Tomorrow you wake up, 8th Edition comes out, and formations in 40K have been removed from the game. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Does it completely change your army or the way you play the game? Formations are a relatively new addition to 40K, but I'm curious to see whether people view them as simply a short-term quirk of GW rules writing or something to be retained as a vital part of the 40K game experience going forward.

I don't think that'll change much. The underlying problems with 40k are still there. It's just that now you have less ways to spam the best units. If not for GSF people would do Gravbiker spam, for example.

Though, it would reduce the number of GHCs people can bring. So maybe it's a good thing?

Depends, will Unbound remain an option? Will these weird FoCs still be there?

I'll only be happy when we return to the old method of 1 HQ 2 Troops.

 the_Armyman wrote:
Tomorrow you wake up, 8th Edition comes out, and formations in 40K have been removed from the game. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Does it completely change your army or the way you play the game? Formations are a relatively new addition to 40K, but I'm curious to see whether people view them as simply a short-term quirk of GW rules writing or something to be retained as a vital part of the 40K game experience going forward.

It would be a beautiful, wonderful thing.

Free special rules, abilities, units, models, wargear, weapons, etc for no points costs is basically just condoned cheating, there's zero basis for formations (as GW have fielded them) having any place in any sort of even remotely balanced game.

They're munchkin mechanics to move web bundles and the like for GW sales targets, nothing more, something that everyone would have laughed at and instantly dismissed had someone other than GW talked about them just a couple years ago.


That said, they're not the only problem with 40k, but they're one of the biggest. The sooner they're gone, the better off the game as a whole will be.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Depends, will Unbound remain an option? Will these weird FoCs still be there?

I'll only be happy when we return to the old method of 1 HQ 2 Troops.

I remember the good old days of not more than 25% HQ, no more that 25% elite, no more than 50% FA, no more than 50% HS, and a minimum of 25% troops. Played a 2000 point game? Better bring at least 500 points in troops!

*8h Edition reset button in conjunction with all new 8th Edition codexs(at the same time) would be great if done correctly from a rule writing exercise and not steal from my wallet exercise.

as long as I could go back to taking raven wing and death wing the old fashion way I could get by with my DA.

My admech army would suffer a little more. If they made them one book it would probably solve that problem.

Other formation books would also suffer without some major FAQ

Formations do not need to die, however, formation bonuses do.

Formations should be a way to break the FOC shackles and that is it. That alone should have some value. No need to stack 3-4 special abilities on top of it. You just need to tone down the mandatory unit selection and open up the available slots.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Formations do not need to die, however, formation bonuses do.

Formations should be a way to break the FOC shackles and that is it. That alone should have some value. No need to stack 3-4 special abilities on top of it. You just need to tone down the mandatory unit selection and open up the available slots.

The problem isn't even that formations give bonuses. It's that not all books have formations and not all formations are created equal. Some are nice fluffy ways of building your army with a special rule or two to make the units you take not suck. Some are ways of spamming your already overpowered units and giving them special rules to crank them up to 11.

There are still plenty of armies that can do ridiculous things without formations. Take away formations, and all it would result is a meta shift, but no real power change.

I still think bonuses are a problem. Where in one army you can have a unit of assault marines (for example) with special formation rules X and Y. However you can have another unit of assault marines with different formation rules J and Q. Both in the same army.

Its just too much, at some point an assault marine should just be a damn assault marine.

I really like formations, and they seem like a good way to differentiate how different armies organize themselves as well as representing different strategies that they employ. However, they need to be better balanced and everyone needs to be able to take them. Otherwise it just increases the power gap between the haves and have nots.

 Jayden63 wrote:
I still think bonuses are a problem. Where in one army you can have a unit of assault marines (for example) with special formation rules X and Y. However you can have another unit of assault marines with different formation rules J and Q. Both in the same army.

Its just too much, at some point an assault marine should just be a damn assault marine.

which would be fine all things created equal. But assault marines are sub par. If I want to run some assault marines but still be competitive, I need some kind of buff. On the other hand, buffing them to the point of the skyhammer is really too much.

If they did something crazy like bring all the codex in line and internally balance the units, then we wouldn't need formation bonuses. Barring that, out right removing formations and/or their bonuses would only nerf some armies while doing next to nothing to others.

They wouldn't. GW has decided they are what makes money. If anything we would wake up and CAD would be gone. Our armies would be made of formations, and if the psychos at GW had anything to say about it points would be out. Go ahead and play your friends grot army with your fluffy all wraith army!

I would hate if Formations just left the game. Unbound on the other hand....

I think formations should change how the army is played. Change the FoC for that army, put One additional Restriction, give 1 Special Rule. Except for Combined Arms: That would get two special rules with no restriction since it is the Default.

So if you used The.... Tau Suit Spam Formation, you're FoC would be 2HQ, 6 Elites, 4Troops, 2 Fast attack, 2 Heavy Supports. Only usable units are: Crisis Suits, Riptides, Stealth Suits, Hazard Suits, Ghostknells, and Stormsurges. You can take a Crisis/Stealth/Hazard suit commander and if you do, that type of squad becomes a Troop Choice and can take HW markerlights for 10 points per model.

Well, the rumor is different. GW will put more emphasize on formations in the future.

But you're right. With all the formations out there (and the scattering of the rule set over WD, campaign books and whatnot), one looses the overview about the game.

I haven't played with Formations, because so much else that I didn't like was crammed into the game in 6th edition that I gave up. (Price was a factor too.) Nonetheless I think Formations as a concept has merit. The problem with them is that GW, like they always do, have fethed up the idea by making the bonuses overpowered in some cases (from what I read, anyway.)

But if done right I think Formations could replace codexes and the FOC as the basis of organising and balancing armies. However I have no faith in GW's ability or desire to do it right.

Well, formations are a vital part of the games in our gaming group. Recently, one guy played an Ork formation consisting of one unit of 100 or more Orks (from a supplement book). That's rather crazy.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Depends, will Unbound remain an option? Will these weird FoCs still be there?

I'll only be happy when we return to the old method of 1 HQ 2 Troops.

Ugh, that hit me right in the Harlequins.

Thing is, I really like formations, a lot of the time they are fluffy and break up the monotony of the CAD. I currently am playing in a club that doesn't allow any formations and not being able to play against decurions, green tides, gladius strike forces... thats great for some but I loved the challenge and fluff element. Now it's just the same spamming and abusing the CAD.

