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.

Martel732 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Why are formations unfair? Some are fine, some are OP, some are UP I.e. the first company task force is an ok formation. Nothing game breaking about what units you can take, or what rules it gives. Compare it however to a lib conclave which is fairly powerful with the ability to put a large number of psykers down, and improve how easy it is to cast psychic powers. Or any of the IG formations which suck incredibly hard by giving meager bonuses for a huge point investment in bad units.

What I'm saying is, not all formations are bad. Not all of them are game breaking. The vast majority are probably average at best, it's a few that give all formations a bad rep. (i.e. gladius, lib conclave, riptide wing.)

There is exactly one useful BA formation, imo.

Fascinating, I'm sure everyone knows, and I'm not entirely sure what the point of saying that is.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Why are formations unfair?

Because you're getting free bonuses that you didn't pay for that were not accounted for in the costs of the units that make up those formations.

Formations not only are unfair, but they're also completely unnecessary.

I can already take 5 units of sternguard if I want to do that in a CAD. All I have to do is take 2 HQs and 4 troop choices to go with them.

Ultimately, that seems fair.

What makes that fair? Arbitrary rules from GW? What if GW had it reversed, and a CAD was the new thing? There's no difference here except you hate change.

But.... Normandy in SPACE where if you take anything more powerful than Rhinos or Tactical Marines you're a WAAC TFG loser who should feel bad is the only way to play. Also you should feel bad as instead of buying a Knight/Riptide/Tunderwolf Cav unit/any Monstrous Creature in general really/any non-marine vehicle that isn't a transport you could of given that money to charity to help starving children on Africa.

All of the above is based on Traditio's previous comments and beliefs from similar threads.

 Traditio wrote:
Because you're getting free bonuses that you didn't pay for that were not accounted for in the costs of the units that make up those formations.

What happened to your claim that your free transports are ok because the formation forces you to take "tax" units you wouldn't otherwise take? Are you admitting that this defense was wrong and you just get a bunch of free stuff?

Formations not only are unfair, but they're also completely unnecessary.

This is an odd statement coming from someone whose default army list uses a formation, and who only changes to a CAD when both players agree to it.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
But.... Normandy in SPACE where if you take anything more powerful than Rhinos or Tactical Marines you're a WAAC TFG loser who should feel bad is the only way to play. Also you should feel bad as instead of buying a Knight/Riptide/Tunderwolf Cav unit/any Monstrous Creature in general really/any non-marine vehicle that isn't a transport you could of given that money to charity to help starving children on Africa.

All of the above is based on Traditio's previous comments and beliefs from similar threads.

And from the thread that literally said as much about normandy in space. (the one about 40k being a SPECTACLE and how we're all playing it WRONG)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
But.... Normandy in SPACE

Nitpick: it's now WWI in space. Get those tanks and aircraft off the table, all you get is generic troops with rifles!

 Traditio wrote:

Because you're getting free bonuses that you didn't pay for that were not accounted for in the costs of the units that make up those formations.

That would presuppose that the points costs were 'fair' before formations entered the picture.


You're talking about a game where points costs are set based purely on what looks about right to the design team... a design team who are so out of touch with their own game that they seriously thought that an auto-include unit in the 5th edition SM codex needed a boost because nobody in the studio was using them...

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Yay we can all have the same army structure. How boring. Let's go back to having unique FOC's instead.

We don't NEED unique FOCs. You can take as many CADs as you want. You want 3 HQs? Then take 4 troop choices.

Force orgs don't matter. Only the costing of individual models does. If units were appropriately costed, 6 HQs vs 6 elites would be fine.

Hrm, Force Orgs also used to govern capabilities of an overall force to some level of "TAC" was always possible. Having armies of composed of mostly big heavy things tends to make the light weeny things largely pointless no matter how cheap you make them. It's why *one* Knight is usually pretty ok, but an army of 5 is not.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Why are formations unfair?

free stuff for zero additional points is usually pretty unfair just on a fundamental game design level, be they transports, special rules, wargear, etc.

Not all are as busted as others, but the fundamental premise of their execution is flawed.

 insaniak wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Because you're getting free bonuses that you didn't pay for that were not accounted for in the costs of the units that make up those formations.

