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.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:

 malamis wrote:
I'm rather attached to BigHammer & SmallHammer, so as a suggestion:

Kill team: as it is
SmallHammer: <2k pts, 1 CAD & up to 1 Ally, no detachments, limit of 1 flyer OR LoW (6th, basically)
BigHammer: 40k as written

I think SmallHammer would actually be an interesting tournament format.

Nailed it.

I'd have nothing against some formations in SmallHammer, but without changing up rules and formations the above is spot on.

No one is forbidden from playing with the units they have/like, but you're also less likely to get an unbalanced game.

Of course, BigHammer is just Apoc and SmallHammer is 'classic' 40k, so we're just renaming what we previously had.

This is exactly the kind of tournaments that I run at my FLGS.

1850 points. CAD + Allied Detachment. That's generally it. Sometimes we let a LoW come in at a points limit. Sometimes we let in a single formation with a points limit. It's created a fairly good environment.

the_scotsman wrote:
In what way is gw "pushing" the kind of extreme builds you see at tournaments? When was the last time any bit of GW promotional material featured even an unbound army much less something like flyramts and riptides?

Formations that give tons of freebjes for taking a clutch of Riptides? Formations that require one to buy 3 different books (for what should ostensibly one army) to field but then grt literally hundreds of points of free upgrades, wargear and special rules, particularly the War Convocation. Rules available only through webstore sales bundles that allow for Deep Strike Assault and Relentless heavy wrapons usage from Drop Pod units. Jetbike rules that allow evety model to take a heavy weapon just because the kit comes with them on the sprue. Need I go on?



Yes GW pushes a lot of stinkers too, as you noted, and those are their own issues that but in general GW is certainly making available a tremendous number of tools to break the game with a heavy sales emphasis. That GW doesnt take into account balance at all, resulting in many OP and UP units is probably a good call on many accounts, but there are also clear instances of them introducing things that clearly are powerful and designed to move product.

 Vaktathi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
In what way is gw "pushing" the kind of extreme builds you see at tournaments? When was the last time any bit of GW promotional material featured even an unbound army much less something like flyramts and riptides?

Formations that give tons of freebjes for taking a clutch of Riptides?

Sure, the Riptide Wing is ridiculous...but fun fact:
None of the Tau big detachments can actually take it as part of them!
The only way to field a Riptide Wing is with no way for it to get bonuses from the Detachments.

Formations that require one to buy 3 different books (for what should ostensibly one army) to field but then grt literally hundreds of points of free upgrades, wargear and special rules, particularly the War Convocation.

The fact that Skitarii upgrades were expensive to begin with be damned, I guess...
25 points for a Transauranic Arqebus? 30 points for a Plasma Caliver?

And that is not even taking into consideration the fact that the Skitarii portion of the War Convocation is incredibly restrictive. One unit of Rangers, one unit of Vanguard, one unit of Infiltrators, one unit of Ruststalkers, one unit of Onagers, and one unit of either Dragoons or Ironstriders.
So sure, a War Convocation can get "hundreds of points of free upgrades"...while basically being able to only really pick and choose the rest of the army by using the Cult Mechanicus bits.

Rules available only through webstore sales bundles that allow for Deep Strike Assault and Relentless heavy wrapons usage from Drop Pod units.

"Angels of Death" supplement contains those rules now, just so you know. I wouldn't be surprised to see the War Convocation coming in a Warzone featuring Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus.

Jetbike rules that allow every model to take a heavy weapon just because the kit comes with them on the sprue. Need I go on?

I've actually had a theory about this for awhile. They weren't intending on them being strictly Guardian Wind Riders, but rather they were going to have an option for a "Veteran" Wind Rider unit featuring more options for specials. Like the difference between Veteran Guardsmen and standard Guardsmen or Kabalite Trueborn and Kabalite Warriors.

the_scotsman wrote:
Gw doesn't push overpowered models. They just don't care about competitive balance.

