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.

How would points?

After all, if you're just taking a single Demi-Company, Objective Secured isn't worth that much for the Fast Attack and Heavy Support dudes and the Command Squad. If you have two of them, how many points is free Rhinos? Arguably that shouldn't have been the bonus but you get the point.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
Paying points isn't a good fix. Requiring the purchase of "tax" units is. It means more sales for GW, more "fluffy" units see the tabletop, and that more investment is made for each formation other than just "those" units. It's a win/win for everyone.

-

Nah having to take crap isn't good solution. Just see history of where that has led. 2x5 scouts to fulfil core tax etc. History has shown time and again crappy unit tax isn't good balancing method. Why you think it would work better here?

Because in the past the min-max core was so small compared to what you got in return. In your example, 2x 5 scouts opened up 3 Elite, 3 Fast, 3 Heavy, etc.
Formations are usually much smaller than "traditional" detachments and therefore do no typically open up so many options for you. And typically an army isn't just 1 Formations as other detachments need to be taken to fill points, thus possibly requiring further "tax units".

If the proposal of this thread is that points need to be assigned to Formations, then my addition to that proposal is to give the players something for those points that also increases GW sales (so everyone wins). Or at least uses more models
Taking my earlier example of the Riptide Wing. If we decided that 150pts was a fair cost in addition to the Riptides themselves, why not just make them take Drones instead? 6 Drones (2 per each RT) would be 150pts (I think, don't know if the points changed from the last codex). So now players are paying that 150pts like we want them too, but they are getting models to use too.

-

 Galef wrote:

If the proposal of this thread is that points need to be assigned to Formations, then my addition to that proposal is to give the players something for those points that also increases GW sales (so everyone wins). Or at least uses more models
Taking my earlier example of the Riptide Wing. If we decided that 150pts was a fair cost in addition to the Riptides themselves, why not just make them take Drones instead? 6 Drones (2 per each RT) would be 150pts (I think, don't know if the points changed from the last codex). So now players are paying that 150pts like we want them too, but they are getting models to use too.-

Except, it doesn't fix the price of Riptides. It just gives you fewer points to spend on [Hypthetically?] undercosted Riptides. And if 150 points of decent models are the "tax" it's not a tax, as you don't lower the overall power level to a comparable number of points in another list.

If a formation makes units better than they would be in a CAD, it makes sense to charge more for them. The same way that I have to pay points to give Icicle Blasters to my Guardians of the Multiverse minis. If they come with a bog standard Snow Slinger, and they're better by giving them Icicle Blasters, why wouldn't I pay points for that? But if I take 3 units of GotM then I get a rule that lets them reroll misses... I shouldn't pay more points for that? How does that make sense?

You say it would make sense if the GotM units got re-roll misses, so long as I purchase a couple Winnowers of Fate units? That will also get to reroll misses? So now I have 5 units with free upgrades, that I don't have to pay points for, while my opponent has to buy his upgrades at a point cost? How is that a better solution for game balance? I can't see how it would be. But if those same units had to pay a 10% premium for those rules, and they went up against an army that had to pay for their upgrades, that would make for a more balanced game.

Assuming Guardians of the Multiverse and Winnowers of Fate units are properly costed in the first place...

 greatbigtree wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

If the proposal of this thread is that points need to be assigned to Formations, then my addition to that proposal is to give the players something for those points that also increases GW sales (so everyone wins). Or at least uses more models
Taking my earlier example of the Riptide Wing. If we decided that 150pts was a fair cost in addition to the Riptides themselves, why not just make them take Drones instead? 6 Drones (2 per each RT) would be 150pts (I think, don't know if the points changed from the last codex). So now players are paying that 150pts like we want them too, but they are getting models to use too.-

Except, it doesn't fix the price of Riptides. It just gives you fewer points to spend on [Hypthetically?] undercosted Riptides. And if 150 points of decent models are the "tax" it's not a tax, as you don't lower the overall power level to a comparable number of points in another list...

Drones for Riptides would be considered a tax, let's not kid ourselves here. 1 Drone dies and forces a Moral check. Last I remember, Riptide do not like those and are prone to run off the board.
Even if you place the Drone behind the Riptide, they aren't doing much and are basically "wasted points"

My point is that assigning a flat points cost to formations is arbitrary at best. But requiring more varied units/models for formations forces a commitment to that detachment that is more likely to balance out any potential bonus.

Here is another example: Eldar Aspect Host. Taking 3 units of whatever Aspect you want means not tax. It is also kinda makes the Dire Avenger shrine redundant.
But if you combined the formations into 1 formation that required as least 1 Dire Avenger unit, but 2 other Aspects of your choice, the Dire then become a reasonable tax
And the formations now cannot be used to spam Warp Spiders as easily.

