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.

Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are? (original post)

So after reviewing peoples replies I have to agree about its not fair to decline games against all formations so lets slightly change the question. Is it wrong to decline a game against the new codex's decurion style formations?
These formations are usually the ones that are causing people jaws to drop and in my experience are one sided when it comes to a casual game.

In my situation I have two friends who want to use and think its fair game to use the necron decurion in a casual setting. I am the one who has spent the time and money into a table and terrain as well drive two hours just to play a game with my friends. I have spent the time and money to enjoy the game and for everyone as well to enjoy. Am I being unreasonable to only play my necron friends is if they agree to use a CAD only? I am only trying to achieve a more enjoyable experience not only for me but also my other friends that don't have formations on that power level yet.

I wish I went more in depth with my original post before since some people got the wrong idea so for that I apologize.

You might not get a lot of friends from those that want to use the new formations/power gamers but really, in every pick-up, you can decide if you want to play someone before the game begins - and in every situation, you can decline for any reason (cheese list, over points, unpainted models, bad attitude). Of course, some reasons will be viewed as more acceptable than others, but everyone has their own standards.

It's not wrong, it's your hobby time.

Formations are becoming so ubiquitous now that I'd think you'd be turning down alot of games, though.

And all things considered, the CAD is actually also a formation.

Not all formations are created equally. If you let your opponent know you want a more casual game, and ask them to tone down their list, this is usually a reasonable request. This may or may not involve removing a formation.

Just blanketing all formations together and not playing any at all on the other hand may be less reasonable. Ymmv

If you're not enjoying it there's no reason to play in the first place. On the flip side, the opponent needs to enjoy playing too. I wouldn't blanket all formations, though as you said they do give bonuses with no drawbacks usually. I'd take each in stride and just refuse the cheese/over the top extra rules ones if I was going that route. In the end, again, if someone is consistently not enjoying playing then something's wrong.

Formations are a cancerous growth on the game. I just inform prospective opponents that I don't really enjoy playing apoc, I would rather play 40k.

Thanks for the replies.

I agree about how its not fair to compare all formations equally but I don't think its fair to play against only some formations not considered broken.

I only play with a handful of friends and its only once out every couple of months due to me living 2 hours away.

I think its fine, just be polite about it. Make sure the other player knows it isn't for personal gain or advantage.

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are?

If you're looking for support against the dark reign of the insidious formation, which is what this post seems like it's doing, you'll find plenty of fellows here on Dakka.

If you want to know if it's reasonable to outright refuse to play against any formations? I don't think it is, at all, based on your reasoning.

You say you want to just play against "a casual CAD". You must be aware that CADs can be abused, to much the same extent as everything else in the game can. Even before detachments and formations were a thing, you could make some real serious beast machine armies in that FOC.

Are you saying you would rather play a tournament optimized, heavy WAAC army, than a more casual army that includes formations?

Would it not be better to say that you simply don't want to play against competitive armies that have been optimized and tooled for absolute victory, and would prefer a more casual fluffy game? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to want.

There are plenty of formations that are not overpowered. A lot of them are fluffy and fun. Take the Angel's Wrath formation from WD for Blood Angels. It has a substantial investment in return for a minor ability. But it is exactly something I could see the BA using. It is also a great way to get more Assault Squads on the field, since they are no longer troops.

I think there are some obvious problem children formations, such as the Skyspear, but not every formation is bad. I also like the Anti-Air force from C:SM. It isn't overpowered either, and it makes me want to go out and get some Stalkers.

I hate formations too, unecessary power boosts where they are not needed, and not all are created equal. That being said, you literally cannot play against skitarii or harlequins if you refuse them, because they have no HQ to MAKE a CAD. Which personally I would love to be able to do with my skitarii, but cannot.

Play low points or kill teams.

That'l show them!

 Desubot wrote:
Play low points or kill teams.

That'l show them!

You can field the new 10th Company Formation at low points.

 Jambles wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are?

If you're looking for support against the dark reign of the insidious formation, which is what this post seems like it's doing, you'll find plenty of fellows here on Dakka.