The bonuses really need to be toned down, I can't agree more but getting rid of these unique force compositions is just a waste IMHO

Do people really only have 1 list they play? I don't think I've played 2 games with exactly the same list (outside of a tournament) since the beginning of the 6th. Whether it be through formations, variant FOC or just the massive variety of options available, I tend to change my list every single game to try something new. Obviously some things stick around as staples and others are quickly rotated out as duds.

If formations vanished, I'd still endeavour to change my list up as much as possible. I've often found formations come across pretty overpowered anyway. I honestly think the game would be better if formations still existed, but simply offered no, or at least extremely mild, rules benefits. Alternatively, formations could offer an additional drawback alongside the structured picks.

The old FOC allowed a significant amount of variation of lists if you had a decent codex. It just didn't give players an off the peg setup with free bonuses like formations do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The old FOC allowed a significant amount of variation of lists if you had a decent codex. It just didn't give players an off the peg setup with free bonuses like formations do.

Detachments and formations weren't all that bad even until the Necron book came out. That is the root of most evil when it comes to formations getting out of hand.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It would be a beautiful, wonderful thing.

Free special rules, abilities, units, models, wargear, weapons, etc for no points costs is basically just condoned cheating, there's zero basis for formations (as GW have fielded them) having any place in any sort of even remotely balanced game.

They're munchkin mechanics to move web bundles and the like for GW sales targets, nothing more, something that everyone would have laughed at and instantly dismissed had someone other than GW talked about them just a couple years ago.


That said, they're not the only problem with 40k, but they're one of the biggest. The sooner they're gone, the better off the game as a whole will be.

Pretty much this.

As a temporary fix, I'd at least assign point values to the formations, like the old Apoc formations.

I can only imagine someone in 5th proposing that his marine army gets all free transports if he takes a certain combo of units. They'd be laughed out of the forum.

I think that all it would do is make Eldar, Tau, and Daemons remain on top while everyone else gets worse or stays the same. Would probably go back to what 6th edition looked like with less variety and a continuation of the feast or famine power divide.

No more broken free stuff. That is a good thing. : )
3 pts Space marines and other discounted things are just silly

The bad thing is that it doesn't fix the rest of the broken stuff


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As a temporary fix, I'd at least assign point values to the formations, like the old Apoc formations.

This I would love this so much. It would be a better fix then just removing them. Do you want BS +1 on all your aspect warriors PAY FOR IT Like the rest of us. Want free drop pods to bad they should not be free.

I played an all greenwing dark angels lions blade formation force recently. I used to always build mixed, balanced, fluffy armies with the old foc. Well, the lions blade formation did amazingly well, and I pulled out a win.

After the game my opponent and I did the math and realized I got 8 razorbacks for free at 55 points a piece (440 points) they only cost me 160 points to upgrade to 8 tllc razorback (600 points of armor and nasty firepower... for 160 points). The firepower of tactics squads with plasma, devestator squads with grav, assault squads with plasma, the tllc razorbacks... it was just devistating.

It felt like cheating taking the formation with such a free bonus. And not fluffy, that army could curb stomp a ravenwing or deathwing force, who are the elite of that army.

The only point and purpose of formations was selling more model kits. This is also why they make unique formations in white dwarf, and exclusive formations with several hundred dollar formation bundles. Who needs multiple extra devistator squads, assault squads, and tactical squads for a couple hundred bucks just to get the super duper turn 1 kill all assault formation of doom.... esp when most folks own enough of those units already.

Get rid of crap formation hammer and bring back the intuitive, intelligent, and thought inducing foc!!! Bring back real army building! Make 40k useful again!

Well, formations allow GW to make some more money. See the formations in the starter sets.

I would be pissed. My Decurion is extremely fluffy and fun to play, and makes my Necrons feel more like, well...Necrons. It's easily half the reason I'm in love with the 7th edition codex.

Strangely the amount of money (sales revenue) that GW make has been declining every year since formations were spooged into mainstream 40K.

 oldzoggy wrote:


This I would love this so much. It would be a better fix then just removing them. Do you want BS +1 on all your aspect warriors PAY FOR IT Like the rest of us. Want free drop pods to bad they should not be free.

I don't think it fundamentally fixes formations (removing them is the one true fix for the problems they bring), but its a decent fix to roll back, if I was in charge. The issue with assigning points is in quantifying some of the bonuses, and taking into consideration what units are required for the formation and how good/bad they are.

The ideal replacement in my mind is a return to FoC, but offering a variety of generic FoC all armies have access to, and each codex would get a small amount of their own FoC. Bring back characters/rules that alter the FoC for more customization.

Basically just copy FW and how they do 30k.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I would be pissed. My Decurion is extremely fluffy and fun to play, and makes my Necrons feel more like, well...Necrons. It's easily half the reason I'm in love with the 7th edition codex.

The Decurion is great for Necron players. It makes the army much more resilient. Necrons would not be top tier without it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Strangely the amount of money (sales revenue) that GW make has been declining every year since formations were spooged into mainstream 40K.

Well that could also be attributed to many different factors, such as CSM, Orks, Nids, BA, ext not having decent codexes and most of the units being pretty much useless. And also people generally leaving the game or refusing to buy anything from them.

I can personally say that as soon at my 7th edition dex dropped, I spent way too much of my hard earned money on probably 2500+ points of Necron stuff.

Formations are Jarvis's wet dream come to life. He admits he doesn't adhere to rules nor point values (which are really part of the rules). If formations left, all the balance, alpha strike, and codex inequality problems still exist. The game would be just as bad.

The game seriously needs to be redone from the ground up. To eliminate as much unbalance as possible in such a complex game, eliminate the alpha striking ability, and fix codices so all can compete equally; again at least as close as possible for a complex game.

When formations first came out, I hated them.

Now I find they are a good way to balance 40k. If an army is really behind in the curve, GW can release a formation giving them an option to be competitive without releasing an entire new codex.

 labmouse42 wrote:
When formations first came out, I hated them.

Now I find they are a good way to balance 40k. If an army is really behind in the curve, GW can release a formation giving them an option to be competitive without releasing an entire new codex.

But that is not happening. It's the newest, most powerful codices getting the strongest formations. If anything, formations have widened the gap between older and newer codices, not the opposite.

This is true the gap has widened considerably and this shows in the many ITC tournament analysis. I wish we could get the ITC to start implementing homerules to bring all the factions to an even playing field.

 Gamgee wrote:
This is true the gap has widened considerably and this shows in the many ITC tournament analysis. I wish we could get the ITC to start implementing homerules to bring all the factions to an even playing field.

