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.

Looks like a pretty similar amount of unique codices have been making the top 16 since 5th.

But once again, enjoyment is a purely subjective experience and I cant tell someone to enjoy something they don't. I can totally empathize with those who do not enjoy 7th. There are a ton of issues. For my personal experience, I prefer the issues that come with 7th more than the issues that came with 5th/6th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 LValx wrote:
The next thing I am about to say will be sure to draw some ire, but I feel that in 7th (remember that I only have played 5th/6th/7th) I have a better chance to compete with a low tier codex than I did in 5th or 6th ed. Mostly because I find that formations and allies allow players to fill in gaps in their codices.

That's because the concept of "tier codex" is antiquated in 7th.

Instead we should think of "tier lists". Some codex'es can crank out more "tier one lists" than another book, but a single formation may suddenly make a new "tier list" possible, making an otherwise non-used codex useful.

Right now we see that with Eldar. You can make a lot of "tier one" lists with Eldar, but that's can change quickly. I've been playing a lot lately with the "Infernal Tetrad" list, and it's a hard counter to warp spider spam.

Agreed, I think a big reason so many folks are not happy with the state of the game is that they want the game to be as it was in the past and haven't fully accepted some of the newer mechanics, e.g. allies. Allies have such a huge impact on the game, it can't be understated. While I would agree that allies have in some ways decreased balance by offering up some ridiculous combos, I'd argue that allies have also helped balance the game by giving every army the ability to fill in some of their capability gaps.

It's more I refuse to accept gakky rules writing. I refuse to accept rules that are either written specifically with the agenda of forcing players into purchases to try and remain current rather than excited to add new things to their armies, or are a symptom of woefully incompetent design staff.

I'm from 2nd, I couldn't give a gak about allies, allies are what I cut my teeth on.

I want valid choices in howI run my lists if I want a fair game and not mathematical efficiencies meaning it's "take this or handicap yourself."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To address the OP directly - formations haven't caused imbalance, that was alive and well long before formations were a thing. They have, perhaps, exacerbated it in some contexts.

I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?

pm713 wrote:
I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?

Personally, all.

I dislike it as an army building mechanic.

 Blacksails wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?

Personally, all.

I dislike it as an army building mechanic.

Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.

pm713 wrote:

Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.

Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.

The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.

 Blacksails wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.

Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.

The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.

I agree completely!

 Blacksails wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.

Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.

The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.

This exactly. I wouldn't mind formations as much if they had a point cost like the apoc versions, but I would still prefer free-reign army choices inside of a FOC.*

*for competitive games obviously. If people want to see if strike force ultra can take on 3 riptides or whatever in their garage, they can go right ahead.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It's more I refuse to accept gakky rules writing. I refuse to accept rules that are either written specifically with the agenda of forcing players into purchases to try and remain current rather than excited to add new things to their armies, or are a symptom of woefully incompetent design staff.

I'm from 2nd, I couldn't give a gak about allies, allies are what I cut my teeth on.

I want valid choices in howI run my lists if I want a fair game and not mathematical efficiencies meaning it's "take this or handicap yourself."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To address the OP directly - formations haven't caused imbalance, that was alive and well long before formations were a thing. They have, perhaps, exacerbated it in some contexts.

Why is this line of thinking lost on so many players? They think that fixing the rules & creating some semblance of balance is impossible. That there is nothing wrong with a codex if it can take allies to fix all of its poorly written units. That formations somehow add depth to the game when in reality they are solely to promote sales, not enhance the quality of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Why? I've found some to be nice for changing how the army plays without being OP.

Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.

The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.

Exactly. There are a plethora of units in 40k, that never make it to the tabletop because their rules are just garbage. Throwing them into formations does not all of the sudden make them more appealing or make anyone want to run out & buy them. If however, GW actually took the time to fix the poorly designed units to make them viable well then all of the sudden you have hundreds of models which sell poorly become popular. How GW has not realized this is lost on me.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.

Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.

The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.

Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"

We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.


To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.

This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"

We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.


To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.

This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.

I'm not sure I follow. If I am reading this correctly, you believe that formations are a good thing because they force players to purchase models by bundling them. You believe its a necessary evil for GW to stay in business. I visit 3 FLGS & I haven't met one person who is buying into this. They hate formations & because this is the direction GW has chosen its made them spend less money because they do not have confidence in 40k's future. Its hard to be optimistic when the new rules that come out for each army are basically copy/pasted rules from the previous edition with just the new formations tossed in when massive holes in the codex do not get resolved. If on the other hand, GW went out of their way & did what a very large % of the community has been asking for, for over a decade (fix the rules for models that are terrible/balance the codices) it would incentivize not only new players to purchase existing unpopular models but veterans alike.

