I posted this on the thread about Be'Lakor in the tactics forum, but couldn't get anyone to notice it. There was a new digital mini-supplement that came out today with a set of rules for a new kind of detachment. Head over here to see some scans to understand what I mean. This is big. http://www.frontlinegaming.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=454

So the Codex: Inquisition was a taste of things to come. You will now be able to build your army out of the following:

Primary Detachment
Allied Detachment
Allied Formation

Now with the Allied Formation, players can include units from 3 different codex. I assume that you will also be able to have a Super-Heavy and a special fortification when those 2 new supplements come out on December 6th.

The power-level of list building just went up to 11!

This is just getting silly now.

What makes up an "Allied Formation" anyway? The rule in the link is kind of unclear, as an Allied Formation is not mentioned as a thing in the BRB.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
What makes up an "Allied Formation" anyway? The rule in the link is kind of unclear, as an Allied Formation is not mentioned as a thing in the BRB.

They are coming out with a bunch of mini-supplements, like the new Daemon Prince Be'Lakor and Codex Inquisition, which take up the slot of the "Allied Formation".

Wow. Maybe the next book will be $50 for "you can take units from any army list in your army" and a few pages of recycled fluff and pictures.

 Jrandom wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
What makes up an "Allied Formation" anyway? The rule in the link is kind of unclear, as an Allied Formation is not mentioned as a thing in the BRB.

They are coming out with a bunch of mini-supplements, like the new Daemon Prince Be'Lakor and Codex Inquisition, which take up the slot of the "Allied Formation".

I didn't think the Codex inquisition used the term "Allied Formation", its either a stand alone army, replacement HQ/Elite, or allied detachment. But I guess it makes sense that these little one-model dataslates are fit into the new assignment.

The Inquisition Codex didn't mention Allied Formations, but if they don't take up that slot, then Imperial players will be able to take units from 4 different codex.

I take this is just a compilation of ready-made detachments, with maybe a special rule or two thrown in for flavor.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Jrandom wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
What makes up an "Allied Formation" anyway? The rule in the link is kind of unclear, as an Allied Formation is not mentioned as a thing in the BRB.

They are coming out with a bunch of mini-supplements, like the new Daemon Prince Be'Lakor and Codex Inquisition, which take up the slot of the "Allied Formation".

I didn't think the Codex inquisition used the term "Allied Formation", its either a stand alone army, replacement HQ/Elite, or allied detachment. But I guess it makes sense that these little one-model dataslates are fit into the new assignment.

Formations are used in Apocalypse. GW's latest supplment has toned down Apocalypse units to be used in standard 40k games.

We at GW realize we cannot balance armies, so with 6th edition we are proud to present allied detatchments and formations. With these new rules you can take pretty much whatever the hell you feel like! Tired of your army not being all powerful and having built in weeknesses? Plug em with allies! Tired of only being able to field the best cheese from 2 different armies into one list and barely dominating your meta or local tournaments. Why not make that 3 armies of cheddar goodness!

Coming soon to 40k: D weapons!

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
I take this is just a compilation of ready-made detachments, with maybe a special rule or two thrown in for flavor.

This. It looks like these are exactly what Apoc formations are, only for regular units.

The linked description page says that it will label apocalypse only formations with "apocalypse", so confirmed for vanilla formations.

Not fussed, but I imagine the tourney players will be either frothing at the mouth or ecstatic about this

40k may not have yet jumped the shark, but the boat is picking up speed and heading straight for the launch ramp.


So I was right. Upcoming will be codex HQ, codex Fast attack, Codex Heavy support, Codex Troops, and finally codex Elites. Where they list all of the units ever made and your allowed to pick up to 3 entries from each book to field a legal army.

 Jayden63 wrote:
So I was right. Upcoming will be codex HQ, codex Fast attack, Codex Heavy support, Codex Troops, and finally codex Elites. Where they list all of the units ever made and your allowed to pick up to 3 entries from each book to field a legal army.

Of course not. That wouldn't sell enough books. Instead you'll see each army get a codex with the fluff and army-wide rules, a separate "codex" for each FOC slot with the basic units, and a bunch of single-unit supplements to add the most interesting stuff. So C:SM, C:SM(HQ), C:SM(Troops), C:Land Raider, etc. And then if you buy the $50 allies supplement you'll get rules for combining units from multiple armies into a single FOC.

 Dakkamite wrote:
The linked description page says that it will label apocalypse only formations with "apocalypse", so confirmed for vanilla formations.

Dataslate: Tau Firebase Support Cadre

Here you have an example of "normal" formation that you can add to your army.

Put Tau in yo Tau, huh?

