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.

For those unaware, formations are returning to warhammer 40k in 8th edition:



What are formations you ask? Essentially they are benefits for certain units provided you fulfill certain prerequisites.

"What is wrong with that?" Everything.

While the Imperial Fists siegebreaker cohort is quite tame compared to what we witnessed in 7th edition, it is the first step off a cliff for which the only solution is introduce an entirely new edition. This formation will be the first of many. In the months/years to come more formations will be introduced for every army. Are you seeing the problem yet?

Formations dictate what your army/list will consist of. Instead of unlimited possibility & a wealth of creativity you will be confined to play list (x), (y), (z), especially in the competitive scene. Take the above example. Any competitive Imperial Fist player will be using it. For 1 CP they gain access to 2 additional strategems, a relic, a warlord trait. They only work on captains, centurions, dreadnaughts & vindicators apart of the cohort detachment.

"What is wrong with that?"



Maybe you're a competitive Imperial Fist player who doesn't particularly want to use those codex entries in your list. Too bad. If you want to win, you will use those entries. Here is the impact that has on the community. Now when facing off against an Imperial Fist player & having unlimited possibilities to plan for, you can expect some variation of list (x) filled with units who benefit from the detachment to maximize its effectiveness. This will be true of all armies given time. It dictates how we as players play the game. I'll give you an analogy. Lets say you play a video game like League of Legends. The developers release an update that says if you use hero (a) & equip them with item combination (123) you gain new hero abilities that are powerful. What do you think the meta will look like in the weeks/months to follow? Precisely. Every hero (a) will be using item combination (123). It is no different here.

Let me emphasize I do not think this particular Imperial Fist formation is going to break the meta. What I am emphasizing is that sooner or later formations will be introduced that will and its bad for the game. There are 2 reasons formations are being introduced:

1. For the rules team. Look at what they have to deal with right now. How many rules do we have at the moment? A main rule book, indexes, codexes, forgeworld books, soon to be 2 chapter approved, who knows how many FAQ's at this point, & likely more I'm omitting. By creating formations it pigeon holes the competitive scene into a meta you have much more control over. Instead of trying to balance unlimited possibility for a dozen armies, you only have to make 2-3 competitive formations for each army & you're done.

2. Shareholders.




See that graph? It has to be going up, always. When it doesn't bad things happen. Like formations. Unit (x) isn't selling well? Add it to a formation with crazy bonuses so it does. That is how formations are made. They aren't decided by the rules team. They are decided by the marketing team. Formations are bad & you should reject their inclusion into 8th edition if you care about our hobby.

I think you are underestimating the lead time for producing printed materials. There is no way that formations are a reaction to an October share price.

STOP!

Gather Facts.

Formations are returning to Narrative and Open Play. And cost CPs to activate.

As you were. Panic over.

Nope. Ain't gonna happen. You are preaching the long game, and people would rather have immediate, short term gains then long term gains. It's been demonstrated over and over again by sociologists.

I concur with Trickstick that the October share prices are just too soon and the lead time too great for GW to respond in a printed publication in December for falling stock prices. We might see something in response around next March.

Wait, formations aren't for matched play?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
STOP!

Gather Facts.

Formations are returning to Narrative and Open Play. And cost CPs to activate.

As you were. Panic over.

Doc, where does it state these are restricted from matched play? Honest question. I haven't been able to find it.

Who cares if it's for matched play?

You pay 1CP to give a keyword, and then another CP to affect a unit or so. It digs into your resources. That's actually balanced.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
STOP!

Gather Facts.

Formations are returning to Narrative and Open Play. And cost CPs to activate.

As you were. Panic over.

Doc, where does it state these are restricted from matched play? Honest question. I haven't been able to find it.

I thought it was stated that they were for matched play at the Vigilus Weekender. Also, the community post states "...designed to be usable in any kind of play...".

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
STOP!

Gather Facts.

Formations are returning to Narrative and Open Play. And cost CPs to activate.

As you were. Panic over.

Nope. They're ALL forms.

It's literally you paying CPs to activate them for a Detachment you're fielding anyways.

Here we go!!

Formations are a terrible sign for the game.

Firstly, they add more things to remember, including the fun minigame of "this Centurion unit has an extra special rule but this one does not, don't mix them up" without adding much to play depth

Secondly, as OP says, sooner or later one will be busted and become a necessity for high tier play, reducing variety, reducing parity between factions, and also feeding into the pay to win aspect of the game.

Thirdly, it's a sign of how GW intends to fill the release schedule once the Codexes are done. A new batch of pointless expansions like the subfaction dexes were in 7th, to then all be invalidated in a year or two. Proving that GW just never learns, they merely move the same mistakes to different places in the game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Formations are a terrible sign for the game.

Firstly, they add more things to remember, including the fun minigame of "this Centurion unit has an extra special rule but this one does not, don't mix them up" without adding much to play depth

Secondly, as OP says, sooner or later one will be busted and become a necessity for high tier play, reducing variety, reducing parity between factions, and also feeding into the pay to win aspect of the game.

