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.

SemperMortis wrote:Formations are inherently unbalanced, because at the moment they aren't equal.

This is just a bad argument.

"Apple pies are inherently gross: at the moment, everyone uses nutmeg, and I don't like nutmeg."

To which I'd answer: "But if they didn't have nutmeg, you wouldn't find apple pies gross. Apple pies aren't inherently gross; you just don't like nutmeg."

At the moment, formations aren't equal. But there's no inherent imbalance to formations as such.

It's basically what I said earlier: formations in principle, i.e., as an idea are extremely good for this game; that said, as to be expected with GW, the execution has been gak.

Traditio wrote:


At the moment, formations aren't equal. But there's no inherent imbalance to formations as such.

Free bonuses for no points cost is inherent unbalanced. Full stop. Fundamentally, that's where the problem lies when points values are used as the balancing mechanism for army construction.

My apologies for not answering this earlier! It's just that this deserves a relatively extended treatment, and I've been putting it off until I was "up to" giving these points the treatment that they really do deserve.

BlackSails wrote:]The only way this could work is with so many formations (and many of which would be single unit type formations for the player's sake) that it'd be a nightmare to design, balance, and have the players sift through.

I disagree with this. You are operating under the assumption that "use whatever you want" is an inherent good that GW should keep. If we abandon this assumption, the vast plurality of formations that you are demanding cease to be a requirement.

I do wish to concede a point to Experiment 626, i.e., that I may have been hasty in demanding the removal of single model formations. In point of fact, I actually use one (I use the Reclusiam Command Squad to field Pedro Kantor...either by himself or with an honor guard unit).

That said, I still say that these things should be the exception, not the rule (to accommodate HQ choices and other unique models, either with or without their retinues).

At any rate, once again, I wish to hold up the Gladius Strike Force as something that I think that GW has done relatively well, although there were obvious problems in executing it. If you field a GSF, you have plenty of options.

The issue becomes that balancing becomes even harder than it currently is. You were arguing earlier that more variety = less balance, well in this case, you're adding a larger variety of rules to the game. If every unit has their own rules, and then when those units are put in a formation that require more rules, which can then belong in a larger super formation with more rules, you've essentially tripled your balancing workload. Not only does every unit still theoretically have to be balanced in the traditional way before formations, you also have to balance them within the formation they're a part of, against the formations within the same book to not invalidate anything, and then externally among all the other codices.

The formation combinations do add rules that have to be balanced against each other, but it still reduces the overall range of possibilities that have to be balanced against each other.

Running an army of just devastator marines is a possibility if formations aren't required (if you are willing to go unbound). With formations, it isn't.

On top of that, its also limiting options for the player.

I wish to note two things:

1. You've just contradicted your previous assertion. You cannot in the same breath maintain that it increases the range of possibilities for balancing purposes, but nonetheless insist that it reduces options for the player.

2. I don't think that this is problematic. Even without formations, the actual range of possibilities for a viable build are often limited anyway. Consider Tyrranids. When's the last time you played against a Tyrranids list without a flyrant (at least, a game in which the Tyrranids player wasn't completely smashed off the table)?

In point of fact, enforcing formations might actually increase the number of viable options for any given codex, presupposing appropriate balancing of those formations.

Even more so for the following reason: If playing against an army of just wraithknights or flyrants isn't a possibility, then I am more "free" in my own army construction. Yes, absolutely speaking, I have fewer options to choose from. But more of those options are actually viable.

If my building blocks become larger and have prescribed units, I'm going to be more frustrated trying to make army lists at smaller point levels and trying to get my theme just right. Its also annoying in that it essentially forces units I may not like if they happen to be bundled with a unit I do like. Further, it may run counter to the fluff my force has.

Two points:

1. Again, if you consider the GSF, there's sufficient variety even within the formations. You don't want to take assault marines? You can take bikes. You don't want to take bikes? Then you can take a land-speeder.

2. You opted to buy the codex that you bought. If you wanted to play Codex: Space Marines, then you should be pretty darned excited about running tactical marines, devastators (or equivalents) and assault marines (or equivalents).

If you wanted to play an army which is very different from the prescribed fluffy formation, then why are you playing that codex?

One of the big selling points of 40k is its near unlimited options and fluff, allowing you to build an army for just about any type of force your heart desires. That's achieved by letting players pick exactly which units they want in exactly the quantity they want with the specific wargear they want. Forcing them to take X amount of Y doesn't fix anything, it just frustrates some players without providing any real benefits by excluding the classic CAD.

There's already player frustration. Just like in D&D and Pathfinder, there's a conflict between min-maxers and the more "story" influenced players. Yes, in 40k, a major selling point is that you can take whatever you want. In point of fact, you cannot take whatever you want and have an actual chance of winning a game.

At any rate, again, I don't see the "take WHATEVER you want" aspect of the game as an untouchable golden calf. If you are playing with the Codex: Space Marines, then your army should play like a space marines army. Yes, fluff-wise, there are variations of how that works out.

But you should have to play one of those variations.

]Why?

It prevents spam.

This limits player options.

I'm cool with that.

You're limiting player options in an attempt to limit powerful options by making them take more stuff they don't want to. This doesn't help anyone. Fix the core issue, not the symptom. If the conclave is too powerful, you fix the conclave. You don't just add a tax people may not want.

I think that both are necessary. Even if Wraithknights were balanced points and ruleswise, they would still be inherently unbalanced against certain kinds of armies (e.g., an army of sternguard without upgrades).

Disagree. This only aggravates power creep, pushes the game to higher point levels, makes the barrier to entry higher for any sort of competitive gaming (being more expensive, especially with free transports) and again limits list building.

2 points:

1. A demi-company without upgrades is only 440 points. Upgrade your devastators to have missile launchers, and you've got yourself a 500 points game.

2. I fail to see any significant sense in which it aggravates power creep. Yes, it buffs basic troops. But it seriously limits spammable "win buttons."

I thought you were all about variety?

I'm in favor of constrainted variety.

Besides, there's already variety. There's more than one codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Traditio wrote:


At the moment, formations aren't equal. But there's no inherent imbalance to formations as such.

Free bonuses for no points cost is inherent unbalanced. Full stop. Fundamentally, that's where the problem lies when points values are used as the balancing mechanism for army construction.

I've already addressed that. It's not.

If my formation gives me 200 points worth of free units, upgrades, rules, etc., and your formation gives you 200 points worth of free units, upgrades, rules, etc., there's no imbalance.

Traditio wrote:


I've already addressed that. It's not.

If my formation gives me 200 points worth of free units, upgrades, rules, etc., and your formation gives you 200 points worth of free units, upgrades, rules, etc., there's no imbalance.

In a perfect universe, maybe, but that also varies wildly by points level, bonus specifications, what free units get chosen (e.g. free razorbacks are worth more than free rhinos), and the fact that detachment numbers are unlimited (I take 3 detachments and get 600pts of free stuff to your 200pts), and that some formations (e.g. Decurion style ones) stack capabilities with their constituent formations.

There fundamentally really is no way to balance this.

Vaktathi wrote:In a perfect universe, maybe, but that also varies wildly by points level, bonus specifications, what free units get chosen (e.g. free razorbacks are worth more than free rhinos), and the fact that detachment numbers are unlimited (I take 3 detachments and get 600pts of free stuff to your 200pts), and that some formations (e.g. Decurion style ones) stack capabilities with their constituent formations.