Regarding the correlation between how war isn't fair in real life and thus 40k shouldn't be that is just not comparable. 40k has one of the worst tabletop rulesets out there. The amount of pre-negotiation gymnastics that are necessary just to start a game is absurd. There are dozens of other systems out there where you can just sit down with an opponent & play with no negotiations beforehand and have an enjoyable competitive experience. The reason it is mandatory in 40k is because the point system doesn't even exist anymore. 1 point in one army, is 2-3 points in another in power. Which is not acceptable. Formations just exacerbate this further. You have armies where 1 point = 2-3 points in power via codex rules, then they get more free units from taking formations x,y,z.

If GW wants to get serious about re-invigorating interest in the hobby & making organized play a legitimate scene then each of the codices need to be baselined/revised to be equal in power. Until then its like trying to create an e-sport out of a game with no semblance of balance + RNG which is destined to fail.

Tropic Thunder wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Its a band-aid solution and a clear attempt to do nothing more than sell more models by bundling them.

Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.

The better solution would be to fix all the broken units (strong and weak) so that each army had more viable builds (changing the way armies are played in the process) and by adding in the 30k system of alternate FoC with a Rite of War system for armies if you really want some serious army changing abilities. Alternatively, better/more force org slot swaps in the CAD would do much the same.

Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"

except such a model has and continues to work for other companies like Hawk, DP9, Battlefront, etc.

We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile.

There's zero evidence they do this, and, if the past four years have been any indication, they basically just keep piling gifts on the already strong armies and keeps crapping on the weak ones in most cases. Eldar & Space Marines are powerful...just like it are in most editions. Likewise with Necrons & Tau. Sisters, IG, Orks, CSM's, and DE all remain muppet armies just like they have been through most editions of the game.

To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced.

We're not playing War, we're playing a game. People don't usually run in to play games that are just going to be predetermined, one sided curb stompings.

No, the game has never been amazingly well balanced, but Formations active seek destroy balance.

At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different?

Again, because nobody wants to buy, build, paint and transport miniatures just to take them all off as soon as the other guy is done deploying. That certainly doesn't sound appealing to me.

Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments

If "hey we're playing an 1850pt game but I'm gonna deploy 2400pts worth of stuff" is a "curveball".

(remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?)

It wasn't a Lictor centric list, it was a Flyrant spam list that happened to have brought some Lictors and people just went bonkers over it.

and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.

Except the same lists are largely winning events today that they were 6 months ago

This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons.

Eldar have been top tier (if not *the* top tier) for every edition of the game they've gotten a codex release in, which was all but 5th, Likewise with Necrons, again, all but 5th. Meanwhile armies like IG or DE were only ever top tier for a single edition, if that.

They'll suck again.

We have no way to know this.

Commissar Benny wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. If I am reading this correctly, you believe that formations are a good thing because they force players to purchase models by bundling them.

Nope, I wasn't clear if this is what you got out of that. Formations are a good thing because they change the permutations of army composition. CAD only lists allowed people to really hone in on the power builds for each army and expect, with reasonable certainty, certain units to never touch the board. All comers lists were much easier to build because the possibilities were narrower. With formation options for many armies in play the possibilities broadened. Units that didn't perform well -- and likely didn't sell well -- were highlighted in these formations to (a) boost their effectivity on the board, which in turn (b) boosted sales for GW. That's the connection to selling product that I tried to point out in relation to formations but didn't make clear.

You believe its a necessary evil for GW to stay in business. I visit 3 FLGS & I haven't met one person who is buying into this. They hate formations & because this is the direction GW has chosen its made them spend less money because they do not have confidence in 40k's future.

For one, I don't think formations are evil. But even if I did the effort made to promote these to stay in business has no bearing on whether people are buying into it. GW did it because they thought it would promote more sales. If you're experience with customers indicates they're losing interest, then the effort has apparently failed in your area. But the point remains that GW can't make money if veteran players keep playing with the same models they have. What reason would you have as a veteran player to buy models if all your existing models worked just fine? Codex and rules sales don't keep GW afloat; model sales do. If the formation thing isn't working for you and your local community--and this echoes across other communities and stores--then they'll get the message.

Its hard to be optimistic when the new rules that come out for each army are basically copy/pasted rules from the previous edition with just the new formations tossed in when massive holes in the codex do not get resolved. If on the other hand, GW went out of their way & did what a very large % of the community has been asking for, for over a decade (fix the rules for models that are terrible/balance the codices) it would incentivize not only new players to purchase existing unpopular models but veterans alike.

Every edition attempts to do the fixes. Every edition pleases one group and displeases another. While I started in 4e I barely participated before I waited two years to pick up the hobby again at the tail end of 5e, so I can only speak to the last three editions. 5e was okay for me because I like close combat and the rules were favorable to that. 6e was a dramatic departure, so I hated 6e rules. 7e helped bring it back in line a bit but it's not like it was in 5e. Those who like ranged combat likely have the opposite impression of these last three editions. FInding an edition that'll please 75% of the community would be difficult based on the stark differences between these two modes of list building and personal preference.

Regarding the correlation between how war isn't fair in real life and thus 40k shouldn't be that is just not comparable. 40k has one of the worst tabletop rulesets out there. The amount of pre-negotiation gymnastics that are necessary just to start a game is absurd.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "pre-negotiation gymnastics", so I don't know how to respond to this.