Thirdly, it's a sign of how GW intends to fill the release schedule once the Codexes are done. A new batch of pointless expansions like the subfaction dexes were in 7th, to then all be invalidated in a year or two. Proving that GW just never learns, they merely move the same mistakes to different places in the game.

Here's the nice part is you don't HAVE to pay those CP then. Otherwise you were probably planning to differentiate them via paint jobs.

Seriously it's like you think we are all going to have the memory of a goldfish. Just place a marker for the one with the special keyword, jeez.

*checks his own facts*


*looks sheepish*

My bad. Could've sworn it said not for Matched Play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though you are paying CPs to gain additional Stratagems which can only benefit very specific units from a specific Detachment. And those Stratagems in the pic are incredibly situational.

Doesn't strike me as all conquering?

Paying CP is a no brainer if the end result is busted. Just look at Imperial Knights.

I hate to buy supplements. GW said this was gonna be a Codex+Rulebook edition. I hope big tournaments stick to that and ignore all of this detachment and campaing books nonsense.

They are making them availible for matched play because they know no one would buy campaing books that are only for narrative and open. They hope to put some broken combo here that everybody needs to buy.

And I'm a big 8th defender but this isn't a good sing.

 Galas wrote:
Paying CP is a no brainer if the end result is busted. Just look at Imperial Knights.

I hate to buy supplements. GW said this was gonna be a Codex+Rulebook edition. I hope big tournaments stick to that and ignore all of this detachment and campaing books nonsense.

They are making them availible for matched play because they know no one would buy campaing books that are only for narrative and open. They hope to put some broken combo here that everybody needs to buy.

And I'm a big 8th defender but this isn't a good sing.

GW said right from the start, before the launch of 8th, that campaign books will be a thing after all the codecies were launched, we're just now actually seeing the first one (and bizarly before GSC get a codex).

Yup.

And it includes incredibly game specific formations. Which require the purchase and inclusion of specific models. And a CP to be spent, to gain access to a couple of incredibly specific stratagems.

Everything else is just scaremongering and paranoia.

Actually look at the example above. Read it. It's quite legible. Ain't nothing all that special in the grand scheme of things. In the majority of games you'll play, it's fairly pointless.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

And it includes incredibly game specific formations. Which require the purchase and inclusion of specific models. And a CP to be spent, to gain access to a couple of incredibly specific stratagems.

Everything else is just scaremongering and paranoia.

Actually look at the example above. Read it. It's quite legible. Ain't nothing all that special in the grand scheme of things. In the majority of games you'll play, it's fairly pointless.

But that could have said about 7th formations. We all know per se the idea is not a problem. But some of them will be busted. And thats when the problems start.

Are you saying that you are 100% sure no one of this formations will be busted?

And Imateria, I know GW said they were gonna put out campaing books. But when you ear "campaing books" you think of narrative-driven books about an specific setting, that maybe include rules for new units with new models (That would have come with the box when you buy them). But not new layers of rules for competitive play.

Demi-Company battlegroup, here we come!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Formations are a terrible sign for the game.

Firstly, they add more things to remember, including the fun minigame of "this Centurion unit has an extra special rule but this one does not, don't mix them up" without adding much to play depth

Secondly, as OP says, sooner or later one will be busted and become a necessity for high tier play, reducing variety, reducing parity between factions, and also feeding into the pay to win aspect of the game.

Thirdly, it's a sign of how GW intends to fill the release schedule once the Codexes are done. A new batch of pointless expansions like the subfaction dexes were in 7th, to then all be invalidated in a year or two. Proving that GW just never learns, they merely move the same mistakes to different places in the game.

Here's the nice part is you don't HAVE to pay those CP then. Otherwise you were probably planning to differentiate them via paint jobs.

Seriously it's like you think we are all going to have the memory of a goldfish. Just place a marker for the one with the special keyword, jeez.

There's also the potential for events to just say "No Specialist Detachments Allowed".

Because as it stands right now, they've said that these things are going to be tied to campaign books for the time being so I can't imagine that events are going to allow them.

 Commissar Benny wrote:


Formations dictate what your army/list will consist of. Instead of unlimited possibility & a wealth of creativity you will be confined to play list (x), (y), (z),

I think your concerns make completely sense and people raised valid points in the thread, but I ask: isn't this exactly the same with sub-factions?
Bad Moon Lootas vs non-BM Lootas
Raven Guard for specific units like Aggressors
and so on.

Also I think is too easy to dismiss the concerns as scaremongering. After 7th, it's normal to expect weird and game-breaking formations.

 Galas wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

And it includes incredibly game specific formations. Which require the purchase and inclusion of specific models. And a CP to be spent, to gain access to a couple of incredibly specific stratagems.

Everything else is just scaremongering and paranoia.