So I could have CD flying circus, CSM FMC+Heldrake goodness and Belakor?

Naw wrote:
Put Tau in yo Tau, huh?

So I could have CD flying circus, CSM FMC+Heldrake goodness and Belakor?

I don't think Belakor is a formation - I think he is an "army list entry" so he will fill your primary detachment HQ slot probably (haven't seen the dataslate yet).

But you can take (all as battle brothers):

Primary detachment - Space Marines
Allied detachment - other chapter Space Marines
Inquisitorial detachment - just for fun
Allied Formation - for example Riptide with 6 Broadsides

Or

Tau + Enclaves + one more Riptide and 6 Broadsides => How many Riptides and Broadsides exactly?

Wouldn't that be fun?

But we can all take Riptides now, next up Wraithknights .


Well I say all, we bugs still can't take anything. We best get some good stuff in the New Year

 Orock wrote:
We at GW realize we cannot balance armies, so with 6th edition we are proud to present allied detatchments and formations. With these new rules you can take pretty much whatever the hell you feel like! Tired of your army not being all powerful and having built in weeknesses? Plug em with allies! Tired of only being able to field the best cheese from 2 different armies into one list and barely dominating your meta or local tournaments. Why not make that 3 armies of cheddar goodness!

Coming soon to 40k: D weapons!

Unless you play Tyranids. Then you can go feth yourself.

Eldercaveman wrote:
But we can all take Riptides now, next up Wraithknights .


Well I say all, we bugs still can't take anything. We best get some good stuff in the New Year

Actually Formations don't seem to limited by the chart, so Nids can now ally Tau Formations in.

 Makutsu wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
But we can all take Riptides now, next up Wraithknights .


Well I say all, we bugs still can't take anything. We best get some good stuff in the New Year

Actually Formations don't seem to limited by the chart, so Nids can now ally Tau Formations in.

It does say in the allied Formations rule that the level of alliance rules from the rule book still apply.

 Makutsu wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
But we can all take Riptides now, next up Wraithknights .


Well I say all, we bugs still can't take anything. We best get some good stuff in the New Year

Actually Formations don't seem to limited by the chart, so Nids can now ally Tau Formations in.

Yes they are - "Howewer, the Levels of Alliance rules from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook do apply to them and units chosen from different codex that are in the same army" - second leaked page from the link in the first post

 Boogie wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
But we can all take Riptides now, next up Wraithknights .


Well I say all, we bugs still can't take anything. We best get some good stuff in the New Year

Actually Formations don't seem to limited by the chart, so Nids can now ally Tau Formations in.

Yes they are - "Howewer, the Levels of Alliance rules from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook do apply to them and units chosen from different codex that are in the same army" - second leaked page from the link in the first post

The wording is also in the Be'Lakor rules from yesterday.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
But we can all take Riptides now, next up Wraithknights .


Well I say all, we bugs still can't take anything. We best get some good stuff in the New Year

Actually Formations don't seem to limited by the chart, so Nids can now ally Tau Formations in.

It does say in the allied Formations rule that the level of alliance rules from the rule book still apply.

Ah, i stand corrected... got really happy there...

So as of December 2nd, is the only thing that will fit in the allied formation slot just the Tau (1 Riptide and 6 Broadsides)?

 Jrandom wrote:
So as of December 2nd, is the only thing that will fit in the allied formation slot just the Tau (1 Riptide and 6 Broadsides)?

Yes, but I imagine Wraithknights and centurions will do by Christmas as well.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
We at GW realize we cannot balance armies, so with 6th edition we are proud to present allied detatchments and formations. With these new rules you can take pretty much whatever the hell you feel like! Tired of your army not being all powerful and having built in weeknesses? Plug em with allies! Tired of only being able to field the best cheese from 2 different armies into one list and barely dominating your meta or local tournaments. Why not make that 3 armies of cheddar goodness!

Coming soon to 40k: D weapons!

Unless you play Tyranids. Then you can go feth yourself.

Is that a Slaanesh option?

What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

What printed book is those two pages copied from? I want to know where this Formations info is coming from?

I like the narrative idea of some allied ability, but feel they could have incorporated them in each Codex by saying things like:

'May take one troop and HQ from Codex: X to add to army'.

Having less ability to mingle would have been good too.

SYKOJAK wrote:
What printed book is those two pages copied from? I want to know where this Formations info is coming from?

Its the digital only stuff right now.

GW is doing the advent calendar where they are releasing a dataslate every day of December until the 25th.