I think its a little bit of both. Take the recent IG Taurox release for example. Is it really coincidence that the point cost of the chimera increased dramatically this edition with the arrival of the Taurox which shares the same role and comes in almost 23% cheaper? GW knows most IG players already own Chimeras. So to incentivize players to purchase Taurox, they price chimeras out of the market. At their current cost, its just absurd to field them. I still do out of spite, and will never purchase a Taurox.

I completely agree that they do not care about competitive balance. Half the codices are not even viable in a competitive format. Point costs are all over the place. Half the units in almost every codex are never fielded, due to outrageous point costs, poor rules. Most of the codices warlord traits are awful. There is little to no reasons to follow CAD/bonus is trivial. RNG on top of RNG on top of RNG that impacts nearly every faucet of the game now where you might as well save yourself the trouble of setting up anything and just flip a coin. All of these factors combined make the existing ruleset pretty unplayable outside of niche gaming groups that houserule almost everything.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
In what way is gw "pushing" the kind of extreme builds you see at tournaments? When was the last time any bit of GW promotional material featured even an unbound army much less something like flyramts and riptides?

Formations that give tons of freebjes for taking a clutch of Riptides?

Sure, the Riptide Wing is ridiculous...but fun fact:
None of the Tau big detachments can actually take it as part of them!
The only way to field a Riptide Wing is with no way for it to get bonuses from the Detachments.

Sure, but that doesnt mean that it's any less ridiculous, just not as ridiculous as it otherwise could have been. The option to spam the big expensive plastic kit and get bonuses for doing so is there either way

Formations that require one to buy 3 different books (for what should ostensibly one army) to field but then grt literally hundreds of points of free upgrades, wargear and special rules, particularly the War Convocation.

The fact that Skitarii upgrades were expensive to begin with be damned, I guess...
25 points for a Transauranic Arqebus? 30 points for a Plasma Caliver?

30pts for an Assault 3 18" S7 AP2 nigh impossible to miss with weapon (due to Skitarii army rules) that could effectively ignore most Overheats due to rerolls was not too ridiculous. That the formation also removes Gets Hot to boot on top doesnt help things

And that is not even taking into consideration the fact that the Skitarii portion of the War Convocation is incredibly restrictive. One unit of Rangers, one unit of Vanguard, one unit of Infiltrators, one unit of Ruststalkers, one unit of Onagers, and one unit of either Dragoons or Ironstriders.
So sure, a War Convocation can get "hundreds of points of free upgrades"...while basically being able to only really pick and choose the rest of the army by using the Cult Mechanicus bits.

that doesnt mean its not hugely abusive and powerful, it just means its going to be cookie cutter is all. The first time I played against one it was my 1850pt IG vs an 1850py WC that effectively was playing with like 2300 or 2400pts once all the special rules and free wargear was factored in. The game was predictably stilted.

Rules available only through webstore sales bundles that allow for Deep Strike Assault and Relentless heavy wrapons usage from Drop Pod units.

"Angels of Death" supplement contains those rules now, just so you know.

Ah I missed that. That said, I'm not sure thats any better. Making them an exclusive web bundle item then rereleasing it a year or more later to drive new book sales is pretty cheeky

I wouldn't be surprised to see the War Convocation coming in a Warzone featuring Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus.

Entirely possible, sure.

Jetbike rules that allow every model to take a heavy weapon just because the kit comes with them on the sprue. Need I go on?

I've actually had a theory about this for awhile. They weren't intending on them being strictly Guardian Wind Riders, but rather they were going to have an option for a "Veteran" Wind Rider unit featuring more options for specials. Like the difference between Veteran Guardsmen and standard Guardsmen or Kabalite Trueborn and Kabalite Warriors.

An interesting theory, and would make for a more interesting play option , but I think the simpler explanation was they just fit everything on one sprue so they didnt have to include the second HW sprue and then just gave every model the option since they all came with it.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
40k has ever been meant to be a skirmish scale ONLY.

