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.

This idea originated in a troll thread about the power difference between pre-Necron and post-Necron armies. There have been many calls for tournaments and gaming groups to ban the use of formations. I disagree with this concept. Formations were heralded with the arrival of 7th edition, expanded upon in the initial codex releases, and then taken to the extreme in Codex: Necrons, Codex: Eldar Craftworlds, and now the new Space Marine codex. Furthermore, some armies are more powerful in a standard CAD than in their special formations, while other armies have the opposite problem.

It is an undeniable fact that there has been a major shift in the power level of the recent GW releases. Previous armies, including those initially updated codexes, have been left in the dust. Some sort of external balancing is needed for the benefits formations for the newer armies while giving older armies a fighting chance.

As a result, I have come up with this proposal for how to balance formations in organized play:

Rules Change Regarding Detachments: a Detachment such as the Necron Decurion that is made up of Formations instead of or in combination with Unit Entries no longer counts as a single Detachment, but as individual formations. Note that the Command Benefits of such a detachment may still be applied if the requirements are met within the restrictions of the Detachment Slots.

Each player has access to three Detachment Slots per army. These slots may be used as follows:

Slot 1: The Primary Detachment. An army must have a detachment of this type in order to be a legal Battle-Forged army. Acceptable detachments in this slot include the standard CAD, modified faction-specific CADs, and formations labeled in their codex as Core.

Slot 2:Secondary Detachment. An army may bring an additional detachment or formation as an add-on to their Primary Detachment. Acceptable detachments in this slot include Allied Detachments, a single Lord of War and formations or Units labeled in their codex as Auxiliary.

Slot 3: Secondary Formation. An army may bring a formation from outside their codex from any GW publication that is allowed for play in that codex under the general rules. Alternatively, an army can include a formation from their codex labeled as Command.

Alternatively, if a player brought a standard CAD in Slot 1, they may forgo Slots 2 and 3 in order to bring a second standard CAD.

For example, in a Decurion, a Necron player could bring the core Reclamation Legion formation in Slot 1. The Necron player could then bring a single auxiliary formation in Slot 2 (except for the Canoptek Harvest, as I would ban that particular formation). After filling those two Slots, the Necron player could bring a Royal Court formation but would be unable to bring any more formations from Codex: Necrons, as all the Formation Slots have been filled. Meanwhile, under this same system, a Dark Angels player could bring a double CAD, and a CSM player could bring a CAD and an IA 13 formation and a Chaos Daemon Allied Detachment.

I feel this is at least a start toward balancing formations. It doesn't cover everything; certain armies will have to be FAQed in, and some specific formations should probably be prohibited. But I think that this is a step in the right direction.

I welcome any feedback regarding my idea.

EDIT: Edited Title for Clarity
EDIT: Added example.
EDIT: Added LoW restriction and changed places of Formation Slots.
EDIT: Changed Detachment rule after feedback regarding clarity.
EDIT: Added "Unit" to rules for Slot 2 to better clarify rule

It wouldn't affect Decurion, Warhosts, and whatever the SM detachments will be called, FYI.

Charistoph wrote:
It wouldn't affect Decurion, Warhosts, and whatever the SM detachments will be called, FYI.

That's the intention. My point was not to ban any sort of detachments. My idea is to provide armies that don't have those kind of detachments a fighting chance.

EDIT: I also want to limit the amount of formations a Decurion-style army can bring, as it goes above and beyond what other armies are capable of bringing to the table.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

That's the intention. My point was not to ban any sort of detachments. My idea is to provide armies that don't have those kind of detachments a fighting chance.

EDIT: I also want to limit the amount of formations a Decurion-style army can bring, as it goes above and beyond what other armies are capable of bringing to the table.

That's partly my point. The Decurion is a single detachment and nie infinite in size potential. In order to reduce it, you have to change the specific detachment's rules.

For example, if I take a Decurion detachment with the Core Reclamation Legion, Auxiliary Judicator Battalion, and Auxiliary Nightbringer, that will still only be classed as the Primary, because it is only one single detachment. The Formations doing nothing more than providing the list for the Choices and providing bonuses for parts of the list, the same as an IG Infantry Platoon does for a Troops Choice. They do not exist completely as Formation detachments while in a Decurion.

All your suggestion is really doing is limiting everyone else.

