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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

From my ideal of 'standard' 40k? Sure. Whether its about removing the physical model and its rules or just removing the sub type of GC and Super-heavy and making them super MCs (slightly higher T, one or two more wounds), I don't think the rules that support GCs belong in 40k as it is. So yes, either fix them by dramatically altering how they exist (and not simply shuffling point costs around, but a serious overhaul of the core mechanics) or just removing them outright.

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

If it makes you feel any better, if I was to remove all formations, it'd come with a significant overhaul that would fix most of the balance issues. Nobody would be punished, as most builds would be viable without the use of formation bonuses and free gak.

But, for the topic of this particular post, I do believe that the solution to fixing broken formations is simply to remove them.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

From my ideal of 'standard' 40k? Sure. Whether its about removing the physical model and its rules or just removing the sub type of GC and Super-heavy and making them super MCs (slightly higher T, one or two more wounds), I don't think the rules that support GCs belong in 40k as it is. So yes, either fix them by dramatically altering how they exist (and not simply shuffling point costs around, but a serious overhaul of the core mechanics) or just removing them outright.

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

If it makes you feel any better, if I was to remove all formations, it'd come with a significant overhaul that would fix most of the balance issues. Nobody would be punished, as most builds would be viable without the use of formation bonuses and free gak.

But, for the topic of this particular post, I do believe that the solution to fixing broken formations is simply to remove them.

That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

 krodarklorr wrote:


That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

I'm well aware it won't fix the underlying issue, and I've stated as such a few time now. I'm also aware GW won't do anything about it.

For the purpose of this thread though, formations add a layer of further imbalance to the game. Removing them would be step 1 in my 14834 step plan to un feth 40k. Of course I don't have the patience or time to re-write a whole ruleset, much less when I'm not getting paid for it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for the Blacksails Re-Mastered Ultimate Pretty Much the Best Thing Ever Edition.

As awesome as that edition would be. Just a big old picture of my ugly mug on the front with two thumbs up.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

I'm well aware it won't fix the underlying issue, and I've stated as such a few time now. I'm also aware GW won't do anything about it.

For the purpose of this thread though, formations add a layer of further imbalance to the game. Removing them would be step 1 in my 14834 step plan to un feth 40k. Of course I don't have the patience or time to re-write a whole ruleset, much less when I'm not getting paid for it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for the Blacksails Re-Mastered Ultimate Pretty Much the Best Thing Ever Edition.

I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

They need to remove scoring from every unit type and only let troops score like back in 5th edition.

Then people will take more troops instead of wraith knights and rip tides, etc.

Scat bikes will remain kings.

 krodarklorr wrote:


I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

Ehhhh, to a point, maybe. More stuff just means it becomes more difficult to balance, not that it will inherently become less balanced. Giant monsters have their place, but 40k needs to make up its mind over what scale it wants to be. Part of the issue with the game is precisely that its a skirmish ruleset awkwardly mated to a large scale ruleset via arranged marriage where nobody is happy but the parents get a huge dowry. Or something.

Flyers are also very poorly implemented. They were fine when the only ones included were capable of hovering and acted as fast skimmers.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

Removing them may not fix all the balance issues, but it'd certainly remove the balance issues caused by formations.

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

I'm not saying that the +1 BS isn't over the top for taking units you'd want to take anyways...but it's really not the formation that's broken...it's warp spiders. All the other options are just okay. Scat bikes are better than warpspiders anyways or at least - just as good. I use mine to bring dark reapers and swooping hawks and it's hardly OP.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

Ehhhh, to a point, maybe. More stuff just means it becomes more difficult to balance, not that it will inherently become less balanced. Giant monsters have their place, but 40k needs to make up its mind over what scale it wants to be. Part of the issue with the game is precisely that its a skirmish ruleset awkwardly mated to a large scale ruleset via arranged marriage where nobody is happy but the parents get a huge dowry. Or something.

Flyers are also very poorly implemented. They were fine when the only ones included were capable of hovering and acted as fast skimmers.

Well, yeah. There are a couple of easy things I'd vote for fixing with GCs and SHVs. The ruleset itself needs to change for any real balance to be made.

That would also mean I wouldn't get to use my Flyers, as they cannot hover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Filch wrote:
They need to remove scoring from every unit type and only let troops score like back in 5th edition.

Then people will take more troops instead of wraith knights and rip tides, etc.

Scat bikes will remain kings.

I'm also all for this. immobile vehicles lose Scoring, and only Troop units can score. Also, GCs and SHV are worth Victory points when killed. Boom, we're on the right track.

Who says they couldn't be 'adjusted' to magically gain the ability to hover? I'm sure the most advanced race in the galaxy can figure that out.

 Blacksails wrote:
Who says they couldn't be 'adjusted' to magically gain the ability to hover? I'm sure the most advanced race in the galaxy can figure that out.

It wouldn't fit the fluff description of them. And being the most advanced race in the galaxy is great and all, but not when the rules don't support it all that much.

I just don't understand the mentality of "this one action won't solve everything in one fell swoop, so I'm against it." It's obviously going to take multiple actions.

Nixing formations at least drives us all towards the right ball park, because right now some armies are across town in the bowling alley with their baseball gear getting weird looks.