There fundamentally really is no way to balance this.

I agree with you in this respect: the actual execution of formations has not been good or balanced. There are, in fact, wild imbalances. Free razorbacks should not be a thing for 5 man tactical squads. [I don't, however, see free rhinos as inherently game breaking.]

That said, I simply need to ask the question: is it possible to make it balanced?

You say "no." I say "yes."

You complain about the worth of the bonus? I say that all formations should have roughly equal bonuses.

You complain about the ability to take unlimited detachments? I say make formations mandatory.

Then the number of detachments would be irrelevant. You are running 4 detachments? Then you enjoy that army full of basic core infantry.

Have you read my previous posts in this thread? Blacksails and Experiment626 responded to a posting of mine (disagreeing with it, of course).

But I don't think that you can deny that it would increase balance.

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:Formations are inherently unbalanced, because at the moment they aren't equal.

This is just a bad argument.

"Apple pies are inherently gross: at the moment, everyone uses nutmeg, and I don't like nutmeg."

To which I'd answer: "But if they didn't have nutmeg, you wouldn't find apple pies gross. Apple pies aren't inherently gross; you just don't like nutmeg."

At the moment, formations aren't equal. But there's no inherent imbalance to formations as such.

It's basically what I said earlier: formations in principle, i.e., as an idea are extremely good for this game; that said, as to be expected with GW, the execution has been gak.

That is a horrible argument. Apple pies are delicious no matter what, how dare you insult apple pies, there is a special circle of hell reserved for people who don't like apple pie.

And serious. Formations are AS BALANCED as the current codex system. So by saying "As an idea are extremely good for this game" you could also say that the points based system and Codex system is the exact same. At the moment the formations add MORE to unbalancing the game and do nothing to take away from it. The BEST formations at the moment are the Eldar Warhost, the Necron Decurion, the SM Gladius and the Tau formations that allow you to bring multiple riptides and other MC GMCs.

So what GW did was take the TOP tier armies and give them even more power by giving them hugely beneficial formations. The bottom Tier armies, Orks, IG, BA were given formations, some are fun to play but none are even remotely on the same level as those given to the top tier codexs. This is because of two things, 1: The Top tier codexs are just better and 2: The top tier formations give actual benefits the bottom tier ones don't really give bonuses.

At the moment, the Orkurion formation gives 1 BIG bonus and that is fearless to all units. However to gain that bonus you have to pay about 800-1000 pts depending on how you optimize the Council of Waaagh formation that has to be taken as a core. So in smaller 1k games all the way to 1500 and maybe even 1850 your gimping your army because you have so much invested in a single unit. This would be ok if the formation gave other bonuses to other units and auxillaries, but it doesn't. So you get a deathstar that only has 1 model with an Invul save and then you have anywhere between 500-700 points left over for the rest of your army, in a 1,500pt game.


My point is that Formations don't balance the game anymore then codex's do. What needs to happen is for GW to stop being lazy, take a few weeks/months to play test, god forbid they utilize there rabid fan base for help, and to come out with some codex's that aren't inherently unbalanced against one another.

Traditio wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:In a perfect universe, maybe, but that also varies wildly by points level, bonus specifications, what free units get chosen (e.g. free razorbacks are worth more than free rhinos), and the fact that detachment numbers are unlimited (I take 3 detachments and get 600pts of free stuff to your 200pts), and that some formations (e.g. Decurion style ones) stack capabilities with their constituent formations.

There fundamentally really is no way to balance this.

I agree with you in this respect: the actual execution of formations has not been good or balanced. There are, in fact, wild imbalances. Free razorbacks should not be a thing for 5 man tactical squads.

That said, I simply need to ask the question: is it possible to make it balanced?

You'd basically have to take it on a list by list basis, which is the problem.

You say "no." I say "yes."

Well lets look at the details then.

You complain about the worth of the bonus? I say that all formations should have roughly equal bonuses.

How do you define this? Free transports at 500pts is very different than free transports at 2000pts. Free special weapons is one thing if everyone is taking flamers, it's another if everyone is taking Plasma Fusil's.

You complain about the ability to take unlimited detachments? I say make formations mandatory.

How many? Do they all have the same bonuses? Do they vary by points level? If I take 3 and my opponent takes 1 then I've got 600pts of free stuff to their 200pts.

Then the number of detachments would be irrelevant. You are running 4 detachments? Then you enjoy that army full of basic core infantry.

Are all formations going to consist of core infantry? Because very few currently do. How do you address stacking bonuses? Even if they are all just basic infantry, they've now got a bazillion upgrades and special rules, and your 2000pt army has the numbers of a 2000pt army but the gear of a 2800pt army and your opponent is playing with 2200pts.

Ultimately, if everyone's going to be getting free bonuses like this, why not just get rid of the free bonuses or increase the points level being played at to get the same effect rather than trying to juggle how formations scale and the numbers of detachments and whatnot?

Have you read my previous posts in this thread? Blacksails and Experiment626 responded to a posting of mine (disagreeing with it, of course).

But I don't think that you can deny that it would increase balance.

In light of the above issues, I think we can. They certainly haven't done anything to do so thus far.

Vaktathi wrote: You'd basically have to take it on a list by list basis, which is the problem.

That's true without codices. How do you truly know whether or not a wraithknight is "balanced" against other units?

How do you know whether or not a given psyker ability truly is "balanced" or not?

How do you define this?

If I can take a free rhino at a given points level, and you can take roughly 35 points of free chaos marks/icons, then it's basically balanced (at least pointswise).

Free transports at 500pts is very different than free transports at 2000pts.

You understand that this is a non-issue in the C:SM?

In order to get free transports, I have to run a full battle-company with at least one auxillary. The "free transports" thing doesn't really come into play until roughly 1000 points or more.

If we're playing a 500 points game, and I'm running a demi-company (with my devs upgraded to missile launchers, let's say), the only thing I get is a single use of the tactical doctrine.

Free special weapons is one thing if everyone is taking flamers, it's another if everyone is taking Plasma Fusil's.

Balancing should be based on the best possible upgrade. If I can take either flamers or plasma guns for free, then, for balancing purposes, your formation bonuses should assume I took plasma guns.

Either that, or the possible upgrades within a given formation should be roughly points equivalent. "Take a free flamer or a free plasma gun" shouldn't really be an option, perhaps.

How many? Do they all have the same bonuses? Do they vary by points level? If I take 3 and my opponent takes 1 then I've got 600pts of free stuff to their 200pts...

...

Are all formations going to consist of core infantry? Because very few currently do. How do you address stacking bonuses? Even if they are all just basic infantry, they've now got a bazillion upgrades and special rules, and your 2000pt army has the numbers of a 2000pt army but the gear of a 2800pt army and your opponent is playing with 2200pts.

Again, I'm thinking in terms of the C:SM. Basically, ideally, everything you put in a given detachment should have to be either a demi-company, or else, fall within the Gladius Strike Force formation (or equivalent).

single mono-army CADs were a pretty strong possibility for 40k army balance before 6th edition added Imperial ally matrices and 7th added unbound.

There's always the possibility that they could reverse those horrid changes.

Traditio wrote:


I disagree with this. You are operating under the assumption that "use whatever you want" is an inherent good that GW should keep. If we abandon this assumption, the vast plurality of formations that you are demanding cease to be a requirement.