So its entirely to make armies like this now:
Primary Eldar
2 Farseers,
10 jetlocks
2 units of 3 jetbikes
Allied DE
Baron
Warriors in Venom with night shields and grisly trophies
Allied formation Inquisitor
Coteaz
3 Plasma Cannon Servitors in Chimera
Allied Tau Formation
1 Riptide w/ ewo, Ion
6 Missile Broadsides with 2 missile drones target lock each.
ADL

total 1849

 Ravenous D wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
What printed book is those two pages copied from? I want to know where this Formations info is coming from?

Its the digital only stuff right now.

GW is doing the advent calendar where they are releasing a dataslate every day of December until the 25th.

So its entirely to make armies like this now:
Primary Eldar
2 Farseers,
10 jetlocks
2 units of 3 jetbikes
Allied DE
Baron
Warriors in Venom with night shields and grisly trophies
Allied formation Inquisitor
Coteaz
3 Plasma Cannon Servitors in Chimera
Allied Tau Formation
1 Riptide w/ ewo, Ion
6 Missile Broadsides with 2 missile drones target lock each.
ADL

total 1849

The customization is exciting but damn is that getting ridiculously complex to learn and keep track of all of the rules for everything.

Ohh quite nice. Imperial Fists with a Basilisk Allied Formation. An excuse for Legion Basilisks in normal 40K. At least I thought 3 Basilisks were an formation right?

SYKOJAK wrote:
What printed book is those two pages copied from? I want to know where this Formations info is coming from?

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/book/belakor-dark-master-digital/id768333757?mt=11

I downloaded the demo to iBooks on my iPad and then took pics.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Ohh quite nice. Imperial Fists with a Basilisk Allied Formation. An excuse for Legion Basilisks in normal 40K. At least I thought 3 Basilisks were an formation right?

There's a difference between Apoc formations and the new 40k Formation Detachments found in the digital dataslates. So far the only formation that has been provided is the Tau one that came out today.

 Unholyllama wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Ohh quite nice. Imperial Fists with a Basilisk Allied Formation. An excuse for Legion Basilisks in normal 40K. At least I thought 3 Basilisks were an formation right?

There's a difference between Apoc formations and the new 40k Formation Detachments found in the digital dataslates. So far the only formation that has been provided is the Tau one that came out today.

Well they do are usable in 40K Apocalypse as I read.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Ohh quite nice. Imperial Fists with a Basilisk Allied Formation. An excuse for Legion Basilisks in normal 40K. At least I thought 3 Basilisks were an formation right?

There's a difference between Apoc formations and the new 40k Formation Detachments found in the digital dataslates. So far the only formation that has been provided is the Tau one that came out today.

Well they do are usable in 40K Apocalypse as I read.

You are able to use them in Apoc; however, if the rule state they are an Apocalypse Formation only, it can only be used in Apoc. So Thursday when the Storm Wing formation comes out, there may be new formation rules for both apoc as well as plain 40k.

OP thanks for pointing it out. Interesting addition. I do like the Appoc formations...so this actually seems like an interesting addition.

Honestly any TO is probably best served with having a heavily house ruled event. Once you get through the rule ambiguities, poor balance of the book missions, and just general craziness. Any ideas of running a tournament with entirely from the BRB rules is probably dead.

I am curious to see what these formations will be like.

I am thinking I am beginning to like WH40K more and more. With the addition of formations, the game is becoming more realistic, (militarily-wise).

Most modern militaries are organized into platoon/company/battalion sized units. Not the ad-hoc skirmish formations that we have been seeing in WH40K over the last 2 and a half decades.

Now I am not saying that small unit actions (Fire team/KILLteam/Squad leveL,) don't have their place. They do. But I prefer the sliding of the scale more towards the Epic side, than the Kill team side of sence of scale.

 Ravenous D wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
What printed book is those two pages copied from? I want to know where this Formations info is coming from?

Its the digital only stuff right now.

GW is doing the advent calendar where they are releasing a dataslate every day of December until the 25th.

So its entirely to make armies like this now:
Primary Eldar
2 Farseers,
10 jetlocks
2 units of 3 jetbikes
Allied DE
Baron
Warriors in Venom with night shields and grisly trophies
Allied formation Inquisitor
Coteaz
3 Plasma Cannon Servitors in Chimera
Allied Tau Formation
1 Riptide w/ ewo, Ion
6 Missile Broadsides with 2 missile drones target lock each.
ADL

total 1849

Everything here is correct except for the "Allied formation Inquisitor"....Codex: Inquisition is not an Allied Formation, so for non-Imperial armies, they can be an allied detachment, but not a formation. Imperial armies can take them as an Inquisition detachment though (which essentially replaces an HQ and whatever else you take from the primary detachment, if I understand it correctly).

So if you are playing an Imperial army, you could do something like that, taking units from 4 different codices, which is kind of asking for trouble.

