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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
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.

That's not entirely true. Some things have rules that just shouldn't be in the game, regardless of points cost. Invisibility comes to mind. Rerollable saves come to mind. Warp spiders come to mind.

Some things would be perfectly fine if they were more or less costly in terms of points. The wraithknight comes to mind.

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?

Lets break down this insanity.

Eldar Scat Bikes are TROOPS, on a jetbike, with a 4shot S6AP6 gun that fires 36inches, they are T4, have solid stats across the board and ohh for laughs GW gave them a 3+ Armor save because "reasons". All of this for 27pts a model

DE Jetbikers on the other hand. are significantly CHEAPER, of course they also are limited to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes and instead of a 3+ armor save they get a 5+, meaning they will be jinking almost every turn, negating the heavy weapons they do in fact take. Another way to look at this is that your Eldar jetbike without a heavy weapon is 17pts or 1 point more expensive, and gets a 3+. how about that.

So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.

Wraithguard, S5, T6, 3+ armor save ohh and Did I mention a D weapon or a FLAMER D weapon that is -1 on the destroyer table? So they are a bit pricey at 32pts a model but realistically they are signifiantly under priced for what they are capable of doing. MC and GMC run in fear from these things, vehicles and super heavies just melt in front of them. Throw in a delivery system and you have a one shot wonder that can kill a Stompa in a single turn if they roll well enough.

So for 32pts a model (8pts less then my Meganobz) you get a T6 model with a 3+ armor save and a D weapon. I know which one I would take if I had the option. Clearly OP as hell. Tradito stop trying to convince us that things aren't as gakked up as they are

SemperMortis wrote:Eldar Scat Bikes are TROOPS, on a jetbike, with a 4shot S6AP6 gun that fires 36inches, they are T4, have solid stats across the board and ohh for laughs GW gave them a 3+ Armor save because "reasons". All of this for 27pts a model

Jetbike =/= scatter bike =/= scatter bike as a troop choice

There's nothing overpowered about an eldar jetbike with a shuriken cannon. Undercosted? Again, maybe. But not overpowered.

So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.

You're not disagreeing with me. You're practically repeating what I said.

Wraithguard, S5, T6, 3+ armor save ohh and Did I mention a D weapon or a FLAMER D weapon that is -1 on the destroyer table? So they are a bit pricey at 32pts a model but realistically they are signifiantly under priced for what they are capable of doing. MC and GMC run in fear from these things, vehicles and super heavies just melt in front of them. Throw in a delivery system and you have a one shot wonder that can kill a Stompa in a single turn if they roll well enough.

So for 32pts a model (8pts less then my Meganobz) you get a T6 model with a 3+ armor save and a D weapon. I know which one I would take if I had the option. Clearly OP as hell. Tradito stop trying to convince us that things aren't as gakked up as they are

If wraithguard were 8 points more expensive per model and couldn't ride in wave serpents, nobody would care about them.

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?

Undercosted and overpowered amount to the same thing. Synonyms as far as game balance is concerned.

No one cares about DE bikes because yes, they don't have lasers, but also because they aren't troops. As a tourney player, I can tell you that I prioritize killing eldar bikes not because they sting if they're alive, (and they DO sting,) but because they actively win games at the end by being obsec.

niv-mizzet wrote:Undercosted and overpowered amount to the same thing. Synonyms as far as game balance is concerned.

2++ rerollable saves =/= 300 points wraithknights.

I don't know what kind of language is fitting to describe the difference, but that's ultimately what I'm getting at.

No one cares about DE bikes because yes, they don't have lasers, but also because they aren't troops. As a tourney player, I can tell you that I prioritize killing eldar bikes not because they sting if they're alive, (and they DO sting,) but because they actively win games at the end by being obsec.

I think that there's a similar complaint about white scars bike armies.

My only point is that there's nothing broken about the jetbikes as such. The problem boils down to the fact that they can spam lasers.