Yeah I can't see this helping the other books much.

I'm hoping GW continues to release formations with bizarre differences in power so TO's will finally have enough and ban formations. (As a side effect, their job of checking lists for legality will become much easier.) it still leaves eldar in the spotlight, but...one step at a time.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Yeah I can't see this helping the other books much.

I'm hoping GW continues to release formations with bizarre differences in power so TO's will finally have enough and ban formations. (As a side effect, their job of checking lists for legality will become much easier.) it still leaves eldar in the spotlight, but...one step at a time.

Even that wouldn't stop the Decurion/Warhosts, since they are not Formations. They would have to ban them specifically.

niv-mizzet wrote:Yeah I can't see this helping the other books much.

I'm hoping GW continues to release formations with bizarre differences in power so TO's will finally have enough and ban formations. (As a side effect, their job of checking lists for legality will become much easier.) it still leaves eldar in the spotlight, but...one step at a time.

As I have argued before, banning formations is not the way to go. Like it or not, formations are an integral part of Warhammer 40.00 now.

This project is mean to somewhat curb the power of the new formation-of-formations by limiting the number of formations/detachments those armies can take, while using as light a hand as possible. I do know my opinion is in the minority, at least on this website.

Charistoph wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

That's the intention. My point was not to ban any sort of detachments. My idea is to provide armies that don't have those kind of detachments a fighting chance.

EDIT: I also want to limit the amount of formations a Decurion-style army can bring, as it goes above and beyond what other armies are capable of bringing to the table.

That's partly my point. The Decurion is a single detachment and nie infinite in size potential. In order to reduce it, you have to change the specific detachment's rules.

For example, if I take a Decurion detachment with the Core Reclamation Legion, Auxiliary Judicator Battalion, and Auxiliary Nightbringer, that will still only be classed as the Primary, because it is only one single detachment. The Formations doing nothing more than providing the list for the Choices and providing bonuses for parts of the list, the same as an IG Infantry Platoon does for a Troops Choice. They do not exist completely as Formation detachments while in a Decurion.

All your suggestion is really doing is limiting everyone else.

This is incorrect. The examples you listed are defined as formations in Codex: Necrons. The Decurion is a detachment consisting of combinations of individual formations.

For example, in a Decurion, a Necron player could bring the core Reclamation Legion formation in Slot 1. The Necron player could then bring a single auxiliary formation in Slot 2 (except for the Canoptek Harvest, as I would ban that particular formation). After filling those two Slots, the Necron player could bring a Royal Court formation in Slot 3, but would be unable to bring any more formations from Codex: Necrons, as all the Formation Slots have been filled.

Meanwhile, under this same system, a Dark Angels player could bring a double CAD, and a CSM player could bring a CAD and an IA 13 formation.

EDIT: changed slots to reflect OP

 TheNewBlood wrote:
This is incorrect. The examples you listed are defined as formations in Codex: Necrons. The Decurion is a detachment consisting of combinations of individual formations.

Incorrect. A model cannot be part of two detachments (excepting the Warlord Primary), period.

The way you are treating the Decurion is if it wasn't an actual detachment and the choices retain their full Formation detachment status.

For example, in a Decurion, a Necron player could bring the core Reclamation Legion formation in Slot 1. The Necron player could then bring a single auxiliary formation in Slot 2 (except for the Canoptek Harvest, as I would ban that particular formation). After filling those two Slots, the Necron player could bring a Royal Court formation in Slot 3, but would be unable to bring any more formations from Codex: Necrons, as all the Formation Slots have been filled.

Incorrect, they bring Core, Auxiliary, and Command Choices, not Formations. And don't forget, the Decurion carries 3 choices that are not Formations, just Units.

How you have it is the same as saying, you can bring the Troop Roles of a CAD as a Primary, then you can bring the HQ Choices if you want, than you can bring either the Elites, Fast Attacks, OR Heavy Supports.

I'm not saying that this is your intention, but this is what you are saying.

Charistoph wrote:
Incorrect. A model cannot be part of two detachments (excepting the Warlord Primary), period.

The way you are treating the Decurion is if it wasn't an actual detachment and the choices retain their full Formation detachment status.

Incorrect, they bring Core, Auxiliary, and Command Choices, not Formations. And don't forget, the Decurion carries 3 choices that are not Formations, just Units.