That just isn't true, the transition from 2nd to 3rd marked a big shift away from being a skirmish games. 2K marine armies in 3rd were 50-60 guys with transports plus multiple tanks, etc. That is not a skirmish

In fact i wanted to write its never been a skirmish game only but well tiping with a pad is not that easy as far as im concerned

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
In what way is gw "pushing" the kind of extreme builds you see at tournaments? When was the last time any bit of GW promotional material featured even an unbound army much less something like flyramts and riptides?

Formations that give tons of freebjes for taking a clutch of Riptides?

Sure, the Riptide Wing is ridiculous...but fun fact:
None of the Tau big detachments can actually take it as part of them!
The only way to field a Riptide Wing is with no way for it to get bonuses from the Detachments.

Sure, but that doesnt mean that it's any less ridiculous, just not as ridiculous as it otherwise could have been. The option to spam the big expensive plastic kit and get bonuses for doing so is there either way

*shrug* Just calling it like I see it. The only real thing that they did was make it so that a Riptide Wing can be an army in and of itself.

Formations that require one to buy 3 different books (for what should ostensibly one army) to field but then grt literally hundreds of points of free upgrades, wargear and special rules, particularly the War Convocation.

The fact that Skitarii upgrades were expensive to begin with be damned, I guess...
25 points for a Transauranic Arqebus? 30 points for a Plasma Caliver?

30pts for an Assault 3 18" S7 AP2 nigh impossible to miss with weapon (due to Skitarii army rules) that could effectively ignore most Overheats due to rerolls was not too ridiculous. That the formation also removes Gets Hot to boot on top doesnt help things

Skitarii army rules are once per turn, once per game.

The formation removing Gets Hot is great, but it should tell you that those are the only times Skitarii players really seem to go for that weapon as the Arc Rifle dominates it otherwise. And my poor Arqebus is just looked at for cool factor...

And that is not even taking into consideration the fact that the Skitarii portion of the War Convocation is incredibly restrictive. One unit of Rangers, one unit of Vanguard, one unit of Infiltrators, one unit of Ruststalkers, one unit of Onagers, and one unit of either Dragoons or Ironstriders.
So sure, a War Convocation can get "hundreds of points of free upgrades"...while basically being able to only really pick and choose the rest of the army by using the Cult Mechanicus bits.

that doesnt mean its not hugely abusive and powerful, it just means its going to be cookie cutter is all. The first time I played against one it was my 1850pt IG vs an 1850py WC that effectively was playing with like 2300 or 2400pts once all the special rules and free wargear was factored in. The game was predictably stilted.

Okay, and?

It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of that stuff is stupidly costed to start with.

Rules available only through webstore sales bundles that allow for Deep Strike Assault and Relentless heavy wrapons usage from Drop Pod units.

"Angels of Death" supplement contains those rules now, just so you know.

Ah I missed that. That said, I'm not sure thats any better. Making them an exclusive web bundle item then rereleasing it a year or more later to drive new book sales is pretty cheeky

Truthfully, the book would have sold fine well without it. It contained all the existing supplemental material, ranging from Kauyon's White Scars and Raven Guard stuff to the IF/IH stuff, along with some new Salamanders stuff and some new Detachments/formations.

For $33.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the War Convocation coming in a Warzone featuring Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus.

Entirely possible, sure.

More than possible, it seems like they want to make sure that stuff gets out into the wild now.

Jetbike rules that allow every model to take a heavy weapon just because the kit comes with them on the sprue. Need I go on?

I've actually had a theory about this for awhile. They weren't intending on them being strictly Guardian Wind Riders, but rather they were going to have an option for a "Veteran" Wind Rider unit featuring more options for specials. Like the difference between Veteran Guardsmen and standard Guardsmen or Kabalite Trueborn and Kabalite Warriors.

An interesting theory, and would make for a more interesting play option , but I think the simpler explanation was they just fit everything on one sprue so they didnt have to include the second HW sprue and then just gave every model the option since they all came with it.

*shrug* Like I said, it's a theory I've been ruminating over.

Question: Army size - What happened to 40k?