So wait... for the Tau formation, you don't have to have your primary detachment BE Tau? O.o

Noctem wrote:
So wait... for the Tau formation, you don't have to have your primary detachment BE Tau? O.o

Correct

 Jrandom wrote:

Noctem wrote:
So wait... for the Tau formation, you don't have to have your primary detachment BE Tau? O.o

Correct

Hit's head on desk repeatedly... What the bloody hell happened to my game?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
What printed book is those two pages copied from? I want to know where this Formations info is coming from?

Its the digital only stuff right now.

GW is doing the advent calendar where they are releasing a dataslate every day of December until the 25th.

So its entirely to make armies like this now:
Primary Eldar
2 Farseers,
10 jetlocks
2 units of 3 jetbikes
Allied DE
Baron
Warriors in Venom with night shields and grisly trophies
Allied formation Inquisitor
Coteaz
3 Plasma Cannon Servitors in Chimera
Allied Tau Formation
1 Riptide w/ ewo, Ion
6 Missile Broadsides with 2 missile drones target lock each.
ADL

total 1849

Everything here is correct except for the "Allied formation Inquisitor"....Codex: Inquisition is not an Allied Formation, so for non-Imperial armies, they can be an allied detachment, but not a formation. Imperial armies can take them as an Inquisition detachment though (which essentially replaces an HQ and whatever else you take from the primary detachment, if I understand it correctly).

So if you are playing an Imperial army, you could do something like that, taking units from 4 different codices, which is kind of asking for trouble.

Incorrect, other then orks, chaos, daemons, crons and nids you can take an inquisitorial detachment.

SYKOJAK wrote:
I am thinking I am beginning to like WH40K more and more. With the addition of formations, the game is becoming more realistic, (militarily-wise).

Most modern militaries are organized into platoon/company/battalion sized units. Not the ad-hoc skirmish formations that we have been seeing in WH40K over the last 2 and a half decades.

Now I am not saying that small unit actions (Fire team/KILLteam/Squad leveL,) don't have their place. They do. But I prefer the sliding of the scale more towards the Epic side, than the Kill team side of sence of scale.

GW shareholders love you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flying Toaster wrote:

 Jrandom wrote:

Noctem wrote:
So wait... for the Tau formation, you don't have to have your primary detachment BE Tau? O.o

Correct

Hit's head on desk repeatedly... What the bloody hell happened to my game?

Oh that's easy. Answer below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy04c-6DEgE

I actually like this change, Formations was the coolest part of Apocalypse for me.

But the way they are doing it however...

I have the Be'lakor datasheet for WH40K, and can confirm he is just a replacement HQ choice in either C:CSM or C:CD. Not an allied formation. He's nice, but one hell of a points sink. Outside of tournaments, I'm going to be using him because it would be just fun. IN tournaments, I can see him making Chaos Daemons scarier. "Oh yeah, that unit of 20 Bloodletters are invisible, and your ATSKNF Marines now have Terrorize cast on them. Oh, and all those Fear rolls are at -1 Ld. Your riptide just got puppetted to shoot your hammerhead. All in one turn. And if you actually fail any Morale rolls, I can cast even more next turn (+d3 Warp Charges). This is awesome."

Response: "Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!"

Hee hee.

h yeah, that unit of 20 Bloodletters are invisible, and your ATSKNF Marines now have Terrorize cast on them. Oh, and all those Fear rolls are at -1 Ld. Your riptide just got puppetted to shoot your hammerhead. All in one turn. And if you actually fail any Morale rolls, I can cast even more next turn (+d3 Warp Charges). This is awesome."

So he's getting four warpcharges in one turn then despite being Psyker 3?

So he's getting four warpcharges in one turn then despite being Psyker 3?

My bad! Forgot one is 2 Warp Charges. Will have to wait till turn two to do that.

 chaosvoices wrote:
I have the Be'lakor datasheet for WH40K, and can confirm he is just a replacement HQ choice in either C:CSM or C:CD. Not an allied formation. He's nice, but one hell of a points sink. Outside of tournaments, I'm going to be using him because it would be just fun. IN tournaments, I can see him making Chaos Daemons scarier. "Oh yeah, that unit of 20 Bloodletters are invisible, and your ATSKNF Marines now have Terrorize cast on them. Oh, and all those Fear rolls are at -1 Ld. Your riptide just got puppetted to shoot your hammerhead. All in one turn. And if you actually fail any Morale rolls, I can cast even more next turn (+d3 Warp Charges). This is awesome."

Response: "Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!"

Hee hee.

He's not a points sink, he's good value for points considering a similarly equipped DP costs the same. Also, you can only cast Invis and something else, because it's warp charge 2.