There are dozens of other systems out there where you can just sit down with an opponent & play with no negotiations beforehand and have an enjoyable competitive experience. The reason it is mandatory in 40k is because the point system doesn't even exist anymore. 1 point in one army, is 2-3 points in another in power. Which is not acceptable. Formations just exacerbate this further. You have armies where 1 point = 2-3 points in power via codex rules, then they get more free units from taking formations x,y,z.

If GW wants to get serious about re-invigorating interest in the hobby & making organized play a legitimate scene then each of the codices need to be baselined/revised to be equal in power. Until then its like trying to create an e-sport out of a game with no semblance of balance + RNG which is destined to fail.

The biggest problem with GW is it's an old company that makes models with no real shelf life but earns its profit from the sales of models, not books. Newer companies that are out now learned from GW's growth errors and started on a stronger footing in terms of getting competitive balance to the system, but I expect each of them to come to a similar crossroads of balance vs sales.

Vaktathi wrote:except such a model has and continues to work for other companies like Hawk, DP9, Battlefront, etc.

You just named three companies I've never heard of before.

Sisters, IG, Orks, CSM's, and DE all remain muppet armies just like they have been through most editions of the game.

IG used to be a dominant army in 6e. Same with CSM. DE had a great push when they first came out. What's happened with the three of these armies is the quicker rate of codex releases GW has executed the last year or two.

No, the game has never been amazingly well balanced, but Formations active seek destroy balance.

Again, because nobody wants to buy, build, paint and transport miniatures just to take them all off as soon as the other guy is done deploying. That certainly doesn't sound appealing to me.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I really do. One thing that I believe hurts the game more than Formations is terrain, or lack thereof. I have never been tabled before Turn 3 in a game with a fair amount of terrain on the board. I have, however, been tabled twice before Turn 3, and in both situations it was because the board was woefully deficient in LoS blocking terrain features against heavily range-oriented lists. Formations aren't the cause of that infliction of pain if there's enough terrain on the board to mitigate it.

I participated in a local tournament and had a dismal performance. My previous performances with the same list at the same tournament were much better. The difference between them was that this latest tournament had much less terrain on the board. The top performers that day were all range heavy lists because they had free fire lanes from the get-go. I wonder how much of the Formation hate could be redirected to terrain deficiency.

Sincere question here to everyone: How much terrain is on the board for the big tourneys? I haven't seen photos to get a sense of it so I don't know if what I wrote extrapolates to that level of competition.

It wasn't a Lictor centric list, it was a Flyrant spam list that happened to have brought some Lictors and people just went bonkers over it.

2 Flyrants isn't Flyrant spam. 8 Lictors and a Deathleaper is quite a bit more than "some" Lictors. The Genestealers, Spore Mines and Mawlocs also weren't commonly used at the time. It was a dramatic departure from what Tyranid players usually fielded. Opponents hadn't faced so many targets that close to their grill that quickly before and exposed weaknesses in the general meta of builds at the time. It was out of the box thinking that paid off handsomely. Don't denigrate the player's innovative approach. That emulators couldn't replicate the success only speaks to the adaptation of the meta to that particular threat. What the original player did was brilliant. There are other formations that people haven't mined which can cause a similar sensation. Could they be flashes in the pan? Certainly, but for one tournament you can turn the meta on its ear. That's how formations have benefited the game.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Formations are a good thing because they change the permutations of army composition. CAD only lists allowed people to really hone in on the power builds for each army and expect, with reasonable certainty, certain units to never touch the board. All comers lists were much easier to build because the possibilities were narrower. With formation options for many armies in play the possibilities broadened. Units that didn't perform well -- and likely didn't sell well -- were highlighted in these formations to (a) boost their effectivity on the board, which in turn (b) boosted sales for GW. That's the connection to selling product that I tried to point out in relation to formations but didn't make clear.

I believe we both want the same outcome - variety, but I think we disagree how we get there. Even with the addition of formations we still have players doing stuff like bringing 45 warp spiders to the table. So with or without formations we have cheese/imbalance. The only way to truly eliminate that is by making everything viable & balanced. Point costs NEED to reflect the power/utility of each model. Currently they do not. Point costs are all over the place. Until that is resolved which can only be done at the codex level, 40k will never be a legitimate competitive scene.

For one, I don't think formations are evil. But even if I did the effort made to promote these to stay in business has no bearing on whether people are buying into it. GW did it because they thought it would promote more sales. If you're experience with customers indicates they're losing interest, then the effort has apparently failed in your area. But the point remains that GW can't make money if veteran players keep playing with the same models they have. What reason would you have as a veteran player to buy models if all your existing models worked just fine? Codex and rules sales don't keep GW afloat; model sales do. If the formation thing isn't working for you and your local community--and this echoes across other communities and stores--then they'll get the message.

