If Geedubs were to reintroduce formations to 40k, how would you feel?

I'd be ok, but here are 2 stipulations:

>flexibility
So rather than "3 units of X", more "1-3 units of X" or "3 units of X, Y, or Z"
>points
AoS does it right. They cost points. The more potent they are, the more points they cost. Running a formation becomes a tactical decision rather than a brainless one.

I guess I could do without the first, but the 2nd is an absolute must.

>AoS does it right
I could make a joke about "Age of Shitmar" or something equally juvenile, but I've hinestly never played it, so I'll trust other user's judgement.
40k8th formations will probably just be an iterative version of whatever AoS came up with.

I won't get into a discussion about AoS, just suffice to say I like it.

But the point is they do formations, called battalions, which are pretty much the exact same thing as 40k 7th ed formations. The only difference is to take the formation, it costs points.

So even if you meet the requirements of the formation in your list, you arent getting the benefits until you pay the points of the benefits.

This helps curb some of the cheese and rediculousness of the formation benefits.

In AoS there are a few that are just too good not to take for your army, but most of those really good ones cost the same amount of points of taking an entire unit of something else useful.

And there certainly isn't any sort of 'free units' bullshit.

Plus the fact that GW can alter the battalion's points remotely when they update the general's handbook. Although trusting GW to fix something when given the opportunity to has not always proven the best.

>they'll kill 8th

8th was dead in conception just like age of Sigmar. Only interesting to new kiddies and gws abuse victims .

Well for AoS, they are adjusting points on units and formations based on TO feedback and even player feedback. So that's something.

I think the important thing is it will change the meta yearly. With each points adjustment, new strategies and lists will rise to the top, but you have to only endure it for 1 year at the most, before it gets a nerf, and stuff not seen as useful, gets points decreases, and things like that.

I am more optimistic about this format than I was about 'teh new codex hotness' in 7e.

I spit up my drink you dick

Hopefully orks will get a great formation like the last one.

Such as hammer of wrath on the charge of ten or more when there's more than ten boyz! So good.

That's because there are force orgs that can be 1 unit you dumbass. Like Knights or fortifications or the negative CP ones that let you trade CP for one extra unit.

oh you

/thread

As long as they are appropriately costed and don't reintroduce deathstars, I wouldn't care.

so... it appeals to everyone in wargaming?

sounds successful

>Formations are inherently difficult to balance
not only that, a formation being top tier or very good in general means you have to have a certain army to have that top tier thing, it restricts army creation while giving the illusion of offering more options. Formations are only ok in casual play.

>this is what players of irrelevant games actually believe
I know it sucks that all your warmahordes friends are going back to 40k, but you don't need to take it out on us

thats not what he means.
He means a detachment might literally say 3-5 riptides, instead of 3-5 elites.

I never understood why designers feel the necessity for formations or specialized force benefits. Shouldn't the virtue of list creation restrictions that were self imposed provide its own merits and weakness?

Like if I play green tide now, I get the benefit of having shit ton of attacks and good morale because I'm playing that force to that theme, but I suffer for lack of speed and vulnerability to anti infantry weapon.

Like 8th is about to go down the shitter

Murderous. Formations proved to be either useless crap or pure OP cancer.

Its just an easy way for them to spot-treat a codex and encourage people to buy multiple units that didnt sell well. Not all formations have this purpose, but many do.

uuuuuh
>looks at 3rd ed rulebook from childhood
>looks at 8th ed rulebook now
>looks at AoS rulebook

8th has more in common with 40k 3rd ed, which to many of us was its heyday. Yes, the organization is a bitch, because they insist on putting the unit rules on one page, and the points on another, but we live in an age of online builders, so whatevs. Yeah, there's a lot of prose dedicated to talking up the "two other types of play" which is a waste of paper, yeah, because people have always been able to put whatever down and just play, but if you just look at the tiyrbey-friendly rules, it's basically 3rd, with some alternate force-org charts, and vehicles can actually have armor saves (this actually bugged a lot of us back in the day: why does a carnifiex get an armor save, but not a land raider? and why was armor penetration literally useless against tanks... isn't that the definition of how you defeat a tank?)