I do wish to concede a point to Experiment 626, i.e., that I may have been hasty in demanding the removal of single model formations. In point of fact, I actually use one (I use the Reclusiam Command Squad to field Pedro Kantor...either by himself or with an honor guard unit).

That said, I still say that these things should be the exception, not the rule (to accommodate HQ choices and other unique models, either with or without their retinues).

At any rate, once again, I wish to hold up the Gladius Strike Force as something that I think that GW has done relatively well, although there were obvious problems in executing it. If you field a GSF, you have plenty of options.

40k is not a good game. It doesn't do anything particularly well, with one exception. It has the most freedom in list building of almost any game I've played (definitely all the common/popular ones anyways). Outside of that positive, there isn't much 40k does well. When you remove that, you're stuck with a game with is still poorly balanced, has mismatched mechanics, is riddled with errors and vague rules, and incredibly expensive to boot. With the amazing amount of lore we have to work with, it also makes sense to give players as much freedom as can conceivably be written and balanced, which I'd argue the game has in quantity just not in balance quality.

Limiting or restricting that freedom just shuts out one of the only things 40k does with any amount of success.

The formation combinations do add rules that have to be balanced against each other, but it still reduces the overall range of possibilities that have to be balanced against each other.

Running an army of just devastator marines is a possibility if formations aren't required (if you are willing to go unbound). With formations, it isn't.

No it doesn't because the game still operates on a unit by unit basis, which means you're still dealing with units on the table, not formations. Therefore, units are still designed as stand alone elements with their own rules and wargear, and then formations add an additional layer.

Its quite simple really. Take a game with units and no formations, and then a game with units and formations. One has an additional elements to balance and consider. The other does not. Fundamentally, all units have to be useful and therefore balanced among eachother. This holds true whether or not they're in a formation. Adding formation buffs is quite literally an extra layer of complexity that has to be balanced in addition to the units. Remembering as well that the same unit can appear in multiple formations with wildly different functionalities, further complicating the issue.

Also, I think we can all agree that Unbound is a bad joke and not worth the ink or paper its written on.

I wish to note two things:

1. You've just contradicted your previous assertion. You cannot in the same breath maintain that it increases the range of possibilities for balancing purposes, but nonetheless insist that it reduces options for the player.

2. I don't think that this is problematic. Even without formations, the actual range of possibilities for a viable build are often limited anyway. Consider Tyrranids. When's the last time you played against a Tyrranids list without a flyrant (at least, a game in which the Tyrranids player wasn't completely smashed off the table)?

In point of fact, enforcing formations might actually increase the number of viable options for any given codex, presupposing appropriate balancing of those formations.

Even more so for the following reason: If playing against an army of just wraithknights or flyrants isn't a possibility, then I am more "free" in my own army construction. Yes, absolutely speaking, I have fewer options to choose from. But more of those options are actually viable.

As for the first point, there is no contradiction. You're confusing the work of balancing units/formations with the options available to a player. The work involved when dealing with a game that has units as a core with formations as a mandatory minimum building block consisting of units is more than the work involved when dealing with a game that has units and no formations. Both systems have to design, balance, and test the units against one another to ensure they're useful, fill a role, and offer some sort of unique tool to the table. The one with formations then also has to design the formations, balance the buffs, and ensure no one formation is better than the others, either based on a combination of the units within it being too good or bad, or the buffs being out of whack. The system without formations doesn't even have to think about that entire process, only the first process of unit design.

Then, in the game with formations as a minimum building block, players are stuck dealing with bundles of units they may not want. If I want to take a pair of scout squads and nothing more, but a theoretical scout formation would be a minimum of 3 scout squads and a land speeder or a scout bike squad, I'd be annoyed. The system without formations gives the player the freedom to take exactly what they want, nothing more, nothing less.

No contradiction. If you're still confused, I'm happy to elaborate.

As for point two, the issue then is that the units are poorly balanced. Forcing formations doesn't fix anything, especially if you're making the assumption they're balanced. Why not make the same assumption, but without formations? As in, Tyranids could be fixed by simply balancing the units. You know, the easier way than balancing the units, writing formations, and balancing those formations.

Two points:

1. Again, if you consider the GSF, there's sufficient variety even within the formations. You don't want to take assault marines? You can take bikes. You don't want to take bikes? Then you can take a land-speeder.

2. You opted to buy the codex that you bought. If you wanted to play Codex: Space Marines, then you should be pretty darned excited about running tactical marines, devastators (or equivalents) and assault marines (or equivalents).

If you wanted to play an army which is very different from the prescribed fluffy formation, then why are you playing that codex?

The GSF does a few things right in that there's a respectable amount of variety in the choices you get. It was pretty obvious they'd go that way, seeing as the codex astartes lays out exactly how a line company is built with reasonable variations.

However, we have plenty of other super formations that fail spectacularly at either being fluffy or being balanced. We can sit here all day with you saying the solution is to just balance formations, and me saying to balance the units, but we can all agree that even formations are the minimum building block, every unit within a formation needs to be useful and perform their role adequately. With that being established, we can then agree that the solution to balance formations also includes at least some amount of unit balancing, while the unit balancing solution consists exclusively of balancing units.

You also don't seem to grasp just how varied the 40k universe is. Going with the marine example, there are at least dozens of non, partial, and mostly codex compliant chapters that don't quite fit in a GSF. There are plenty of unit combinations or army themes that are perfectly fluffy that can be built using the CAD but not with the existing formations.

If I'm buying a codex its to use it to build my army how I want to, not have someone tell how to build it within a narrow, blinkered vision. Again, one of the only things 40k does well is have as much variety and options as it does to go with the vast amount of fluff. It'd be a shame to ditch that fluff and the options for DIY factions just because it makes more money to sell units exclusively in formation bundles.

There's already player frustration. Just like in D&D and Pathfinder, there's a conflict between min-maxers and the more "story" influenced players. Yes, in 40k, a major selling point is that you can take whatever you want. In point of fact, you cannot take whatever you want and have an actual chance of winning a game.

At any rate, again, I don't see the "take WHATEVER you want" aspect of the game as an untouchable golden calf. If you are playing with the Codex: Space Marines, then your army should play like a space marines army. Yes, fluff-wise, there are variations of how that works out.

But you should have to play one of those variations.

There's going to be conflict, frustrations, whining, bitching, moaning, complaining, criticizing, and also joy, love, and a sense of community in any game. What's your point?

Its becoming very clear your position is to ditch the idea of player options and force bundles on them. Limiting options takes away one of the few things 40k does well.

Remember there are players other than you who play with custom chapters or factions who can use the CAD to make specific armies. And lets make this clear; there is no downside to balancing the units and doing away with formations. Formations are simply band-aids to fix the units within them by tacking on more and more rules to give them the functionality they should have had all along. Remove the formation, pass down the appropriate USR to the unit itself, and now you get the best of both worlds. Let the players figure out the synergy themselves.

It prevents spam.

Why does this matter? Why is spam bad?

Replace spam with redundancy, or synergy, or symmetry and you get a better idea of why having multiples of something is not bad. Its also perfectly (arguably more so) fluffy.

I'm cool with that.

Good for you.

I (and many others) are not.

I think that both are necessary. Even if Wraithknights were balanced points and ruleswise, they would still be inherently unbalanced against certain kinds of armies (e.g., an army of sternguard without upgrades).