I agree with your reasoning. Its logical. What I do not understand however, if it is in GW's best interest to make money & sell models why do they go through the trouble of creating new beautiful models but then release absolute garbage rules for them? Like ogryn/bullgryn. They just came out with fantastic models, but the rules are so atrocious the moment you deploy your army you are at a significant points handicap/may have already lost the game. How about units like rough riders, vespids or warbuggies. I'm sure tons of players would love to buy those models & play them on the tabletop. Their rules however, put you at a major disadvantage the moment they are deployed. There is definitely a correlation between units with good/balanced rules & sales. They do not have to be overpowered but if they are terrible most players will not be fielding/buying them.

Every edition attempts to do the fixes. Every edition pleases one group and displeases another. While I started in 4e I barely participated before I waited two years to pick up the hobby again at the tail end of 5e, so I can only speak to the last three editions. 5e was okay for me because I like close combat and the rules were favorable to that. 6e was a dramatic departure, so I hated 6e rules. 7e helped bring it back in line a bit but it's not like it was in 5e. Those who like ranged combat likely have the opposite impression of these last three editions. FInding an edition that'll please 75% of the community would be difficult based on the stark differences between these two modes of list building and personal preference.

Its impossible to make everyone happy I agree. The rules will also never be perfect. However, that does not mean it could not be massively improved. There really is no reason/excuse why at any given time more than half of the existing armies should not be viable. There are many other systems out there that sport numerous variables/armies that maintain some semblance of balance.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "pre-negotiation gymnastics", so I don't know how to respond to this.

For example: You show up at your local FLGS. There is a bunch of 40k players standing around waiting to play. You go up to one of them & say "Hey man, you up for a game!?" He says "Yes of course!" You cannot just begin deploying your units and have a balanced competitive game for the simple fact that balance is way off/point costs are all over the place. Instead you each have to look at each others lists, make changes so that there it can be somewhat enjoyable for both parties & not a total blowout.

The biggest problem with GW is it's an old company that makes models with no real shelf life but earns its profit from the sales of models, not books. Newer companies that are out now learned from GW's growth errors and started on a stronger footing in terms of getting competitive balance to the system, but I expect each of them to come to a similar crossroads of balance vs sales.

I agree that the majority of GW's sales are the result of their high quality models & the need for players to purchase new models. With that in mind, would it not be in their best interest to make rules that would appeal to their target market? There is plethora of models in 40k that have outdated rules/point costs. Many of which have really nice looking sculpts. But if you can't use the models because its an auto-loss on the table is the player to blame for not buying them? I have never seen an IG player for example win using ogryn/rough riders. Never. There are units like this in every codex. Would it not be in GW's best interest to revise the codex's to not only fix these units but examine the point costs of every model within each codex to make everything viable/marketable?

Tropic Thunder wrote:


Sorry to be blunt with this, but isn't that the point? GW isn't in this to nurture the existing customer base. They're in it to sell product. They're doing what any company aiming to make a profit every year and doing so through innovations that promote veteran and newbie players alike to buy product.

And they can do that (and have done so for most of their 30+ years) without forcing bundles of units through their rules.

I don't begrudge a company for making a profit, but there's a world of difference between GW's practices and nearly every other miniatures wargaming company.

Again, sorry to be blunt but this doesn't keep GW afloat. The biggest problem for any miniature company is to keep sales numbers up when the product they produce isn't perishable or finite. If GW did as you recommend we wouldn't have a game to play anymore and would be writing posts with comments like, "I wish GW didn't go out of business. That game was cool!"

Except for the 30+ years they've been in business for without this formation nonsense. I don't get what point you're trying to make here. If its trying to highlight that formations somehow sell more models that weren't doing great, then its certainly not been implemented well at all. There are still dozens of formations and awful units that are in weak formations that no one wants. Its the same argument that GW releases overpowered units, except when they don't. Its not consistent, and frankly, my solution of just fixing the units is simpler and accomplishes the exact same thing.

We as a community spend a lot of time and money on our miniatures and likely started with the armies we did because, at the time, that particular army was not the weakest and likely mid- to high-tier. As new editions pass, GW notes what army sales are weak, tweak the rules to make them more palatable to the public and raise their competitive profile. Veterans find their first army isn't as good as it once was and either stop playing (because they're too competitive but too poor to afford a new army), keep playing because they put so much work into it (and can't afford a new army), or buy the newest and brightest to maintain their competitive edge in the community (because they have the funds to do so). Those in the last two categories are what keep GW going. When the next edition after that comes out, wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, those who stuck with the game because they enjoyed their first purchase reap the benefits of the cycle benefiting them once more while those new to the game in the previous edition think this latest craze is overpowered and unfair, not realizing some of those players went through lean times but didn't care because they were in it for the fun of it.

You are giving GW way too much credit. A quick look at the history of balance among armies easily disproves this notion of GW noting sales and why the sales are the way they are. It also ignores the feedback loop and spiral of neglected armies not selling well therefore encouraging GW not to put effort into them because they weren't selling well which only makes them sell worse. See Sisters. But of course, there are a multitude of factors behind why any person buys what army(s) they do, and looking at sale numbers tells nothing about those reasons.

