Before people get carried away with marine whacky builds, please remember to read the EUK codex carefully. If you add any upgrades that can not be transported in a drop pod you loose the pre-game flexible options for that formation.

with regards to the wraithguard example I think it's worth bearing in mind the benefits the increased staying power of the wraithguard grant to the formation. I've played a huge amount with Guardian+Wraithguard fms and the wraithguard add far more to the fm than just increased assault capabilities. The fact that they're fearless means that they'll hang around far longer and have the potential to capture/ contest objectives than either bare Guardian or Aspect fms. Also bear in mind that for some lists, the comparison to Aspect hosts differs to that of Biel Tan. For Ulthwe you'd be paying 100pts more for 8 aspect units with exarchs, plus you'd be using up 2 whole support slots (instead of creating 2 with the guardian option). That would instantly make the wraithguard air assault more attractive.

So allowing air droppable wraithguard, via the discarding of some of their guardian baggage, is a lot more potentially unbalancing than it first appears and that's before you consider their ability to protect the Avatar summoning Farseer until the next turn.

Apart from that, there's also the perception of fairness. If someone drops an Aspect host on your backline and kicks your bum, you shrug your shoulders and mutter a choice word or two. If someone does the same with a wraithguard+guardian combo, by using previously unknown provisions or gaps in the rules, you'd feel pretty peeved. Now, that's not the be all and end all in rules writing, but fun is a huge part of why people play EA and it's something that should be considered.

EUK Marines: The "Tactical Flexibility" rule (or whatever it's called) was added in response to the NetEA call about choosing units during army selection. The NetEA options are Pods/Air (leave the pods behind for the air option) or Rhinos/Air (leave the Rhinos behind) rather than any of the three, so EUK added the rule to their army list that they definitely could.

I agree perception of fairness is a real issue. That's why we are discussing how to handle it - so we can make a determination and publicize it. If the rule is not "previously unkown" then the "Gotcha!" factor goes away.

So, while it is a real issue, it is one that can definitely be mitigated.

This sounds highly gamey to me.

I I took an ork warband in a Landa, buying two extra boys, for the grots the leaving the boys at home and then took a dreadnought or two killakans. That would be OK?

It sounds a bit like having my cake and eating it too. Normally you would have to choose do you want the grot meatshield or the Dread/kan killyness.

_________________
Follow the adventures of Waaagh Nuglug

Yes. You paid the points for those grots. You even paid the points for those boyz you aren't using anymore.

Basically, I think Neal speaks sense.

Been following this with interest, I have to admit leaving units behind feels a bit odd and I think the point about how your opponent feels is a good one.

But the main thing that struck me was the comparison of guardians+wraithguard to standard aspects. Firstly wraithguard are 4+ RA and fearless, and it is the fact that they complement guardians so well that makes them such a good upgrade IMO - they totally transform the footslogging formation into one that can actually assault things and win. Airdropping them just makes that synergy even better, as they can otherwise only be used with that flexibility by spending 300 points on portals. But to top it off, I also found neal's comparison of their assault capacity to aspects a bit suspect. 4 guardians and 3 wraithguard put out exactly the same firepower in an assault as 6 fire dragons and 2 dire avengers (both of which are popular aspect choices), with the farseer as a bonus. And that's before you consider the other differences (slightly poorer initiative, but fearless, RA, can summon an avatar next turn...). I would certainly view this as a competitive option.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

It is a competitive option, but the Exarchs (2 inspiring) put the Aspects far ahead when it comes to winning assaults. The main thing is that a 300 point formation of guardians and wraithguard are comparable to 300 points of aspects, and not incontrovertibly better.

Well, just to point out:
1. You don't get exarchs in 300 points of aspects. They may indeed not be better than 350 points of aspects, but that's ultimately not a useful comparison.
2. I didn't say they were incontrovertibly better, just that I don't agree with neal's comparison. Basically, there have been assertions that leaving units out is a gamble or suboptimal, and I just wanted to say I thought it was competitive.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Aside from the SM list which has the option of not taking their included transports I don't think that there is an army list that has been tested and balanced to allow for players to arbitrarily change the makeup of formations at will.

The SM list is unique because it is meant to be so. It gives players the option to change the role of a formation by taking or not taking transport as well as taking different types of transports.

But those aspects of the list have been rigorously tested.

Most if not all of the suggested formation changes have not been tested and they strike me as being unbalanced. Or at least very advantageous. Why else would anyone want to do it?

And while Neal is usually my bellwether of rationality, in this instance I have to disagree. I think that the Wraithgaurd formation suggested is quite powerful.

I think the formation might be advantageous in certain situations. Just like a shadowsword is advantageous against a titan list, but you might normally prefer the baneblade.

If the formation is ALWAYS taken for the ditch and drop trick, then yeah, it almost certainly is something the user should pay extra for.

_________________
My shifting projects

It actually came up following a clarification requested by our fellow forum member Ginger at one of our tournaments and was solidified into the rule that we have.

I remember a big discussion on the forum first, which tourney organisers (EUK did not yet exist) participated in.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Doesn't this mean that dropping units before the game is the rules as intended? It should then be FAQed IMHO.

Then we can discuss wether the rule needs a change, not what the rules actually are.

This whole question revolves around the player sacrificing part of a formation in order to gain some deployment advantage, whether that be to garrison outside the deployment zone or to fit the formation into a transport formation; and whether that is "fair" to both sides (although fairness is a very subjective and emotive concept).

Note, this 'sacrifice' has nothing to do with the list balance; the lists are all generally balanced in terms cost against capability.