If they couldn't spam lasers, even if they remained troop choices, nobody would find them OP.

Sure, they have ridiculous mobility...but are shuriken cannons really ruining anyone's day?

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
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.

That's not entirely true. Some things have rules that just shouldn't be in the game, regardless of points cost. Invisibility comes to mind. Rerollable saves come to mind. Warp spiders come to mind.

Some things would be perfectly fine if they were more or less costly in terms of points. The wraithknight comes to mind.

Aside from the fact I'd already addressed that?

As I said, most things could be costed into balance, there's one or two more extreme examples that could not.

However, you're not debating those, Wraithguard was the unit you were immediately commenting on, and whether they're OP or undercosted (if either) is just semantics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equally, most of the examples you're citing don't cost any points at all.

Perhaps formations aren't the future, eh?

There's nothing overpowered about an eldar jetbike with a shuriken cannon. Undercosted? Again, maybe. But not overpowered.

Yes there certainly is, those are jetbike troops that cost 27ppm, can now put out 3 S6 AP 4? (Cant remember with cannonz) that have bladestorm IE AP2, they still have a 3+ armor save, they can still jink for a 4+ cover save and they are literally the fastest unit in the game. Still wildly OP.

AND again under-costed = OVER POWERED , Ork boyz aren't OP but if I reduced their price to 1pt a model you better believe they would be called OP!

If wraithguard were 8 points more expensive per model and couldn't ride in wave serpents, nobody would care about them.

Yes they would, let me put that in perspective for you. If my 40ppm T4 Meganobz were able to carry D Flamers around, and they weren't allowed in trukkz, I would simply take them in BW (just as Eldar take Wraithguard in DE vehicles all the time) But even if the game specifically said "Can't be in a transport" people would still pee their pants every time I fielded them and they would quickly become bullet magnets. So in conclusion you are wrong, and they would still be OP as hell.

Azreal13 wrote:Aside from the fact I'd already addressed that?

As I said, most things could be costed into balance, there's one or two more extreme examples that could not.

However, you're not debating those, Wraithguard was the unit you were immediately commenting on, and whether they're OP or undercosted (if either) is just semantics.

I think that we're basically in agreement on the point of fact.

I do, however, think that OP and undercosted have different undertones. Overpowered means "too good."

Yes, a 300 points wraithknight is too good. A 500 points wraithknight is not (in fact, at that points level, it's probably underpowered/undercosted).

But yes, I do agree with this:

Practically speaking: Everything undercosted is overpowered.

I just wish for the caveat: It is not the case that: Everything overpowered is undercosted.

Perhaps formations aren't the future, eh?

Invisibility is a psyker ability. It has literally nothing to do with formations. The only formation that grants rerollable saves, so far as I know, is the DA ravenwing formation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:So For Eldar Jetbikes, I think it is fair to say they are OP. Why? because they can spam heavy weapons for cheap, they are themselves incredibly cheap and for whatever god forsaken reason they have a 3+ armor save on top of that. AND THEY ARE TROOPS, not fast attack.

I was mistaken. They start out with shuriken catapults. 12 inch range.

If you upgrade to shuriken cannons, their firing range goes all the way up to a whopping...24 inches. S6, AP 5, assault 3, bladestorm.

Even taking battle focus into account, that's really not that amazing. It's good, but not game-breakingly OP.

Yes they would, let me put that in perspective for you. If my 40ppm T4 Meganobz were able to carry D Flamers around, and they weren't allowed in trukkz, I would simply take them in BW (just as Eldar take Wraithguard in DE vehicles all the time) But even if the game specifically said "Can't be in a transport" people would still pee their pants every time I fielded them and they would quickly become bullet magnets. So in conclusion you are wrong, and they would still be OP as hell.

1. As far as I'm aware, the only transport that eldar have is the wave serpent.

2. I agree with you on this point: in practice, they would be bullet magnets. Very expensive bullet magnets. Essentially a distraction carnifex.