The original Apocalypse release happened way back in 2007 (around 4th edition).
If you want to look anywhere to blame for formations, this and the supplement is what started it.
Back then, it was a huge success, there were formation bundles that were a good deal, booming revenue for GW.

Then it's update / re-release 2013 (around 6th edition in 2012).

2014 with 7th edition just formalized where they were heading: make the big games part of official rules rather than a separate system.

It is funny how Kill Team is a separate rule set like Apocalypse was when it used to be part of the main rulebook.

If there was anything to point a finger to for official combining armies it would have been the "Daemon Hunters" codex around 3rd edition (2003).
It allowed having allies of SM or IG/AM from their respective codices in an Inquisition list.
The 6th edition BRB came up with the unholy alliances list and 7th just blew the doors open with unbound.

So yeah, it is all free and clear, remember that Forgeworld rules are valid as well!

You know, if I wanted to field my daemon / necron army: I can!
Slanesh daemons teaming up with Eldar? Why not!

What happened is that any hope to balance or enforce that armies sit within a certain narrative is out the window and I am unsure where GW can go from here.

Allies were available in 2nd edition.

Titans were available in 2nd edition, but only through Armorcast and almost nobody ran them. They were reasonably costed in points and you still had to abide by the 50% or less of your army consisting of support units.

I don't understand detachments and formations, but the idea of any army receiving anything for free is pretty stupid to me, considering the only vague form of game balance introduced by GW is the points system (here's a point system...aaaaaand...throw it out the window).

They're trying way too hard to make too many models/units/armies and trying even harder to make them hugely different than each other. Within the confines of what is (at its core) a very thin game system. Add to that the beginnings of sales struggles and a large impetus at moving more plastic and then current situation was inevitable.

 Talizvar wrote:
...If there was anything to point a finger to for official combining armies it would have been the "Daemon Hunters" codex around 3rd edition (2003)...

Give me back my standalone Daemonhunters book so I don't have to use four Codexes to field my collection and I'll stop using Allies.

Allies were also a thing possible in 2E, but in a far more limited form, they had greater limitations than what we see now. The Daemonhunters allies rules were extremely restrictive in function as well. The issue isnt so much with the concept of allies, but in the way GW has executed that concept by basically going "yeah just take whatever you want in whatever quantities, nothing really matters, it'll all work together just fine" whereas previously it was more "yeah you can take like 4 units from a couple specific factions, and you have to load up on Troops first and we're limiting the good stuff".

 Elbows wrote:
Allies were available in 2nd edition.

Titans were available in 2nd edition, but only through Armorcast and almost nobody ran them. They were reasonably costed in points and you still had to abide by the 50% or less of your army consisting of support units.

And right now, you need to abide by the rule of your army having access to a Lord of War(whether as part of a Combined Arms Detachment, a unique Force Organizational Chart that has LoW, or a large detachment that features a Superheavy element as an option) or you're going Unbound.

So either you play the way a normal FOC goes or you're losing your benefits of playing that normal way.

I don't understand detachments and formations

How do you not understand Detachments?

They have pretty specific guidelines.
Combined Arms Detachment:
1 HQ
2 Troops
Optional HQ
Optional 4 Troops
Optional 3 Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Supports

Allied Detachment:
1 HQ
1 Troops
Optional 1 Troop, Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support.

The big "Megadetachments" made up of formations break things down in a similar fashion, dependent upon book
Command, Core, and Auxiliary

but the idea of any army receiving anything for free is pretty stupid to me, considering the only vague form of game balance introduced by GW is the points system (here's a point system...aaaaaand...throw it out the window).

There are very few things out there that grant anything truly "for free". The Marines and free transport one in the Gladius is pretty much the Big One, but even that is really restrictive.
You're looking at 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Infantry based Heavy Supports, 2 Infantry based Elites, and 2 Infantry or Bike based Fast Attacks along with a Captain and a Chaplain being necessary in order to unlock that benefit.

You get the Dedicated Transports for those squads within the Formation labelled "Battle Demi-Company"(Razorback, Rhino, or Drop Pods) at no points cost but any and all upgrades to them cost you.