Basically... it's fixed 3rd ed, (which is good) with points on a separate page (which is stupid, but manageable)

Hell, they even went back to base-to-base line-of-sight, which made me SOOOO happy. They presented it on the same platter as AoS, but it is not AoS. AoS didn't even get points at all until almost a year out, and it's still stuck with shitty TLOS bullshit.

>, but if you just look at the tiyrbey-friendly rules,
but if you just look at the TOURNEY-friendly rules

>Hell, they even went back to base-to-base line-of-sight,
No they didn't, bro.It's still tlos. Just some terrain provides a flat save to infantry models within it. Otherwise you get no saves from shooting unless you are at least 25% obscured.

Still TLoS, bro. and that's a good thing.

1: you are factually inacurate. back to B2B baby. Only models with Hover do you ever measure distance from the model instead of the base, and that's just because it would be unreasonable to make all hovering models be rebased.

2: in what world is TLOS ever a good idea? The way you chose to model your units should be an artistic choice, not a tactical decision that impacts the mechanics of the game.

>Hurrr durr, I modeled my wraithlords as crouching, so they can get cover more easilly hurr durr.

That's stupid, and runs counter to a solid half of the hoby (i.e. the modelling half)

...

Oh yeah this system is soooo much better.

>I park my imperial knight in a piece of terrain consisting of 1/2" tall hedges.
>Hey, i get a cover save because my model is entirely within a terrain feature!

TLoS at least makes fucking sense. If the model looks like it is in cover, then it gains cover.

You don't use true line of sight, you use model volume.

People shouldn't talk about how to make any game better without experiencing other game rules at least. GW is the only garbage company still doing true line of sight bullshit

This made me smile. 3Rd ed was the one i started on back in the day.

It wasn't even funny.

That's why you can use unit types like infantry or monstrous creature as identifiers.

Tbh I think it's more of an attitude problem.
You can argue about which parts of the model you can see as much as you can argue about the volumes of the model.
If somebody wants to be an asshat about it they can do it either way.

I am beginning to wonder if we know what we are talking about, because your definition of these different cover systems are different than mine.

Model volume is essentially true line of sight. From the view of the shooter, if a certain volume is covered, then it gains the cover bonus. That's what tlos is.

I play plenty of games, and I still prefer tlos because it's easy and, dare i say, 'muh cinemtatic' gameplay.

But that's not what you are describing. The 40k rule set shows in the image that a model just needs to be in a terrain feature to gain cover.

>Tbh I think it's more of an attitude problem.
No, it's a rule problem. There wouldn't be a problem at all if the rules weren't ass about it.

While it's a step in the right direction, ultimately 40k still has ways of being a good game. All vehicles need bases, and model volume should be defined. Also this percentile bullshit for cover needs to die. No one can do the math on the table to prove any of the percentages so it shouldn't be used at all.

No, model volume is base and height and using that cube/tube as the defined area where the model occupies. Infinity calls them silhouettes, Malifaux have base size and ht (height), Warmahordes uses Base size almost exclusively since the game doesn't handle vertical elevation well at all.

>model volume should be defined
And you need to get fucked. Go play warmahordes for that shit. Model size and terrain size definition is a cancer that causes battles to be played on felt mats with flat blobs labeled 'forest' and 'ruins' because it gets in the way of muh tournament rules.

I am so glad GW does not agree with your vision. Model volume would be the worst thing for 40k.

You mean the thing that actively discourages elaborate conversions and encourages shit like They at least did 8th somewhat right by taking away facing on vehicles since facing without basing plain stupid to do.

Right because is such an apparent problem.

Seriously I have never seen modeling for advantage in 40k in real life. Why? Because it creates such a small negligible advantage, even the hardcore tournament players didn't bother. Seriously, look at any of the player's minis in the top 20 ITC during 7e (where TLoS was very much a thing) and look for squatting model syndrome.