Hmm, the only thing that could be comparable is how many attacks a BM DP is getting vs him, since he's only getting base attacks.

So he'll be more utility then RAMCHARGEEXPLODE

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Hmm, the only thing that could be comparable is how many attacks a BM DP is getting vs him, since he's only getting base attacks.

So he'll be more utility then RAMCHARGEEXPLODE

True he doesn't have a DW, but don't discount the Fleshbane/Armourbane, with Master-Crafted thrown in. T8 WraithKnight? Wound on 2+ without needing Smash. I think that's cool.

Edit: Nevermind, the BM has Fleshbane too, so he would still get lots of attacks at 2+ wounding. Maybe you're more correct and he is support.

 chaosvoices wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Hmm, the only thing that could be comparable is how many attacks a BM DP is getting vs him, since he's only getting base attacks.

So he'll be more utility then RAMCHARGEEXPLODE

True he doesn't have a DW, but don't discount the Fleshbane/Armourbane, with Master-Crafted thrown in. T8 WraithKnight? Wound on 2+ without needing Smash. I think that's cool.

Black Mace is also fleshbane. However Be'lakor is much better than a BM Prince. DPs are about utility, not "ramchargeexplode" They're scalpels not sledgehammers. 300 points of Force Multiplication, not 300 pts of beatstick.

Faenyln is spot on about limited Allies. I'm grumpy enough to wish away allies altogether, but I think books specifically noting a few acceptable allies with strict limitations, as well as fluffy stories to compliment the allegiance and limitations would have been far better.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I actually like this change, Formations was the coolest part of Apocalypse for me.

But the way they are doing it however...

This. Formations have the potential to add all sorts of interestingness to the game. But GW seem to be taking it down the road of 'Just put whatever minis you have on the table' and away from distinct armies, which is a huge mistake IMO.

Exalt for Insaniak. I too, feel that we're moving a bit towards a more abstract setting, like MtG, and it seems like a poor choice.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

I am done with GW for tournaments. Used to be you could take just your primary army, have some fun, and if you were a decent player at least place. Now they have opened up the floodgates of cheese, where only the beardiest lists will prevail. Its honestly sickening.

This formations in 40k stuff is setting a terrible precedent.

How do the Tyranid players feel about this?

They can't take allies or formations (well, they will prolly come out with a Tyranid specific formation before Xmas).

I couldn't care less. I don't play the game because it's balanced and I already got pooped on with allies from the BRB. It's just one more reason not to start another army (because it's lead to another 5 armies).

 Orock wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

I am done with GW for tournaments. Used to be you could take just your primary army, have some fun, and if you were a decent player at least place. Now they have opened up the floodgates of cheese, where only the beardiest lists will prevail. Its honestly sickening.

What game have you played for the past ten years? There's always been cheese lists, all the way back from 2nd edition up.

@ZebioLizard2
+1 to that statement, I have a very distinct memory of my first swooping hawk exarch purchase back in 3ed. I show up at a tournament, he eats 3 armies in a row, and I am never allowed to play him again. 1 Model eating an entire army was super "fair"... Or 4ed grav tanks... 5ed GK... actually 6ed has been at least more spread out in their power builds due to the inclusions of allies, etc.

@Thread
I will be curious about these Allied Formations. The first one published is interesting but 1 riptide and 6 broadsides is very static, doesn't actually win you games (aka not scoring), and a huge investment in points (~800 pts). If they are all that many points they will not be as popular as might be thought. I would really love a deathwing allied formation...it could be vaguely possible to actually see deathwing at tournaments!

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

Remember, it seems that allied formations aren't scoring even though they might be Battle Brothers or Allies in Convenience.

So no datasheet out today?

 Jrandom wrote:
So no datasheet out today?

Let them wake up! It's only 7.25 here, check back a bit after 9.

Just a fantasy formation for skellies today.

 Peregrine wrote:
Wow. Maybe the next book will be $50 for "you can take units from any army list in your army" and a few pages of recycled fluff and pictures.

So we're going back to the Rogue Trader way of doing things? Sign me up!

@Thread - Those of you that are already getting poopie pants of the possible cheese to come.

Exhibit A: Tau/Farsight - cheese cropped up from allies mechanics and the new supplement additions.
Exhibit B: Tau/Eldar - cheese cropped up from the use of allies mechanics
Exhibit C: Pure Chaos Daemons - 100% internal cheese without the needed assistance of the added cheese many are crying out.

A 2++ rerollable invuln on something that can cross the board in 1 turn and maw anything in combat in probably the epitome of cheese in this game ATM. Fear of beardiness from these datasheets is laughable when the ultimate beardiness is already in the game.

