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.

 Blacksails wrote:
Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.

Exactly. If each unit in the game served it's purpose and had a niche role, then there would be no redundant units. If Vespids were just as viable to bring as Broadsides, then the game would be far better to work with.
Formations are nice from a fluff standpoint, but should not be used for a balancing one.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like formations in theory. Just not in execution. Formations *should* be a way to make themed armies work. For instance, I might want to play an assault marine heavy army, but that's not necessarily a very potent option. With a formation, I might get a benefit such as the ability to jink my jump pack units (or whatever) to make them more viable. Things like Death Wing should be represented with formations.

What I don't like are formations/detachments that basically just give away free rules for taking already good options.

Removing formations would definitely not solve all of 40k's problems. Scatbikes and wraith knights would still be problematic (if less so), and grav cent stars would still be possible.

I agree completely. If someone is prepared to not take thier armies most powerful units, then they should be thrown a bone to at least give them a fighting chance, and formation bonuses are the perfect way to do this.

they just add an extra layer of complexity, its an awful way to do that.

If a unit needs fixing, it should be fixed at the unit level which is what the core rules are based entirely around. If certain types/categories of units need fixing, that should again be at the unit level or in the core rules.

The game also has a problem with scale that needs to be addressed, as of course people wont take lots of tac or assault marines when those units strengths are evident at a skirmish or platoon level and the game wants to increasingly play at what once was an Epic/Apocalypse level.

 Blacksails wrote:
Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.

Quite so. Revising my last statement.

 Blacksails wrote:
Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.

And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.

And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.

And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.

Blacksails wrote:And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.

I agree with this. Every bit of this.

Less buffs. More nerfs!

1. kill formations with fire
2. punch some of the top units in the game with nerf gloves.
3. wait a few tournaments for a meta to settle
4. Look through results and army lists from like the top third of players. If there's a unit you see all over the place, repeat step 2. When you start to not be able to predict which armies and/or units will be in the top tables, voila, the game is now at least respectable in terms of balance!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.

And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.

tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.

now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad

Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:And I've always said the solution is to make basic infantry more relevant by dramatically altering the game. Tacs aren't great, sure, but the solution isn't to keep buffing every unit forever. The big issue with Tacs is that they're outclassed by a number of other ridiculous units in strong codices.

I agree with this. Every bit of this.

Less buffs. More nerfs!

I think some of your responses in this thread disagree.

But yes. Nerf what must be nerfed to a far more manageable level, and make every unit a viable option for it's niche (Tacs for heavy infantry Jack-of-all-trades, Vespid as fast MEQ killers, Leman Russes as the indomitable battle tanks they're supposed to be)

marcman wrote:
Following the post of how formations hold the power to balance 40k. I've been thinking on the subject, and decided formations should be removed.

1: much of the "OP"ness in 40k has been caused by formations
The ability to take 45 Warp Spiders in aspect hosts that give them all BS 5
The ability to take 5 Wraithknights
Decurion army wide 4+ RP
2+ rerollable jink
Free transports!
Free upgrades!
This is what comes to mind currently.
All of our terriors are currently caused by formations

2: also formations have removed the strategic process of list building. Even if formations were balanced, one would be at a disadvantage if they decided not to take them, and so have reduced the process of list building to picking 3-4 formations and the units that come with them.

Formations do present interesting pros- being able to take tons of elites for instance without all the required HQ and Troops in a CAD. Perhaps I'm not a fan of the large formations like decurion or the SM free transports as I am of aspect hosts or Judiscar Batallions

No, 40k has always been broken. Formations didn't start the fire in afraid!

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Fixing the weak unit is the perfect way to do this.

And then you guys complain Tactical Marines don't need a fix and are perfectly fine as is.

tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.

now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad

And die slightly slower to scatter lasers and ion accelerators. They pay a huge points amount only to be killed off like cannon fodder. Honestly, for the amount of boyz you can take, in some situations rather have the three boyz than a single marine, if only to saturate my opponent with bodies.

G00fySmiley wrote:tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.

now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad

Have you played a marines army?

If you play a marines army, you'll get why we don't think that atsknf isn't the most amazing buff ever. Useful? Occassionally. Game breakingly awesome? No.

Traditio wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.

now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad

Have you played a marines army?

If you play a marines army, you'll get why we don't think that atsknf isn't the most amazing buff ever. Useful? Occassionally. Game breakingly awesome? No.

