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.

So this thread is about balancing?

Hasn't this game been unbalanced since 2nd ed?
CSM was considered OP back then if what I heard is true.
3rd had Necrons being OP.
I dunno about 4th.
5th had Necrons.
6th had Tau.
7th has Eldar.

I can't say 1st ed, cause I literally know nothing about it.

 Mantorok wrote:
So this thread is about balancing?

Hasn't this game been unbalanced since 2nd ed?

It doesn't mean people want it to stay unbalanced.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mantorok wrote:
So this thread is about balancing?

Hasn't this game been unbalanced since 2nd ed?

It doesn't mean people want it to stay unbalanced.

Fair enough.

Here is the thing, Formations have Brethed Life into the units I love.
When I got red the Skyhammer rules I cheered. I had ALL the units for it.
The Optimized stealthy Cadre allows me to use my favorite units.Which are Stealth Suits. Im Estactice to use them.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Makumba wrote:

In all honesty how can you even take some of these formations seriously??

I don't know, maybe the fact that they exist? If my army doesn't have any formations, then why should I be ok with you ever a small edge over me , when your probably already have a big one just because GW decide to make my faction suck.

IG has formations you know. In fact the Steel Host is pretty good.

Let me guess, the formation is FW?

No. They're in GW The Red WAAAAGH campaign book (FW hasn't made any regular 40k formations yet).

Those are baned here, because GW forgot to send any to shops here. What does it do by the way, free chimeras for vets or something like that?

Hasn't this game been unbalanced since 2nd ed?
CSM was considered OP back then if what I heard is true.
3rd had Necrons being OP.
I dunno about 4th.
5th had Necrons.
6th had Tau.
7th has Eldar.

From what I have been told in 2ed eldar armies could solo armies twice their size, and there was an unofficial harlequin list that could do it with under 15 models. 3ed was dominated by eldar with star cannons and wrightlords. 3.5 was dominated by craftworld eldar .4th was skimer heaven and eldar dominated it too. In 5th eldar were not the best. 6th and 7th was eldar again. In 6th tau were thought good only because they had BB eldar and every tau list took a farseer, when they lost it in 7th, then tau suddenly stoped being good.

No. all the tanks if they are within 6inch of the lead tank get PE and agryns get HOW

Ok, ogryns.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Second, formations being 'pay to play'. GW has ALWAYS been a pay to play concept. There have always been units/armies that are simply better than others, all the way back to the RT era.

'Things have always been bad therefore we should just accept they are bad and not try to change anything' is a terrible mindset to have for just about anything.

If you insist on there being some way to balance a game that has never been balanced since its inception is also a terrible mindset. I have fun and enjoyable games, so who really has the terrible mindset?

So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

If everything is OP, nothing is OP.

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

Are you purposefully going down an unrelated rabbit hole? Reread my first post on this thread.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

If everything is OP, nothing is OP.

And then we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh where every deck is a 1st turn instant kill. Why do the other 6 turns even exist if the game is decided by the start of the 2nd? Getting tabled or almost tabled due to crazy special rule shenanigans before you've rolled any dice beyond your Warlord trait is hardly an entertaining game. The reason Super Heavies exist and are popular takes is because they're threatening enough that the opponent will go after them yet won't easily die to 1st turn Ignores Cover AP1 S10 72" Twin-Linked Armourbane lasers that re-roll failed penetration. When you're fielding a normal codex CAD versus some of the possible nastiness you'll see at tournaments, you're likely to lose 50-100% of your force before you even get to react.

Though opposite view, that the game could ever be more balanced, is also ludicrous. 40k will always be a power creep game and you'll be required to buy the latest OP whatever to counter the stuff others will bring. Have you seen anyone seriously field a Predator in a while? With all the superior tanks out there, the originals are a running joke now and a waste of a Heavy Support slot. Heavy Bolters went the way of the dinosaurs and Flamers aren't the only way to Ignore Cover now. The staples of list building power have been supplanted by newer stuff and it will only continue from here on out. Formations are just the newest way to give your army a bunch of free special rules without increasing your point costs.