GW is not interested in a balanced game, or they are interested but cannot come up with a balanced rule set including all codices.

 Korinov wrote:
But that is not happening. It's the newest, most powerful codices getting the strongest formations. If anything, formations have widened the gap between older and newer codices, not the opposite.

Heh. Just because GW can do something right, does not mean they will do something right.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I would be pissed. My Decurion is extremely fluffy and fun to play, and makes my Necrons feel more like, well...Necrons. It's easily half the reason I'm in love with the 7th edition codex.

The Decurion is great for Necron players. It makes the army much more resilient. Necrons would not be top tier without it.

Well it's not only that, but it's just the feel of the army. I was growing bored with the old CAD from my 5th edition codex. It just lacked flavor, imo.

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak. Compare the IG formations and its decurion to the Tau rules in the same campaign book. CSM is one of the main forces in the 40k universe and haven't gotten a good release in years. Dark Eldar had its codex released roughtly half a year before Craftworld Eldar and yet DE are bottom tier with tons of issues and nerfs while CW:E went from being the strongest codex to being even stronger. Space Wolves got an update that seemed to give new options and breathed some life into non thunder wolf tactics while the Orks get an update to their supplement with some of the more uninspired rules and lazy copy paste ever (the WAAAGH-Band and the Ghazzcurion rules are basically the same with the detachment rules making the core formation rules entirely redundant).

Formations aren't the problem so much as they highlight the problems with GW's rules writing in general. Remove formations and faction detachments will leave 40k with the same hot garbage rules and balance issues. At least formations in general offer some variety in playstyle.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
If formations left, all the balance, alpha strike, and codex inequality problems still exist. The game would be just as bad.

No not at all. While it would not fix 40k it forcing players to pay for their advantages would definitely get rid of some horrible stuff we are facing now.
It isn't the formations that are to blame it is the bonuses. If players want to field tons of marines in tons of rhino's or if they wanted to use tons of aspect warriors sure use the formation.
It is the bonuses that break the game they need to be paid for or removed from the game.

Things it would fix.
- Necrons not dying.
- 3 point space marines.
- Dirt cheap BS 5 eldar
- Lots of tau shenanigans.
- 2+ casting
- Ravenwing re roll cover shenanigans

etc.

Just look at the current top armies. They all abuse formations to the max. Cut that out and the gap between the armies becomes smaller.

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak.

I think this is a pure money-making issue. Some factions sell better than others.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak.

I think this is a pure money-making issue. Some factions sell better than others.

Sorta self fulfilling prophecy then to make uninspired rules that don't encourage model sales for armies that aren't selling well due to bad rules. Lots of people like CSM, Orks, Guard, Nids but they cut back on buying new stuff or playing the faction when they get mopped off the board by the strong armies. The 7th edition Necron release is a prime example of how you would see tomb blades and lychguard sitting on shelves never being bought and then the new dex dropped and suddenly they are selling like crazy. Tankbustas for Orks where considered a joke and at best something you would pull out against Nids because they didn't have any vehicles for glory hog to auto target. The 7th edition Ork dex lands and suddenly Tankbustas are all over the tables (a lot of them kit bashed but still) because their rules became really good.

I think GW realizes that rules sell models but unfortunately there is still a lot of inconsistencies in how they write their rules and the effort they put into each faction. The rules department needs some new writers who can put in that effort and better project managers who can ensure the release of a quality product. Even if they don't care about balance, they should care about generating sales and pushing out phoned in rules that don't encourage sales is a determent to GW's bottom line and their consumer base.

What removing formations might do:

- Make Eldar even stronger

- Make Necrons more boring

- Removes the Tau codex update

- Removes the crutch that the lower tier codexes have been relying on

- Makes KDK so much weaker

- Punches harlequins into non existence (who the hell allies an entire masque for some harly flavor?)

- Skittari get hammered pretty much as well

- All marine armies become Gravbike clones


+ Removes 'free upgrade/unit' detachments

+ Makes SOB/most DE stronger

I play in a club that does not allow formations and it's not the utopia you believe it is.

Rules sell models. That's right.
But GW might see the rule sets and the codices/army books as (pure) service to the customers, since they are a miniature making company selling their products to collectors.

 Vankraken wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Bigger problem is how GW seems to have preferred factions that seem to get a lot of interesting and strong rules while other factions get some lackluster gak.

I think this is a pure money-making issue. Some factions sell better than others.

Sorta self fulfilling prophecy then to make uninspired rules that don't encourage model sales for armies that aren't selling well due to bad rules. Lots of people like CSM, Orks, Guard, Nids but they cut back on buying new stuff or playing the faction when they get mopped off the board by the strong armies. The 7th edition Necron release is a prime example of how you would see tomb blades and lychguard sitting on shelves never being bought and then the new dex dropped and suddenly they are selling like crazy. Tankbustas for Orks where considered a joke and at best something you would pull out against Nids because they didn't have any vehicles for glory hog to auto target. The 7th edition Ork dex lands and suddenly Tankbustas are all over the tables (a lot of them kit bashed but still) because their rules became really good.

I think GW realizes that rules sell models but unfortunately there is still a lot of inconsistencies in how they write their rules and the effort they put into each faction. The rules department needs some new writers who can put in that effort and better project managers who can ensure the release of a quality product. Even if they don't care about balance, they should care about generating sales and pushing out phoned in rules that don't encourage sales is a determent to GW's bottom line and their consumer base.

I agree with this whole heartedly. GW does things like giving SM and the like free transports (which sells models, so that makes sense), but then gives Chaos and Daemons free rules like Fear and "meh at best" special rules requiring you to take a detachment of 6-9+ units of basic troops and the like. Sure, that'll make Daemons players wanna buy more models, right? Oh wait...no, no it won't.

 Torus wrote:
What removing formations might do:
...
- Removes the crutch that the lower tier codexes have been relying on
...

Top lists in Las vegas open 2016.
Alex-Harrison-1st: spammed Aspect Host formation.
Sean Nayden 2nd: Aspect Host formation + Corpsethief Claw formation
Steve Sisk 3rd: Gladius strike force
4th daemons
Alex Fennell 5th: Necron decurion
Brad Chester 6th: Aspect host
Jon Camacho 7th: Decurion
8th wolf + dark angels

Most of the nastiness in those lists comes from formations, and non of my ork or your harlequin formation bonuses come even close to the free upgrades they provide.
If you removed the bonuses from these formations it would close the gab not widen it. There is no way any suboptimal lower tier formation can compete vs 3 point marines, necron reanimation buffs or eldar troopers always hitting on a 2+.