Another way to fix Formations is to start limiting Detahcments. Make Formations a "slot" in CADs and Allied detachments and no longer "stand alone" choices. Thus requiring a CAD to be taken before you can take up to 2 Formations of the same Faction. This is just an example and obviously would not work for Harlies or armies that can't take CADs, but here is the main issue:
40K is a mess in large part to the LACK of army construction. It isn't restrictive enough. Unbound is fine, but if you want a Battle Forged list, there should be actual limits

-

 Galef wrote:

Drones for Riptides would be considered a tax, let's not kid ourselves here. 1 Drone dies and forces a Moral check. Last I remember, Riptide do not like those and are prone to run off the board.

Even if you place the Drone behind the Riptide, they aren't doing much and are basically "wasted points"

My point is that assigning a flat points cost to formations is arbitrary at best. But requiring more varied units/models for formations forces a commitment to that detachment that is more likely to balance out any potential bonus.

Here is another example: Eldar Aspect Host. Taking 3 units of whatever Aspect you want means not tax. It is also kinda makes the Dire Avenger shrine redundant.
But if you combined the formations into 1 formation that required as least 1 Dire Avenger unit, but 2 other Aspects of your choice, the Dire then become a reasonable tax
And the formations now cannot be used to spam Warp Spiders as easily.-

Hey, the Drones thing is moving the goalposts. You'd said more, separate units earlier. Further, we're back to adding cruddy models to offset the benefit of "good" models, when the models themselves can be appropriately costed.

I'm not talking flat point costs. I'm talking a percentage based increase on the base cost. Kind of exactly how taxes work in real life. That would, you know, balance things exactly, by making good things cost more points, and better things cost even more points. Like, how the whole points system is intended to work?

I agree that I'd never use the DA host. I agree that the 3 Aspect units of choice, with no drawback is not balance. Why force someone to take a crappy unit, to offset the good units, again? I was pretty sure we'd been over this. Proper pricing = balanced. Improper pricing, that allows you to take exceptionally good value units with decent units still does not address the undercosting of the exceptional unit. Spamming Warp Spiders wouldn't be a problem, if WS were... 20% more expensive. Requiring someone to purchase more models simply requires the purchase of more models. It doesn't make the game any more fair. Why should I be forced to buy models I don't want, when Unbound is a thing? Seriously, a person could just rock an army worth of Riptides / whatever and call it a day. But if you buy multiples of 3, you get free rules? Why give free rules? Why not charge for them? The models are better, so they should cost more.

All points costs in 40k are arbitrary. There's no magic formula. So... this is exactly the way that everything else is costed. You play a few games, decide if that group of models should be worth more or less points, change their points values, and move on. Trying out a percentage based modifier is blatantly simple, and the effect on the game could be measured very rapidly. 2 games would give you a great idea of whether or not you're right or wrong.

Was this formation still an auto-include with a 10% hike, after 2 games? Yes. Was it still an auto-include after a 20% hike? Meh... would have preferred something else. 15% Hike? Yeah, that seems about right. Not auto-include, but still fun and worth playing. BAM! Within 5 games I'd say you could balance any formation's value, and I bet you could do most in 2 games, so that the 3rd game your adjustment is what you stick with.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. I can agree that certain units need better points cost, but that wasn't where I was coming from.
I just think formations need to have appropriate and fluffy "tax" units/models rather than additional points cost (whether flat or proportional).
The Vyper & Warlock in the Windrider host are good examples. Niether are "crap" units, although it would be nice if the Warlock was optional or could be part of a Windrider unit instead, but they are fluffy additions to the formation

Even if we made the Riptide more expensive, I still think it should include Drones in the Riptide Wing.
Maybe the fluff could include that the Drones are linked to each other and that is what give the Riptides the bonuses.

-

No... You were right before. Formations that make things better than they would be otherwise [CAD] should cost more points. Sure, they can have "Tax" units as part of that formation, but the formation should still cost additional points for being better than a CAD style organization of units.

Carry on.

The issue with Warp Spiders is that their guns are S6. Make them S5 and suddenly there's less complaints.

Make riptides cost what they should actually cost and Riptide wing is fine. Say 275 pts or so per Riptide.

I'd like to see Formations that actually act like the name implies - That is, groups of units that work together in meaningful ways, rather than lists of models that play completely apart from one another, but with Special Rules.

This exists, sometimes, already - For example, the various 'Take a bunch of Predators, Vindicators, Whirlwinds, and a techy guy' formations all require the units to be deployed in a bubble around your Techpriest to get a buff. Iron Hands require HQs to supply command bonuses (Namely, boosted FNP and PotMS) to nearby units.
Several formations give boosted Toughness to other units in the formation within 6", and a few more have enemy debuffs that stack when you've got multiple units nearby.