"But some people might want to play X!" is not a valid defense for game balancing. Those people are just going to have to accept that they can emulate almost any theme imaginable with a standard detachment and without all the special rules that the formation gives.

EG in my day, we called a green tide any ork list that was mostly on foot and had a LOT of orks. So you can still play a green tide without the formation, you just won't have a very overworked painboy who can somehow treat wounds 30" away from himself, a void shield that somehow protects the front ork across the board just because the rear ork is near the shield, and an armored warboss holding a stikk who can somehow jump in front of all enemy anti-infantry firepower from one general direction.

If we're talking about a huge re-write, I'm 99% sure it'd be easy to add in the fact that the croissants can hover and move around at slow speeds.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

I'm well aware it won't fix the underlying issue, and I've stated as such a few time now. I'm also aware GW won't do anything about it.

For the purpose of this thread though, formations add a layer of further imbalance to the game. Removing them would be step 1 in my 14834 step plan to un feth 40k. Of course I don't have the patience or time to re-write a whole ruleset, much less when I'm not getting paid for it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for the Blacksails Re-Mastered Ultimate Pretty Much the Best Thing Ever Edition.

I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

I would prefer it without all that stuff and forts. This could be achieved by putting all the stuff that GW spooged into the core rules back into optional supplements where they belong. Then everyone could be happy.

I'm not against formations as a concept, only against the implementation by GW.

Daemons just got their formations about a week ago! In other words I would go through several stages of denial if they took away what just came out

Reavas wrote:
Daemons just got their formations about a week ago! In other words I would go through several stages of denial if they took away what just came out

And Daemons are an example of formations that (though are a big on the big side) are fairly balanced. You pay a heavy tax on taking extra groups, but get a big of a benefit.

I like formations in the same way I like allies in 40K: they allow for some really cool, fluffy combinations that just don't work under traditional FOCs from earlier editions. I also like formations and allies in the same way I like nuclear bombs: I trust myself to have them, but you... not so much

Thanks for all the feedback and replies.

I like certain formations. I like the demi-company because it rewards me for running the models that I always have (Tacs, Devs, and ASM). If formations were to be removed I would be disappointed, because I like getting a bonus for running the type of army that I do, but I would ultimately get on with my life and continue running the same lists that I always have. The CAD does still allow for a lot of flexibility

There are usually 2 balancing mechanics in strategy games, especially video games:
1. Some kind of points/population cap, limiting the overall size of your army with a cost per unit that is based on the units effectiveness.
2. Points/pop cap aside, certain powerful units have a hard cap of 1, or some other number that limits the number you can field of that particular unit.

Basically, things have to be appropriately costed for their effectiveness, and even with balanced costs some things still have to be limited because a whole army of them is way too powerful. In older editions of 40K, there were 0-1 restrictions and CADs to enforce this, and buffing units was fairly limited so you generally got what you paid for (assuming an appropriate base points cost). Formations and allies as implemented have broken both of these rules; they add value to units without increasing cost (your models die 17% less!) and eliminate the last vestiges of unit-type caps that existed (take up to 12 wraithknights!). To balance 40K points costs need to be much more carefully thought out, but the methods for turning a 19 point unit into one that should cost 30 points need to go away as well.

 Filch wrote:
They need to remove scoring from every unit type and only let troops score like back in 5th edition.

Then people will take more troops instead of wraith knights and rip tides, etc.

Scat bikes will remain kings.

Troops scoring only? This would lead to buying less non-Troop units.
This is not what GW wants. Therefore, 40k was turned into a mini apoc game where all units and models can sell equally well. They don't, since some units are almost useless gamewise.

And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

 Jimsolo wrote:
And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

As well as Skitarii.

Jimsolo wrote:And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

krodarklorr wrote:
As well as Skitarii.

That's sort of a separate issue, though. GW intentionally designed these books as allies. If we're talking a significant change to the current rules, these 'dexes would have to be rolled into an appropriate parent codex. Frankly, no codex with only half a dozen unit choices should ever be called a codex, but I digress.

 the_Armyman wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

krodarklorr wrote:
As well as Skitarii.

That's sort of a separate issue, though. GW intentionally designed these books as allies. If we're talking a significant change to the current rules, these 'dexes would have to be rolled into an appropriate parent codex. Frankly, no codex with only half a dozen unit choices should ever be called a codex, but I digress.

On the flip side of that though, without Halries having their own codex (and relying on formations) would we ever have seen a plastic solitaire/skyweaver/starweaver/voidweaver...

and if they were rolled up into a single codex... which codex C: WE?, Covens?,C: DE?

Truth be told, if you remove formations you destroy at least 2 factions, and tbh with the harly codex at least they couldn't be implemented into another book... not after they have expanded this much

Harlies could easily just be added to the other Eldar books, their total unit count went up by what...3 unit entries? A couple of Vyper/Venom knockoffs (amusing in its own right given that the Venom was originally a Harlequin transport in previous editions) and the Solitaire got re-introduced to the game? That's a couple extra pages to C:CWE or C: DE.

GW doesn't seem to have any problem with the same units being in multiple books and often running with different rules for sometimes years at a time.