Weekly Listener Poll

“Which do you feel is better for games of 40K?”

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Weekly Listener Poll

  1. Formations have been a really interesting addition to 40k as it encourages additional methods of play style, as generally less than optimal units are given rules buffs to encourage their use. For instance I play Space Marines “Imperial Fists” and back in the 6th ed codex you hardly saw tactical marines on the table in favor of bikes and scouts, and no one was fielding rhinos & razorbacks. The new battle company has an incentive to field tactical squads, assault marines, rhinos & razorbacks, and devastator squads. Now I think they over compensated a little and they could have left the free vehicles for the tactical squads.

  2. First off, I’ll say that I like the formation rules. They give some neat ways to use your toys, and unlike unbound add some secret sauce needed to make some less used units better, but (BIG BUT) it can also make good units even better and even overpoweringly so, with no apparent downside.

    That being said, I think it gives some very fluffy and interesting ways to play with your toy soldiers, such as the Space Marine Battle Company, or the Eldar Warhost, as an example of Decurion style play, These fit very well with the fluff of how these armies should play. But when these formation go against CAD style play, it can be VERY unbalanced, and until Gee-Dubs gets around to giving the Formation treatment to all the armies, people without will feel the pinch. Not to mention some of the formations and detachments can be very hit and miss, as with any written product from GW.

    From a Business side, it’s also good for the Game as it really encourages people to go out and buy multiple kits of things they would normally never buy more than one to a few of, because if people want this Game to survive, they have to inject it with Cash, and you do that by selling kits.
    This thing doesn’t survive on dreams and rainbows…

  3. Which is the shiniest of these two turds?
    …. unbound… I guess…

    Both are crap in terms of balance but unbound is more of a level playing field in my opinion. Formations are just a power creep, each one that’s released has even more ridiculous rules than the last or give away a stupid amount of free points worth of units so that the forces couldn’t possibly be balanced. This is obviously intentional to drive sales and use of formations by everyone.

    The cynic in me just sees formations as GWs one click bundles.

    Formations are what finally drove me away from 40k after years of waning interest in the game. Unbound pushed me to the edge, but formations pushed me over.

    But I appear to be in the minority on this so far.

  4. First off, thanks for pushing through tech troubles and pushing through your usual awesome show.

    Soong had to build the shitty B4 before he could produce the awesome Lore. GW had to release Unbound before Formations. Data didn’t know how to build an positronic matrix from scratch and Lal paid the price. As gamers we didn’t know how to handle Unbound coming from a world of 1HQ and 2 Troops2 and we paid the price.

    The good old 1HQ and 2 Troops isnt fair to every army but it’s been around forever so we accepted. Allowing g people to “take what they want” should in theory allow us to make the army we always dreamed of, but instead we fucked it up by trying to run all flying hive tyrant lists. So GW had to give us rules and incentives to play fluffy combinations of units in styles our army was meant to.

    • To be perfectly honest Yeti, I think you’re giving Gee-dubs more credit than they deserve. That’s an incredibly long view mentality, that I think is beyond them.
      Though I completely agree with your end statement.
      I think it’s more inline with pushing Apoc games. It’s just small ‘a’ apocalypse. Many formations of their roots started there and were ported over.

      After coming all the way from ‘wack-a-do’ 2nd Ed, where up to 50% of your points could be characters, and 25% had to be from “squads” (bikers and terminator included here), army construction was a far cry of the Force Org we had for almost 2 decades since the creation of 3rd.

      I think part of it comes from the fact that it’s outside the comfort zone of a lot of gamers, and while the rules balance is scaling up, it’s been doing that since 3rd came out. This is nothing new.

      While it is easy enough to make a Lead pipe of a list and ram it down your opponents throat, we are not playing Call of Duty here. When making an army list we should think about will my opponent have as much fun as I will during the 2-3 hours we spend at the table together.
      While GW may have inadvertently created a rule set that lets you play like a complete asshole, (while they were actually just trying to get you to buy more plastic crack) they opened up Pandora’s Box (now there’s a formation name! Maybe the Sisters of Battle Decurion?? Hmmm. Hmmm). It’s up to us to not fall into the pit fall trap they left with their crappy writing and have fun, which isn’t what we all came out to do in the first place?

  5. Neither. Both are whats killing the game. The force org added balance because we used to have to make decisions. Now we can bring whatever we want with almost no restrictions. Then formations make it even worse because you get free rules that go from moderate bonus to total insane broken nonsense. This was the beginning of the end for the game and theyre a huge part of why 40k isnt fun anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s