Started GK, quickly went to Sisters and now Skitarii. Can't say I have ever felt that "man, I wish I had atsknf." Not once.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
They pay a huge points amount only to be killed off like cannon fodder. Honestly, for the amount of boyz you can take, in some situations rather have the three boyz than a single marine, if only to saturate my opponent with bodies.

So would Ork players, but they get 2 Boyz and 2 points to spare.

Purifier wrote:Started GK, quickly went to Sisters and now Skitarii. Can't say I have ever felt that "man, I wish I had atsknf." Not once.

ATSKNF actually coming into play a lot is really just symptomatic of how poorly off marines are nowadays.

If I am actually using ATSFNF to any real degree, it's because you are curbstomping me.

It means you are killing marines left and right.

That shouldn't be happening.

My relatively small numbers are supposed to be compensated by my units being as tough as nails.

They aren't.

 Purifier wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They pay a huge points amount only to be killed off like cannon fodder. Honestly, for the amount of boyz you can take, in some situations rather have the three boyz than a single marine, if only to saturate my opponent with bodies.

So would Ork players, but they get 2 Boyz and 2 points to spare.

Ah, forgot the points again.
Sorry, that's 7 Boyz to 3 Marines. My mistake.

Well, it doesnt necessarily mean curbstomping, losing by 1 wound in an assault or losing 2 scouts in a 5 man squad will trigger it. Theres all sorts of things that can trigger it. Going to ground behind an aegis line for example.

The bigger issue is that most infantry in general, be they guardsmen or marine, are becoming increasingly pointless. The balance between most troop units is largely ok, but when we're playing games with stuff like Necron Wraiths, TWC superfriends, armies of superheavy walkers, D weapons, and jetbike units that can spit out 40 s6 shots a turn from across the board, it makes it hard for the PBI to have much utility. Guardsmen for instance really only have value as board control at this point, as even thr most massed and aggressive of lasgun barrages isnt going to scratch the deathstars and GC/SH units that are common now.

The game is trying to play at an Epic level with a skirmish scale ruleset.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, it doesnt necessarily mean curbstomping, losing by 1 wound in an assault or losing 2 scouts in a 5 man squad will trigger it.

Yes.

But note, this is my point:

If you are saying: "ATSKNF is so broken, you are using it left and right," it's because you are probably winning the game.

Going to ground behind an aegis line for example.

ATSKNF has nothing to do with GTG, so far as I'm aware.

The bigger issue is that most infantry in general, be they guardsmen or marine, are becoming increasingly pointless. The balance between most troop units is largely ok, but when we're playing games with stuff like Necron Wraiths, TWC superfriends, armies of superheavy walkers, D weapons, and jetbike units that can spit out 40 s6 shots a turn from across the board, it makes it hard for the PBI to have much utility. Guardsmen for instance really only have value as board control at this point, as even thr most massed and aggressive of lasgun barrages isnt going to scratch the deathstars and GC/SH units that are common now.

Yes. I agree.

That's why I'm strongly in favor of:

1. Nerfs as opposed to buffs.
2. Rigid formations as I've described in my thread.

If your good stuff is less powerful and you HAVE to take a ton of troops, guess what? Infantry have stopped being pointless.

A complication to unit balance is the issue of the intended gearing of their parent armies (towards close combat, speed, firepower, resilience, etc.) and whether that should impact the values of their various units:

e.g. Tau are a shootier army than space marines. So is it right and proper that Fire warriors, being Tau's main ranged troop, should points for points be more effective than a tactical squad?

Likewise Tyranid's strength is close combat / superior numbers. So is it ok that imperial guard close combat units are worse value, points for points, than genestealers or hormagaunts.?

In short while serious balancing of units is obviously sorely needed, complete value "equality" between units is arguably undesireable (even if it is possible), as it would take away from the strengths and weaknesses that a given army is supposed to have.

It''s no excuse for making drastically OP'd units, but a factor to consider nonetheless.

thegreatchimp wrote:e.g. Tau are a shootier army than space marines. So is it right and proper that Fire warriors, being Tau's main ranged troop, should points for points be more effective than a tactical squad?

No. Tactical marines pay a premium to be good at everything.

The standard of comparison should be IG vs. tau, not marines vs. tau.

Tau should shoot better than imp guard.

Likewise Tyranid's strength is close combat / superior numbers. So is it ok that imperial guard close combat units are worse value, points for points, than genestealers or hormagaunts.?