That's basically all that they would be.

It would be like giving terminators D flamers but removing their ability to deepstrike or ride in landraiders.

Yes, a very shiny target...that probably won't do much in game.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Ugh... That's what I get trying to multitask at work. I thought the 5e release was 6e. For some reason I thought it was more recent than 2010. I do remember they were pretty solid the first year and a half it was out. Just got my dates off.

Still can't believe that was six years ago...

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.

If we want to be brutally honest about how GW got to where it currently is with formations, look no further than the introduction of Super Heavies into standard games. Once GW took that step they had to scramble to make up for it: D weaponry in standard games, MCs becoming GCs; then the wide scale addition of formations and detachments of formations. These conversations about "X has ruined the game" started with Super Heavies and D weapons. Interestingly, those problems were resolved with a new "X" to complain about.

I will concede that certain formations were unnecessary, particularly in forces that already had both GCs and plentiful D weaponry (Eldar). But let's not pretend that Formations are the straw that broke the camel's back here. The back was broken well before "Decurion" style detachments and plentiful formations came into the picture.

The leap of adding Super Heavies to the standard game led to a precipitous drop off a cliff GW shouldn't have stepped from. To their credit, the number of flame threads on here complaining about excessive Super Heavy/Gargantuan/D weapon abuse has plummeted greatly, so GW solved that problem (sorta). The abuse of certain formations will result in tweaks that will neuter them next edition, but as always some other configurations to be abused after that.

Tropic Thunder wrote:If we want to be brutally honest about how GW got to where it currently is with formations, look no further than the introduction of Super Heavies into standard games. Once GW took that step they had to scramble to make up for it: D weaponry in standard games, MCs becoming GCs; then the wide scale addition of formations and detachments of formations. These conversations about "X has ruined the game" started with Super Heavies and D weapons. Interestingly, those problems were resolved with a new "X" to complain about.

I will concede that certain formations were unnecessary, particularly in forces that already had both GCs and plentiful D weaponry (Eldar). But let's not pretend that Formations are the straw that broke the camel's back here. The back was broken well before "Decurion" style detachments and plentiful formations came into the picture.

The leap of adding Super Heavies to the standard game led to a precipitous drop off a cliff GW shouldn't have stepped from. To their credit, the number of flame threads on here complaining about excessive Super Heavy/Gargantuan/D weapon abuse has plummeted greatly, so GW solved that problem (sorta). The abuse of certain formations will result in tweaks that will neuter them next edition, but as always some other configurations to be abused after that.

I vehemently agree.

My solution?

Drop super heavies. Drop the D. Drop grav.

Keep formations.

Because they are awesome.

Traditio wrote:

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.

With weapons once relegated exclusively to the absolute more powerful, Apocalypse only, weapons, on tough, fearless infantry able to take stellar delivery systems and that can get access to battle focus through formations IIRC. A single squad able to slap a squad of tanks around like a Titan.

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

Is there a difference?

More to the point, the simple fundamental fact that they have D weapons is a fundamental failure of game design. It's not like they were considered underpowered, overcosted, or unusable with S10 guns.

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

They lay waste to anything that isn't sporting a grip of overlapping saves, they can lay waste to Scatterbikes and free transports too, doesn't mean Wraithguard can't still be broken.

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
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.

That's not entirely true. Some things have rules that just shouldn't be in the game, regardless of points cost. Invisibility comes to mind. Rerollable saves come to mind. Warp spiders come to mind.

D weapons on infantry comes to mind

Tropic Thunder wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Ugh... That's what I get trying to multitask at work. I thought the 5e release was 6e. For some reason I thought it was more recent than 2010. I do remember they were pretty solid the first year and a half it was out. Just got my dates off.

Still can't believe that was six years ago...

Right? holy crap.