That would presuppose that the points costs were 'fair' before formations entered the picture.


You're talking about a game where points costs are set based purely on what looks about right to the design team... a design team who are so out of touch with their own game that they seriously thought that an auto-include unit in the 5th edition SM codex needed a boost because nobody in the studio was using them...

Hm? What's this?

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Why are formations unfair?

Because you're getting free bonuses that you didn't pay for that were not accounted for in the costs of the units that make up those formations.

Formations not only are unfair, but they're also completely unnecessary.

I can already take 5 units of sternguard if I want to do that with CADs. All I have to do is take 2 HQs and 4 troop choices to go with them.

Ultimately, that seems fair.

If you had to pay for them they wouldn't use them because you would have to pay for the models pay for the models in point the upgrades then the formation it would be a loss or at least that's how I see it

 Traditio wrote:

Once more people read the discussion and vote, especially the more casual players, we are likely to see numbers, I think, ranging anywhere from a 50/50 even split to possibly even numbers slightly in my favor.

Food for thought: Wouldn't more competitive players who explore more options for specifically competitive environments actually know better what is OP or not compared to casual players who don't take certain options very often and so may not even know ways to defeat/get around things they perceive as "OP"? I realize most competitive players do spammy lists or whatnot, but they also are the type of people to playtest incessantly to figure out what combinations are the most efficient, it just unfortunately is the state of the game that spammy lists are the most efficient right now. That doesn't mean competitive players haven't tried other things, they just come back to the winning lists because they're competitive.

Casual players on the other hand, are much more likely to keep one list, say "Oh MAN that's OP!" and not do a lot of research on defeating it, but just generally be unhappy the thing exists.

That's my experience in other game systems, at least. I'm not sure it applies here (particularly because dakka dakka members do a lot of reading about the game regardless if they're hardcore gamers or casual gamers).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Why are formations unfair?

free stuff for zero additional points is usually pretty unfair just on a fundamental game design level, be they transports, special rules, wargear, etc.

Not all are as busted as others, but the fundamental premise of their execution is flawed.

A few are busted, no question. That however does not make ALL formations pointless. Some help make terrible units decent, or even good (i.e. drone network for tau, and the allied advance makes kroot and vespids more usable at least)

I'd also like to point out the CAD is a formation, which gives free obsec. It's not huge, but it's something not included in the model's rules originally (even if it simply replicates how previous editions did it)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Let's all remember that Traditio said trolls ruined this poll when it was decidedly against his opinion, but the moment it came "close enough", it was declared he was right.

Yep. Just as I predicted back on the first page of the thread.

Common practice at this point. Strong minorities, folks.

I feel like this might belong here (or, if not a mod is obviously free to delete it as would be expected).

It basically talks about things some people perceive as cheap, and simply whine about them, and those who more or less don't. It's not meant as an insult, but maybe some insight into both sides here.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

I think overall it kind of applies here.

pm713 wrote:
Hm? What's this?

At the beginning of 6th there was a WD article about how the designers buffed psykers because nobody was taking C:SM librarians (they were all using melee chaplains). Meanwhile, out in the real world, librarians were the default HQ that everyone took and melee chaplains were a joke option.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Why are formations unfair?

free stuff for zero additional points is usually pretty unfair just on a fundamental game design level, be they transports, special rules, wargear, etc.

Not all are as busted as others, but the fundamental premise of their execution is flawed.

A few are busted, no question. That however does not make ALL formations pointless. Some help make terrible units decent, or even good (i.e. drone network for tau, and the allied advance makes kroot and vespids more usable at least)

then the right answer is to address those units in the codex, not hand out free stuff for taking X models in Y quantities. One will notice that, by and large, people also arent usually running the Vespid formations.

Formations also promote spam and force imbalance in way not possible before, you couldnt run 7 Riptides with free boosted abilities without formations, under the old FOC you could take 3 at most, and they didnt get free stuff in the bargain.

What formations are is sales mechanisms, not thoughtfully constructed game mechanics.