Which has been GW's problem for some time. No real knowledge of the why's, which leads us to GW's general inconsistency and decent ideas marred by poor execution.

To the community at large who find formations too imbalancing or the game in general too imbalanced, keep in mind that real world war has never been balanced. At minimum 9 times out of 10 one side is grossly outmatched either in numbers or technology. Why should a war game be any different? Adding the word "game" to the equation shouldn't change the fact that sometimes an outmatched force can still come out on top. I personally like what formations offer. They tweak with the status quo, allow for an unexpected curveball in tournaments (remember the Lictor heavy Tyranid list that won a few years ago?) and promote so many combinations that participants in tournaments can literally see anything and everything. Sure, some lists dominate today, but they won't tomorrow.

Ah good, the classic 'war isn't fair' argument.

Its almost like a tabletop wargame isn't real war. And therefore a ridiculous argument to make.

This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.

Eldar have been top dog (or at their worst, mid) for most of their career. Chaos has been wallowing in the rear for three editions now.

Formations may not be the cause of imbalance, but they certainly did nothing to improve it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

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.

I follow you -I'm already taking model count and upgrades into consideration in that example. I'm talking purely points:effectiveness ratio, (not that that's an exact science or anything). What you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the sole benefit of having a specialised army like Deathwing should be the ability to field a quantity of units that isn't available to a regular / mainstream army.

But from a competitive point of view: if you take a force like that, you lose the ability to take certain units that are available to the regular army. For example I believe White Scars or Ravenwing are limited in their heavy support options. Likewise a Deathwing force lacks the flexibility of a regular DA force. So it needs some form of advantages to counteract that. If not by increased effectiveness:points ratio, then certainly by some means. Otherwise it's just a restrictive list, and therefore an inferior army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:


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.

That model of game design is perfectly fine, but I don't believe it works as well with armies that are very specialised, i.e. have restrictid options. The design philosophy I believe GW have gone with is that when you take specialised lists you sacrifice flexibility for increased power.

I will re-ittirate that I don't think they've put it into practice very well though, through a combination flawed core rules, existing unit imbalance, and then as others ahve stated, apllying a lot of these formation buffs to units that are already top tier.

pm713 wrote:
I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?

Any formation that gives free bonuses is an abomination and should be purged. Even if it is just +1 ws, or a one use re roll to hit for a sarg.
If you want to know why look up my older posts.

 oldzoggy wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I'm curious about something: Do people object to all formations or just ones that are too good?

Any formation that gives free bonuses is an abomination and should be purged. Even if it is just +1 ws, or a one use re roll to hit for a sarg.
If you want to know why look up my older posts.

That's extreme.

The problem with this is that the same armies have been Powerful for most of the game and the same armies have been relatively weak for most of the game.

DE had 1 edition where they weren't bottom tier, Tyrnids the same except for flyrant spam which is not much fun to play, Orks have never had an edition where they were "top tier" in comparison, SM's have always been mid to top tier, Eldar have almost ALWAYS been top tier, Tau were mid to top tier, Necrons the same. This has been true pretty much since 4th edition when Chaos had their codex smashed into itty bitty pieces.

Your model isn't really that accurate though, GW has been having sales problems for years, not because formations weren't out but because they never fixed the glaring problems in the power levels of armies. On top of that they increased the cost of models, even though for the most part they went from expensive metals to cheap plastic.

I for one picked up the Ork army when they were bottom tier, meaning I could have picked up orks in almost any edition . I also had a SM force, but because of how expensive they made the models, instead of BUYING more models for both armies I had to choose and sell off one army so I could buy stuff for my Ork army. Had GW kept the prices relatively cheaper and fixed the power levels I would probably be the proud owner of 2 decent sized Armies instead of 1 huge Ork Blob. Furthermore, because of the relative costs of the game they are making I buy almost exclusively from EBAY because its on average 15-30% cheaper then GW and usually can be found in "Like New" condition.

No GW has a lot of problems but Formations aren't fixing them, they are only exacerbating them. As I said once before the "Haves" Are getting more upgrades and bonuses, and the "Have Nots" Are getting useless formations that don't help them compete.

Yeah. Its quite simple really. If a unit is bad, the solution is to fix that unit. If a unit is too good, you also fix that unit. Constructing a bunch of formations that consist of the right mix of units with the right bonuses with no associated points costs and hoping for it to balance the units within it is not a clean solution.

Further, if GW is having a hard time moving models because the rules suck, the above solution of just fixing that unit would accomplish the goal of moving more of that model (assuming model rules are the primary or at least a significant factor in purchase reasons) while not having the downside of forcing other potentially unwanted units on the player.

Tropic Thunder wrote:

This is where the balance resides. For those whose armies are bottom tier I recommend you be patient. Eldar sucked not too long ago. So did Necrons. They'll suck again. And Formations aren't the cause of the imbalance. Variety is, and it's meant to be that way.