By that same logic, a land raider would be inherently unbalanced against anyone who didn't bring a lascannon (or equivalent) or melta gun (or equivalent). Which obviously is not the problem of the unit but with the player not taking into consideration during list building of asking themselves, "how to I deal with high AV vehicles, which are not uncommon".

2 points:

1. A demi-company without upgrades is only 440 points. Upgrade your devastators to have missile launchers, and you've got yourself a 500 points game.

2. I fail to see any significant sense in which it aggravates power creep. Yes, it buffs basic troops. But it seriously limits spammable "win buttons."

The GSF is literally the paragon of spamming win buttons. Between a combination of free drop pods and/or razorbacks, you can flood the table with scoring vehicles, all of which are *gasp* the same.

That 500pts game with free drop pods is roughly equivalent to 200pts of extra stuff, and about ~$250CAD of extra vehicles you wouldn't have in a 500pts game.

I'm in favor of constrainted variety.

Besides, there's already variety. There's more than one codex.

I'm in favour of the current variety we have, balanced, which effectively opens up the variety even more.

Really though, to simplify the whole thing:

Balance the units. Even in a formation system, units still have to balanced. Skipping formations is less work, simpler for all involved, and doesn't constrict player freedom.

Formations are just more work and bad band-aid on the core issue of a flawed game and poorly balanced units. Don't keep adding band-aids to the symptom, cure the problem. Balance the units, fix the core rules, dump formations.

Blacksails wrote:That 500pts game with free drop pods is roughly equivalent to 200pts of extra stuff, and about ~$250CAD of extra vehicles you wouldn't have in a 500pts game.

Before I return to the rest of your posting, I wish to take a moment to express my amazement that this seems to be a common sentiment among non C:SM players (Vaktathi has said the same thing).

What space marine players have you been playing against? Whoever they are, they are cheating!

A demi-company doesn't give you free transports.

A gladius strike force, as such, doesn't give you free transports.

Two demi-companies (a full battlecompany) within the greater context of a gladius strike force gives you free dedicated rhinos, drop pods and razorbacks for the units in the battle company who can take them (upgrades to those transports cost extra).

You are well over 900 points before you can get a single free transport (2 demi-companies plus auxillary).

Yeah, good call, forgot its the full GSF/Battle company that does free transports.

Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:That 500pts game with free drop pods is roughly equivalent to 200pts of extra stuff, and about ~$250CAD of extra vehicles you wouldn't have in a 500pts game.

Before I return to the rest of your posting, I wish to take a moment to express my amazement that this seems to be a common sentiment among non C:SM players (Vaktathi has said the same thing).

What space marine players have you been playing against? Whoever they are, they are cheating!

A demi-company doesn't give you free transports.

A gladius strike force, as such, doesn't give you free transports.

Two demi-companies (a full battlecompany) within the greater context of a gladius strike force gives you free dedicated rhinos, drop pods and razorbacks for the units in the battle company who can take them (upgrades to those transports cost extra).

You are well over 900 points before you can get a single free transport (2 demi-companies plus auxillary).

Point remains though doesn't it, in a 1k point game you can take 1,200 points with your free vehicle shenanigans. Can my Ork army then take 250pts of free vehicles as well? thats 2 battlewagonz with 3 rokkitz each

SemperMortis wrote:Point remains though doesn't it, in a 1k point game you can take 1,200 points with your free vehicle shenanigans. Can my Ork army then take 250pts of free vehicles as well? thats 2 battlewagonz with 3 rokkitz each

Actually, it's more than 1,200 points.

At 1,000 points, if I actually had the models, I could bring at least 10 razorbacks (55 points each) for free.

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:Point remains though doesn't it, in a 1k point game you can take 1,200 points with your free vehicle shenanigans. Can my Ork army then take 250pts of free vehicles as well? thats 2 battlewagonz with 3 rokkitz each

Actually, it's more than 1,200 points.

At 1,000 points, if I actually had the models, I could bring at least 10 razorbacks (55 points each) for free.

So you could literally take 50% more points then our opponent...yes very balanced indeed

Blacksails wrote:40k is not a good game.

People on dakka forums tend to say this a lot. I generally disagree with this sentiment. 40k, even gamewise, has a lot going for it. The basic rules are fairly intuitive and provide for generally fun and intuitive gameplay, even though there are some complicated and possibly counterintuitive bits. There are vague rules, there are serious codex imbalances, model points cost imbalances, etc.

I fully agree that there are a lot of problems with Warhammer 40k. That said, I think that there are a lot of fixable problems with Warhammer 40k which would leave a very awesome game if they were fixed.

I disagree with the "start from scratch" mentality of a lot of Warhammer 40k players.

It doesn't do anything particularly well, with one exception. It has the most freedom in list building of almost any game I've played (definitely all the common/popular ones anyways).

And most of them simply aren't viable. Even if the points costs were balanced, many of them probably still wouldn't be viable.

An entire army of just drop pods? Nobody in the drop pods. Just drop pods.

With the amazing amount of lore we have to work with, it also makes sense to give players as much freedom as can conceivably be written and balanced, which I'd argue the game has in quantity just not in balance quality.

It's the "...as can...be...balanced" bit that I take issue with. If the game doesn't tell me that I can't take an army of empty drop pods, and the points system tells me that there's supposed to be an even match-up regardless of what I take based on the points number, then I have every right to complain if/when I consistently lose with my unbound empty drop pod army.

The cool thing about a formation is that it tells you the kinds of things that you have to bring. "Bring 2 squads of devastators." If you read the fluff for devastators and fail to upgrade those devastators with heavy weapons, then that's your own stupidity.

Limiting or restricting that freedom just shuts out one of the only things 40k does with any amount of success.

There should be as much freedom as can result in viable game play. That's where you and I differ, I think. Either that, or else, we agree, and you are estimating the amount of variety that can result in viable game play much more highly than I am.

No it doesn't because the game still operates on a unit by unit basis, which means you're still dealing with units on the table, not formations. Therefore, units are still designed as stand alone elements with their own rules and wargear, and then formations add an additional layer.

Yes, but the number of those units is restricted. You can take 2 squads of devastators in a GSF and no more. If I can play unbound, then I can take as many devastators as I want, and the burden is on the game designer to ensure that we have a balanced game.

I think I am making a fairly non-controversial claim.

Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all of their variations, if I am playing unbound with allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all of their variations, if I am playing unbound without allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a CAD with allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a CAD without allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a formation with allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a formation without allies.

Which lists are going to be longer, which shorter?

Presumably, you'll tell me that, assuming allies, the lists will be as follows:

Unbound will have the longest list
A CAD will have a shorter list.
A formation will have the shortest list.

Likewise without allies.

The shorter the list is, the easier to balance.

Its quite simple really. Take a game with units and no formations, and then a game with units and formations. One has an additional elements to balance and consider. The other does not. Fundamentally, all units have to be useful and therefore balanced among each other. This holds true whether or not they're in a formation. Adding formation buffs is quite literally an extra layer of complexity that has to be balanced in addition to the units. Remembering as well that the same unit can appear in multiple formations with wildly different functionalities, further complicating the issue.

I agree that formations add an extra layer of complexity. I only think that it results in overall greater simplicity in terms of balance issues.

Also, I think we can all agree that Unbound is a bad joke and not worth the ink or paper its written on.

Hey, you're the one who likes variety and the ability to do whatever you want, right?