There's a similar formation for Space Wolves in Fenris Warzone, but it is restricted to free upgrades to the vehicles instead of the vehicles themselves.

They're trying way too hard to make too many models/units/armies and trying even harder to make them hugely different than each other. Within the confines of what is (at its core) a very thin game system. Add to that the beginnings of sales struggles and a large impetus at moving more plastic and then current situation was inevitable.

Why does this always seems to be the statement coming from the "Back in my day..." crowd?

You don't even know what you're really talking about and yet you can claim to know why it was being done?

Lets be fair, it took most regular players 6 months to almost a year to really get 7E's detachment and formation rules down, most people did nit immediately or intuitively grasp them, theyre the single most convoluted and complicated army construction rules I can think of for any tabletop game out there by far.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be fair, it took most regular players 6 months to almost a year to really get 7E's detachment and formation rules down, most people did nit immediately or intuitively grasp them, theyre the single most convoluted and complicated army construction rules I can think of for any tabletop game out there by far.

Oh please.

If you had a basic understanding of the way the FOC worked before, it absolutely was not difficult for someone to understand the way the Detachment system worked.

Formations, sure that's a different story...but Formations also weren't exceedingly widespread.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


You don't even know what you're really talking about and yet you can claim to know why it was being done?

Yep, sure do. Been around GW since the mid-90s. Don't currently play 40K, don't need to. Was friends with numerous store and region GW employees when the shifts came to the company around 3rd-4th edition. It's incredibly obvious to see the huge changes to the game/the sales approach, the books and model count etc. It's even easier to break down the game system and its components and why you have a lot of the struggles you do. Sorry if any of this offends your all-knowing sensibilities.

 Elbows wrote:
Allies were available in 2nd edition.

but in a highly limiting way.
I felt it was more a carryover from Rogetrader than anything else.

Titans were available in 2nd edition, but only through Armorcast and almost nobody ran them. They were reasonably costed in points and you still had to abide by the 50% or less of your army consisting of support units.

Again somewhat limited.
I still have my "Cannon of Khorn" from those days.

I don't understand detachments and formations, but the idea of any army receiving anything for free is pretty stupid to me, considering the only vague form of game balance introduced by GW is the points system (here's a point system...aaaaaand...throw it out the window).

They always toyed with the idea of a combined unit would be worth more than the sum of it's parts.
The three vindicators combining their shots into one big Apocalypse blast was an interesting "perk".
Free transports and things become a Monty Haul when some perks would have sufficed.
The case could be easily made that many models were not appropriately costed in points for what they do anyway.

They're trying way too hard to make too many models/units/armies and trying even harder to make them hugely different than each other. Within the confines of what is (at its core) a very thin game system. Add to that the beginnings of sales struggles and a large impetus at moving more plastic and then current situation was inevitable.

Armies tended to be more balanced in their own way but had an overarching flavor to them.
Now due to allies, entire armies can fill the classic role of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack etc.
They can specialize.

Please excuse me as I try to put together an army of daemons to field with my Grey Knights and watch people's heads explode.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be fair, it took most regular players 6 months to almost a year to really get 7E's detachment and formation rules down, most people did nit immediately or intuitively grasp them, theyre the single most convoluted and complicated army construction rules I can think of for any tabletop game out there by far.

Oh please.

If you had a basic understanding of the way the FOC worked before, it absolutely was not difficult for someone to understand the way the Detachment system worked.

Formations, sure that's a different story...but Formations also weren't exceedingly widespread.

Whether or not they're easy for you is besides the point. Empircally, people have issues with them. I know I have one friend whom I've had to describe the rules on detachments probably over a dozen times. He's only just know understanding it, and he finally understood now why he shouldn't be calling a CAD attached to his formation an "allied detachment". Once you understand it, it clicks, and perhaps it makes sense for new folks getting into the game even, but a lot of returning players get very confused because the core army composition of the game from the rest of the history of the game they can remember was "1 HQ, 2 Troops, and then I build from there..."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be fair, it took most regular players 6 months to almost a year to really get 7E's detachment and formation rules down, most people did nit immediately or intuitively grasp them, theyre the single most convoluted and complicated army construction rules I can think of for any tabletop game out there by far.