If you want to know if it's reasonable to outright refuse to play against any formations? I don't think it is, at all, based on your reasoning.

You say you want to just play against "a casual CAD". You must be aware that CADs can be abused, to much the same extent as everything else in the game can. Even before detachments and formations were a thing, you could make some real serious beast machine armies in that FOC.

Are you saying you would rather play a tournament optimized, heavy WAAC army, than a more casual army that includes formations?

Would it not be better to say that you simply don't want to play against competitive armies that have been optimized and tooled for absolute victory, and would prefer a more casual fluffy game? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to want.

Yes it would be better to say not to play against a WAAC army but I guess my situation is a bit different where out my friends group only two people have armies with formations which are both necrons. I didn't really want to mention that because I don't want this to turn into a Decurion hate thread.

I am merely asking is it justifiable to decline a game and ask my opponent to make a list with out formations seeing how their army is fully capable with out them?

Once all armies are updated I will be more inclined to play with formations.

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are?

As long as you're ok with my refusing to play against your CAD.

And I don't like how you've based your models.

And you set up terrain wrong.

And you can't play THAT army because obviously the codex is unbalanced and too powerful.

And I find your're list cheesy/unfluffy.



We all try so hard to find ways to be miserable when it comes to this game...


So yes we should all refuse to play each other. It's the only way to be sure...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are?

As long as you're ok with my refusing to play against your CAD.

And I don't like how you've based your models.

And you set up terrain wrong.

And you can't play THAT army because obviously the codex is unbalanced and too powerful.

And I find your're list cheesy/unfluffy.



We all try so hard to find ways to be miserable when it comes to this game...


So yes we should all refuse to play each other. It's the only way to be sure...

The op by his own admission gets a game every 2 months, why should he play a game that he won't enjoy? I only get a game in once a week if I'm lucky, why would I play a game I won't enjoy? I even have standards, like not playing against unpainted armies and I'm proud of that elitism because it makes for cooler looking games and awesome pictures. The horror, the horror.

Decline any game you want. Sorry to say, but that's your lose. In my opinion, it's better to promote the hobby than to decline games because you don't like an aspect of the game. You might be better off playing a different game, because at least you be getting games in rather than declining games you could have played.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
it's better to promote the hobby than to decline games because you don't like an aspect of the game.

What does that actually mean?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You might be better off playing a different game, because at least you be getting games in rather than declining games you could have played.

So the choice is apparently have no standards/preferences or quit? The peregrine doctrine? Really?

I find formations - specially the Decurion way of list - way more interesting than the boring old FoC (CAD, nowadays). I'd rather play an army like that than the "1 HQ, 3 Troops, 2 FA, 1 HS..."

Anyway, you can refuse to play anything you dislike (my group shies away from D-weaponry, for example), but I'm telling you one thing: formations will become the staple way to create armies in all codices, sooner of later. DA will get that treatment, as Tau will by September-October (and I believe Fantasy will get something similar as well). Tyranids and AM need updating, and they'll probably get it as well.

I for one welcome our new formation overlords

I explained it with the second sentence?

My stance is play what you have fun playing. If the game isn't fun for you, play something else. The goal is to have fun while being social. Declining games because you don't like the current format is a sure indicator that you aren't having fun. So, instead of harming your fun by bring the hobby down, move on to better pastures. Or, build the hobby, embrace the change, and learn to enjoy new aspects of the game.

Not sure why anyone would see that as a negative message.

SJ

 Vector Strike wrote:
but I'm telling you one thing: formations will become the staple say to create armies in all codices, sooner of later.

They won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I explained it with the following sentence?

SJ

So playing without formations isn't promoting the hobby or not playing against an army comprised of formations isn't promoting the hobby? Is a 40k game without formations occurring outside of the hobby?

 Kiggler wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:
Is it wrong of me to refuse games against formations when I just want to play a casual cad? At first I liked the idea of formations adding a little twist to a army such as the hellbrute formations. Now ever since the necron codex every formation GW makes just seems way over the top for casual play. The new formations literally give free points and I think we can all admit that the drawbacks are very minor.