IAs for the first point, there is no contradiction. You're confusing the work of balancing units/formations with the options available to a player. The work involved when dealing with a game that has units as a core with formations as a mandatory minimum building block consisting of units is more than the work involved when dealing with a game that has units and no formations. Both systems have to design, balance, and test the units against one another to ensure they're useful, fill a role, and offer some sort of unique tool to the table. The one with formations then also has to design the formations, balance the buffs, and ensure no one formation is better than the others, either based on a combination of the units within it being too good or bad, or the buffs being out of whack. The system without formations doesn't even have to think about that entire process, only the first process of unit design.

It doesn't have to think about the entire process, but it does have to take into account all of the different possible ways in which each unit might appear in the game. What if the player actually runs an all empty drop pod army?

As for point two, the issue then is that the units are poorly balanced. Forcing formations doesn't fix anything, especially if you're making the assumption they're balanced. Why not make the same assumption, but without formations? As in, Tyranids could be fixed by simply balancing the units. You know, the easier way than balancing the units, writing formations, and balancing those formations.

Two points:

1. I fully agree that the units should be balanced.

2. Granted that they aren't, the overall armies can still be balanced. "You have to bring 10 of these sucky things, and you can bring no more than 2 of this awesome thing." If all of the armies had similar mandatory builds, the units would still be imbalanced, but the game would be more balanced.

However, we have plenty of other super formations that fail spectacularly at either being fluffy or being balanced. We can sit here all day with you saying the solution is to just balance formations, and me saying to balance the units,

Actually, I don't disagree with you. Personally, I think that the optimal solution is balanced units + balanced unit upgrades + mandatory balanced formations.

That would result in the greatest game balance, in my view.

but we can all agree that even formations are the minimum building block, every unit within a formation needs to be useful and perform their role adequately. With that being established, we can then agree that the solution to balance formations also includes at least some amount of unit balancing, while the unit balancing solution consists exclusively of balancing units.

I fully agree with you. That said, even if units weren't balanced, the game could still achieve greater balance solely through formations. If the Eldar player can take only 1 wraithknight, but he MUST take 50 guardians...

You also don't seem to grasp just how varied the 40k universe is. Going with the marine example, there are at least dozens of non, partial, and mostly codex compliant chapters that don't quite fit in a GSF. There are plenty of unit combinations or army themes that are perfectly fluffy that can be built using the CAD but not with the existing formations.

This can be accounted for with more formations, namely, ones which account for the most general kinds of army composition. There should be a formation, for example, for white scars bike armies (though it should probably not include drop pods or dreadnoughts or, for that matter, anything not fast or on a bike; furthermore, it shouldn't include many, if any, buffs, unless bikes are seriously nerfed in general).

If I'm buying a codex its to use it to build my army how I want to, not have someone tell how to build it within a narrow, blinkered vision.

I simply disagree with this. If you're buying a codex, it's to use it to build an army of the kind contained in that codex. The codex is supposed to tell you how to build, for example, an army of Tyrranids.

Its becoming very clear your position is to ditch the idea of player options and force bundles on them. Limiting options takes away one of the few things 40k does well.

My position is to ditch the idea of unlimited player options. My position is "Mandatory Gladius Strike Force formations for everyone."

Remember there are players other than you who play with custom chapters or factions who can use the CAD to make specific armies. And lets make this clear; there is no downside to balancing the units and doing away with formations.

There absolutely is a downside to doing away with formations, even if the units are balanced.

Under a standard CAD, I can't bring more than 3 units of sternguard, for example. Even the CAD isn't a "take whatever you want" kind of thing.

Let's be clear on this, BlackSails, if you are against Unbound and are in favor of the traditional CAD, then you ALREADY are in favor of limiting player options. Just not to the same degree that I am.

Why does this matter? Why is spam bad?

It results in game imbalance. If I bring a TAC army, I won't be able to deal with that army composed entirely of Leeman Russ tanks. I won't have enough anti-tank weapons to deal with them all.

Formations like the GSF ideally force everyone to bring TAC armies. That results in greater game balance.

By that same logic, a land raider would be inherently unbalanced against anyone who didn't bring a lascannon (or equivalent) or melta gun (or equivalent).

Yes. They are.

And if formations aren't a thing, I am perfectly entitled to complain about the imbalance between that landraider and the points equivalency of these imperial guardsmen without upgrades.

The GSF is literally the paragon of spamming win buttons. Between a combination of free drop pods and/or razorbacks, you can flood the table with scoring vehicles, all of which are *gasp* the same.

They're dedicated transports for core troop choices. Does anybody really complain about "spamming" core infantry units and their dedicated transports? The wave serpent might be the exceptional case, and that was only in 6th edition.

I would hardly call that spamming "the win button." Yes, I think that minimum 5 man squads shouldn't be able to get a free razorback. That said, razorbacks are hardly overpowered, in and of themselves.

Do you really want to compare 7th edition razorbacks to 6th edition wave serpents?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:So you could literally take 50% more points then our opponent...yes very balanced indeed

Currently, it's not balanced at all. Again, you have no argument from me that the way that GW has actually executed the formations idea is particularly good or balanced.

I'm just pointing out that the idea of formations, in general, could in principle contribute to greater game balance.

I believe in a perfect world yes. If all formations were like the Wraith host or Canoptec Harvests, and there was a formation for each unit it would be. This would prevent spamming by forcing you to take this you originally wouldn't. Formations shouldn't be too big like decurion or the different Eldar starters though, possible 3-1 different units depending on the size of the buff and kind of models and what makes sense fluff wize. I like taking CADs for Eldar and would prefer them for necrons too because then I can take what I want ( 6 Vauls Wrath support batteries and some aspect hosts). I can deal with formations like the harvests and battlions as I don't mind having to take those units, though the decurion is such a point sink and I would never take ot, though the bonus is too good to pass up. Thankfully eldars bonus is not worth it. What is nice about the small formations is they prevent spam- if you want a WK you still need 500 more points in other models, in which if you like the WK you wouldn't mind taking WL or Gaurd as it makes sense visually and fluff wise, or if you want canoptec wraiths you need some 120 points more, though it also makes sense. Though some formations are too big and too restrictive- like decurions you need an overlord(not a Lord or cryptic or destroyer Lord) 2 warrior squads, an immortal squad, and a tomb blades squad. As if you like warriors doesn't mean you like tomb blades or immortals.... Like a bike formation could be 2 bike squads and a vyper.

Also wriath lords and gaurds arnt op. It costs 210 pts for a squad of 5 dskyth WG, who will also need a wave serpent, so 310 pts sink hole. WL are 120 pts and move super slow. Even though they're T8 they're still 3+ armor not amazing in CC, and an aweful lot of points if you just wanted a bright Lance

marcman wrote:Also wriath lords and gaurds arnt op. It costs 210 pts for a squad of 5 dskyth WG, who will also need a wave serpent, so 310 pts sink hole. WL are 120 pts and move super slow. Even though they're T8 they're still 3+ armor not amazing in CC, and an aweful lot of points if you just wanted a bright Lance

Do you play Orks? Imperial Guard? A space marine army that doesn't rely on bikes?

Small formations like canoptec harvests or judiscar would be ideal. This prevents spam of a single unit, yet doesn't force the player to use too much stuff they would hate and makes sense fluff wise. It also prevents trash like decurion or gladious from existing. Ideally they should then also toss CADs, perhaps have the CAD be an HQ and 2 troops and give the troops ObSec


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I play GK SW Skitarii Cult Eldar DE and Necrons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why does it matter?

marcman wrote:Why does it matter?