No. If the unit is specifically for close combat, then its points effectiveness should be comparable to other units of that kind and points cost.

[In short while serious balancing of units is obviously sorely needed, complete value "equality" between units is arguably undesireable (even if it is possible), as it would take away from the strengths and weaknesses that a given army is supposed to have.

I disagree. Even if, points for points, the close combat IG unit were comparable to a similarly costed tyrranid unit, that wouldn't make the IG better, in general, at close combat than tyrranids.

Furthermore, that flies in the face of what the points system is to effect.

The points system is supposed to effect an A = B kind of thing.

14 points of this = 14 points of that.

Traditio wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:tac marines for the points is better than average and competes in top tier troops, marines players always dismiss how important atsknf is and how much other armies wish they had it. take on top of that a good statline and armor save add in objective secured with cheap good transports and you have a great all around unit.

now with formations they get those transports for free.... how much better do they need to be? they make my ork boys sad

Have you played a marines army?

If you play a marines army, you'll get why we don't think that atsknf isn't the most amazing buff ever. Useful? Occassionally. Game breakingly awesome? No.

I never said it was the most important thing ever, but it is certainly useful. when I see tac marines compared to normal troops marines players usually never include this in what makes the unit cost more points. I do have SM models not oen of my most played armies though have at least 10k points of them though (76 terminator models, 15 tac squads, a few of every vehicle and special marine types for all chapters not including 4 unopened dark vengeance boxes and a few other yet to be built boxes) their choice of transports is also the most versatile in the game,,, want to deep strike more accurately than most? drop pod, want a decent way to move the whole squad forward sure... want a stand alone firepower tank on the cheap no problem. think they are one of the strongest troop choices in the game right now.

Also I play CSM more than I do regular marines and boy do I miss atsknf when it would come in handy.

Traditio wrote:


I disagree. Even if, points for points, the close combat IG unit were comparable to a similarly costed tyrranid unit, that wouldn't make the IG better, in general, at close combat than tyrranids.

Furthermore, that flies in the face of what the points system is to effect.

The points system is supposed to effect an A = B kind of thing.

14 points of this = 14 points of that.

The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them. The bonuses armies like that enjoy over their regular counterparts is counterbalanced by restrictions, so if they lost those advantages while still retaining the restrictions, you just end up with a crappy army.

You can extend that thesis to the mainline armies too. For example Dark Eldar lack almost any access to Tough Vehicles, so to compensate their fast, light vehicles need to be better, points for points, than what's available to the average army. Likewise tyranids can't field as effective firepower as many other amies, so they need more efficient close combat ability.

A further complication is that if a unit benefits or can be benefited by certain other units (or the entire army) then their points value is far less concrete.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Traditio wrote:


I disagree. Even if, points for points, the close combat IG unit were comparable to a similarly costed tyrranid unit, that wouldn't make the IG better, in general, at close combat than tyrranids.

Furthermore, that flies in the face of what the points system is to effect.

The points system is supposed to effect an A = B kind of thing.

14 points of this = 14 points of that.

The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them.

Not necessarily true, if that 1000pts is truly equal, then ideally there's fewer Ravenwing bikers or they have fewer upgrades or something to make the 1000pts equal. That said, Ravenwing bikers shouldn't necessarily be *that* much better than normal bikers, the DA's are still a relatively Codex adherent chapter and there's only so much that can be done with a bike really.

So it seems the majority of the feedback these past several months has largely been ignored by GW again. With CSM's new formation, it appears they are doubling down on formations rather than burning them with fire. Is this really the direction this hobby is heading? Will the literal plethora of issues in every codex ever get resolved or are we just doomed to deal with GW's incompetence until they go under & the 40K brand is bought by another company?

Commissar Benny wrote:
So it seems the majority of the feedback these past several months has largely been ignored by GW again. With CSM's new formation, it appears they are doubling down on formations rather than burning them with fire. Is this really the direction this hobby is heading? Will the literal plethora of issues in every codex ever get resolved or are we just doomed to deal with GW's incompetence until they go under & the 40K brand is bought by another company?

Since Tau its been pretty clear that instead of new codexs and rules updates; they're just adding more rules for the previous codex to use.

People are still aware that next week's release hasn't killed the talk of Chaos getting a new codex next year, right?

I like formations, I really do as they enable some really fuffy force compositions, enable entire armies to be fielded that otherwise wouldn't be possible (ala Harlequins and Skittari) and in some cases change the entire dynamic of a faction and how they play.