I don't know what you've been playing, but it hasn't been 40K. Eldar have been top tier/broken since 3rd edition, except maybe in 5th edition, when they may have been mid-tier, but they definitely weren't bottom tier.

Tropic Thunder wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:except such a model has and continues to work for other companies like Hawk, DP9, Battlefront, etc.

You just named three companies I've never heard of before.

Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Flames of War? We can also get into Mantic with Kings of War, Spartan Games with a grip of games like Firestorm Armada/Halo: Fleet Battles/Dystopian Wars, and more.

Sisters, IG, Orks, CSM's, and DE all remain muppet armies just like they have been through most editions of the game.

IG used to be a dominant army in 6e.

Artillery park IG using gobs of non-codex units (that unintentionally benefited from a core rules change) with allies did well in early 6E tournaments, but IG as a whole was not dominant in 6E, the units that the codex was built around took a gigantic beating by the core rules and continue to.

Same with CSM.

A single build, Baleflamer Helturkey spam, was powerful, largely because of an overly broad FAQ that allowed it a 360* field of fire on its Torrent flamer, and such dominance came to an end after just a few months, the 2013 Adepticon results show this beautifully, as you basically see CSM's in there as allies a bunch (to get the Heldrake), but relatively few CSM armies on their own.

DE had a great push when they first came out.

Are we talking when they first came out in 3E, because they weren't spectacularly powerful in 3E except against MEQ armies, and then languished without a codex update for a decade.

What's happened with the three of these armies is the quicker rate of codex releases GW has executed the last year or two.

And you'll notice that the armies that are on top are the ones that keep getting new books while these armies do not. Eldar got a new 7E book like 19 months after their previous book, for CSM's it's going on 4 years, and when IG got their last new codex in 2014, they certainly didn't move anywhere in terms of power.

Again, because nobody wants to buy, build, paint and transport miniatures just to take them all off as soon as the other guy is done deploying. That certainly doesn't sound appealing to me.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I really do. One thing that I believe hurts the game more than Formations is terrain, or lack thereof. I have never been tabled before Turn 3 in a game with a fair amount of terrain on the board. I have, however, been tabled twice before Turn 3, and in both situations it was because the board was woefully deficient in LoS blocking terrain features against heavily range-oriented lists. Formations aren't the cause of that infliction of pain if there's enough terrain on the board to mitigate it.

Terrain works in both players favor, and terrain isn't going to balance out a massive force imbalance, especially when both players are fighting over the same objectives. If I'm showing up with 2400pts worth of stuff and you've got 1850pts, no amount of terrain is going to equalize that unless the the 2400pt force is purely long range turn-1 alpha strike oriented, aside from that the 2400pt force is likely to get as much of a benefit from that terrain as the 1850pt force.

Sincere question here to everyone: How much terrain is on the board for the big tourneys? I haven't seen photos to get a sense of it so I don't know if what I wrote extrapolates to that level of competition.

Depends on the event, some have great terrain, some have very little.

It wasn't a Lictor centric list, it was a Flyrant spam list that happened to have brought some Lictors and people just went bonkers over it.

2 Flyrants isn't Flyrant spam.

I was thought it was 3, which was pretty standard at the time? I could be mis-remembering.

What the original player did was brilliant. There are other formations that people haven't mined which can cause a similar sensation. Could they be flashes in the pan? Certainly, but for one tournament you can turn the meta on its ear. That's how formations have benefited the game.

How does a single tournament result benefit the game? At that point we're talking law of averages and just something weird sneaking through, and hasn't changed the "meta" in any way.

Commissar Benny wrote:For example: You show up at your local FLGS. There is a bunch of 40k players standing around waiting to play. You go up to one of them & say "Hey man, you up for a game!?" He says "Yes of course!" You cannot just begin deploying your units and have a balanced competitive game for the simple fact that balance is way off/point costs are all over the place. Instead you each have to look at each others lists, make changes so that there it can be somewhat enjoyable for both parties & not a total blowout.

Ah, I understand now. Though I have to say our negotiations where I play aren't nearly that complicated. First is points, second is factions. If players don't have enough points or don't want to cut points out, they move on to the next player option. If points are good, they find out what factions are involved. Some people get tired of facing the same faction over and over and want to face something different. Others might have a built-in prejudice against a particular faction. I personally don't look at an opponent's list ahead of time after Faction is resolved. But I get your point.

Re: your other points about model costing they're fair points. The true problem comes when trying to point compare between ranged and close combat specialist units. The former has the greater advantage at the start of the game. The latter needs to get delivered into combat to pay off. The latter's value doesn't shine until that happens while the former's shines right away. That's why I brought up terrain as a factor in balancing things out. Not sure how to fix it universally, though.

Vaktathi wrote:Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Flames of War?

Only heard of one of those games (Flames of War), and good things, too. The first two aren't popular at all within my gaming area. Not to say they're bad, but I can't speak to whether the sales model works for them.