Just need a formation that gives condemnor ammo to sternguard. Then it will balance out some stuff.

 Goat wrote:
when the ultimate beardiness is already in the game.

Famous last words, but I guess we will see.

Does anyone have a link to that imperial fists dataslate? I can't find it anywhere.

 Eldar Vampire Hunter wrote:
Does anyone have a link to that imperial fists dataslate? I can't find it anywhere.

What Imperial Fists dataslate? They only have a Codex Supplement out right now.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

that still wont fix daemons screamerstar, as a matter of fact your just giving them the tournament. Might as well ban deathstars too.

Renegade_commander wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

that still wont fix daemons screamerstar, as a matter of fact your just giving them the tournament. Might as well ban deathstars too.

Ban all the things!

Renegade_commander wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

that still wont fix daemons screamerstar, as a matter of fact your just giving them the tournament. Might as well ban deathstars too.

Pretty much, you're just making it easier on Tau Riptide lists, Eldar Wavespam, and Screamerstar. They don't need no allies, fortifications, and super heavies to conquer the game itself.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Renegade_commander wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

that still wont fix daemons screamerstar, as a matter of fact your just giving them the tournament. Might as well ban deathstars too.

Ban all the things!

And then ban banning!

The fear mongering abound about ban lists seems a bit much. I would tend to think that ya, if it just became a subjective "whatever units the TO doesn't like" style thing I would be against it, however it's very easy to just say "no formations. no super heavies" ect. Very simple, it's not subjective or prejudicial; it's a simple broad brush that can work. Yes 5th ed still had codex creep and some armies were better than others but it certainly didn’t look as stupid as 6th ed games.

I helped skimask mohawk with a tournament in the summer, it was really simple, 1 army (codex), no allies, no fortifications, no random objectives. My guess was people who took issue with that probably didn't attend. It was a good tournament with minimal stupid gak on the table. We also made sure to have terrain heavy tables with a lot of los blockers. That helped balance things out.

I remember reading comments on bols when the tournament scene was still trying to get its head around 6th ed early on, fortifications were being debated because they would alter how tournaments have historically worked (TO's and other event staff setup boards, not attendees) and in the comment section one of the comments was along the lines of "If I can't bring my fortress of redemption, it's not a real 40k tournament". I remember reading that comment and feeling almost sick to my stomach, I thought to myself "now they've done it, now the entitled little brats have won". I mean, heaven forbid someone not allow you to field your GI Joe mega fortress in every game, what an injustice, I mean we all remember those bring your own terrain and set it up however you want tournaments from 5th...

It's like the FW thing, people get very entitled with their little soldiers and it's understandable to some extent when you consider the investment in money and hopefully time painting. I'm sure it must be annoying if you can't find any opponents who are ok with fighting forge world but I've seen the very false attitude that entitlement breeds first hand, it's the dude who can't possibly comprehend that just having a game is an elective process, anyone can choose to play or not play you for really any reason (personality, hygiene, rules knowledge), so stating that something is "40k approved" is great and all but if people take issue, that fact probably won't magically force them to play you.

The biggest fallacy I keep seeing is "40k is already broken so you're not allowed to take issue with things that break it further" that's just horsepoop in my opinion. That's like saying "we already knew the ship was sinking from that pinhole leak so you can't be uspet with an additional hull breach the size of an elephant". It's like the attitude of "well life isn't fair" being used as a justification to throw away any attempt at achieving more equality. I have no illusions, basic 40k without any expansions or stuff like allies or fortifications will still have plenty of balance issues but at least the race to the bottom is contained somewhat. Plenty of people are fielding things that they would rather not have to in order to compete and that's the race to the bottom right there.

The game is too many things to too many people right now and it needs proper compartmentalization in the rules.

Renegade_commander wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

that still wont fix daemons screamerstar, as a matter of fact your just giving them the tournament. Might as well ban deathstars too.

And Im working on the restricted and banned list.

Example:
-0-2 heralds of one type,
-Grimoire not able to effect the unit the model is in
-Fate weaver needing to be on the table to get the reroll.

0-1 farseers and 0-5 warlocks can have jetbikes
0 -4 wave serpents

0-2 riptides (including Ovesa)

etc etc.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Renegade_commander wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is this game going to look like by January? This seems crazy even for them.

I was just beginning to write up the rules pack for my tournament next year, but I think I will wait out December first just to see what we are left with.

I already sent out the message that formations and super heavies are banned from my events. Ive already been thinking about banning allies for the better part of the year because of the janky BS they create. Tournaments are going to be under lots of pressure to add ban lists otherwise its going to be utterly stupid.

that still wont fix daemons screamerstar, as a matter of fact your just giving them the tournament. Might as well ban deathstars too.