I think the concept of formations is OK, but the execution is horrible.

Minor rewards for taking fluffy combinations? Boosts for getting sub-par units to the table? New ways to get theme armies? Sure. Sounds fine.

Major advantages? “Tax” units that aren’t, but get boosts anyway? Free stuff? Nope.

Formations like the skyhammer, which while utilizing sub-par units has a list of special rules that reads like a fanboy’s wet dream fan-fic, are not good for the game. Major advantage, with minimal drawbacks. Same thing with the aspect host. Free WS/BS, for taking 3 squads of things you don’t mind taking otherwise? Again, major advantage with no real restrictions.

But then there are formations like the suppression force. A LS and 2+ WWs. If the speeders spots for the WWs, they get to re-roll to hit and get infinite range. Flavorful, minor boost for a fluffy combo, and gives a nice boost to WWs which normally play second fiddle to TFCs.

If they want to keep powerful formations, there needs to be some cons to balance the pros. This can either be with “tax” units or restrictions, or just a point surcharge. But there should be something. TANSTAAFL.

if you want to see some contrast to the current formations. Just take a look at the way old appoc formations where made. And remember this was for HUGE games (appoc) not for usage in normal games.

It would make the game feel more like 40k again and not the apocalypse abomination it is now. It wouldn't fix all of the problems but would be a good step in the right direction. Formations only added more unbalance to a already unbalanced game.

If they were removed I would try playing again with my friends.

I would be OK with it. My play SW, Daemons and R&H, so my armies just recently got formations. R&H don't have any formations, but they have 2 detachments that are pretty cool.

The daemon formations are kind of hit or miss for me right now. I see them as fluffy more than competitive, and I havent had a chance to use the SW ones yet, so it wouldn't change much for me.

It would make my Skitarii unplayable as they don't have an HQ, lol.

I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

This. a thousand times this.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

This. a thousand times this.

Thats the truth

So, my problem with 40k is that I want it to be a competitive game and it's not. The formations are only part of that problem, but realistically I think if GW wants to drive sales then they need to focus more on the game.

There really isn't a quick fix, because how do you tell someone they can't use their toys that they've already paid a ton of money for? I've slowly grown to "like" 7th edition, but only because I've accepted the fact that it's now Apocalypse and should only be taken as a beer and pretzel game and nothing more. This is also why I really like the Maelstrom missions, because you can completely win or lose the game based on a card draw or a die roll and despite your best tactics and the amount of cash you've spent on models.

If I were to wake up tomorrow and GW had created 8th edition 40k, this is what I hope it would look like: You would get the basic rules that went through the phases (and cleaned up or removed the psychic phase) but when it came time to build your army list there would be 3 options: The first would be a Tournament Build option which could be for armies of 1500-2000 points with all armies using one Combined Arms Detachment with no Forge World, no Fortifications, no Lords of War and all flyers would be a 0-1 option total. Basically, this is the classic style of one codex build vs another. Then you would have the Casual Build option that would be closer to the ITC rules and allow up to 3 detachments, but also allow Forge World, Fortifications, and Lords of War choices. The last option would be the Unbound option which would still use the detachment structure, but also allow formations and such.

I just think GW has really become a victim of their own creation and I can see where new players looking to get into the hobby are completely blown away by everything out there.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Rules sell models. That's right.
But GW might see the rule sets and the codices/army books as (pure) service to the customers, since they are a miniature making company selling their products to collectors.

A lot of this has to do with the developers behind the scene. If no one at GW is passionate about the armies then they languish. For example Phil Kelly loves Eldar, is passionate about them and so they get buffed and get a strong book.

My guess one of the reasons Orks or Chaos Space Marines suck is because no in the Studio really cares or understands those armies.

It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock. Every Necron army Ive seen for the lsst year is running a Decurion, and pretty much exclusively because of the power it provides, even if they had to leave some of their previously favorite units out, it's just way easier and more powerful to run the Decurion. Likewise, therea not really much fluffy about an aspect shrine...you just take the Aspect Warriors you were already gonna take anyway and get BS5 for free.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome with stuff you kargely already had on hand.

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

I disagree. I actually run a Living Tomb or an Annihilation Nexus, also a Royal Court with Imotekh at the head of my army. I've also played around with the idea of running all of the formations, but just not in a Decurion (since technically you could just run all of the formations, but you wouldn't have the option of Auxiliary Units like Flayed Ones), simply to lower the power of my army.

I also plan on running a rather full Guardian Warhost coupled with a Windrider Warhost with a ton of Warlocks and Shuricatapults on all my bikes, backed up by some nightspinner squads. That's a whole lot of "garbage" units, but it's fluffy and I plan on enjoying it.

If they removed formation bonuses, but made them essentially the new "CAD", I'd still be happy. But if they go back to "Okay, which HQ do I want, and which two minimum troops am I gonna take with this army?", then I'll be sorely disappointed.

krodarklorr wrote: That's a whole lot of "garbage" units, but it's fluffy and I plan on enjoying it.

Decurion + imothek+court + annihilation barges or those eldar shenanigans all in formations that buff them some more do not seem to be that garbagy if you ask me.
Sure you can enjoy it, but those builds are still quite potent.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock. Every Necron army Ive seen for the lsst year is running a Decurion, and pretty much exclusively because of the power it provides, even if they had to leave some of their previously favorite units out, it's just way easier and more powerful to run the Decurion. Likewise, therea not really much fluffy about an aspect shrine...you just take the Aspect Warriors you were already gonna take anyway and get BS5 for free.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

So that explains why I'm building an Annihilation Nexus . . .

Don't presume to know why others play what they do. I like the Necron units long before I started playing the game. I bought Necrons without knowing they were a top 5 army. When I discovered how well they perform on the tabletop, that was just gravy. I would play them even if they were in the same shape as CSM and SoB are in. I don't play them because they are powerful. I play them because I like them.

I play in an extremely casual meta. Hell, I waive my Decurion +1 RP if my opponent is complaining about it (and that rarely happens because again, my meta is about having FUN). I'm sorry if yours is so cutthroat that you can't enjoy yourself. The issue isn't the game. Yes, it's horribly imbalanced. That doesn't mean it can't still be fun.

 oldzoggy wrote:

krodarklorr wrote: That's a whole lot of "garbage" units, but it's fluffy and I plan on enjoying it.

Decurion + imothek+court + annihilation barges or those eldar shenanigans all in formations that buff them some more do not seem to be that garbagy if you ask me.
Sure you can enjoy it, but those builds are still quite potent.