If you want the game to be "balanced", you're the only one who can do that. Games Workshops doesn't want to and never will, they'll keep releasing new bs and players will keep buying them to stay competitive. So you can either houserule a bunch of stuff or find a group of players that keeps things friendly and doesn't min-max their list in an effort to annihilate you before you even have a chance to respond.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

If everything is OP, nothing is OP.

No.
If everything is OP, everything is OP and you have a horrible broken mess of a game.

 Vaktathi wrote:


In their original incarnation, where they had an actual points cost attached to the abilities they offered, they might have made sense.

However, at this point, the way GW has executed them is amongst the absolute worst examples of game design I could think of, and really scream "marketing gimmick", they're vehicles for moving web-bundles, especially when absurdly powerful formations like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force come from web-bundle exclusives.

Hit the nail on the head, when they first came to existence in apoc they had points associated with them.


I think we can all agree that GW's ability to accurately cost units is pretty bad, doesn't mean they don't get close or bang on once in a while, but we all know there is no sacred equation, it's merely the best we got. There's no accounting for synergy/buffing

With that said, when you go the extra level of handing out even more special rules and abilities without even badly point costing it (too high, too low) you really do start to make it the thing to do. If formations/detachments and now even squadron special abilities came at a cost it would at least feel like they gave it a college fething try. Without points it really does just feel like a gimmick and due to that I would rather they just remained in apoc, like a lot of 7th.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Second, formations being 'pay to play'. GW has ALWAYS been a pay to play concept. There have always been units/armies that are simply better than others, all the way back to the RT era.

'Things have always been bad therefore we should just accept they are bad and not try to change anything' is a terrible mindset to have for just about anything.

Agreed, anytime you cut anything out of 7th someone comes along and their only real complaint is whatever the change is doesn't "fix the balance" even though the other party is only really saying they feel it improves balance, formatting will never fix codex imbalance. People will proceed to just make the perfect the enemy of the good.

7th is genuinely more enjoyable with some structure and less apoc stuff.

I think that we are missing the importance of play testing and feedback. For our events we put a lot of time in play testing the format. What we found was the different ways to win or accrue points helped mitigate death stars (to a point). So far a lot of people have put forth good suggestions , perhaps we should get some kind of feedback thread? Tomorrow I`ll be playing with Luke from here on Dakka . He is not only an excellent player but a lot of fun to play with and has a great knowledge of the game. I`ll talk to him about setting up some kind of bat rep discussion or feedback thread.

Yeah, that would be great. Looking forward to it.

 Sarigar wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

Are you purposefully going down an unrelated rabbit hole? Reread my first post on this thread.

I was reading the one I responded to - which implied that you'd somehow get less enjoyment out of the game if it became more balanced.

Since it seemed like an odd concept, I thought I'd ask you to clarify whether or not that was what you meant.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

If everything is OP, nothing is OP.

No.
If everything is OP, everything is OP and you have a horrible broken mess of a game.

It is still better then only a few armies being OP and others not. You realy get a broken mess of a game, if all armies are bad, because then your not realy playing a game.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


In their original incarnation, where they had an actual points cost attached to the abilities they offered, they might have made sense.

However, at this point, the way GW has executed them is amongst the absolute worst examples of game design I could think of, and really scream "marketing gimmick", they're vehicles for moving web-bundles, especially when absurdly powerful formations like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force come from web-bundle exclusives.

Hit the nail on the head, when they first came to existence in apoc they had points associated with them.


I think we can all agree that GW's ability to accurately cost units is pretty bad, doesn't mean they don't get close or bang on once in a while, but we all know there is no sacred equation, it's merely the best we got. There's no accounting for synergy/buffing

With that said, when you go the extra level of handing out even more special rules and abilities without even badly point costing it (too high, too low) you really do start to make it the thing to do. If formations/detachments and now even squadron special abilities came at a cost it would at least feel like they gave it a college fething try. Without points it really does just feel like a gimmick and due to that I would rather they just remained in apoc, like a lot of 7th.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Second, formations being 'pay to play'. GW has ALWAYS been a pay to play concept. There have always been units/armies that are simply better than others, all the way back to the RT era.

'Things have always been bad therefore we should just accept they are bad and not try to change anything' is a terrible mindset to have for just about anything.

Agreed, anytime you cut anything out of 7th someone comes along and their only real complaint is whatever the change is doesn't "fix the balance" even though the other party is only really saying they feel it improves balance, formatting will never fix codex imbalance. People will proceed to just make the perfect the enemy of the good.

