, ignoring the bottom tier things like Stormtroopers, Inquisition and Sisters.

Of the 7E things that will sit, it's BA, GK and SW - armies that can easily use the SM book as Red Marines, Grey Marines, and Furry Marines.

That just leaves the Orks and Dark Eldar, Given how DE got a revamp Codex, I wouldn't be surprised to see Orks and DE get an update with an extra couple pages of formations.

of the have nots it's worth a closer peak at them too.

of the Have nots I'd argue Tyranids are basicly haves once you factor in the gains from Levithan. which gained them multiple formations and a "formation of formations" in the form of the skytide (which upon consideration was perhaps the prototype "decurion") I imagine a new 'nid dex would just update and fold those formations into the 'cdex and maybe give us one or two new ones.

looking at that, blood angels, space wolves and grey knights all have their own detachment, so aren't as bad off as other factions in that regard as a GK player I'll take the Nemisis StrikeForce over something that would inevitably force me to take purgation squads. proably for a minimal advantage over a NSF. to my mind tihe biggest hurt about the new marine 'dex for the "other space marines" is the dreadnought buff and vehicle squadrons. although these ARE at least easily house ruled past.

of the big have nots I think CSMs are the most in need of a big update with formations. do it right and GW could even begin to give us a little taste of the legions. with stuff like a vindicator heavy "Iron Warriors bombardment squadron" formation etc

niv-mizzet wrote:
I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.

How would you beat let's say a bike focused eldar CAD that also includes a WK and 5-10 wraithguard with D-scythes, with DE allies so they can Deep Strike their Wraithguard without scatter without using formations in a 2 detachment context?

LordBlades wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
I think the tourney scene would be quite a bit healthier and have more variety without any formations. It'd be nice to play vs crons and NOT play against "rec legion with arks, canoptek harvest, destroyer cult" ALL THE TIME. It'd be nice to see people's tau allies NOT be 6 broadsides and a riptide. And it'd be especially nice to know that the two players have the same point value army, instead of one of them having free bonuses in excess of 500 points just because GW giveth love upon his faction.

How would you beat let's say a bike focused eldar CAD that also includes a WK and 5-10 wraithguard with D-scythes, with DE allies so they can Deep Strike their Wraithguard without scatter without using formations in a 2 detachment context?

There are lots of ways to defeat such a force. My primary method would be to use chaff units to keep the wraithguard and wraithknight tied up while I dealt with the rest of their army. The points investment into those 3 units is incredibly high, so if you tie them up with cheap units, they might not die, but their army doesn't do well with their big guns being tied up against sub-optimal targets. Example:

The Expensive Units:

5 Wraithguard with d-scythes, with an archon w/Webway portal & agonizer: ~335
5 Wraithguard with d-scythes, with an archon w/Webway portal & agonizer: ~335
1 Wraithknight w/ Dual D-cannons & shoulder mounted scatter lasers: ~325
TOTAL: About 1k

So, in an 1850 list, the units you mentioned are going to cost over half the price of your army to field. They will be good, mean units. But all 3 units are vulnerable to being tied up by relatively cheap stuff. Here are things you could use with a few example factions:

IG:

Orks:

DE:

Space Marines:

There are plenty more, but this thread isn't about me making a guide on how to deal with the possibility of WK and WGs with every army out there. Suffice to say that it is possible with almost every army without them tailoring or gimping themselves, as it should be.

Smaller games, will mitigate the formations as well. Play 1500 pts vs 2000, and there will be fewer formations, simply by the core force requirements and unwieldiness of formation blocks.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
... the bottom tier things like Stormtroopers, Inquisition and Sisters...

... BA, GK and SW - armies that can easily use the SM book as Red Marines, Grey Marines, and Furry Marines...

You do realize that GKs have always had a quite different "standard" setup compared to all other SMs, right? There's not much in the SM book that can easily represent entire units of PW+SB terminators/marines, not to mention that even if you do represent them well, they're won't perform well anyway because expensive hybrid (melee/ranged) units aren't very good in 7th edition, regardless of what codex you're using.

So basically my classic Daemonhunters (GK+Inq+Stormtroopers) are gonna go sit on the shelf for the next however many years until they get an update (or just get written out of the game).

They're Terminators, count as Terminators.

honestly, GKs may not have formations, but their detachment is pretty good. I'd rather not have GK formations because unless the rules where stupid good, I'd rather use a NSF.


otherwise I'd have to take something like 1-2 termies 2-4 strike squads a purgation squad and a interceptor squad.

that's a lotta crap units.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
They're Terminators, count as Terminators.

I'm going to ignore that snide remark and reiterate my point: SM terminators have either PF+SB, with ranged weapon options, or LC/TH/SS, with no ranged weapons at all. Neither of these can accurately represent a mixed unit some PWs, some THs, SBs, and heavy ranged options. Likewise, other than (AFAIK) command squads, you can't get entire non-terminator units with power weapons in the SM book.

Full PW units and mixed terminators is why I like GKs; it's an aesthetic that's very appealing to me. If I wanted to use bog-standard SMs with some IG support, I'd do that.

In other words, despite the fact that allies gave me some hope of having a decently fluffy Daemonhunters list (and by that I mean having units that can actually succeed at being used the way they are used in books and fluff), I'm now basically relegated to constantly getting blown off the table by everybody else's fancy toys for the rest of the edition. It's no different than it was back in early 5th when people were still having to use the 3rd edition Daemonhunters book, with the sole competitive list being that weird triple land raider rush gimmick.

If you pick a 3rd tier army, this is the level of support that you should expect.

Where in the book or on the cover does it say what tier it is? For those whom are new to this game, of course.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you pick a 3rd tier army, this is the level of support that you should expect.

And yet more snide remarks.

How are people supposed to magically know that their army is "3rd tier"? I started out playing with a group of all new players, playing in people's basements during 5th. Are you really gonna say it's our fault for not scouring the internet looking for the most broken stuff around? We thought it was a neat game and went over to the local GW to pick up a starter and moved on from there. At no point did anyone say to us: "Oh yeah, here's a list of armies in order of power, if you want to have fun, you should only play armies in these distinct brackets"

Besides, very quickly afterwards, there was a big upswing in new codexes, DE, Daemonhunters (becoming GK), Necrons, etc. Based on some big power-level increases (which were admittedly over the top, especially for GK), it seemed like there was going to be at least a cursory level of support going forward. Necrons have certainly continued to get a lot of attention since 5th.

I don't really see where this whole "Got mine, don't care" attitude comes from. I certainly hope it's not something you do in real life.

And come on, attacking someone's choice of army? That's very... low brow, to put it politely.

I don't think it's that difficult, and it should be obvious to anybody:

1st tier = Space Marines (duh!)
2nd tier = Chaos, Eldar, Guard, Orks, Nids
3rd tier = sub-codices (GK, BT, BA, DA, SW) and minor forces (Harlies, DE, Tau, Sisters, Inquisition).

And I'm talking support tiers, not "power" tiers. GW will always support SM first and foremost.

As for "got mine", I'm still waiting for my CSM update.

Finally, it's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. GK are low priority. They don't move the needle in sales volume.