Please enlighten me as to how many people ever take an Annihilation Nexus, or Imotekh.

Better yet, show me someone who plays Guardians.

Sure, if used right, they're not garbage, but they're so far under the most optimal units that most people don't look at them. Heck, no Eldar player in my group ever plays Guardians, or leaves home without a heavy weapon on their bikes.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

 Kiggler wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

War convocation gets free upgrades.

Free stuff can equally apply to powerful bonuses that may well buff the army such that it feels it has more units. Having a buffed RP roll increases durability, making it the rough equivalent of bringing more bodies.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Aspect Host of 30 Howling Banshees for me supported by an Avatar of Khaine and Jain Zarr. The entire force being led by an Autarch with the Shard of Anaris and Seer Council. Thats my eldar close combat list that reeks of fluff (that gets tonned down even further against some of the weaker dex's)

(this is on top of guardian battlehost but that may change with the new doom book)

 Kiggler wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Eh, considering I'd save points on not bringing Immortals, or not bringing 2 squads of Warriors, or subbing my Overlord for a Cryptek, and not being required to take a Doomsday Ark if I want to take an A-barge, it wouldn't cost that much.

As much as people enjoy arguing it, there are restrictions to a lot of these formations, in that you're required to take certain stuff that (regardless if it's good or not) you might not want to take. Granted, I also know how ridiculous the Aspect Host is, which still baffles me as to why it's even a formation.

I wonder how many poeple who just play formationf for "fluff" would play them if they were approrpiately costed.

Formations are fine - they just need a cost to use them aAND that all armies have then not just the 7.5 edition Power dexes

Imotekh.is one of the most annoying necron HQ's allmost all necron players around here play him or leave him home due to hate.
There are some Guardian players around here they aren't crap at all even without the free heavy weapons these things will just mow down any infantry that dares to come close to it.

On top of that free reanimation protocols and free heavy weapons is just broken. You dont need to compare your list with the top list but what you are fielding is way above anything casual lower tier even can dream of fielding.

...then Eldar will be even more the top codex.

There's nothing wrong with formations, and the people whining need to get over it. Just a few of them need tweaking.

There's plenty wrong with formations, as has been explained in this thread several times.

As was also explained, removing formations wouldn't be a 100% fix, and near everyone has acknowledged there are underlying balance issues.

These same people also don't tell people to stop whining and get over it. They instead have a discussion about the issues surrounding them.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Imotekh.is one of the most annoying necron HQ's allmost all necron players around here play him or leave him home due to hate.
There are some Guardian players around here they aren't crap at all even without the free heavy weapons these things will just mow down any infantry that dares to come close to it.

On top of that free reanimation protocols and free heavy weapons is just broken. You dont need to compare your list with the top list but what you are fielding is way above anything lower tier even can dream of fielding.

Then that is certainly a first for me. I've had to argue with other people in the Necron Tactica thread about why I like Imotekh, as everyone I've talked to thinks he is sub-par at best.

And yeah, Guardians can mow down whatever. They also get mowed down easily. T3 with a 5+ is not fantastic.

And for the record, I have played a CAD a few times with my Necrons, and have still dominated using things like Anrakyr (nobody likes him either), A-barges, Transcendent C'tans, ext. So are you telling me that I'm just not allowed to play against lower tier armies at all?

Also, Eldar would shrug off not having formations. Their CAD builds are still the most potent, and everyone knows it. Getting rid of Formations wouldn't help that.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I wonder how many poeple who just play formationf for "fluff" would play them if they were approrpiately costed.

Formations are fine - they just need a cost to use them aAND that all armies have then not just the 7.5 edition Power dexes

Completely agree. My guess is none will use them. You should just watched how these "fluff formation" players switched to Greyknight/Necron/Eldar/Tau etc. in the past just because they liked the army.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Eh, considering I'd save points on not bringing Immortals, or not bringing 2 squads of Warriors, or subbing my Overlord for a Cryptek, and not being required to take a Doomsday Ark if I want to take an A-barge, it wouldn't cost that much.

As much as people enjoy arguing it, there are restrictions to a lot of these formations, in that you're required to take certain stuff that (regardless if it's good or not) you might not want to take. Granted, I also know how ridiculous the Aspect Host is, which still baffles me as to why it's even a formation.

It's restriction is you have to 3 units of aspect. Granted this restriction is so minor...I can't imagine taking aspects without it because the detachment exists. The main thing it allows - I think is a good thing - is you don't have to take an additional CAD to take aspect warriors if you are running the war-host. +1 BS is too much - I would have been happy with some kind of focus fire special rule that gave them bonuses to shoot at the same targets. Still though - compared to a scatter bike - all aspect warriors are subpar so I think that was considered when writing the book.

Or how screamers just happened to be sold out by "I just happen to like them players" right around the time when the screamer star arrived.

Another Problem is it often rewards you for taking things you would have taken anyway there by making the CAD entirely redundant.

Take the Reclamation legion as an example. It requires me to take an Overlord, Three Troops, and a unit of Tomb blades. For that I get Relentless, Move Through Cover, and rerolls on 1 for RP if there near my Overlord.

Are the formations a bit restrictive, yes but the benefits are so out of whack compared to a CAD it's not even close and that's silly.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Another Problem is it often rewards you for taking things you would have taken anyway there by making the CAD entirely redundant.

Take the Reclamation legion as an example. It requires me to take an Overlord, Three Troops, and a unit of Tomb blades. For that I get Relentless, Move Through Cover, and rerolls on 1 for RP if there near my Overlord.

Are the formations a bit restrictive, yes but the benefits are so out of whack compared to a CAD it's not even close and that's silly.

I disagree. ObjSec is a thing, and has influenced quite a bit of games. And in competitions, you really don't want to leave home without some form of ObjSec.

Yeah lots of top lists do take a CAD just for objective sec jet bikes or other similar units on top of their buffed formations.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think formations are good for the game. A lot of units get play that never would get play if not for the formations. Plus - you don't need to run formations to make a broken list. You can do that with allies alone. Formations keep the allies shenanigans in check. Some of the bonuses could be fixed though. I also think all formations should have some units in it you don't want to take - for example the eldar gardian warhost - its a good strong formation. It requires you to bring 30 guardians though....there is it's balancing factor.

I agree that formations could of been good if they would of been designed correctly but I really don't think a unit should be worth taking all because a formation gives them free stuff. People taking the minimum requirements to run a formation is really no different then people taking 2 minimum troops in a regular CAD. I rather play against allies then formations due the fact that I can expect 1500 vs 1500 points and not a 1500 vs 1750 or what ever handicap.