If we want to be brutally honest about how GW got to where it currently is with formations, look no further than the introduction of Super Heavies into standard games. Once GW took that step they had to scramble to make up for it: D weaponry in standard games, MCs becoming GCs; then the wide scale addition of formations and detachments of formations. These conversations about "X has ruined the game" started with Super Heavies and D weapons. Interestingly, those problems were resolved with a new "X" to complain about.

IIRC they started to get introduced at the same time in late 6th, and the more truly absurdly undercosted SH/GC units started with taking all those D weapons down to where they didn't belong themselves.

I will concede that certain formations were unnecessary, particularly in forces that already had both GCs and plentiful D weaponry (Eldar). But let's not pretend that Formations are the straw that broke the camel's back here. The back was broken well before "Decurion" style detachments and plentiful formations came into the picture.

Sure, the game had major issues before, no argument, but formations are creating a whole grip of new problems layered on top of the old ones in a big way.

I mean, personally, I'm all for going back to the old 3E-5E single FoC, dumping allies, relegating SH/GC units and D weapons to Apocalypse and scenario games, and more, but Formations are a big part of the problem too.

The leap of adding Super Heavies to the standard game led to a precipitous drop off a cliff GW shouldn't have stepped from. To their credit, the number of flame threads on here complaining about excessive Super Heavy/Gargantuan/D weapon abuse has plummeted greatly, so GW solved that problem (sorta). The abuse of certain formations will result in tweaks that will neuter them next edition, but as always some other configurations to be abused after that.

The complaints about SH/GC units and D weapons has fallen off a lot because most events and many playgroups have houseruled their use. You can't take a full Knight army to most tournaments, some don't even let you bring more than 1. D weapons at most events are toned down in capability and otherwise restricted. Superheavies with ignores cover weapons are not allowed at many events. Essentially the community has acted to neuter these things.

So we went from "Formations break the game" to "Eldar break the game"? Just making sure I understand the current argument.

 Tamwulf wrote:
So we went from "Formations break the game" to "Eldar break the game"? Just making sure I understand the current argument.

I don't think these are mutually exclusive nor unrelated arguments

 Tamwulf wrote:
So we went from "Formations break the game" to "Eldar break the game"? Just making sure I understand the current argument.

More like Eldar nearly broke the game, then formations came along and made it worse. The new Eldar formations are breaking the game along with Necrons and certain Space Marine formations.

Pretty sure the current argument boils down to "the game was already unbalanced and crammed full of stuff it didn't really need, formations exacerbated both of those issues without actually fixing or improving anything else".

 Toofast wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
So we went from "Formations break the game" to "Eldar break the game"? Just making sure I understand the current argument.

More like Eldar nearly broke the game, then formations came along and made it worse. The new Eldar formations are breaking the game along with Necrons and certain Space Marine formations.

Pretty sure the current argument boils down to "the game was already unbalanced and crammed full of stuff it didn't really need, formations exacerbated both of those issues without actually fixing or improving anything else".

Aye, pretty much this.

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?

Undercosted IS overpowered.

Not really.

If Cultists were 2 points a piece, they wouldn't be broken, but under costed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not really.

If Cultists were 2 points a piece, they wouldn't be broken, but under costed.

I can't believe I'm using this, but per Urban Dictionary: Broken = 2. (Games) A game object or facility that is too good to exist. It is so powerful that it is unbalancing and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use this to be competitive.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broken

Ergo, Overpowered/Broken = Undercosted. If something is undercosted, it's broken, because you're getting a better unit than what you're paying for it. If Cultists were 2 points a piece, they'd be broken, because of what you're paying for them, whether the units stats are great or not. Same would be the case if Mutilators or Tac Marines were 4 points a piece. Sure, the unit hasn't gotten any better in terms of stats, but it's value in terms of usefulness per points went WAY up.

How can we even debate that formations break the game?? I'm a TO and have banned them. The idea for a tourney is to show up and have a chance . It's not to show up and be steamrolled by cheeseeeeee...