7th is genuinely more enjoyable with some structure and less apoc stuff.

What is interesting is watching how many folks cherry pick parts of a post and then make up a conclusion based on incorrect information. Nowhere did I tell the OP not to change any rules. I agreed with him, but that would require reading things in their entirety for others to understand that.

Haldir wrote:
Again free vehicles , over the top formation bonuses , summoning. These things wreak of pay to win. But hey if people enjoy that and have fun that way , all the better. For me I`ve found a niche that our local community seems to enjoy. Also the comment about sprawl is soo true. I like the idea of our events where you can show up with a normal army not just the latest meta and have a chance to compete and most importantly have fun!!

I'm sorry but your post reeks of wah wah wah I lost to a army using a formation so all formations must be banned. Grow the hell up jeez you ban formations you practically make my csm and kdk borderline unplayable

I think it goes without saying that above all else, playtesting is the most required, yet lacking thing, in current 40K.

I like formations for the fluffy crunch some bring, and they also allow us to break from the boring-ass CAD. Take the (I forget the name) SM formation with Whirlwinds and Land Speeders; the concept totally takes sense (mark targets for artillery strikes), it's fluffy and a nice way to boost the performance of both units without being broken.

However, stuff like the Decurion and Skyhammer are a bit silly. Good concept, terrible application of rules.

Do players use formations as a crutch for bad playing skills? Absolutely. But some players, regardless of gaming medium, are always drawn to the FOTM net-listed army/deck/class/badger. Nothing will ever change that.

I think that most formations are written with (in order) these priorities:
1) Sell more models
2) Sell even more models
3) Cool idea
4) Fluff
99) Game Balance

I rather like the formations, but every faction needs them. Where are my Chaos formations that allow me Obliterators that deepstrike without scatter? Where are the Sister formations that grant extra faiths? Where are my Space Marine formations that give free transports?

*GW whispers into my ear*

Oh, I have that last one? feth Chaos and Sisters, then. I got mine!

*Runs off to make some lists*

 kronk wrote:
I rather like the formations, but every faction needs them. Where are my Chaos formations that allow me Obliterators that deepstrike without scatter? Where are the Sister formations that grant extra faiths? Where are my Space Marine formations that give free transports?

*GW whispers into my ear*

Oh, I have that last one? feth Chaos and Sisters, then. I got mine!

*Runs off to make some lists*

CSM and their Daemons do need some real formations, until then you got KDK I guess.

Whereas formations can be used as a crutch, it was my impression that they were more for allowing new player to understand how to take units and getting a feel for the game, while strengthening fluffy lists rather than promoting cheese.

I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I think one of the biggest issues with formations is that there's generally no downside whatsoever to taking them.

I get that that they offer different ways to build armies, but there needs to be a downside. Otherwise, it's not a different way of playing the army, it's a *better* way of playing it.

Part of the problem is the whole detachment system. If a formation locked you into taking a subset of units, then that would be something. But, when you can get the other units you want just by taking a different formation, or a CAD, or even by going Unbound, it just makes it pointless.

TLDR: Formations should involve some kind of trade-off. Having them as all-upside is just bad design.

 vipoid wrote:
I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I think one of the biggest issues with formations is that there's generally no downside whatsoever to taking them.

I get that that they offer different ways to build armies, but there needs to be a downside. Otherwise, it's not a different way of playing the army, it's a *better* way of playing it.

Part of the problem is the whole detachment system. If a formation locked you into taking a subset of units, then that would be something. But, when you can get the other units you want just by taking a different formation, or a CAD, or even by going Unbound, it just makes it pointless.

TLDR: Formations should involve some kind of trade-off. Having them as all-upside is just bad design.

I can agree with this sentiment. If there was more of an opportunity cost associated with formations, I don't think as many people have them. The really problematic formations have very little in the way of drawbacks to taking them, and few or irrelevant restrictions as well.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
taking the game from a hobby and game expirence into a "pay to win" one.

I would argue that the game is pay to win from the get go, only in so much that the player with more units to choose from will always have an advantage over the player who plays with literally every model they own and it barely scrapes 1500pts. Because the size and scope of your armies directly correlates to your wallet, it always has been and always will be pay to win to some extent.