How you have it is the same as saying, you can bring the Troop Roles of a CAD as a Primary, then you can bring the HQ Choices if you want, than you can bring either the Elites, Fast Attacks, OR Heavy Supports.

I'm not saying that this is your intention, but this is what you are saying.

I believe we are miscommunicating or misunderstanding each other as to the definition of Formations and Detachments.

Formations are defined in the Core Rulebook:

BRB p. 121: "...a special type of Detachment, each of a specific grouping of units...Whilst some formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on is, along with any special rules those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."

Detachments are defined in the Core Rulebook as:

BRB p.117: " Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements."

A Force Organization Chart is defined in the Core Rulebook as:

BRB p.120 "This shows the number of units of each Battlefield Role that you may include in this Detachment."

Allow me to make this even more confusing: a Necron Decurion is a type of Detachment whose Force Organization Chart is composed of Formations instead of units. These formations are labelled as Core, Command, and Auxiliary, and the units within are subject to both the restrictions of the Formation and the Decurion's Force Organization Chart.

Are we clear on the terminology? I only want to ensure that we are both being clear when we are using these particular terms.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

I believe we are miscommunicating or misunderstanding each other as to the definition of Formations and Detachments.

Formations are defined in the Core Rulebook:

BRB p. 121: "...a special type of Detachment, each of a specific grouping of units...Whilst some formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them to simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organization chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on is, along with any special rules those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."

Detachments are defined in the Core Rulebook as:

BRB p.117: " Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements."

A Force Organization Chart is defined in the Core Rulebook as:

BRB p.120 "This shows the number of units of each Battlefield Role that you may include in this Detachment."

Allow me to make this even more confusing: a Necron Decurion is a type of Detachment whose Force Organization Chart is composed of Formations instead of units. These formations are labelled as Core, Command, and Auxiliary, and the units within are subject to both the restrictions of the Formation and the Decurion's Force Organization Chart.

Are we clear on the terminology? I only want to ensure that we are both being clear when we are using these particular terms.

Two issues, though. A unit cannot be part of two detachment at the same time, and the Decurion doesn't counter this rule, so a unit of Warriors can be part of a Reclamation Legion or a Decurion Core choice, not both. It is one reason why the Decurion has to explicitly state they keep the Special Rules.

In addition, three of the Auxiliary Choices of the Decision are not Formations, even independent of the Decurion. They are just units.

So, I either have access to the Decurion with 1-10 Auxiliary Choices as 1 detachment, or it is not a Decision, but something else.

Charistoph wrote:
Two issues, though. A unit cannot be part of two detachment at the same time, and the Decurion doesn't counter this rule, so a unit of Warriors can be part of a Reclamation Legion or a Decurion Core choice, not both. It is one reason why the Decurion has to explicitly state they keep the Special Rules.

In addition, three of the Auxiliary Choices of the Decision are not Formations, even independent of the Decurion. They are just units.

So, I either have access to the Decurion with 1-10 Auxiliary Choices as 1 detachment, or it is not a Decision, but something else.

I am afraid that you are incorrect on both counts. While I do not have the Necron codex on hand, I do have the Eldar codex on hand; the Eldar Warhost detachment works in exactly the same manner:

Codex: Eldar Craftworlds p. 94: "Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Craftworld Warhost are an exception. They count as being part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules. If your Warlord is part of a Formation or and Army List Entry that makes up part of a Craftworld Warhost, that entire Craftworld Warhost is your Primary Detachment."

Second, under my proposed system, the Necron player would not be able to bring the entire Decurion as their Primary Detachment in Slot 1. They could only bring the Reclamation Legion, as this is a Formation labeled as Core in the Decurion, and it maintains all of its associated rules. I am only modifying the rule that allows for an entire Decurion/Warhost/whatever to be taken as a primary detachment. If the Necron player so chose, they could bring the Reclamation Legion in Slot 1 and a legal Auxiliary formation from the Decurion in Slot 2. Only then would they receive the Command Benefits for the entire Decurion.

If you have any more questions about how Formations, Detachments, and Detachments consisting of Formations-of-Formations work, feel free to ask them in the You Make Da Call Section. Otherwise, if you or anyone else have any other feedback about my proposed system, I would be glad to hear it.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I am afraid that you are incorrect on both counts.