Vaktathi wrote:Are we talking when they first came out in 3E, because they weren't spectacularly powerful in 3E except against MEQ armies, and then languished without a codex update for a decade.

Sorry, I meant to qualify that with the 6e release.

Vaktathi wrote:And you'll notice that the armies that are on top are the ones that keep getting new books while these armies do not. Eldar got a new 7E book like 19 months after their previous book, for CSM's it's going on 4 years, and when IG got their last new codex in 2014, they certainly didn't move anywhere in terms of power.

The IG received new formations just this year. While the core codex remains the same there have been additions to bring them up from where they were. Ideal? No, but it is something recent that's been done for them.

I agree that CSM hasn't received much of anything unless you count Khorne Daemonkin. Doesn't help those of us who like the other Chaos Gods, but they do have an update coming. Other armies receiving more updates more often is due to sales figures, though the higher rate of update speaks well to trying to give something to all instead of to a limited few.

Vaktathi wrote:Terrain works in both players favor, and terrain isn't going to balance out a massive force imbalance, especially when both players are fighting over the same objectives. If I'm showing up with 2400pts worth of stuff and you've got 1850pts, no amount of terrain is going to equalize that unless the the 2400pt force is purely long range turn-1 alpha strike oriented, aside from that the 2400pt force is likely to get as much of a benefit from that terrain as the 1850pt force.

Actually, terrain can play a crucial role in balancing that out. Those extra points you speak of come from free vehicles, vehicles that have a footprint which can be restricted by impassable terrain features on the board. with true LoS some vehicles won't be able to shoot sponsons because there are other vehicles or buildings in the way. Bad deployment choices could jam up units in the back who can't move because of the parking lot in front. This is what I refer to when I bring up the terrain question. Far too many video batreps have sparse terrain on the board. when that happens of course the point disparity will work against you. If you want to balance things out against an opponent bringing a Gladius Strike Force with a bunch of free vehicles, increase the building count on the board.

Vaktathi wrote:How does a single tournament result benefit the game? At that point we're talking law of averages and just something weird sneaking through, and hasn't changed the "meta" in any way.

The common approach to list building for tournaments focuses on a netlist approach that gets spammed by players of that particular faction. As you pointed out, you can count on Tyranid lists fielding flyrant spam. You can count on Eldar fielding at least one Wraithknight, Psykers and jetbikes. Each faction has their preferred loadout. There are formations out there that don't get much love because they don't have the immediate all-comers OP feel to them but do happen to fill a function that can take advantage of certain common builds across multiple factions. It's this that I'm calling out as a hidden benefit to formations as a whole.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
I agree that CSM hasn't received much of anything unless you count Khorne Daemonkin.

Khorne Daemonkin is not a supplement, but an independent codex on its own. It fixed nothing anyway, the core units are the same, and Berzerkers still suck balls. The most common competitive builds focus on Hounds spam and almost as little chaos marines as possible.

Doesn't help those of us who like the other Chaos Gods, but they do have an update coming.

The update of Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter supplements for 7th edition pretty much confirms CSM will see no new codex in this edition.

An update coming eventually? Yeah, I guess, eventually, some day, CSM will get an update. In a decade perhaps, who knows.

Other armies receiving more updates more often is due to sales figures, though the higher rate of update speaks well to trying to give something to all instead of to a limited few.

The basic CSM kit is among the top selling kits in the whole GW range (at least as long as their online shop is concerned).

It's all formations fault, clearly. Oh, and don't forget detachments generally! Formations are basically just mini detachments. The CAD gives out a free reroll of warlord trait AND free ObSec for troops! Something for nothing! Blasphemy!

Clearly the only fair way to run the game is unbound, if everyone just plays unbound, 40k would be balanced!


Well, except for super heavies, they break the game anyway, of course.

Oh, and battle brothers. Don't really need formations to make those superfriends TWC lists work.

And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...

And even if you removed all formations, the proliferation of weapons that outright ignore vehicle armor (gaus, heywire, D, grav) would still leave most tanks and walkers unplayable, and...


Look, 40k is a mess. Its a gods foresaken, nigh-unplayable wreck. Worst play experience that it's been... practically ever. And while badly designed formations are certainly part of the problem, badly designed everything else means just removing formations isn't going to fix anything.

Tropic Thunder wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Flames of War?

Only heard of one of those games (Flames of War), and good things, too. The first two aren't popular at all within my gaming area. Not to say they're bad, but I can't speak to whether the sales model works for them.

They seem to be doing fine, GW on the other hand has been dealing with declining revenue (particularly once adjusted for inflation) for over a decade now.

Vaktathi wrote:Are we talking when they first came out in 3E, because they weren't spectacularly powerful in 3E except against MEQ armies, and then languished without a codex update for a decade.

Sorry, I meant to qualify that with the 6e release.