Spoiler: there isn't any

I'd be one for standard silhouettes like Infinity uses.

Casual play who cares, we're all going to just go by what we agree makes sense, but having well defined volumes makes tournament games a lot more clear-cut.

It was quite the problem during early 5th when it first took root.

It was the main reason why I quit wh since then and only coming back now.

nah m8, they're right, TLoS is cancerous, it's the one thing they kept in 8th ed that I'm annoyed about
terrain rules were much better in 3rd/4th, when you had defined types of terrain and unit sizes to determine cover and LoS

as far as I can tell they only kept it in for vehicles.

You know what IS an apparent problem: adding an extra 1/2 inch to your inch because you modeled your dudes towards the edge of the base, leaning forward, pointing their guns forward (annoying people have been trying to do this since 3rd, and it's stupid.

He's saying he plays Tau.

Not an issue bro. Measuring is done from base to base, not model to base or base to model. So I don't know what you're talking about.

When they introduced TLOS they specified that it was in-fact measured from the barrel of the gun, which is fucking stupid, and one of the main reasons TLOS is cancer.

I'd be okay with it, as long as they were balanced so going without a formation was always a viable option. There wasn't anything wrong with the concept.

Measuring from the barrel of the gun (which was only a thing with vehicles) was dumb, but it's unrelated to TLoS

t. Assmad warmahordes player afraid 8th is going go kill his already dead game

and people counted seeing barrels as seeing the vehicle.

TLOS is just garbage "rule" that was only acceptable in the days of old where every miniature had the same flat sculpts and were tiny enough that any LOS likely meant the entire miniature was visible.

>People shouldn't talk about how to make any game better without experiencing other game rules at least. GW is the only garbage company still doing true line of sight bullshit
Right, because the only people who could possibly like truesight are those who have only every played gw. You sound like a pretentious prick, ive played plenty of other systems, and stuck with them, and I agree that truesight is the way to go with a game like 40k, especially where there is such a huge library of models, making the task of defining model volume or whatever the fuck not as clear cut a solution as you think it is

And simulated LoS is cancer that leads to bland tables and gamey rules for the sake of balance and sacrifices the narrative aspect of wargaming.

Go play warmahordes, it's designed for you

>apply base
>base sizes have volume.
>unit profiles can have defined base size and height value
>wow, so hard.

Just because GW is lazy doesn't mean that the poor quality of tlos can be excused.

By bringing back the very cancer that killed 7e?
The only good way of bringing back options and rules is to bring them back to the unit's datasheet.

If you want narratives, play historicals.

>simulated los
>???

Infinity tables are just fine in terms of 3d elements and depth, same with malifaux without using bullshit tlos shit. Start having some standards

>If you want narratives, play historicals.
>You can't play a fantasy wagame with narrative
Yep. Warmahordes is definitely the game for you.

>Start having some standards
Not to the definition of some random user on the internet. I have standards, thankyou.

>proceeds to recommend a miniatures game with specific characters by default with multiple versions that support a narrative.

very clever of you. In the end it still doesn't change the issue of tlos being garbage. It's ok to like garbage, but don't fall into the delusion that it isn't garbage.

Very low, but sure. let's set it above a negative value.

>If
The 8th edition rulebook has already told us they are coming back in everything but name. They'll just be new Detachments now.

Still not as cut and dry as you think. Tanks don't have bases, nor do they need them. Marines are still legal in 32mm and 25mm bases. Flying bases (and flyer bases in some cases) also can be a problematic issue. Rather than dedicating entire pages for the definitions/rules/exceptions, they just provide some tlos rules that get the job done with no hassle I have ever personally experienced, even in tournament gaming. So I don't know where tlos touched you to get you so buttmad about it

>Terrain AND minis are abstracted
>LoS rules shouldn't take this into account at all

8th is already exploding in popularity more than any edition of Warhammer since 3rd or 4th.