The people who are quick to point out that Achilles is not OP because he has a weak heel and that neither is Superman, since indeed, Superman is allergic to kryptonite and requires exposure to a yellow sun in order to derive his power...

 slip wrote:
Yeah,I guess in theory formations could balance the game, but in practice you get gak like this:



(This year's Adepticon champion)

Eeerm.
I count 5 forces in that list, and only one of them is a formation, the rest are force organization charts.
I don't think it proves the point you think it's proving.

Traditio wrote:

marcman wrote:Why does it matter?

The people who are quick to point out that Achilles is not OP because he has a weak heel and that neither is Superman, since indeed, Superman is allergic to kryptonite and requires exposure to a yellow sun in order to derive his power...

The people who are quick to complain when the kool aid they chose tastes a little worse than everyone else's?

Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:40k is not a good game.

People on dakka forums tend to say this a lot. I generally disagree with this sentiment. 40k, even gamewise, has a lot going for it. The basic rules are fairly intuitive and provide for generally fun and intuitive gameplay, even though there are some complicated and possibly counterintuitive bits. There are vague rules, there are serious codex imbalances, model points cost imbalances, etc.

I fully agree that there are a lot of problems with Warhammer 40k. That said, I think that there are a lot of fixable problems with Warhammer 40k which would leave a very awesome game if they were fixed.

I disagree with the "start from scratch" mentality of a lot of Warhammer 40k players.

While this is only tangentially related, I'll cover the basics.

40k's basic rules are not intuitive at all. Rolling to hit, then wound, then a save doesn't make sense and involves a whole step most games have done away with (with good reason). Cover saves being an either/or save and not a modifier is poor game design and counter intuitive. Armor saves being all or nothing is equally counter intuitive and poor design. The mismatch of individual unit rules (closest model, random wound allocation, challenges) with much larger game sizes and giant constructs (and their lack of granularity) is equally counter intuitive, and results in a bizarre game scale. The army sizes coupled with the game scale coupled with the table size, and weapon ranges easily reaching half way across the table for basic infantry, and the lack of strict terrain rules means movement isn't particularly important outside of grabbing as many objectives as possible in the equally ridiculous and schizophrenic Maelstrom missions (also counter intuitive and excessively random).

This isn't even touching on the constant removal of player decision making and replacing it with tables, random dice rolls, and sheer luck. Good, intuitive game design wouldn't have developed Maelstrom. Maelstrom is random piled on top of random with a touch of random added on top. Same goes for psychic powers, warlord traits, mysterious terrain and a dozen other faction specific tables.

Point is, the core is a jumbled mess of platoon level skirmish gaming mixed with battalion level 15/6mm mass battle gaming that uses archaic rules from the 80s and replaces player impact with random rolling. On top of all that, the faction books are terribly balanced, both internally and externally.

Not to say 40k isn't fundamentally fun, but as a game, it kind of has to be, otherwise its just work. Really though, many players are getting frustrated by an increasingly poorly maintained game that keeps costing more. The primary emotion behind this for people in my mind set is disappointment. Its something we've heavily invested into, both emotionally and monetarily, and watching it just become more of a mess is kind of sad really.

Anyways, enough about that, I'm happy to discuss that specific topic elsewhere or via PM.

It doesn't do anything particularly well, with one exception. It has the most freedom in list building of almost any game I've played (definitely all the common/popular ones anyways).

And most of them simply aren't viable. Even if the points costs were balanced, many of them probably still wouldn't be viable.

An entire army of just drop pods? Nobody in the drop pods. Just drop pods.

Well with examples like that, there's not much sense debating the point. What about an army of nothing? I have that option too. I also have the freedom to cheat, or ignore the rules I don't like.

But we both know those are ridiculous examples and not worth discussing.

Most sensible armies (ones built with something, like, say a CAD) would be perfectly viable if the player ensures they cover the basics.

With the amazing amount of lore we have to work with, it also makes sense to give players as much freedom as can conceivably be written and balanced, which I'd argue the game has in quantity just not in balance quality.

It's the "...as can...be...balanced" bit that I take issue with. If the game doesn't tell me that I can't take an army of empty drop pods, and the points system tells me that there's supposed to be an even match-up regardless of what I take based on the points number, then I have every right to complain if/when I consistently lose with my unbound empty drop pod army.

The cool thing about a formation is that it tells you the kinds of things that you have to bring. "Bring 2 squads of devastators." If you read the fluff for devastators and fail to upgrade those devastators with heavy weapons, then that's your own stupidity.

Again, you and I both know this example of empty drop pods is ridiculous.

I'm not arguing total abject freedom where the player can do anything. I'm arguing that the basic building block of the army should be at the unit level vice the formation level and that some structure is needed for balancing purposes. Within that structure, as much player options as possible can be reasonably included, like the old 5th ed force org swaps, which allowed for nearly any type of army you wanted by shifting units around. It was fluffy, fun, and mostly balanced, depending on the units involved.

Point is, you still need to build an army that can, you know, do something.

Limiting or restricting that freedom just shuts out one of the only things 40k does with any amount of success.

There should be as much freedom as can result in viable game play. That's where you and I differ, I think. Either that, or else, we agree, and you are estimating the amount of variety that can result in viable game play much more highly than I am.

I think the current amount of shtuff in the game is good. I'd want a little more in the specifics within each book (really just better representation of the minor factions within the codices), but I think we have enough army books (I'd roll a few together, no sense in storm troopers having their own book) and enough units within those books to stop releasing new stuff for a while and fix what's available.

I don't think its an insurmountable task to balance what 40k has, even within the flawed core rules. It wouldn't be pretty, and short of fixing a few troublesome core rules (vehicle/MC disparity comes to mind), it wouldn't come as close as I'd personally like to my idea of good balance, but its doable.

Consider that GW has the resources to hire and invest in the best talent in the industry, and has the experience to learn from all their mistakes, plus having the largest online presence through forums like these, it only stands to reason they could do it if they wanted to. Even just collecting tournament results, and battle reports, and feedback threads is just free data for them to munch on and use. Its kind of frustrating really, but I'm wandering off a tangent here.

No it doesn't because the game still operates on a unit by unit basis, which means you're still dealing with units on the table, not formations. Therefore, units are still designed as stand alone elements with their own rules and wargear, and then formations add an additional layer.

Yes, but the number of those units is restricted. You can take 2 squads of devastators in a GSF and no more. If I can play unbound, then I can take as many devastators as I want, and the burden is on the game designer to ensure that we have a balanced game.

I think I am making a fairly non-controversial claim.

Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all of their variations, if I am playing unbound with allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all of their variations, if I am playing unbound without allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a CAD with allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a CAD without allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a formation with allies.
Write out a list of all of the different army lists that I could write, with all all of their variations, if I am playing a formation without allies.

Which lists are going to be longer, which shorter?

Presumably, you'll tell me that, assuming allies, the lists will be as follows:

Unbound will have the longest list
A CAD will have a shorter list.
A formation will have the shortest list.

Likewise without allies.

The shorter the list is, the easier to balance.

We can ignore Unbound, because it shouldn't exist as a rule, but I'll cover that below.