Oh please.

If you had a basic understanding of the way the FOC worked before, it absolutely was not difficult for someone to understand the way the Detachment system worked.

Formations, sure that's a different story...but Formations also weren't exceedingly widespread.

its easy to understand the CAD, since that was the old FOC, but then dealing with multiple detachments, allied detachments, fortification detachments, etc could all get really very confusing. The idea that you could run a SM CAD, an IG allied detachment, and an Eldar CAD, or a GK Nemesis Strike Force detachment with an INQ allied detachment and a Tyranid CAD with a Fortification detachment to boot, all as one legal army, took a while to sink in. That was not something the entire community picked up on right away, and something I still routinely see people having issues with, because it is really overcomplex and vague.

 Elbows wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


You don't even know what you're really talking about and yet you can claim to know why it was being done?

Yep, sure do. Been around GW since the mid-90s. Don't currently play 40K, don't need to. Was friends with numerous store and region GW employees when the shifts came to the company around 3rd-4th edition. It's incredibly obvious to see the huge changes to the game/the sales approach, the books and model count etc. It's even easier to break down the game system and its components and why you have a lot of the struggles you do. Sorry if any of this offends your all-knowing sensibilities.

You realize that 3rd and 4th edition were how long ago now?

And you try to act as though I'm the one behaving as though I am "all-knowing".

You are trying to act as the all-knowing. Which is why I'm enjoying poking you with a stick.

3rd edition was the basis for the way all editions through 7th have run. They're just continually re-hashed and edited. It was also the start of the corporate era, the introduction of the new armies and the slow creep toward the size of armies and models you see now. Like it or not that was the genesis for where we've ended up today.

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to argue about, but if you think 40K is a good game, good for you. The rest of us are discussing why the changes have occurred for better or for worse.

 Yarium wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be fair, it took most regular players 6 months to almost a year to really get 7E's detachment and formation rules down, most people did nit immediately or intuitively grasp them, theyre the single most convoluted and complicated army construction rules I can think of for any tabletop game out there by far.

Oh please.

If you had a basic understanding of the way the FOC worked before, it absolutely was not difficult for someone to understand the way the Detachment system worked.

Formations, sure that's a different story...but Formations also weren't exceedingly widespread.

Whether or not they're easy for you is besides the point. Empircally, people have issues with them. I know I have one friend whom I've had to describe the rules on detachments probably over a dozen times. He's only just know understanding it, and he finally understood now why he shouldn't be calling a CAD attached to his formation an "allied detachment". Once you understand it, it clicks, and perhaps it makes sense for new folks getting into the game even, but a lot of returning players get very confused because the core army composition of the game from the rest of the history of the game they can remember was "1 HQ, 2 Troops, and then I build from there..."

I've got that friend too. And it took me a bit as well, I understood the CAD just fine when I started in January, but other detachments took me a bit, mostly the Decurion-style ones, because I didn't know they even existed, since my first codex didn't have one.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be fair, it took most regular players 6 months to almost a year to really get 7E's detachment and formation rules down, most people did nit immediately or intuitively grasp them, theyre the single most convoluted and complicated army construction rules I can think of for any tabletop game out there by far.

Oh please.

If you had a basic understanding of the way the FOC worked before, it absolutely was not difficult for someone to understand the way the Detachment system worked.

Formations, sure that's a different story...but Formations also weren't exceedingly widespread.

Whether or not they're easy for you is besides the point. Empircally, people have issues with them. I know I have one friend whom I've had to describe the rules on detachments probably over a dozen times. He's only just know understanding it, and he finally understood now why he shouldn't be calling a CAD attached to his formation an "allied detachment". Once you understand it, it clicks, and perhaps it makes sense for new folks getting into the game even, but a lot of returning players get very confused because the core army composition of the game from the rest of the history of the game they can remember was "1 HQ, 2 Troops, and then I build from there..."

