Formations and tournament balance

[Bosco]

So I won't claim to be up to speed on the big travel tournament scene like some competitive minded folks here, but in light of the new SM Skyhammer Annihilation Force formation, the SM Battle Company, BA Archangels Sanguine Wing, or the admech/knights/skitarii war convocation (to name a few), I have to wonder:Why do competitive tournaments allow formations at all?  

Those formation examples cited above obviously might not be legal or fit into most tournament formats/points levels, but they're prime examples of overpowered formations which grant significant advantages to specific armies with the blatant (IMO) intent of driving sales.  There are others as well, those are just some that recently came up in the new SM codex thread that stuck in my mind, either by virtue of hundreds of free points in units/upgrades or because they are almost literally too good to not take.

 

If a competitive tournament is striving to truly present a fair and level playing field for all participants, many of which do not have access to these levels of advantages through formations, why allow them at all?

 

 

I get that the ITC writers poll the public about community preferences, etc. and tries to justify decisions based on those polling results which is largely why formations are included in that format.  Also, I accept that ITC is pretty popular in tournament use if not in practice since it is a relatively complete FAQ/format set that in the current edition (7th = sandbox and $-tears) saves a TO a lot of time compiling rulings/etc. before hand.  ITC attempts to address the holes in a game system no longer designed for competitive tournament play by the company that makes money writing/selling it and divorced themselves from tournament organization a couple editions ago.  Fun.

 

Outside of ITC, I would imagine tournament organizers would be able to save themselves a lot of headache and create a more level playing field by eliminating the varying degrees of support and perks different armies have received post-codex release.  A few restrictions on number of detachments, self-allying or not, and possibly LoW rulings as needed and I'd think most local-scale tournaments would be good to go.

 

 

Am I alone in this line of thinking?  Are formations just so uniformly accepted that to not love and embrace them is heresy?

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

They are only bad if no one else has access to them. Now that each codex has done it adds variety. I don't think their is any larger of an imbalance because of formations. One bothersome possibility is now a lot of lists will have a cookie cutter feel.

[Guest]

Am I alone in this line of thinking?  Are formations just so uniformly accepted that to not love and embrace them is heresy?

Formations are on par in balance with D weapons and LoWs, but they sneak in under the radar as they use "normal units." It's the edition, 7th seems to be all about the rules and units that make non-TO players cringe and TO players erect walls to keep them safe (like the ITC format).

 

Formations are allowed like most things in 40k, as a matter of quantity. As the 40k rules are, more or less, a democracy, the more players that use a particular set of rules are how things get allowed or banned. The less players that represent a particular unit type, special rule, or option, the less common it will be allowed in 40k.

 

Look at ranged D, ITC banned it without issue until D became very common in the eldar army. Then the ranged D players were numerous enough to object with enough force to get it changed. They are still nerfed, but it's really only the eldar. Wait until another faction or two, starts having common ranged D weapon access, that's all it would take to get them un-nerfed in normal play.

 

LoWs, on the other hand, are common in most armies, but are easy to restrict as they really don't have very many good options in normal 40k. GW seems to be making a push to get LoWs more common in regular armies, which in turn, will change the LoW "voting power" in 40k TO formats.

 

Formations are in almost every army, so blanket banning them is very hard. I agree, they are entirely problematic from a balance standpoint. But again, you really can't ban them as they are entirely too common. It would be like banning melta weapons.

[fluger]

For better or worse, GW has decided that list building in 40k is going to be driven by formations.  

[MikhailLenin]

For the case of "Free Points" in a Formation that still retain "Good" units, the Battle Company would be the first of its kind. The Free Wargear on the BA formation is pretty trash for Competitive Play because it forces you to take sub par unit aka Vanguard Squads. The War Convocation while has some potential good usages but the problem is that it forces one player to play with an army that is a hodge podge more than a fine tuned engine (Props for the Mechanic reference in a Cult Mechanicus Formation).

Formations don't break the game at a tourney level... yet. Games at ITC Tournaments are not decided about how good your army is good at killing but how tough and board coverage it can provide. Even with my Super Alpha/Beta Null Deploy Strike Skitarii Drop Pod army, I have not tabled someone on Turn 1 or Turn 2 and that even applies to the 2 times I played against Vincent Price and his Admantite Lance versus my 24 Haywire Drop Podding shots.

Sure, things GW prints out in a vacuum always looks ridiculous but then when you look at it holistically, Ridiculous matches Ridiculous to a net effect and then the game becomes how good you are maneuvering against your opponent ridiculousness and how good he is at maneuvering around yours. Its the same game, we just have historical biases.

[fluger]

 Its the same game, we just have historical biases.

 

This is something Lord Hanaur goes on about, but if you look at the players winning big events in 5th, those same people are winning big events in 7th.  Good generals figure out the game.

[Lord Hanaur]

Formations in and of themselves dont seem like the issue to me.  Its very specific ones that are an issue.  

 

ITC events wont allow multiples of the same formation so the Shenanigans (in those tournies) is limited, though i will also point out that it limits some things that didnt need limiting too much as an unintended consequence.  

 

TO's all over the globe have freely limited things to make it fun for everyone going, and that's going to have to continue, as GW has gone off the rails completely with their power curve.

 

For now I would say it's definitely not the Formations causing problems.  It's CERTAIN formations, just as it was certain units before that.  The tournament this Saturday kinda illustrated why constraint is wise.

[indytims]

I don't participate in the tournament scene, but just from a casual player's perspective - it's quite obvious not all Formations are 'created equal'. Some are pretty lame... and some are over the top sick, with many in between.

 

In tournament play - you always get to suffer with whatever the TO decides to use.

 

In casual play - talk to your buddies if you have concerns.

[pretre]

Some are pretty lame... and some are over the top sick, with many in between.

Are we talking about codexes, units, formations, detachments or weapons? Because all of those things fit these two sentences. :)

[indytims]

Are we talking about codexes, units, formations, detachments or weapons? Because all of those things fit these two sentences. :)

 

Oh, just the formations for this thread, I guess. But you're correct... which pretty much proves that GW is 'consistent', if nothing else. :P