In theory, yes, at the army list level, formations will have less combinations. However, when writing/balancing the factions, you still have to spend the same time balancing the individual units in both a formation system and a non formation system. With formations though, you have the extra work of writing the formations, assigning a relevant bonus, and balancing those bonuses and the formation composition.

Now, even if the total number of army list combinations is less in a formation system, and therefore theoretically requires less balancing/testing at the army level, it still requires more balancing/testing at the unit and formation level. The end result is that even I take your premise that it takes less effort to balance whole armies, I'm working under the premise that it takes more effort at the formation level to balance, therefore (at best) negating eachother.

Which then means that if both systems are roughly equal in terms of balance effort, why go with the more complex one and restrictive option?

You'll find that in most real world examples, games took the simpler option that opens up more player choice and don't have formations (or similar). Remember why 40k has formations. Its all about the money.

Its quite simple really. Take a game with units and no formations, and then a game with units and formations. One has an additional elements to balance and consider. The other does not. Fundamentally, all units have to be useful and therefore balanced among each other. This holds true whether or not they're in a formation. Adding formation buffs is quite literally an extra layer of complexity that has to be balanced in addition to the units. Remembering as well that the same unit can appear in multiple formations with wildly different functionalities, further complicating the issue.

I agree that formations add an extra layer of complexity. I only think that it results in overall greater simplicity in terms of balance issues.

Which is where we disagree. The work involved in coming up with formations that are a combination of fluffy, effective, have the right amount of openness and restrictions, assign relevant bonuses that are properly worded and don't contradict any of the units involved, then balance those bonuses against the formation within the same book, then as a force against other books, just sounds like way more work then testing individual units within the context of an army.

Also, I think we can all agree that Unbound is a bad joke and not worth the ink or paper its written on.

Hey, you're the one who likes variety and the ability to do whatever you want, right?

Unbound always existed. As a person, you always have the ability to ignore a rule, house rule it, modify it, add to it, or fix it. Likewise, you always had the option to ask someone to play against your army list of 5 chapter masters from your favourite chapters in a badass brawl of the brawniest and baldest badasses. You didn't need a rule telling you you can ignore the army construction rules and do whatever you want. You always had that ability.

Remember that I'm not advocating for total free for all freedom here. Structure is good. Its why we play wargames and not green army men in the sandbox.

My stance is that the right structure was the CAD and modifcations within it. It worked, its similar to how other games work because its a good system.

IAs for the first point, there is no contradiction. You're confusing the work of balancing units/formations with the options available to a player. The work involved when dealing with a game that has units as a core with formations as a mandatory minimum building block consisting of units is more than the work involved when dealing with a game that has units and no formations. Both systems have to design, balance, and test the units against one another to ensure they're useful, fill a role, and offer some sort of unique tool to the table. The one with formations then also has to design the formations, balance the buffs, and ensure no one formation is better than the others, either based on a combination of the units within it being too good or bad, or the buffs being out of whack. The system without formations doesn't even have to think about that entire process, only the first process of unit design.

It doesn't have to think about the entire process, but it does have to take into account all of the different possible ways in which each unit might appear in the game. What if the player actually runs an all empty drop pod army?

Again, ridiculous example not worth discussing.

As for point two, the issue then is that the units are poorly balanced. Forcing formations doesn't fix anything, especially if you're making the assumption they're balanced. Why not make the same assumption, but without formations? As in, Tyranids could be fixed by simply balancing the units. You know, the easier way than balancing the units, writing formations, and balancing those formations.

Two points:

1. I fully agree that the units should be balanced.

2. Granted that they aren't, the overall armies can still be balanced. "You have to bring 10 of these sucky things, and you can bring no more than 2 of this awesome thing." If all of the armies had similar mandatory builds, the units would still be imbalanced, but the game would be more balanced.

It may be balanced, but it wouldn't be enjoyable. No one wants to be stuck with the unit equivalent of their lame kid brother.

However, we have plenty of other super formations that fail spectacularly at either being fluffy or being balanced. We can sit here all day with you saying the solution is to just balance formations, and me saying to balance the units,

Actually, I don't disagree with you. Personally, I think that the optimal solution is balanced units + balanced unit upgrades + mandatory balanced formations.

That would result in the greatest game balance, in my view.

If you cut out formations, you get the same balance, but with less overhead.

but we can all agree that even formations are the minimum building block, every unit within a formation needs to be useful and perform their role adequately. With that being established, we can then agree that the solution to balance formations also includes at least some amount of unit balancing, while the unit balancing solution consists exclusively of balancing units.

I fully agree with you. That said, even if units weren't balanced, the game could still achieve greater balance solely through formations. If the Eldar player can take only 1 wraithknight, but he MUST take 50 guardians...

Well, that's not really good balance. You've just forced a handicap, one they probably don't want or may not even have, forcing them to buy something they don't want. Not a good solution for anyone.

You also don't seem to grasp just how varied the 40k universe is. Going with the marine example, there are at least dozens of non, partial, and mostly codex compliant chapters that don't quite fit in a GSF. There are plenty of unit combinations or army themes that are perfectly fluffy that can be built using the CAD but not with the existing formations.

This can be accounted for with more formations, namely, ones which account for the most general kinds of army composition. There should be a formation, for example, for white scars bike armies (though it should probably not include drop pods or dreadnoughts or, for that matter, anything not fast or on a bike; furthermore, it shouldn't include many, if any, buffs, unless bikes are seriously nerfed in general).

But then how many formations would there be per book? There's already so many its genuinely tedious keeping track of them. It was bad enough keeping track of all the USRs for the units and their wargear, but now you'd be adding even more formations that need to be tracked in addition to the units themselves.

Its just more work for all involved for not a whole lot of benefit.

If I'm buying a codex its to use it to build my army how I want to, not have someone tell how to build it within a narrow, blinkered vision.

I simply disagree with this. If you're buying a codex, it's to use it to build an army of the kind contained in that codex. The codex is supposed to tell you how to build, for example, an army of Tyrranids.

And an army of Tyranids is a variable thing. It could be a monster mash, or a horde, or a flying list, or an elite specialist force, or any combination thereof. It stands to reason the army book should do the best job possible at allowing the players to recreate the fluff they know and love, and the old CAD with slot swaps accomplished that just fine and did so with less work and less bookkeeping than making up a dozen restrictive formations.

Its becoming very clear your position is to ditch the idea of player options and force bundles on them. Limiting options takes away one of the few things 40k does well.

My position is to ditch the idea of unlimited player options. My position is "Mandatory Gladius Strike Force formations for everyone."

And mine is simply ditch formations and balance the units. Which, is the strongest possibility for 40k balance outside of a rewrite.

Remember there are players other than you who play with custom chapters or factions who can use the CAD to make specific armies. And lets make this clear; there is no downside to balancing the units and doing away with formations.

There absolutely is a downside to doing away with formations, even if the units are balanced.

Under a standard CAD, I can't bring more than 3 units of sternguard, for example. Even the CAD isn't a "take whatever you want" kind of thing.

Let's be clear on this, BlackSails, if you are against Unbound and are in favor of the traditional CAD, then you ALREADY are in favor of limiting player options. Just not to the same degree that I am.

No, I'm in favour of the right amount of structure. Having army construction be at the unit level is more free than having at the formation level, but we can all agree that structure is very important for a wargame. Otherwise its just Calvin Ball. A CAD is a great compromise between having structure and restrictions that create balance and make players make choices in army construction, while being open enough to create damn near any type of army they want with appropriate force org swapping.