I'd also like to point out the CAD is a formation, which gives free obsec. It's not huge, but it's something not included in the model's rules originally (even if it simply replicates how previous editions did it)

thats something of a holdover to try and emphasize taking Troops (where only Troops used to be scoring), and its also available to all armies equally (barring the armies that arent really complete armies unto themselves like Harlequins)

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Why are formations unfair?

free stuff for zero additional points is usually pretty unfair just on a fundamental game design level, be they transports, special rules, wargear, etc.

Not all are as busted as others, but the fundamental premise of their execution is flawed.

A few are busted, no question. That however does not make ALL formations pointless. Some help make terrible units decent, or even good (i.e. drone network for tau, and the allied advance makes kroot and vespids more usable at least)

then the right answer is to address those units in the codex, not hand out free stuff for taking X models in Y quantities. One will notice that, by and large, people also arent usually running the Vespid formations.

Formations also promote spam and force imbalance in way not possible before, you couldnt run 7 Riptides with free boosted abilities without formations, under the old FOC you could take 3 at most, and they didnt get free stuff in the bargain.

What formations are is sales mechanisms, not thoughtfully constructed game mechanics.

Sure, but does that mean it's impossible for them to be balanced? I.e. the 1st company task force is terrible at taking objectives compared to a CAD's troops. I don't think formations need to be removed, just reworked in addition to proper balancing for units.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'd also like to point out the CAD is a formation, which gives free obsec. It's not huge, but it's something not included in the model's rules originally (even if it simply replicates how previous editions did it)

thats something of a holdover to try and emphasize taking Troops (where only Troops used to be scoring), and its also available to all armies equally (barring the armies that arent really complete armies unto themselves like Harlequins)

Yes and no, if we go CAD only, then some armies become unplayable, unless we allow their specific formation to make them playable, which generally offers a different bonus suitable to that army.

Melee chaplains? Really? What a bunch of scrubs.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Why are formations unfair?

free stuff for zero additional points is usually pretty unfair just on a fundamental game design level, be they transports, special rules, wargear, etc.

Not all are as busted as others, but the fundamental premise of their execution is flawed.

A few are busted, no question. That however does not make ALL formations pointless. Some help make terrible units decent, or even good (i.e. drone network for tau, and the allied advance makes kroot and vespids more usable at least)

then the right answer is to address those units in the codex, not hand out free stuff for taking X models in Y quantities. One will notice that, by and large, people also arent usually running the Vespid formations.

Formations also promote spam and force imbalance in way not possible before, you couldnt run 7 Riptides with free boosted abilities without formations, under the old FOC you could take 3 at most, and they didnt get free stuff in the bargain.

What formations are is sales mechanisms, not thoughtfully constructed game mechanics.

I'd also like to point out the CAD is a formation, which gives free obsec. It's not huge, but it's something not included in the model's rules originally (even if it simply replicates how previous editions did it)

thats something of a holdover to try and emphasize taking Troops (where only Troops used to be scoring), and its also available to all armies equally (barring the armies that arent really complete armies unto themselves like Harlequins)

If we used the current stay book with FOC you would be able to get 7 riptides but no free stuff

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Hm? What's this?

At the beginning of 6th there was a WD article about how the designers buffed psykers because nobody was taking C:SM librarians (they were all using melee chaplains). Meanwhile, out in the real world, librarians were the default HQ that everyone took and melee chaplains were a joke option.

I'd call that classic GW at this point.

Peregrine wrote:What happened to your claim that your free transports are ok because the formation forces you to take "tax" units you wouldn't otherwise take? Are you admitting that this defense was wrong and you just get a bunch of free stuff?

Yes.

And note, this isn't just the battle company. This is all formations. Free rhinos, free stat-line increases, free turn 1 deepstrike: it's all complete bull gak.

Take an HQ. Take 2 troops. Take some more stuff to go with that. You want more stuff to go with that? Then take another HQ and another 2 troops.

Enjoy that sweet, sweet objective secured.

This is an odd statement coming from someone whose default army list uses a formation, and who only changes to a CAD when both players agree to it.

My principle is to run a battle company only if my opponent uses a formation himself.

My strong preference is just to run a CAD.

Why not fix the formations and alternate foc's rather than removing them? As I said only having CAD's becomes a bit boring.

Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Saying that the Riptide "isn't an autoinclude" is a joke. They've been an auto-include for almost two editions now, because really what are they really competing against?

On this note, I literally cannot recall seeing a single game involving a Tau army above 750pts or so that *didn't* have a Riptide since they came out in 2013.

To me, that is by far the largest indicator that something is wrong.

Much as I would agree with this, it's not completely accurate.

I see Tactical Marines in every game against SM I play. Does that Tacs OP?
Again, that point is taken to an awkward extreme, but it doesn't excuse your point - you can't just say that because it's commonly taken, it's necessarily OP. It may be very appealing to multiple players for many reasons - aesthetics, rules, theme, gift from a friend, etc etc.

Either way, this is par for the course for a Traditio thread. Cue "significant minority should get their way" and "Everyone who doesn't agree is a WAAC TFG or troll".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Why not fix the formations and alternate foc's rather than removing them? As I said only having CAD's becomes a bit boring.

This. Or, either attach point costs to Formations, or even branch out into 30k Rites of War.

Forcing everyone to use CAD is bad, seeing as it destroys narrative play and fluff-accurate battlefield teams.

Why would an Imperial Guard Armoured Company have Veterans or Infantry Platoons running around their feet?
Why would a detachment of a Chapter's First Company have Tactical Squads or Scouts supporting it?
Why would the charge of the Grey Knights Purifier Order be accompanied by Strike Squads?
Etc etc.

@pm713:
Because you're wrong and should feel bad or something like that.

Don't ask why or we'll get a new poll that's full of trolls and strong minorities.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
How do we get a rule in place that prevents people starting threads if they have an overly high thread to post ratio?

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Meh I've gone from hating the damn things to normally killing them turn one....

But can you do that with a battle company that has all of the wrong weapons?

No? Obviously OP. As is your army. Let's have a poll about that that so I can backup my opinion with a "consensus".

Meh simply an ABG vanquisher with BH shells and coaxil... it's gonna hit, it's gonna wound, it's gonna kill the thing.

Sure they're annoying, but if you take the right kit for the right job... mehhh not too hard to kill.

I prefer the attaching a cost idea. I find Rites of War very restrictive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@pm713:
Because you're wrong and should feel bad or something like that.

Don't ask why or we'll get a new poll that's full of trolls and strong minorities.

We'll also have to wait for data to settle.

 Traditio wrote:
My principle is to run a battle company only if my opponent uses a formation himself.

My strong preference is just to run a CAD.

If you were that vehement about your formation rules as you were on using Drop Pods, grav, and psykers, you wouldn't use them at all.
Would this not show that not all cheese is made equal?

 Wolfblade wrote:



Sure, but does that mean it's impossible for them to be balanced? I.e. the 1st company task force is terrible at taking objectives compared to a CAD's troops. I don't think formations need to be removed, just reworked in addition to proper balancing for units.

If they had a cost attached to them that matched their bonuses, maybe. If a Riptide Wing for example cost say, 240pts on top of the cost of the Riptides, that might be more reasonable, but still runs into the spam and force balance issues. That some dont have ObSec is a highly variable point dependent on what sort of force you are facing and mission youre playing. You can also take a detachment with ObSec alongside formations that might not include it and be out nothing.

Yes and no, if we go CAD only, then some armies become unplayable, unless we allow their specific formation to make them playable, which generally offers a different bonus suitable to that army.

The only armies that arent playable with a CAD are those that really arent full functioning armies in the first place. Harlequins or Inquisition or Skitarii for example, that really dont play well purely on their own anyway, they're just not complete armies, which is a different problem to tackle.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Saying that the Riptide "isn't an autoinclude" is a joke. They've been an auto-include for almost two editions now, because really what are they really competing against?

On this note, I literally cannot recall seeing a single game involving a Tau army above 750pts or so that *didn't* have a Riptide since they came out in 2013.

To me, that is by far the largest indicator that something is wrong.

Much as I would agree with this, it's not completely accurate.

I see Tactical Marines in every game against SM I play. Does that Tacs OP?
Again, that point is taken to an awkward extreme, but it doesn't excuse your point - you can't just say that because it's commonly taken, it's necessarily OP. It may be very appealing to multiple players for many reasons - aesthetics, rules, theme, gift from a friend, etc etc.