I would just like to know of what other people thoughts are?

If you're looking for support against the dark reign of the insidious formation, which is what this post seems like it's doing, you'll find plenty of fellows here on Dakka.

If you want to know if it's reasonable to outright refuse to play against any formations? I don't think it is, at all, based on your reasoning.

You say you want to just play against "a casual CAD". You must be aware that CADs can be abused, to much the same extent as everything else in the game can. Even before detachments and formations were a thing, you could make some real serious beast machine armies in that FOC.

Are you saying you would rather play a tournament optimized, heavy WAAC army, than a more casual army that includes formations?

Would it not be better to say that you simply don't want to play against competitive armies that have been optimized and tooled for absolute victory, and would prefer a more casual fluffy game? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to want.

Yes it would be better to say not to play against a WAAC army but I guess my situation is a bit different where out my friends group only two people have armies with formations which are both necrons. I didn't really want to mention that because I don't want this to turn into a Decurion hate thread.

I am merely asking is it justifiable to decline a game and ask my opponent to make a list with out formations seeing how their army is fully capable with out them?

Once all armies are updated I will be more inclined to play with formations.

Fair enough. FWIW, I feel for you having to play against only Necrons Not just because they're a strong army, but also cause IMO variety is part of what makes 40k cool.

At a certain point, as others have said, you'll have to pick between playing or not playing based on what your opponent brings. I derive enough enjoyment from 40k that even those games that turn out to be brutally one-sided are still worthwhile to me. You might not have the same opinion, and that's fine - but you'll also get to play less.

Crablezworth wrote:

The op by his own admission gets a game every 2 months, why should he play a game that he won't enjoy?

As I said:

So yes we should all refuse to play each other. It's the only way to be sure...

As others have pointed out, CAD is a formation. The only non-formation game is to play Unbound. The fact that you have decided that one formation is fine and others are not is the issue here.

 curran12 wrote:
As others have pointed out, CAD is a formation. The only non-formation game is to play Unbound. The fact that you have decided that one formation is fine and others are not is the issue here.

And the cad is the foc from editions past, which some prefer to play with, because it doesn't just give armies free stuff. Kinda like some enjoy one detachment, because they want to play 40k instead of apoc.

So? It's still a formation. Just because you're familiar with it doesn't make it NOT a formation. And it gives you free stuff as well, objective secured and re-rolls to warlord traits.

I play CAD most of the time, but I am not deluding myself into thinking it is not a formation.

 curran12 wrote:
As others have pointed out, CAD is a formation. The only non-formation game is to play Unbound. The fact that you have decided that one formation is fine and others are not is the issue here.

Not true. The Combined Arms Detachment is just that, a Detachment. While all Formations are Detachments, not all Detachments are Formations.

There are some pretty negative peeps on this forum.

So, here's the thing. It's your game, your hobby. Feel free to play it anyway you choose. By the stuff you like, promote the stuff you enjoy, have fun. Getting all self righteous over changes you don't like or agree with does you no good.

Sure, decline game with people who are also trying to enjoy the hobby. Don't play games. Don't support the hobby. Complain that the hobby is dying. It's not like you can do anything to save the hobby, you know, like supporting it, promoting it, and playing games. Oh no! You have to decline to play ant aspect of the game you disagree with, so it's the game that's killing itself, not you for being critical of others and bring inclusively elitist.

Personally, I'd rather see the negativity move on than see yet another elitist dictate what I can do in my hobby by limiting my choices. I prefer to play the game as written, with the pieces I want to use, at the socially agreed upon points limit. Trust me to not be a douche to you, as I will trust you to not be a douche to me. Decline the game, and it's your lose, because now we both know which of us is the douche.

Hopefully that clears up my position on this subject.

SJ

As an ork I'd be sad, as my dread mob formation is the only way, besides unbound, to run that much walkers in a list and stay out of unbound. :/ I don't own dread mob volume 8 or whatever.

As someone who plays harlequins and skitarii I would be kind of upset as neither of my armies have the option for HQ and thus can't be fielded as CAD.