Why does this matter? Why is spam bad?

It results in game imbalance. If I bring a TAC army, I won't be able to deal with that army composed entirely of Leeman Russ tanks. I won't have enough anti-tank weapons to deal with them all.

Formations like the GSF ideally force everyone to bring TAC armies. That results in greater game balance.

If by spam you mean literally having an army of a single unit, then sure, that's not good. But a CAD naturally limits that anyways. Oddly enough, the current formations we have allows us to spam more than a traditional CAD anyways. I can make a bound, formation based IG army using only a combination of Steel Host/Armoured Fist which is 95% Russes and either a techmarine or a Hydra. Not exactly a model of diversity.

If by spam you simply mean not having 2+ of any given unit, then I disagree it should be limited. I enjoy list symmetry, redundancy, and the coherency of bringing multiples of 'X'. I like tanks. I like them a lot. If I'm bringing 1, I'm going to bring another 2 to go with it. Hell, I might even bring an additional 3 to keep them company. If I'm bringing an arty battery, its going to be a proper battery. That shouldn't be limited. Its fluffy, is totally balanced (Guard aren't great anyways), and frankly looks dope as feth yo.

By that same logic, a land raider would be inherently unbalanced against anyone who didn't bring a lascannon (or equivalent) or melta gun (or equivalent).

Yes. They are.

And if formations aren't a thing, I am perfectly entitled to complain about the imbalance between that landraider and the points equivalency of these imperial guardsmen without upgrades.

No. That's not how balance works. We can't have a reasonable discussion about balance if that's seriously your idea of how units should be evaluated.

The GSF is literally the paragon of spamming win buttons. Between a combination of free drop pods and/or razorbacks, you can flood the table with scoring vehicles, all of which are *gasp* the same.

They're dedicated transports for core troop choices. Does anybody really complain about "spamming" core infantry units and their dedicated transports? The wave serpent might be the exceptional case, and that was only in 6th edition.

I would hardly call that spamming "the win button." Yes, I think that minimum 5 man squads shouldn't be able to get a free razorback. That said, razorbacks are hardly overpowered, in and of themselves.

Do you really want to compare 7th edition razorbacks to 6th edition wave serpents?

Yes, serpents were overpowered. That doesn't mean putting 10 razors on the table is perfectly acceptable. Apples and oranges. Its quite clear based on tournament results and overwhelming feedback that being able to put down 10 scoring vehicles for free that either drop in where you want them or can help shoot and move troops around will win games. One razor isn't an issue. Two isn't problematic. Three is annoying. Five is an issue. Ten is a problem for all but the most powerful lists.

But now we're circling back to your thread where you were defending the GSF as being fine and balanced. It was handily demonstrated to you by nearly everyone that the GSF is playing with the top dogs and will easily squash anything not using one of the top dexes.

This is true ha-ha the spam we are trying to prevent with formations has been caused by them

Traditio wrote:
Two points:

1. I fully agree that the units should be balanced.

2. Granted that they aren't, the overall armies can still be balanced. "You have to bring 10 of these sucky things, and you can bring no more than 2 of this awesome thing." If all of the armies had similar mandatory builds, the units would still be imbalanced, but the game would be more balanced.

Two points of my own...

1. This is a very poor trait of GW that formations exacerbate. "The current rules don't work, instead of fixing them lets just keep adding more rules!" It's not a good approach to game design and it's partly why the game feels like such a mess now, we are just playing 3rd edition from 1998 with 18 years worth of flashy stickers, band aids and new hats applied.

2. If they can't balance units what makes you think they can balance formations? If they understood balance, surely they'd just balance the units and be done with it? Because they apparently game in a closed ecosystem without consideration of what goes on in forums, tournaments, local games clubs/stores, they are incapable of figuring out what is and isn't balanced. If they did, they'd just do a better job of balancing the rules and codices to begin with. They currently don't and adding an extra layer of rules isn't going to help them.

Formations were and always will be a way GW tries to extract more money from customers. Getting people to buy kits they don't already own to make a specific formation for a bonus, bundling formations in to separate publications as incentive to buy them and bundling the formation data sheet with a direct-only bundle to get players to buy from the channel that makes them the most money (web direct with no discounts).

 Ravenous D wrote:

If you think wraithknights are scary you need to re-evaluate how you are playing the game and building armies because honestly they are nothing but point sinks that punish bad players. They slay noobs, are bullet magnets against medium generals and suck against anyone that knows how to deal with them. Every time I see them I just think "thanks for putting 20% of your army in one spot."

I'll give you guys a hint on how to play the game these days.
1) Have the ability to kill 1 or more wraithknights or imperial knights a turn. Half my armies can kill 3 of either in one turn.
2) Counter, contain or avoid invisibility/ 2++ rerolls. Not hard
3) Bring ignore cover
4) Rapid objective taking

Seriously, if you can do these things you're fine. Now shut your pie holes, quit your belly aching, fix your busted ass dented in armies and turn down the god damn suck.

You can't to do math. It's okay. It's a common affliction.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
2. If they can't balance units what makes you think they can balance formations? If they understood balance, surely they'd just balance the units and be done with it? Because they apparently game in a closed ecosystem without consideration of what goes on in forums, tournaments, local games clubs/stores, they are incapable of figuring out what is and isn't balanced. If they did, they'd just do a better job of balancing the rules and codices to begin with. They currently don't and adding an extra layer of rules isn't going to help them.

Yeah, they're ignorant/blind to the world outside the office in Nottingham and don't understand why everyone is so frustrated with the game (or likely don't even know that we are). They don't see any issue with units like the wraithknight because the guys "play testing" the game in the studio would never even think to bring more than one of them in the first place, even if it's allowed in the rules. They don't try to break the game, which is necessary when you're trying to figure out what's broken in the first place. Same thing with scatbikes, Phil Kelly probably doesn't even own more than a handful of bikes for his own personal Eldar collection and they probably all have different guns on them anyway, so to them, it doesn't come off as being massively overpowering like it is when you go up against literal armies of them out in the wild.

It makes me really curious as to what their Tau armies look like during "play testing", too. What the hell are they doing up in the Ivory Tower that gives them the complete opposite experience that everyone else has had playing against Tau?

How on earth did this thread devolve to tau bashing as well?
We JUST had Adepticon results, tau didn't have a single top 10 entry (highest tau was 11) with 4 armies having vastly better results (DA, codex marines, daemons and naturally eldar)

FFS, we know Tau are good, top tier even, but enough already, we clearly don't have a codex nearly as overpowered as you make of it. A handful of outlier crutch guns/formations,but the rest is fair enough. Give it a godamn rest.

 BoomWolf wrote:
How on earth did this thread devolve to tau bashing as well?
We JUST had Adepticon results, tau didn't have a single top 10 entry (highest tau was 11) with 4 armies having vastly better results (DA, codex marines, daemons and naturally eldar)

FFS, we know Tau are good, top tier even, but enough already, we clearly don't have a codex nearly as overpowered as you make of it. A handful of outlier crutch guns/formations,but the rest is fair enough. Give it a godamn rest.

How is getting 11th not proof they are good?

 BoomWolf wrote:
How on earth did this thread devolve to tau bashing as well?

It didn't, at least not for the last couple of pages that I looked at...