You act like every army is getting free points worth of stuff. Gladius (and supposedly one of the SW formations I've heard?) gives free transports. If someone takes a Guardian Warhost, they get free Heavy Weapons in their squads. That's about it. not every army is getting free units because of formations.

That is because most formations give free stuff. Additional special rules is no different then free upgrades. How many points would it cost you to put a cryptek in each of your squads to get +1 rp.

Eh, considering I'd save points on not bringing Immortals, or not bringing 2 squads of Warriors, or subbing my Overlord for a Cryptek, and not being required to take a Doomsday Ark if I want to take an A-barge, it wouldn't cost that much.

As much as people enjoy arguing it, there are restrictions to a lot of these formations, in that you're required to take certain stuff that (regardless if it's good or not) you might not want to take. Granted, I also know how ridiculous the Aspect Host is, which still baffles me as to why it's even a formation.

Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. What you listed was not a formation and just a regular list in which case I would have no problem with it. Assuming the +1 rp upgrade would be 20 points if it was a choice you are already at 100 free points just filling out the decurion requirements.

The restriction on formations are mostly laughable. If they were not so bad then there wouldn't be so much debate around them.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome with stuff you kargely already had on hand.

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

I disagree. I actually run a Living Tomb or an Annihilation Nexus, also a Royal Court with Imotekh at the head of my army. I've also played around with the idea of running all of the formations, but just not in a Decurion (since technically you could just run all of the formations, but you wouldn't have the option of Auxiliary Units like Flayed Ones), simply to lower the power of my army.

I also plan on running a rather full Guardian Warhost coupled with a Windrider Warhost with a ton of Warlocks and Shuricatapults on all my bikes, backed up by some nightspinner squads. That's a whole lot of "garbage" units, but it's fluffy and I plan on enjoying it.


If they removed formation bonuses, but made them essentially the new "CAD", I'd still be happy. But if they go back to "Okay, which HQ do I want, and which two minimum troops am I gonna take with this army?", then I'll be sorely disappointed.

In some ways you may have a point, but the problem with this is that you end up with the problem that the old FOC was there to prevent, in that you'll get people going to town on armies that overload on the formations that allow them to just spam the big guns or some other aspect with which to overwhelm an opponents ability to defeat, much moreso than with the old FOC.

Now, codex unique variations on the FOC I'm actually pretty ok with, like the GK one where they can DS turn 1 but have more limited slots to take stuff, but they still gotta take a "real" army of sorts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...then Eldar will be even more the top codex.

There's nothing wrong with formations, and the people whining need to get over it. Just a few of them need tweaking.

ah...the classic unsupported "L2P" response that makes no attempt at refuting any opposing arguments.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's easy to be in love with formations and think they're fluffy when they provide hilariously powerful bonuses that make winning many games a predetermined outcome

But lets be real, formations' as they exist now, don't promote any sort of fluffiness, they're power crutches to move more product, and if the bonuses were removed (but the detachment structure remained the same) most people talking about the fluff aspect would drop their formations like a hot rock. Every Necron army Ive seen for the lsst year is running a Decurion, and pretty much exclusively because of the power it provides, even if they had to leave some of their previously favorite units out, it's just way easier and more powerful to run the Decurion. Likewise, therea not really much fluffy about an aspect shrine...you just take the Aspect Warriors you were already gonna take anyway and get BS5 for free.

For all the talk of how formations boost weak units, you arent seeing people running formations full of garbage units

The game needs a fundamental reboot and complete rebuilding, though dropping formations would be a very good start.

So that explains why I'm building an Annihilation Nexus . . .

Don't presume to know why others play what they do. I like the Necron units long before I started playing the game. I bought Necrons without knowing they were a top 5 army. When I discovered how well they perform on the tabletop, that was just gravy. I would play them even if they were in the same shape as CSM and SoB are in. I don't play them because they are powerful. I play them because I like them.

I dont believe i ever made any such claim to the contrary...only that the use of formations (not any specific army necessarily) was tied to power level.

I play in an extremely casual meta. Hell, I waive my Decurion +1 RP if my opponent is complaining about it (and that rarely happens because again, my meta is about having FUN). I'm sorry if yours is so cutthroat that you can't enjoy yourself. The issue isn't the game. Yes, it's horribly imbalanced. That doesn't mean it can't still be fun.

If the game is, by everyone's admission, horribly imbalanced, and you're choosing to change rules and reduce power level to make the game fun for an opponent...then the game is very definitely a problem.

Its not about a cut throat meta or not, Ive played games in three different states and six different cities since 7E came out, and my perceptions are gathered from that. It's great you have a nice casual meta where people do that, but when thats not available and pickup games or events are the primary ways to get games, that approach doesnt work.

 Kiggler wrote:

Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. What you listed was not a formation and just a regular list in which case I would have no problem with it. Assuming the +1 rp upgrade would be 20 points if it was a choice you are already at 100 free points just filling out the decurion requirements.

The restriction on formations are mostly laughable. If they were not so bad then there wouldn't be so much debate around them.

The point you were making is how expensive it would be to add Crypteks to units to get the +1 RP, as opposed to getting it for "free" with the Decurion. The point I was making is that if I wanted that benefit but had to rely on "paying for it" with Crypteks throughout my army, it wouldn't be that different of a cost, as I wouldn't be required to take the units for that detachment, and therefor saving points. In fact, I made a footcron list that had 2 Crypteks and Szeras in it, led by Anrakyr in a CAD, and it did really well, and was able to bring a lot of fun units I couldn't normally, easily bring in a Decurion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In some ways you may have a point, but the problem with this is that you end up with the problem that the old FOC was there to prevent, in that you'll get people going to town on armies that overload on the formations that allow them to just spam the big guns or some other aspect with which to overwhelm an opponents ability to defeat, much moreso than with the old FOC.

Now, codex unique variations on the FOC I'm actually pretty ok with, like the GK one where they can DS turn 1 but have more limited slots to take stuff, but they still gotta take a "real" army of sorts.

Well sure, but people are acting like it's the end of the world that some (and I mean some. I'm looking at you, Aspect Host) allow for spamming with no restrictions at all. Lets say you remove that and heck, lets say you remove the CAD and go back to the good ole FoC. The problem would still arise from people spamming the powerful stuff.

Just because some formations (aka Aspect Host) allow for some ridiculous spamming, doesn't mean all formations are as bad as that. Heck, I don't have a problem with any of them minus the Aspect Host, as they all have some requirement or another. In fact, formations let some armies still do some cool stuff (Tyranids, for example).