I've got that friend too. And it took me a bit as well, I understood the CAD just fine when I started in January, but other detachments took me a bit, mostly the Decurion-style ones, because I didn't know they even existed, since my first codex didn't have one.

We have a guy whos been in the hobby since like 2nd, and even he still needs to remember that formations are a thing, The CAD was so ingranded in his understanding of the game for so long, he forgets that you dont need to follow it anymore.

Nothing happened.

Apocalypse rules and formations came along when GW was trying to push for a bigger game, i.e. sell more models. The first few editions had the flaw that players wouldn't need to buy much when they already own a full CAD.

The new rules, formations, decurions, and titans of 7th are meant for a much larger scale game than what players are bringing them for. The game wasn't made with balance or tournament play in mind yet players will use every excuse to field their quintuple Knight formation as acceptable use. Really, the only that's changed is the community.

GW still encourages the old troops and transports style of play. The special super detachments include hoards of troops as possible core choices. You can still field formations from them that are primarily troops too. It's the players that are choosing to take the minimum troop tax and field three Wraithknights instead. These decisions aren't exactly encouraged or supported by the fluff despite being technically permitted by the rules. The game now allows for diverse battles unrestricted from what they once were and players are milking it for all its worth.

The new Traitor's Hate book has core Chaos Warbands with plenty of troop choices. Yet you'll still see people taking the bare minimum just to field 6 sorcerers or some gimmick formation for their deathstars. None of the screenshots or fluff in the book are about five chaos imperial knights stomping their way through an army of riptides.

Kyutaru wrote:
Nothing happened.

Apocalypse rules and formations came along when GW was trying to push for a bigger game, i.e. sell more models. The first few editions had the flaw that players wouldn't need to buy much when they already own a full CAD.

The new rules, formations, decurions, and titans of 7th are meant for a much larger scale game than what players are bringing them for. The game wasn't made with balance or tournament play in mind yet players will use every excuse to field their quintuple Knight formation as acceptable use. Really, the only that's changed is the community.

GW still encourages the old troops and transports style of play. The special super detachments include hoards of troops as possible core choices. You can still field formations from them that are primarily troops too. It's the players that are choosing to take the minimum troop tax and field three Wraithknights instead. These decisions aren't exactly encouraged or supported by the fluff despite being technically permitted by the rules. The game now allows for diverse battles unrestricted from what they once were and players are milking it for all its worth.

Hrm, this is driven by the game rules however. There's no point to bringing great masses of infantry when they cannot perform. No matter how many guardsmen I put on a table, they're not going to break a TWC deathstar or kill Necron Wraiths (or Necron anything really) or defeat an army of Knights and they'll just be slaughtered without recourse. GW has written rules and designed units that make traditional infantry troops largely pointless for many if not most armies.

That players adapt to that in the ways they do is simple human nature. People will do what is rewarded and avoid that which is punished. That's not rocket science, other games manage this issue, GW chooses not to.

This isnt new, armies taking two five man tac squads as their only troops were the standard for many 3E and 4E armies, the issue is the scale of gap GW has introduced.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, this is driven by the game rules however. There's no point to bringing great masses of infantry when they cannot perform. No matter how many guardsmen I put on a table, they're not going to break a TWC deathstar or kill Necron Wraiths (or Necron anything really) or defeat an army of Knights and they'll just be slaughtered without recourse. GW has written rules and designed units that make traditional infantry troops largely pointless for many if not most armies.

That players adapt to that in the ways they do is simple human nature. People will do what is rewarded and avoid that which is punished. That's not rocket science, other games manage this issue, GW chooses not to.

This isnt new, armies taking two five man tac squads as their only troops were the standard for many 3E and 4E armies, the issue is the scale of gap GW has introduced.