And Im working on the restricted and banned list.

Example:
-0-2 heralds of one type,
-Grimoire not able to effect the unit the model is in
-Fate weaver needing to be on the table to get the reroll.

0-1 farseers and 0-5 warlocks can have jetbikes
0 -4 wave serpents

0-2 riptides (including Ovesa)

etc etc.

Ah, why didn't you just state It was a Comp tournament.

Also 0-2 heralds for Nurgle, Slaanesh, and Khorne is very, very cruel.

Yeah, that sounds either like comp or someone rewriting the FOC for every book in terms of what they can take.

And even if you do that all you get is new broken things because that's what some players will always do.

Just set a date cutoff for tournies.
Nothing over two months out for example.

SSettle down. Things are fine.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:


And Im working on the restricted and banned list.

Example:
-0-2 heralds of one type,
-Grimoire not able to effect the unit the model is in
-Fate weaver needing to be on the table to get the reroll.

0-1 farseers and 0-5 warlocks can have jetbikes
0 -4 wave serpents

0-2 riptides (including Ovesa)

etc etc.

Ah, why didn't you just state It was a Comp tournament.

Also 0-2 heralds for Nurgle, Slaanesh, and Khorne is very, very cruel.

Its in the early stages, its crazy that GW is forcing the tournament scene to ETC style in order to make it playable. Because otherwise 40k normally is going to like the 3rd panel:

So what has come out since Dec. 2nd? All Hobbit stuff?

I can't seem to find the formation rules clearly saying if a formation is limited to 1 of the same type or not. For example could someone take two stormwings or two firebase support formations in one list (under 2000pts and if not does double foc allow it at 2000pts?)

 Thokt wrote:
Exalt for Insaniak. I too, feel that we're moving a bit towards a more abstract setting, like MtG, and it seems like a poor choice.

I couldn't quite put the words to it, but this sums up what I think is happening perfectly.

For a game whose only real advantage *is* the setting, watering it down seems like a fething awful idea

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Exalt for Insaniak. I too, feel that we're moving a bit towards a more abstract setting, like MtG, and it seems like a poor choice.

I couldn't quite put the words to it, but this sums up what I think is happening perfectly.

For a game whose only real advantage *is* the setting, watering it down seems like a fething awful idea

Except the setting already had alliances of all kinds. I mean Grey Knights trilogy has a Justicar who teams up with Orks and an Eldar (well...there is more to the latter but I won't spoil it) while imprisoned on a Khorne world and being forced to fight like a gladiator in an arena.

We have Ork Merchs all over the place, Inquisitors who range from the very puritan to the extremely radical and more. If you can think of it the setting can probably support it (and more).

The "setting" isn't being watered down, they're just changing the ways we can express that setting on the table and trying to give us more narrative tools to work with. Just like anything 40k: ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)




If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)

Spoiler:

If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

I was saying if you don't like something don't use it and let your opponent know that you're looking for a game "without allies" or whatever instead. Sure it takes two to tango, but it also takes two to communicate and if you aren't trying to communicate what you really want then you're already starting off on a bad footing in a game that requires both players to communicate what they want before hand.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)

Spoiler:

If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

I was saying if you don't like something don't use it and let your opponent know that you're looking for a game "without allies" or whatever instead. Sure it takes two to tango, but it also takes two to communicate and if you aren't trying to communicate what you really want then you're already starting off on a bad footing in a game that requires both players to communicate what they want before hand.

It doesn't work like that. Defaults and expectations matter. And GW sets those defaults and expecations. If the expectation is fluff has no significant bearing on the game anymore, our gaming experience goes from living in a world where things are generally how we like, to living in a world where things are generally not and we have to make special arrangements with people to do something different to what most people consider normal.

That matters. And consequently, many of us find it a less appealing world to live in and begin to question why we'd stay.

Of course the defaults and expectations set by GW matter. Silly to ignore that they have a massive influence on how most people play. And that of course affects others.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)

Spoiler:

If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

I was saying if you don't like something don't use it and let your opponent know that you're looking for a game "without allies" or whatever instead. Sure it takes two to tango, but it also takes two to communicate and if you aren't trying to communicate what you really want then you're already starting off on a bad footing in a game that requires both players to communicate what they want before hand.

I already have to do that too often. See me, I like the 5th ed approach, I could say "hey. do you wanna try planetstrike?" as opposed to hay, do you mind if we dont play with this, and that, and that, and that, and that, oh and that too.