Not quite. You have to specifically address them to "break them up", otherwise, you are ignoring the fact that the Decurion-style detachments are one cohesive detachment with choices like the Mephrit Cohort Detachment or the Realspace Raiders detachment. So if you do not specifically address this point, all you are really saying is I can take the Decurion with all its Choices as the Primary OR the Reclamation Legion OR the CAD, etc.

Nor did you address the second point whatsoever. I can take the Reclamation Legion and the Nightbringer in a Decurion Detachment, yet, there is no Star God Formation in the Necron codex. Much like the Flayed Ones and Deathmarks Auxiliary Choices, these are not Formations, just units that can be taken as Auxiliary Choices. In this method you propose, if you completely break up the options for the Decurion, you leave out these three options all together.

I would also point out there is no such thing as a "modified CAD". You need to properly address what you mean by that.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Second, under my proposed system, the Necron player would not be able to bring the entire Decurion as their Primary Detachment in Slot 1. They could only bring the Reclamation Legion, as this is a Formation labeled as Core in the Decurion, and it maintains all of its associated rules. I am only modifying the rule that allows for an entire Decurion/Warhost/whatever to be taken as a primary detachment. If the Necron player so chose, they could bring the Reclamation Legion in Slot 1 and a legal Auxiliary formation from the Decurion in Slot 2. Only then would they receive the Command Benefits for the entire Decurion.

If you have any more questions about how Formations, Detachments, and Detachments consisting of Formations-of-Formations work, feel free to ask them in the You Make Da Call Section. Otherwise, if you or anyone else have any other feedback about my proposed system, I would be glad to hear it.

This isn't necessarily a question on how it works, it is how you are presenting it. You are missing specific details which can allow someone to be justified in circumventing your intention. As I said, this is not about your intentions, but about what you are actually saying.

As to what you are trying to do, it is too limited. To be realistic, in most cases under 2000 points, the Decurion will only have room for about 2, maybe 3 Formation Choices (including the Command), anyway. They only way they can really take more Choices is the Flayed Ones and Deathmark Choices. I can actually fit more in with a CAD and then add those Formations on the side, than I can using the Reclamation Legion.

Charistoph wrote:
Not quite. You have to specifically address them to "break them up", otherwise, you are ignoring the fact that the Decurion-style detachments are one cohesive detachment with choices like the Mephrit Cohort Detachment or the Realspace Raiders detachment. So if you do not specifically address this point, all you are really saying is I can take the Decurion with all its Choices as the Primary OR the Reclamation Legion OR the CAD, etc.

Nor did you address the second point whatsoever. I can take the Reclamation Legion and the Nightbringer in a Decurion Detachment, yet, there is no Star God Formation in the Necron codex. Much like the Flayed Ones and Deathmarks Auxiliary Choices, these are not Formations, just units that can be taken as Auxiliary Choices. In this method you propose, if you completely break up the options for the Decurion, you leave out these three options all together.

Check my wording. It says "a formation as defined in the codex". A C'tan may not be listed as a formation in its Unit Entry, but it is listed in the Decurion as the Star God formation. Therefore, the C'tan can be taken in Slot 2 as an Auxiliary formation in a Decurion detachment.

I would also point out there is no such thing as a "modified CAD". You need to properly address what you mean by that.

Sure. One example is the Realspace Raiders detachment. It plays around with the Unit Entry requirements in that Force Organization Chart as opposed to the standard Combined Arms Detachment. This is why, for example, the Realspace Raiders detachment must bring 1 Fast Attack choice and up to 5 additional Fast Attack choices.

This isn't necessarily a question on how it works, it is how you are presenting it. You are missing specific details which can allow someone to be justified in circumventing your intention. As I said, this is not about your intentions, but about what you are actually saying.

As to what you are trying to do, it is too limited. To be realistic, in most cases under 2000 points, the Decurion will only have room for about 2, maybe 3 Formation Choices (including the Command), anyway. They only way they can really take more Choices is the Flayed Ones and Deathmark Choices. I can actually fit more in with a CAD and then add those Formations on the side, than I can using the Reclamation Legion.