>Implying warmahordes gameplay gives a fuck about narrative
In warmahordes there is the story, then there's the game. Never the 2 meet. It's like you've never played it

>All this bitching, and 40k is still a TLoS game and likely will remain that way.
>feelsgoodman.jpg

>warmahordes
>narrative mattering
Pick one.

Are you Nurgle? Why would you enjoy cancer so much?

Oh give it a rest, kid. That statement may have had some merit when AoS first launched, but you have to be a blind idiot if you think it has the same application to 8e.

Everything is cancer. When everything is cancer, nothing is cancer.

no, that just means everything is cancer.

Yup and those triple riptides, Eldar codex sure were narrative driven.

>t. assmad warmahordes player
Have fun with your dead game

Exactly

>being this delusional
>"i-its a dead game! No one plays it! Guys come back"

Hey remember when GW died and went bankrupt as foretold by many an angry neckbeard?

Nether do I.

>implying false implications of implicit nature.

Have fun being Michael Bay movie watcher tier in taste.

If anything, TLOS detracts from the narrative element of the game for me personally, and my friends tend to agree. With simulated LOS, the battle is a flowing melee, and the models are modeled just as a snapshot of the characters at their most dramatic, while TLOS basically says "nope, that's how you positioned that model, that's literally how he's standing, and it has mechanical impact on the game." It takes the game from "there's a massive melee, and the models and rules are an abstraction" to "they take turns moving, then return to their 'taking fire' pose back and forth." If you have any sense of imagination, the abstraction actually works better for forging the narrative.

Guys, you just need height values, 1, 2, and 3... maybe 4 if you really feel like it.
Infantry is 1
Most vehicles (and maybe a few choice infantry units like wraithguard) are 2
big vehicles are 3
superheavies are 4

The base blocks LOS, and the terrain gives its cover if firing through it, unless the height of the intervening base/terrain is less than both the firing unit and the targeted unit.

Maybe you add an extra ability to the fly keyword, maybe you don't because fly is already really good this edition.

So what you're saying is you'd be more comfortable roleplaying on a freeform forum?

You know it did always bug me how when the enstated TLOS, it felt so weird, because we were using busted corners of buildings to represent... you know... the actual building; we didn't have the money or time to build/paint/model a whole damn building for our cityfight games because we were broke-ass college kids at the time. It was like gee-dubs was saying "nawp, either all battles are fought on busted terrain that's exactly busted the exact way that model terrain is because muh grimderp, or you buy our ridiculously expensive fortress model."

I mean, it wouldn't have been that hard to keep just doing b2b, but it was the dick move that broke the cammel's back for me.

No, I'm saying that the modelling the artists/modeller/converter chooses for aesthetic purposes shouldn't impact the mechanical balance of a game that has tournaments.

Pic related

Pretty good. Formations were what made me finally enjoy the game. Lists finally resembled something you'd see in the fluff. Couldn't give a fuck about crunch. That's always been shit and unbalanced anyway.

Eldar formations were meh and played no part in what made them OP. That was all Scatbikes and WK. Marines on the other were carried by nonsense formations.

You are a tremendous faggot

> how would you feel?
Bad, since dropping the old Force Org chart in favour of them is what made the game a mess of WAACfags in the first place.

Wow, nice counter argument.

They are guaranteed too. Look at AoS.

They'll likely make you pay points for them. This does not make them in any way or form balanced

It sure as hell does. Top tournament lists have a variety of players taking formations and not taking them.

If they do come back to 40k (which I am betting will happen) then I hope they get points

Not to mention that formations may likely not provide command points. This is big because I think having CPs for key rerolls, interrupting combat order, and autopassing morale (and whatever other CP skills the codeces will introduce) are what's going to win games. Players will need to decide whether some formation benefits will be worth losing some of that, especially if they will be paying points for them.

The word you are looking for is 'exploited'.

It was actually likely to be the answer to your question rather than argument.

>Aspect host
>Not op as fuck

Mate, I played Eldar during 7th ed and I basically raped everyone into submission with 2 aspect hosts + a CAD with a jetseer, scatbikes and 2 WKs

Fpbp