Its possible to see anything for any reason, but the only things you see literally every time you see an army for multiple years and editions, and across multiple different play groups, typically are either mandatory or so powerful as to be mandatory.

Seeing Tacs in every SM army is one thing, theyre the core unit around which the entire faction is built and are generally mandatory to some degree. Seeing the ultra rare prototype nontroop megasuit in every game everywhere is not the same thing.

I disagree, MT are a "complete army" by your standard of being able to use a CAD. Why are skittari and harlies excluded because they simply lack an HQ choice? Would they be incomplete if one of their characters were moved to the HQ position? Then they'd fill all the requirements of a "full army" by being usable in a CAD. (i.e. troupe master, death jester or a ranger/vanguard alpha). What about sisters? They're an "army" despite being massively outdated and unsupported more or less.

Saying an army isn't an "army" is arbitrary, especially as those "ally" armies can't even fulfill an allied detachment.

As a CSM player, one Riptide isn't a problem really, you can easily ignore it. Multiple riptides might be the problem. So far in my playgroup the riptides never really paid off, it's usually the crisis suits that do the main work of the army. Riptides are only taken because they aren't that epensive and you need them for some formations.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Saying that the Riptide "isn't an autoinclude" is a joke. They've been an auto-include for almost two editions now, because really what are they really competing against?

On this note, I literally cannot recall seeing a single game involving a Tau army above 750pts or so that *didn't* have a Riptide since they came out in 2013.

To me, that is by far the largest indicator that something is wrong.

Much as I would agree with this, it's not completely accurate.

I see Tactical Marines in every game against SM I play. Does that Tacs OP?
Again, that point is taken to an awkward extreme, but it doesn't excuse your point - you can't just say that because it's commonly taken, it's necessarily OP. It may be very appealing to multiple players for many reasons - aesthetics, rules, theme, gift from a friend, etc etc.

Really, you see Tactical Marines in every game against SM?

Gee, do you see many Battle Demi-Companies or any Core Space Marine formations?

Your point is a terrible one. I absolutely can say that because it's commonly taken, it's OP--but if you want further qualifiers to assuage your concerns about my point needing to be excused or to protect the feelings of people who got it for aesthetics or as a gift from a friend or loved one.

People running it solely for the rules are the ones who "commonly take it", and they're specifically the people I'm discussing here. So here's a disclaimer:

If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse. Pure and simple--you could easily run it with other options, but you CHOOSE to run it in the douchiest way possible. You CHOSE to run your army in such a way that it is not fun or interesting for the other player. You are a part of the reason why people look so unfavorably towards Tau players.

pm713 wrote:
Why not fix the formations and alternate foc's rather than removing them? As I said only having CAD's becomes a bit boring.

This. Or, either attach point costs to Formations, or even branch out into 30k Rites of War.

Forcing everyone to use CAD is bad, seeing as it destroys narrative play and fluff-accurate battlefield teams.

Why would an Imperial Guard Armoured Company have Veterans or Infantry Platoons running around their feet?

Have you read the Imperial Guard Armoured Company list from FW?

They have veteran and infantry squads in Chimeras to secure ground after the initial advance. They're even a part of the Armoured Battlegroup list in Imperial Armour v2.0

Why would a detachment of a Chapter's First Company have Tactical Squads or Scouts supporting it?

Again, have you read any lore? You talk about "destroying narrative play" and "fluff-accurate battlefield teams", but every example you give has actually been addressed before in the lore.

To use your First Company example, let's talk about the Raven Guard. Scout Teams infiltrate in ahead of time, First Company come down in Drop Pods after the enemy is sighted and engaged by the Scouts.
Tactical Squads come down in Drop Pods or emerge from cover as well to engage and support while the First Company launch an attack on the enemy warlord/master psyker/Hive Mind/Avatar/whatever.

Why would the charge of the Grey Knights Purifier Order be accompanied by Strike Squads?
Etc etc.

Why wouldn't the charge of the Purifier Order be accompanied by Strike Squads? It's not like the Strike Squads can't get there.