We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

Yes, you don't have to play against the same army over and over again. And by that I mean "Oh look, more scatbikes. Oh look, still bringing lychguard and Wraiths. Oh hey Grav cents and Smashfether, didn't expect to see you again.". Your meta isn't the only thing to go off of. Also, banning formations is still going to merit the use of different units because they're still better than other options. As much fun as your meta sounds, that's the minority of players. My meta is pretty casual, but they all still use strong stuff. Our main Eldar player still loses to IG, non-Canoptek/Destroyer Necrons, and we also still have Tau players that aren't roflstomping everything.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

Yes, you don't have to play against the same army over and over again. And by that I mean "Oh look, more scatbikes. Oh look, still bringing lychguard and Wraiths. Oh hey Grav cents and Smashfether, didn't expect to see you again.". Your meta isn't the only thing to go off of. Also, banning formations is still going to merit the use of different units because they're still better than other options. As much fun as your meta sounds, that's the minority of players. My meta is pretty casual, but they all still use strong stuff. Our main Eldar player still loses to IG, non-Canoptek/Destroyer Necrons, and we also still have Tau players that aren't roflstomping everything.

No formations and not having the threat of 6x3 obsec scatbikes, a wraithknight, and tons of tau monstrous robots looming over your head frees up your list building for the meta more than you think. In the competitive scene right now, what you take generally has to pass the scatbike test, at the very least. "Can this unit deploy, get shot by scatbikes, and mitigate the damage efficiently, or have an alternate deployment like deep strike/outflank." Without them, it becomes a lot more common to see mediocre melee units, rhino chassis that are actually paid for, a lack of heavy grav because their big prey aren't around...

The point is that formations are probably the biggest single mechanic causing imbalance in the game right now, but the game would not be perfect without them. A little further adjustments to eldar, daemons, and monstrous robots, and suddenly it's a whole new ball game.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
We play no formations at our local small events, and our only local eldar player is a "cool old 40k guy" who has no interest in bringing powerful stuff, so he brings other armies generally.

It works great. Armies are imaginative and different. Games don't get bogged down because the models have 29 special rules that they don't normally have.

Seriously, the eldar guy handicapping himself and formations being barred makes it anyone's game. With a little luck, I can (and have) win our events with BA jump pack dudes for Emperor's sake. We've had non-coven dark eldar win, orks, chaos, IG, etc. right along with Tau and core marines. (Granted the tau guy isn't enough into the game to realize he could blow the thing wide open with more of certain units.)

Now they do some wonky stuff that's kind of weird like shooting down ALL lords of war, (not just super heavies,) but I'm willing to take that tradeoff just so I can stop playing against the same army over and over. (Oh look, necrons. I bet you have a rec legion, canoptek harvest or two depending on if you sprung for lychguard, and destroyer cult.)

TL;DR: Removing formations is a big improvement to the "metagame" as long as you gut punch the eldar codex at the same time. I wish the more broad tourney scene would've recognized what they would bring and kicked formations to the curb the instant they showed up.

Yes, you don't have to play against the same army over and over again. And by that I mean "Oh look, more scatbikes. Oh look, still bringing lychguard and Wraiths. Oh hey Grav cents and Smashfether, didn't expect to see you again.". Your meta isn't the only thing to go off of. Also, banning formations is still going to merit the use of different units because they're still better than other options. As much fun as your meta sounds, that's the minority of players. My meta is pretty casual, but they all still use strong stuff. Our main Eldar player still loses to IG, non-Canoptek/Destroyer Necrons, and we also still have Tau players that aren't roflstomping everything.

No formations and not having the threat of 6x3 obsec scatbikes, a wraithknight, and tons of tau monstrous robots looming over your head frees up your list building for the meta more than you think. In the competitive scene right now, what you take generally has to pass the scatbike test, at the very least. "Can this unit deploy, get shot by scatbikes, and mitigate the damage efficiently, or have an alternate deployment like deep strike/outflank." Without them, it becomes a lot more common to see mediocre melee units, rhino chassis that are actually paid for, a lack of heavy grav because their big prey aren't around...

The point is that formations are probably the biggest single mechanic causing imbalance in the game right now, but the game would not be perfect without them. A little further adjustments to eldar, daemons, and monstrous robots, and suddenly it's a whole new ball game.

So the players that like to play the fluffy Tyranid formations that make their Genestealers actually scary, or Ork players that want to play Greentide, or DE players that like Coven units all have to be punished as well?

 krodarklorr wrote:


So the players that like to play the fluffy Tyranid formations that make their Genestealers actually scary, or Ork players that want to play Greentide, or DE players that like Coven units all have to be punished as well?

They can all still play their fluffy armies. The standard CAD allows them to form legal lists around the units they want.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


So the players that like to play the fluffy Tyranid formations that make their Genestealers actually scary, or Ork players that want to play Greentide, or DE players that like Coven units all have to be punished as well?

They can all still play their fluffy armies. The standard CAD allows them to form legal lists around the units they want.

All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. What you listed was not a formation and just a regular list in which case I would have no problem with it. Assuming the +1 rp upgrade would be 20 points if it was a choice you are already at 100 free points just filling out the decurion requirements.

The restriction on formations are mostly laughable. If they were not so bad then there wouldn't be so much debate around them.

The point you were making is how expensive it would be to add Crypteks to units to get the +1 RP, as opposed to getting it for "free" with the Decurion. The point I was making is that if I wanted that benefit but had to rely on "paying for it" with Crypteks throughout my army, it wouldn't be that different of a cost, as I wouldn't be required to take the units for that detachment, and therefor saving points. In fact, I made a footcron list that had 2 Crypteks and Szeras in it, led by Anrakyr in a CAD, and it did really well, and was able to bring a lot of fun units I couldn't normally, easily bring in a Decurion.

Still a major difference is that those characters can be killed removing the bonus and keeping some form of counter play. Besides +1 rp is not the only bonus decurion provides.

I hope if 8th edition comes out they instead they make two different game types. FOC chart only and the other being more of a free for all mode where all formations and detachments are allowed. Blizzards card game hearthstone is doing something similar where they removing the newer more powerful cards from ranked play.

 krodarklorr wrote:


All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

Removing them may not fix all the balance issues, but it'd certainly remove the balance issues caused by formations.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

Removing them may not fix all the balance issues, but it'd certainly remove the balance issues caused by formations.