Thank you for your feedback. I will update the OP with my proposed fix to make this more clear:
Rules Change Regarding Detachments: a Detachment such as the Necron Decurion that is made up of Formations instead of or in combination with Unit Entries no longer counts as a single Detachment, but as individual formations. Note that the Command Benefits of such a detachment may still be applied if the requirements are met within the restrictions of the Detachment Slots.

I am intentionally doing this in a limited manner. In my opinion, there are no broken detachments, including the Decurion. There are broken units and formations. It is up to the players to decide what kind of game they want to have with each other, and part of that includes deciding whether or not to use broken units or formations.

I am trying to create something resembling an even playing field for all armies. That is what I think of as balance.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Check my wording. It says "a formation as defined in the codex". A C'tan may not be listed as a formation in its Unit Entry, but it is listed in the Decurion as the Star God formation. Therefore, the C'tan can be taken in Slot 2 as an Auxiliary formation in a Decurion detachment.

Except, there is nothing called the Star God Formation, anywhere. The Star God is simply a Choice. The same applies to Deathmarks and Flayed Ones. The Decurion Detachment is "a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles." Those 3 Choices are "Army List Entries" only, not Formations. Going by your list, a "Decurion" is limited to 6 options for Auxiliary Choices instead of their 9. Don't feel bad, a lot of people thought this when they first glanced at the Decurion, or only went by what was in the White Dwarf.

You may want to address that for your concept.

Part of the issue with this is the fact that the "Role" Detachments do not have any general name besides "detachment" unlike the Formations do. Even worse is when the Decurion-style came out, it had factors of both the "Role" Detachments and Formation Detachments. Technically speaking, both the Combined Arms Detachment and the Decurion Detachment are FOC detachments (i.e. a detachment configured with a Force Organization Chart). The only real difference is one organizes its Choices by Roles, the other by Datasheets.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

I am intentionally doing this in a limited manner. In my opinion, there are no broken detachments, including the Decurion. There are broken units and formations. It is up to the players to decide what kind of game they want to have with each other, and part of that includes deciding whether or not to use broken units or formations.

I am trying to create something resembling an even playing field for all armies. That is what I think of as balance.

Right, but my point was that it doesn't limit the Decurion-style armies that much, most of the choices are just too expensive, and it tends to limit the others without them more, and it will only become more noticeable as the points increase.

Charistoph wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Check my wording. It says "a formation as defined in the codex". A C'tan may not be listed as a formation in its Unit Entry, but it is listed in the Decurion as the Star God formation. Therefore, the C'tan can be taken in Slot 2 as an Auxiliary formation in a Decurion detachment.

Except, there is nothing called the Star God Formation, anywhere. The Star God is simply a Choice. The same applies to Deathmarks and Flayed Ones. The Decurion Detachment is "a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles." Those 3 Choices are "Army List Entries" only, not Formations. Going by your list, a "Decurion" is limited to 6 options for Auxiliary Choices instead of their 9. Don't feel bad, a lot of people thought this when they first glanced at the Decurion, or only went by what was in the White Dwarf.

You may want to address that for your concept.

Part of the issue with this is the fact that the "Role" Detachments do not have any general name besides "detachment" unlike the Formations do. Even worse is when the Decurion-style came out, it had factors of both the "Role" Detachments and Formation Detachments. Technically speaking, both the Combined Arms Detachment and the Decurion Detachment are FOC detachments (i.e. a detachment configured with a Force Organization Chart). The only real difference is one organizes its Choices by Roles, the other by Datasheets.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

I am intentionally doing this in a limited manner. In my opinion, there are no broken detachments, including the Decurion. There are broken units and formations. It is up to the players to decide what kind of game they want to have with each other, and part of that includes deciding whether or not to use broken units or formations.

I am trying to create something resembling an even playing field for all armies. That is what I think of as balance.

Right, but my point was that it doesn't limit the Decurion-style armies that much, most of the choices are just too expensive, and it tends to limit the others without them more, and it will only become more noticeable as the points increase.

Again, thanks for pointing that out. I will edit the rules for Slot 2 to reflect the ability to take an FOC choice and/or a formation for some units. While I would argue that because the "Star God" formation is listed on the overview of the Decurion it therefore counts as a formation, I can see how that would be confusing.

I personally don't believe that the Decurion is broken. I am not trying to limit players' ability to take a Decurion in this system. What I am trying to limit is the number of Auxiliary formations a Necron player can take.