I think this is due to the players not grasping that scale is a thing. They're playing 1850 battles and do they bring something of appropriate scale? No. They bring something that absolutely demolishes any standard 1850 army. A trio of Wraithknights or a TWC deathstar is far less scary when it's merely a single cog in a massive war machine. Kyu's right, Apocalypse is the style of these new rules yet they're being used for ordinary skirmishes. That's ultimately a player decision just as whether or not to use Unbound is. Modified rules or nerfing Invisibility are common player decisions too and it just supports the idea that this game is ours to do with what we choose to do.

It's not uncommon now to hear of stores banning formations from competitive play purely to attempt to restore the CAD to its original function and pull away from these giant mechas. Debatable whether it works but short of rewriting the rules entirely there aren't many ways to force people to take a complement of infantry nowadays.

It's a player decision, but one driven by the product GW designs. 40k is the only game I've ever seen blame players for massive balance issues. Yeah its not nice to bring a Decurion list to stomp the poor thematic CSM army, but if GW really wanted to stop that, they would have written different rules to prevent such forces becoming disproportionately powerful. Every other tabletop wargame gets that. If you allow people to be jerks, then they will be jerks, at least some of them. This is game design 101 stuff. Hell, not even all of it is Apoc level stuff, theres nothing about something like a TWC deathstar or Wraiths that relies on anything from an Apocalypse level, GW has simoly allowed the scale of resiliency and killing power to explode even at these otherwise "mundane" levels.

Yes, some places put house rules in, but these vary wildly and are massively inconsistent in application. That said, if people are having to introduce house rules on a wide scale, thats usually an indication that the rules were written poorly and others are having to do GW's work for them and rewrite them, as opposed to thete being something fundamentally wrong with the playerbase.

Kinda like the recent Wells Fargo thing. Yeah tons of employees were doing scummy stuff...but it wasnt an issue with the employees being fundamentally scummy, it was what they had to do to keep their jobs based on rules and directives from management. Same thing with 40k, people like winning, and hate losing, and will bring what they are allowed to achieve wins and avoid losses.

Elbows wrote:I noted this several years ago when the flyers showed up. I was hosted a game at a convention which was also running a 40K tournament. I walked around early in the con when everyone was showing off on display boards --- and I had never seen flyers before. Of the sixty+ people involved, I'd say 45 had flyers on the board...often more than one.

I was blown away. Fast forward a year or two and it became Knights and similarly obscenely large items. It is for this reason I can't think of a way GW can get me back into 40K with a new edition. I frequently think to myself "what would the point be of a normal Imperial Guard squad on today's tabletop...".

The level of the game is a huge turn off for me.

And this is specifically why I've gone back to 3rd Edition.

If you have marines. You could repaint and swap to 30k

Its.. Got alot better balence.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a player decision, but one driven by the product GW designs. 40k is the only game I've ever seen blame players for massive balance issues.

This. I have many hobbies and play several tabletop games. 40k is the only game I play where the playerbase is constantly attacked for the massive balance issues that exist. When the people writing the rules don't give one iota of care about competitive balance is it really any wonder that when players meet across the table that there is none? I can't think of another hobby I am involved in, that requires as much preparation and negotiation before a game than 40k does just to create a remotely balanced scenario where the outcome isn't decided before deployment.

If players are permitted to bring titans in 1000 pt games, you can be certain there will be one. If players are allowed to take formations/decurion that gives them hundreds of free points in units above what their opponent is fielding, you can be certain they will do it. Is this the players fault? Maybe, or perhaps GW shouldn't allow it to happen in the first place.

Ultimately the underlying cause of almost all of 40k's problems right now is at the codex level. Point costs, what should be the balancing measure in the game are all over the place. Two codices with nearly identical units often see point cost differences in the double, sometimes triple digits. When disparities such as this exist there can be no hope for balance.

I wonder if they've made any progress on point-costing units. They freely admitted back in the early editions that there was no mathematical approach to creating the cost of a unit (this article mentioned an Ork vehicle I believe). They said they simply played four or five games and had a discussion on how much they believed the unit should be worth.

Something tells me this is still occurring. I find this odd when you have a game which is based on a stat-line, which offers up a silver platter of creating a formula for unit costs.