Haldir wrote:
How can we even debate that formations break the game?? I'm a TO and have banned them. The idea for a tourney is to show up and have a chance . It's not to show up and be steamrolled by cheeseeeeee...

The problem is complex. People that say that ban formations is not enough are right... in a way. But formations are part of the problem. Just not the only one.

Formation removal (or a very original and inventive repurposing of them) must happen, along with a new paradigm in codex writing along with an edition that rebalances melee and shooting along with a re-design of the most offending mechanics like grav or VP1 S10 Heavy 56 relentless rending weapons handed like candies along with removal or randumb.. and so on.

All of this must happen or the game will just be unbalanced in another direction.

This is why 40k is so f***ed.

Corollay: Alexander the Great did show us what to do with Gordian Knots. Problem being, for WFB, GW considered and accepted AoS as a solution to that Gordian Knot...

Haldir wrote:
How can we even debate that formations break the game?? I'm a TO and have banned them. The idea for a tourney is to show up and have a chance . It's not to show up and be steamrolled by cheeseeeeee...

Bless you. We have a local TO that also tossed formations in the trash, and we have a great time where lists are diverse, and the power difference between the worst list and best list isn't insane. (As an example, I've won multiple times with BA, and one of my buddies has won with a fairly bland Ultramarines no-primarch HH list.)

I wish the broader tourney scene would try out nixing formations instead of constantly having war convo, battleco, gundam wing, decurions, and similar power lists all steamrolling most players that aren't lucky enough to have good formations in their army. After playing with no formations, the tournaments allowing them just feel like they're playing a straight up worse version of the game to me.

40k should have never been apoc. Apoc is apoc. Apoc can still be apoc, 40k could, in theory, go back to sorta being 40k. But things would have to change.


As has been pointed out again and again even apoc made you pay bloody points for formations. It also valued a strategic asset at roughly 250pts but gave multiple away for free in formations. Apoc is far from perfect, apoc is a gong show. I mean, two words: Flank March... Apoc and alcohol are sorta symbiotically intertwined. One cannot function without the other. And it makes you want to drink if you ever require persuasion.


All I see is on the pro formation end is people making the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes, removing formations does nothing to balance the myriad of ever growing esoteric factions in the bloated as feth mess that is 7th edition warhammer 40,000. It just steers us back towards some semblance of normalcy and a thorough re-acquaintance with the long since dead and buried force organization chart. Getting rid of formations does nothing to address cynically cutting a faction into two because reasons and making factions without hq's because reasons. Or factions that auto lose the game. I would also argue that although allies seem almost quaint at this point, that really is just evidence of how far we've fallen.

No matter what we know there is no concrete metric for points, it's the best worst system we have. But we all know damn well allies screws up the "this factions gets cheap x" concept, which is probably the only way you can even attempt to differentiate fairly similar sub-factions. Say bike or jump heavy marine lists.

I don't think we'll ever be able to perfectly equate unit efficacy to point cost because it's very difficult to account for synergy and complex special rule interaction. With that said, the game still improves without formations. I still much prefer special characters unlocking certain units as troops for foc swaps than convoluted shopping lists that range from imaginative to cynical to infuriating.


I'd much rather see rites of war or something similar in 40k than formations. Formations are fine, for apoc. Go. Play. Apoc.

Can we have 40k back now? You know, a skirmish game generally played from 1500-2000 pts involving hopefully less than like a hundred models and can be played in like 2-4 hours. 30k is where I want 40k to be, and yeah, just not playing with formations doesn't get it there or back to the glory days of 5th but its better than what 40k is currently and it's a good start.


But that's all it is, a good a start. Super heavies/non-character lords of war need to be indexed to point level. Ridiculous stuff like factions made entirely of super heavy walkers need to go and play apoc. Realistically, over 2000-3000 let the flood gates loose and go play apoc but make a functional ruleset for skirmish level gaming, take notes from 30k and go from there. I also think GW needs to make up its mind with the mini factions. Factions should be able to stand on their own. Allies are not a terrible mechanic given the insanity we see today but the allies matrix can't possibly account for all the bizarre allies that occur in the fluff. Nor should they in many cases, can I get a necron blood angels fist bump?