Actually look at the example above. Read it. It's quite legible. Ain't nothing all that special in the grand scheme of things. In the majority of games you'll play, it's fairly pointless.

But that could have said about 7th formations. We all know per se the idea is not a problem. But some of them will be busted. And thats when the problems start.

Are you saying that you are 100% sure no one of this formations will be busted?

And Imateria, I know GW said they were gonna put out campaing books. But when you ear "campaing books" you think of narrative-driven books about an specific setting, that maybe include rules for new units with new models (That would have come with the box when you buy them). But not new layers of rules for competitive play.

The trouble with the previous Formations was clear Codex Creep. Here, we're seeing multiple armies get various formations. And none are just 'take them and get the benefit'. If you're going to a Tournament, going on the example above, you probably wouldn't bother, because unless there are 'wreck the bunkers' missions, this formation serves absolutely no purpose at all. It just burns a CP for no gain. And because multiple armies are getting them, there's less chance for Codex Creep to affect.

And as others have noted, not being in a Codex, any organised event can easily say 'Codex Entries only, no Formations'.

Seriously. It's scaremongering at this moment of time. We've a single, ultimately underwhelming example to go off. An example so game situational, it's not something anybody is going to swear over.

It's still another layer of rules, that is unnecessarily complex in a game that on the other hand does not show relevant differences between units that infiltrate (or at least used to) and deepstrike through teleporting.

 Galas wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

And it includes incredibly game specific formations. Which require the purchase and inclusion of specific models. And a CP to be spent, to gain access to a couple of incredibly specific stratagems.

Everything else is just scaremongering and paranoia.

Actually look at the example above. Read it. It's quite legible. Ain't nothing all that special in the grand scheme of things. In the majority of games you'll play, it's fairly pointless.

But that could have said about 7th formations. We all know per se the idea is not a problem. But some of them will be busted. And thats when the problems start.

Are you saying that you are 100% sure no one of this formations will be busted?

And Imateria, I know GW said they were gonna put out campaing books. But when you ear "campaing books" you think of narrative-driven books about an specific setting, that maybe include rules for new units with new models (That would have come with the box when you buy them). But not new layers of rules for competitive play.

And pray tell how many of those formations were game breaking out of the total number of formations?

Can't wait to get a real number!

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
It's still another layer of rules, that is unnecessarily complex in a game that on the other hand does not show relevant differences between units that infiltrate (or at least used to) and deepstrike through teleporting.

As does every Codex, every Mission, every Chapter Approved, every Mission, every Expansion.

And these are entirely optional. The OP is frankly talking utter mince, leaping to wild conclusions,

In execution and influence on your list, this is absolutely no different to Stratagems. Some suit close combat squads, some shooty squads. Others boost specific units if you’ve got enough of them.

As for ‘oh noes formations new edition pls only way’. Shush. Get back in your box.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
It's still another layer of rules, that is unnecessarily complex in a game that on the other hand does not show relevant differences between units that infiltrate (or at least used to) and deepstrike through teleporting.

Honestly wish the complexity came from the core mechanics of the game so it doesn't require layering multiple sources of rules on top of each other to figure out what the zog a model does and allow stratagems to maybe be more interesting than just bonuses to killing output.

What a bunch of wildly exaggerated tosh.

Question 1: Are you getting stuff for free?
Answer: No.

Move on. If anything, these special detachments are what the codices should have had to actually add differentiation to many of the codex armies that people were asking for. It's also very likely you won't be using them in tournaments (i.e. TO's will state "no specialist detachments" etc.). The only risk you run is that one or two of these will have a questionable stratagem - no different from the handful of busted stratagems in a variety of codices. No one is getting 500+ points of free models from a special detachment they're actually paying CP for...a resource which has lately been limited by GW with the changes to the rules. Please stop spouting garbage.

Perhaps we should wait and see how they play out before we start to complain about them. This isn't 7th edition and they may work out better this time. I'm certainly intrigued by them.

And as a reality based antidote to OP’s frankly bizarre theory as to why we’re seeing formations again? From BBC Local News.

Fantasy miniatures maker Games Workshop expects a "healthy rise" in sales and profit for the second half of the year as it hailed the performance of key product, Warhammer.

The Nottingham-based firm said trading has continued in line with expectations in the six months to 2 December, with sales set to come in 13% higher at £124m.

The results were helped by the continued popularity of tabletop game Warhammer, which they said is in "great shape".

"We have built on the progress we made last year and the results are considerable given the backdrop of major projects," the firm said.

Shares in Games Workshop came under pressure in October when the company warned over uncertain trading.

But in June, staff were handed a £5m bonus following a year of solid sales and profits.

"Eventhough slews of formations were completely busted in the past, because this one new formation we've seen previews so far is fine, the concept is fine."

Translation:

"I play imperial guard, the army so powerful it doesn't need anything, so naturally I do not want other armies to get stronger. I enjoy my free wins."