I'd just like to see *more* of these, because it actually encourages interesting play and careful deployment/movement, rather than just giving out free stuff or handing out blanket buff special rules. Moving in formation, y'know?

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'd like to see Formations that actually act like the name implies - That is, groups of units that work together in meaningful ways, rather than lists of models that play completely apart from one another, but with Special Rules.

This exists, sometimes, already - For example, the various 'Take a bunch of Predators, Vindicators, Whirlwinds, and a techy guy' formations all require the units to be deployed in a bubble around your Techpriest to get a buff. Iron Hands require HQs to supply command bonuses (Namely, boosted FNP and PotMS) to nearby units.
Several formations give boosted Toughness to other units in the formation within 6", and a few more have enemy debuffs that stack when you've got multiple units nearby.

I'd just like to see *more* of these, because it actually encourages interesting play and careful deployment/movement, rather than just giving out free stuff or handing out blanket buff special rules. Moving in formation, y'know?

So like Skyhammer Annihilation Force? Devastators shoot a target, making it easier for the Assault Marines to get in and chew them up.

 Charistoph wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'd like to see Formations that actually act like the name implies - That is, groups of units that work together in meaningful ways, rather than lists of models that play completely apart from one another, but with Special Rules.

This exists, sometimes, already - For example, the various 'Take a bunch of Predators, Vindicators, Whirlwinds, and a techy guy' formations all require the units to be deployed in a bubble around your Techpriest to get a buff. Iron Hands require HQs to supply command bonuses (Namely, boosted FNP and PotMS) to nearby units.
Several formations give boosted Toughness to other units in the formation within 6", and a few more have enemy debuffs that stack when you've got multiple units nearby.

I'd just like to see *more* of these, because it actually encourages interesting play and careful deployment/movement, rather than just giving out free stuff or handing out blanket buff special rules. Moving in formation, y'know?

So like Skyhammer Annihilation Force? Devastators shoot a target, making it easier for the Assault Marines to get in and chew them up.

Not the same. Those units *can* synergize, but they don't have to, and the optimal choice is usually to target different units so that the maximum number of enemies is tied up and incapable of fighting back. (Pin 4 units, assault 4 more.) If the special rules only worked in tandem, but not otherwise, I'd like it more.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Not the same. Those units *can* synergize, but they don't have to, and the optimal choice is usually to target different units so that the maximum number of enemies is tied up and incapable of fighting back. (Pin 4 units, assault 4 more.) If the special rules only worked in tandem, but not otherwise, I'd like it more.

No, they DO synergize. A Devastator Squad is able to Pin a unit. An Assault Squad that Charges that unit gains a bonus. If the Assault Squad does not Charge a unit Pinned by one of their Devastator Squads, they are no different than a CAD Assault Marine Squad. It gets even better when they can do this on the turn they arrive on the board.

 Galef wrote:
I just think formations need to have appropriate and fluffy "tax" units/models rather than additional points cost (whether flat or proportional).

No. Absolutely not. There should be no such thing as "tax" units/models because it's a failure of game design to have a unit that is so weak and unappealing that you only consider taking it because you're forced to. Any unit that is bad enough to be a "tax" unit in balancing a formation is so terrible that you're never going to see it outside of that formation, and it's a complete waste of rules complexity and potentially interesting models. And if you fix overall balance so that no units are in this position then you no longer have the ability to balance formations through mandatory units.

The correct answer is to assign point costs to formations to directly pay for the bonuses (including extra FOC slots) they provide. This is how it used to work with the old Apocalypse formations, and "normal" formations should have continued the trend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
If the Assault Squad does not Charge a unit Pinned by one of their Devastator Squads, they are no different than a CAD Assault Marine Squad.

Except that they can deep strike on turn 1 and charge. That's a huge difference compared to a CAD assault squad, even if you drop the assault squads and devastator squads on opposite sides of the table and never have them interact with each other. The added synergy is just a nice bonus on top of making both units better than their CAD equivalents.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except that they can deep strike on turn 1 and charge. That's a huge difference compared to a CAD assault squad, even if you drop the assault squads and devastator squads on opposite sides of the table and never have them interact with each other. The added synergy is just a nice bonus on top of making both units better than their CAD equivalents.

Then you obviously missed the point I was making about their synergy. I was only focusing on their synergistic aspect as opposed to the lack of synergy in a Battle Demi-Company.

Yes, the ability to Charge out of Deep Strike is not synergistic without that last rule, BUT it is the last two rules that makes the whole thing synergistic and what I was focusing on as an example. If you took out First the Fire, Then the Blade, you would still be looking at the Formation synergy that was spoken of by Waaaghpower.

First the Fire, Then the Blade still has synergy in it, but it most definitely abusive and not required for the synergy of the Formation to take place.