That's true, but it doesn't mean the game can't get more pay-to-win.

Agreed, the transition from 5th to 7th has only made pay-to-win a bigger and bigger problem. I think a big part of that too is if you look at the better detachments/formations, they often don't even involve variables like casting a psychic power, and thus why try and cast a psychic power (that could fail or be negated) to twin link a unit when I can just twin-link my whole army with zero percent chance of failure? It's bad design, but that seems to be the way things are going, all upside, no downside. Look at the new tau fromation that just makes a ghostkeel and some stealth suits have no cover and hit rear armour. It's not even an ability to get on a dice roll, it just is. It's even sillier when you consider of all armies that need no cover, tau aren't exactly hurting in that department being the only army that can hand it out like candy.

Gw of today is such a stark contrast from forgeworld. When you look at the 30k rules, it's a striking difference, there's so much to take into context, so many selections and abilities become important decision points because they're often mutually exclusive. Youre forced to make hard choices, benefits also come with risks or downsides. On the 40k side, it's more more more ,buy now, here's free stuff. You deserve to win every game if you go without food this month, you're a powerful consumer, a capitalist tyrannosaurus of glory.

I wish more tournaments and shops/clubs played 30K here in the UK. I'd quite happily bin (ebay) all my 40K stuff for 30K and start going to tournaments and looking for pick-up games again if it was more widely played.

As for 40K.. everyone house rules in some respect. It's never going to be balanced, or at the very least be like 5th again sadly though.
I play 40K in a small group of friends I've know for 30 odd years with beer and snacks - I guess the environment that Jervis et al are aiming for with the game, and it's tolerable enough. No amount of house ruling is going to every persuade me to go to a tournament or a pick up game to play again though. It's admirable that people are trying to make it balanced, but that square peg ain't ever going to go into that round hole.

Bartali wrote:


I wish more tournaments and shops/clubs played 30K here in the UK. I'd quite happily bin (ebay) all my 40K stuff for 30K and start going to tournaments and looking for pick-up games again if it was more widely played.

If you play Chaos Daemons you can play 30K, 40K, AoS, and WHFB with a little magnetization.

Makumba wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
So, to clarify, are you saying your games would be less enjoyable if the game became more balanced?

If everything is OP, nothing is OP.

No.
If everything is OP, everything is OP and you have a horrible broken mess of a game.

It is still better then only a few armies being OP and others not. You realy get a broken mess of a game, if all armies are bad, because then your not realy playing a game.

So what if it's "better"? It's still better and shouldn't be suggested for that reason.

To be honest I don't even think I could take these formations seriously?? I don't want to win because I used a broken list?

I.E. -- Luke from Dakka came by me the other night. Luke has been a TO , is a seasoned tournament player and has a plethora of knowledge about the game. We played mission 1 from our upcoming tournament.

Luke rans Crons -- 18 Wraiths , DL , Ghost Ark , Scythe , Orikan , Nightbringer and some warriors and immortals.
I ran AM , 3 Vultures , 2 Vendettas , Hydra , Griffon and 5 squads of melts vet's.

We went 6 turns and the game was a blast !!!!

We tied Eternal ...... Damn I needed to roll a 4 after turn 5!!!
Luke smoked me Maelstrom really bad
I picked up the 6 Teritary points.

1 pt. Necron victory !!!

Thoughts (again play testing means so much).....I played a top knotch seasoned player , with a brutal list that he knew how to use. I also brought some Imperial love (3 Vultures oh my...). The game was AWESOME and so much fun. I've been playing a lot of Warmachine the last 2 months and have to say the game with Luke was more fun and exciting than any of the Warmachine games I played ( I do really like warmachine though).
So yes with the right tweaks I think that 40K still has the potential to be a really exciting and tactical game. I used my Vulture to hit a scythe one turn instead of hitting more Wraiths. That probably lost me the game. Hence I didn't lose because the game was broken . I lost because I made a SINGLE costly mistake against a very good player who didn't make any mistakes .
Isn't that the purpose of the game or what it should be?

5 flyers? I'm jealous, I only have 2 vendettas. How did the vultures do? Out of curiosity, was looking to add to my guard