All I know is I'm enjoying 30k. Yes. it's more balanced by the simple fact that at the base of it most legions are playing essentially the same book with slight twists. Just like chapters in 40k they're not all perfectly balanced. But at the same time even the weakest legion can make a damn strong list. Part of that is the rigidity of the army construction and part of that is fw can write nuanced rules that have both benefits and downsides. Not perfect, no rule are perfect. In my experience most of the potential balance and enjoyment to be found in wargaming is good opponents played regularly enough that you can learn each other's play style and arsenals and find balance through sheer martial practice. Feedback. Discussion of tactics. A lot of that is obviously much easier when you're essentially playing mirror match with the same codex. That's a fair criticism of comparing 30k to 40k.

I think to fix 40k gw needs to really decide if regardless of if an army is imperial or heretic or xenos, will they enforce some semblance of combined arms warfare either through taxes (rigid foc) incentivized synergy and strong internal balance. Or will they allow the insanity of apoc's one size fits all approach to a game that used to not be a bloated mess.

I remember back in 5-6th in a GW that no longer exists playing a game of 40k (it was still 40k in those days) against a buddy of mine, I look over at a table in the main sales floor. A kid had 3 manticores on a skyshield landing pad. That used to be the mega battle stuff the kiddies would play on saturdays. And the adults with 900 dollar titans. But at least we had a word for it, it was called apoc and, it was all good. I played 40k, they played apoc. All good.

The game is balkanized and negotiation is annoying and unfortunately political and culturally polarizing. Even with honest intentions "casual" or" competitive" those words still have vastly graduated interpretation from basement to basement or store to store. Acceptable and inappropriate are the end result of culture filling the gaps in a ruleset. Cynically jamming in flyers or fortifications leads to everyone needing to weigh in. Army building is just one part of the problem. The other part is the vast array of scenarios that vary from enjoyable to insane. But none really form a baseline for what "the game" is at its core. BFG had a tonne of scenarios that were only ever fun in a campaign, 40k much the same.

With 7th came Maelstrom missions, which is a laughable attempt to "shake things up", adding twister to 40k or "my drunk commissar" or whatever you wanna call it only satiates individuals who think playing defensively or gun lining shouldn't be a valid tactic in a game that seems to clearly value shooting over close combat and cover over running through open ground in an active battlefield, sometime to the point of absurdity. Terrain density is another issue that should probably be addressed in concert with scenarios, especially if a tournament is going to include say a scenario/mission involving the relic, it's generally nice to not have it end up on some ungodly convoluted or large terrain piece. Any TO knows all considerations to balance that aren't obvious when it comes to terrain. Something gw utterly failed on in 7th.

Eternal war still has the usual crap fest. The relic is dumb, scouring is just a vp lottery. Emperor's will, 2 objectives was never fun once you couldn't assault on the outflank (something else that needs to be brought back). Big guns was better when every unit didn't score. Purge the alien, or, kill points, was my most hated mission, even more than relic, because the game handles kp very badly. KP's are not terrible for tie breakers, but as a core scenario mechanic it's awful. The old vp system was cumbersome but much better. The only mission I find tolerable in 7th is crusade. A lot of that has to do with placing objectives before knowing what deployment will be, it keeps everyone honest. That has been one of the few improvements of 7th, placing objective BEFORE knowing who will deploy where. But that gets lost in a lot of the maelstrom stuff those crazy kids are experimenting with these days.

Formations or not maelstrom is awful. But being the pragmatic fellow I am, I will equate modified maelstrom to playing 40k without formations. It's a mild improvement.

But yeah, formations need to go, but so does a lot of stuff. 40k is a bloated cow and needs to go on a diet and trim down and break it off with apoc. Apoc will just get her own place.