Many people will probably disagree with what I have just mentioned, but to bring it into context I play at a club that disallows formations and whilst this may be an ideal situation for some all I can see is less balance and variation in list. I'm someone who who plays Eldar and Harliequins, and all I've seen without formations are the top Codexes getting stronger because at their very core the those factions are broken at the unit and the equipment level.

I love my Eldar guys but without formations do my opponents stand much of a chance with the standard CAD?

 Torus wrote:
top Codexes getting stronger because at their very core the those factions are broken at the unit and the equipment level.

Which only gets exacerbated by formations.

If your opponents get formations the same as you do, then you get a bonus on top of already powerful units while your opponent playing a sub par codex gets a bonus on mediocre units. Either way they're battling upstream.

Traditio wrote:

Going to ground behind an aegis line for example.

ATSKNF has nothing to do with GTG, so far as I'm aware.

If your enemy is using ATSKNF in some connection to going to ground, then the reason you feel it's very powerful is because your opponent is cheating.

ATSKNF makes you pass Fear tests (who even causes fear?) and Regroup tests. It more importantly allows them to act normally after regrouping. And if they are caught by a sweeping advance, they go back to fighting instead of dying.

So one thing makes them immune to maybe the least used USR in the game, Fear. And the others are all things where you have to beat them first in order for it to kick in. Meaning if it's happening left, right and center... well you're winning, like Traditio said.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Greg Knights had like an 70% win rate in tournaments at the end of 5th.

Their win rate was nowhere near that, and they weren't appreciably more powerful than several other armies of the era, like SW's, IG, BA's and SM's.

It was 50%, not 70% We can look at the Adepticon 2012 results to see.

Warhammer 40K Championships (Top 16)
Alexander Fennell – Necrons
Tony Grippando – Grey Knights
Mike Mutscheller – Space Wolves
Justin Cook – Grey Knights
Bill Kim – Chaos Daemons
Jose Mendez – Dark Angels
Joakim Engstrom – Grey Knights
Doug Johnson – Orks
Brett Perkins – Imperial Guard
Paul Murphy – Grey Knights
Tony Kopach – Space Wolves
Dave Ankarlo – Grey Knights
Brad Chester – Grey Knights
Nick Nanavati – Grey Knights
Reece Robbins – Eldar
Tim Gorham – Grey Knights


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
dominating at least as hard as they were in 6th, and if you look at basically all the top armies from Adepticon, the LVO, and other events, it's multi-detachment formation armies that are winning events, with Eldar clearly at the head.

Yep. 50% of the top 16 players at the 2016 adepticon were Eldar.
You know, it's funny. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Purifier wrote:If your enemy is using ATSKNF in some connection to going to ground, then the reason you feel it's very powerful is because your opponent is cheating.

ATSKNF makes you pass Fear tests (who even causes fear?) and Regroup tests. It more importantly allows them to act normally after regrouping. And if they are caught by a sweeping advance, they go back to fighting instead of dying.

So one thing makes them immune to maybe the least used USR in the game, Fear. And the others are all things where you have to beat them first in order for it to kick in. Meaning if it's happening left, right and center... well you're winning, like Traditio said.

Yes. And to be clear, it doesn't even allow you to auto-pass morale tests. Space marines can still get pinned and forced to fall back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thegreatchimp wrote:The problem is if you stick strictly to that A=B there'd be little benefit to specialised armies like deathwing or ravenwing. e.g. if 1000 point army of Ravenwing bikers were no more effective than 1000 points of vanilla space marines on bikes then there wouldn't be much interest in them. The bonuses armies like that enjoy over their regular counterparts is counterbalanced by restrictions, so if they lost those advantages while still retaining the restrictions, you just end up with a crappy army.

You can extend that thesis to the mainline armies too. For example Dark Eldar lack almost any access to Tough Vehicles, so to compensate their fast, light vehicles need to be better, points for points, than what's available to the average army. Likewise tyranids can't field as effective firepower as many other amies, so they need more efficient close combat ability.

A further complication is that if a unit benefits or can be benefited by certain other units (or the entire army) then their points value is far less concrete.

I disagree with this. There should be strict points for points equality, but different specializations.

An eldar close combat unit shouldn't be better, points for points, than an IG one. They should play differently.

The eldar one should have greater mobility and higher initiative.

The IG one should have a relatively low points cost (while being proportionately less capable).

And, of course, the space marine should be able to match them both, but have a higher points cost.