It's like ordering a burger at mcdonalds, I have to tell them all the stuff not to put on the burger more often than what to add to it. I would prefer if 40k worked like subway, here's 40k (bread) pretty basic, then here are all the expansions (toppings).

Right now, anyone with any honest apprehension is being labelled a "whiner" even if their issue is more logistical than balance related. Even the guys who take issue with formations, super heavies and forgeworld and all the new supplements who feel overloaded are treated like they have some malevolent waac agenda to ruin other players enjoyment of the game.

Any issues with the direction the game is going = whiner
Being mature enough to know what kind of game you enjoy and turning down a pickup game because it's not really your ting = childish

That pretty much sums up what I've seen so far.

knas ser wrote:
It doesn't work like that. Defaults and expectations matter. And GW sets those defaults and expecations.

They only matter if you like to make assumptions and have some kind of weird reason you refuse to give your opponent the respect of communicating what you actually want.

GW doesn't set expectations, players do. And they do horrible things with it.

knas ser wrote:
If the expectation is fluff has no significant bearing on the game anymore, our gaming experience goes from living in a world where things are generally how we like, to living in a world where things are generally not and we have to make special arrangements with people to do something different to what most people consider normal.

40k is a massive setting that can manage just about anything you can think of. The claims that they're "watering it down" are patently ridiculious and require people to be intentionally ignorant of how big the setting is.

As for "special arrangements" how is that different from arranging a game in advance anyways? "Hey Steve, you want a game next week?" "As long as we're not running allies, sure." DONE. You're making a bigger drama out of this than actually exists. Even pick up games can be arranged really easily. Everything in these rumors has a FOC slot so if you don't play with the formations it just changes their list a little (same points totals, different FOC organization) and drops some special rules. It's not as serious as you're making it.

Seriously, 6th edition tossed out what people claimed was "normal" in 5th with all it's rules and the fact that page 108 mentions other options for legal army lists than just the codex. The community just needs to get over itself and get that the game hasn't been what they knew in 5th for over a year now. This is just sprinkles on a cake that has already had it's icing added. It's not a dramatic shift from 6th, but it is from this idea of "normal" that needs to go crawl off in a ditch and die already because it's holding the game back.

That matters. And consequently, many of us find it a less appealing world to live in and begin to question why we'd stay.

Of course the defaults and expectations set by GW matter. Silly to ignore that they have a massive influence on how most people play. And that of course affects others.

Where I think a lot of the different opinions come from is the idea that creativity either does or does not always equal fun.

I can give anyone a blank piece of paper and a box of 108 crayons and tell them to draw what ever they like. Some will create something akin to a Rembrandt. Others will color the whole thing green with a brown box in the middle.

I will argue that both are equally creative. However only one will be interesting to look at for longer than ten seconds.

Not everything created by pure creativity is good. There are thousands of aspiring novelists who have put pen to paper. And their works will never be seen by more than a handful of people. Some due to poor luck, some due to saturation of genera, most because the work is really not that interesting in the first place.

When we examine any creative endeavor, we all come in with preconceived expectations. If someone says they have sculpted a dog and it looks like a duck, you could argue that they didn't do a good job. If someone designs a bookshelf that doesn't have anyplace to put books, it probably fails. When you look at a 40K army, one would probably expect it to fit somehow into the established background of the game. However If you put together your 40K army and the team up goes against the vast majority of the fluff, there are those who will say its crap. Yes you might find some obscure previous published team up. But maybe that was just a bad book and when looked at the entirety of the work, it was a bad idea then too.

Its all about opinions. You have yours, I have mine, they have theirs. And I can't personally find fault with anyone for not wanting to spend two hours across a table with something that they personally feel is breaking the spirit of the game.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Its all about opinions. You have yours, I have mine, they have theirs. And I can't personally find fault with anyone for not wanting to spend two hours across a table with something that they personally feel is breaking the spirit of the game.

I agree with you completely actually. The thing is that the concept that you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent about the kind of game you want is absurd. You can avoid playing things you don't want to play just by asking or just not playing that person. It's not a difficult thing to do, and we should be doing it already as it'd solve a lot of "problems" we hear reported already (competitive players complaining about casual players and vice versa for instance). The idea that someone "shouldn't have to" talk to their opponent in a game that requires you to talk to your opponent to play it (unless you want to make it longer by passing notes I guess) is silly. Just talk to your fellow players and the problems of playing things you don't want to disappear very close to completely.

Of course I do understand if people want to instead complain about it on the internet instead of talking to their fellow players and generally trying to be a good sport who engages with the other people they play with because that takes effort. And if the internet has taught me anything, things that takes effort are apparently not worth it and should be ignored in favor of the easy solution: crying on the internet about how everything is ruined forever. Again. This week.