Dark Eldar? They didn't have a 6E release, they got a 7E release and their successes in high end tournaments is pretty much exclusively as allies to Eldar, usually as a WWP bomb of some sort. I can't recall a DE army placing well that wasn't allied to an Eldar detachment.

The IG received new formations just this year. While the core codex remains the same there have been additions to bring them up from where they were. Ideal? No, but it is something recent that's been done for them.

And there's no evidence from any recent tournament that they're placing any better. They're certainly not riding to the top as the "armies with recent updates do best cycle" theory would have us believe.

I agree that CSM hasn't received much of anything unless you count Khorne Daemonkin. Doesn't help those of us who like the other Chaos Gods, but they do have an update coming. Other armies receiving more updates more often is due to sales figures, though the higher rate of update speaks well to trying to give something to all instead of to a limited few.

IG as a whole are one of GW's best selling lines despite crappy rules, as are CSM's (IIRC the basic CSM kit is one of their top 5 sales kits). There's no sales problems with these armies that cause them to be neglected, and the fact that they've been hitting the same high end armies multiple times while allowing others to languish is difficult to find any real logic behind aside from trying to ride short term gains (which, has merit as Mr.Kirby is one of the top GW shareholders and GW *always* pays out dividends, going so far as to *borrow* money to do so a couple of times...which neatly doubles Mr.Kirby's take-home).

The KDK book didn't change any stats or unit rules as far as I know, just took all the Khorne stuff from two books and mashed it together. It's an instance where GW seems to be actively trying to avoid the license to print money that would be Legion books.

Vaktathi wrote:Terrain works in both players favor, and terrain isn't going to balance out a massive force imbalance, especially when both players are fighting over the same objectives. If I'm showing up with 2400pts worth of stuff and you've got 1850pts, no amount of terrain is going to equalize that unless the the 2400pt force is purely long range turn-1 alpha strike oriented, aside from that the 2400pt force is likely to get as much of a benefit from that terrain as the 1850pt force.

Actually, terrain can play a crucial role in balancing that out. Those extra points you speak of come from free vehicles

Only with the Gladius really gives free vehicles IIRC, others give different units or free wargear, upgrades, stat boosts, special rules, etc.

, vehicles that have a footprint which can be restricted by impassable terrain features on the board. with true LoS some vehicles won't be able to shoot sponsons because there are other vehicles or buildings in the way. Bad deployment choices could jam up units in the back who can't move because of the parking lot in front. This is what I refer to when I bring up the terrain question. Far too many video batreps have sparse terrain on the board. when that happens of course the point disparity will work against you. If you want to balance things out against an opponent bringing a Gladius Strike Force with a bunch of free vehicles, increase the building count on the board.

Even if we hold this to be true (and as an IG player who generally tries to take no fewer than a dozen tank hulls in most games, usually 15-18, terrain is not going to make up a 300-700pt difference in points values), it only applies to the Gladius, not things like the AdMech War Convocation, Skyhammer Annihilation Force, Aspect Hosts, Decurions, Canoptek Harvests, etc.

Vaktathi wrote:How does a single tournament result benefit the game? At that point we're talking law of averages and just something weird sneaking through, and hasn't changed the "meta" in any way.

The common approach to list building for tournaments focuses on a netlist approach that gets spammed by players of that particular faction. As you pointed out, you can count on Tyranid lists fielding flyrant spam. You can count on Eldar fielding at least one Wraithknight, Psykers and jetbikes. Each faction has their preferred loadout. There are formations out there that don't get much love because they don't have the immediate all-comers OP feel to them but do happen to fill a function that can take advantage of certain common builds across multiple factions. It's this that I'm calling out as a hidden benefit to formations as a whole.

Even if we grant that, it doesn't balance out the fundamental problems of free stuff at no cost nor the excesses of the more abusable formations.

Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...

I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.

The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.

Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.

Again, undercosted, maybe. But overpowered?

Traditio wrote:

Malisteen wrote:And just individual units and weapons being overpowered as hell. I mean, wraithguard, jetbikes, stormsurges...

I don't think that eldar jetbikes are in and of themselves overpowered. Undercosted, certainly, but not overpowered. Dark Eldar have jetbikes, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about them.

The problem is you can spam scatter lasers on the Eldar variant.

Also, why are wraithguard overpowered? They're expensive, don't get battle focus or fleet, and they have a maximum firing range of 12 inches.

Again, undercosted, maybe. But overpowered?

D weapons on T6 Fearless infantry for 35pts apiece really is pretty absurd.

Vaktathi wrote:D weapons on T6 Fearless infantry for 35pts apiece really is pretty absurd.

At 12 inch range.

With 1 wound a piece.

Without battle focus or fleet.

Again, I agree that they might be undercosted, but I have difficulty thinking that they're OP.

Plasma weapons, sternguard ammunition, krak missiles and sniper rounds lay waste to them.

Why try and argue undercosted or overpowered are different things?

Excepting perhaps the extreme ends of the curve, they mean exactly the same thing in 40K ie. the points you invest in the unit are disproportionately represented in the on-table effect.