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

From my ideal of 'standard' 40k? Sure. Whether its about removing the physical model and its rules or just removing the sub type of GC and Super-heavy and making them super MCs (slightly higher T, one or two more wounds), I don't think the rules that support GCs belong in 40k as it is. So yes, either fix them by dramatically altering how they exist (and not simply shuffling point costs around, but a serious overhaul of the core mechanics) or just removing them outright.

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

If it makes you feel any better, if I was to remove all formations, it'd come with a significant overhaul that would fix most of the balance issues. Nobody would be punished, as most builds would be viable without the use of formation bonuses and free gak.

But, for the topic of this particular post, I do believe that the solution to fixing broken formations is simply to remove them.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

From my ideal of 'standard' 40k? Sure. Whether its about removing the physical model and its rules or just removing the sub type of GC and Super-heavy and making them super MCs (slightly higher T, one or two more wounds), I don't think the rules that support GCs belong in 40k as it is. So yes, either fix them by dramatically altering how they exist (and not simply shuffling point costs around, but a serious overhaul of the core mechanics) or just removing them outright.

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

If it makes you feel any better, if I was to remove all formations, it'd come with a significant overhaul that would fix most of the balance issues. Nobody would be punished, as most builds would be viable without the use of formation bonuses and free gak.

But, for the topic of this particular post, I do believe that the solution to fixing broken formations is simply to remove them.

That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

 krodarklorr wrote:


That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

I'm well aware it won't fix the underlying issue, and I've stated as such a few time now. I'm also aware GW won't do anything about it.

For the purpose of this thread though, formations add a layer of further imbalance to the game. Removing them would be step 1 in my 14834 step plan to un feth 40k. Of course I don't have the patience or time to re-write a whole ruleset, much less when I'm not getting paid for it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for the Blacksails Re-Mastered Ultimate Pretty Much the Best Thing Ever Edition.

As awesome as that edition would be. Just a big old picture of my ugly mug on the front with two thumbs up.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

I'm well aware it won't fix the underlying issue, and I've stated as such a few time now. I'm also aware GW won't do anything about it.

For the purpose of this thread though, formations add a layer of further imbalance to the game. Removing them would be step 1 in my 14834 step plan to un feth 40k. Of course I don't have the patience or time to re-write a whole ruleset, much less when I'm not getting paid for it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for the Blacksails Re-Mastered Ultimate Pretty Much the Best Thing Ever Edition.

I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

They need to remove scoring from every unit type and only let troops score like back in 5th edition.

Then people will take more troops instead of wraith knights and rip tides, etc.

Scat bikes will remain kings.

 krodarklorr wrote:


I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

Ehhhh, to a point, maybe. More stuff just means it becomes more difficult to balance, not that it will inherently become less balanced. Giant monsters have their place, but 40k needs to make up its mind over what scale it wants to be. Part of the issue with the game is precisely that its a skirmish ruleset awkwardly mated to a large scale ruleset via arranged marriage where nobody is happy but the parents get a huge dowry. Or something.

Flyers are also very poorly implemented. They were fine when the only ones included were capable of hovering and acted as fast skimmers.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


All I'm saying is formations add different variations on play, whether people use it or not. If you and your gaming group doesn't want to use them, fine. most other people enjoy using them. Plus, there is still the issue of removing them still does not and will not fix the balance issues with 40k.

Removing them may not fix all the balance issues, but it'd certainly remove the balance issues caused by formations.

Okay, so the Wraithknight is one bad example of GCs, which I think are not needed in regular games. So rather than fix the problem unit, you want to remove all GCs from the game?

Again, I'm not arguing that some of the formations are pretty ridiculous (Aspect Host). All I'm saying is don't punish everyone by removing formations as a whole. GW should just fix the few that are the problem.

I'm not saying that the +1 BS isn't over the top for taking units you'd want to take anyways...but it's really not the formation that's broken...it's warp spiders. All the other options are just okay. Scat bikes are better than warpspiders anyways or at least - just as good. I use mine to bring dark reapers and swooping hawks and it's hardly OP.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

Ehhhh, to a point, maybe. More stuff just means it becomes more difficult to balance, not that it will inherently become less balanced. Giant monsters have their place, but 40k needs to make up its mind over what scale it wants to be. Part of the issue with the game is precisely that its a skirmish ruleset awkwardly mated to a large scale ruleset via arranged marriage where nobody is happy but the parents get a huge dowry. Or something.

Flyers are also very poorly implemented. They were fine when the only ones included were capable of hovering and acted as fast skimmers.

Well, yeah. There are a couple of easy things I'd vote for fixing with GCs and SHVs. The ruleset itself needs to change for any real balance to be made.

That would also mean I wouldn't get to use my Flyers, as they cannot hover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Filch wrote:
They need to remove scoring from every unit type and only let troops score like back in 5th edition.

Then people will take more troops instead of wraith knights and rip tides, etc.

Scat bikes will remain kings.

I'm also all for this. immobile vehicles lose Scoring, and only Troop units can score. Also, GCs and SHV are worth Victory points when killed. Boom, we're on the right track.

Who says they couldn't be 'adjusted' to magically gain the ability to hover? I'm sure the most advanced race in the galaxy can figure that out.

 Blacksails wrote:
Who says they couldn't be 'adjusted' to magically gain the ability to hover? I'm sure the most advanced race in the galaxy can figure that out.

It wouldn't fit the fluff description of them. And being the most advanced race in the galaxy is great and all, but not when the rules don't support it all that much.

I just don't understand the mentality of "this one action won't solve everything in one fell swoop, so I'm against it." It's obviously going to take multiple actions.

Nixing formations at least drives us all towards the right ball park, because right now some armies are across town in the bowling alley with their baseball gear getting weird looks.

"But some people might want to play X!" is not a valid defense for game balancing. Those people are just going to have to accept that they can emulate almost any theme imaginable with a standard detachment and without all the special rules that the formation gives.

EG in my day, we called a green tide any ork list that was mostly on foot and had a LOT of orks. So you can still play a green tide without the formation, you just won't have a very overworked painboy who can somehow treat wounds 30" away from himself, a void shield that somehow protects the front ork across the board just because the rear ork is near the shield, and an armored warboss holding a stikk who can somehow jump in front of all enemy anti-infantry firepower from one general direction.

If we're talking about a huge re-write, I'm 99% sure it'd be easy to add in the fact that the croissants can hover and move around at slow speeds.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


That still doesn't fix the underlying issue of balance within 40k. GW will do nothing to fix it. So sure, if you could remove the formations as well as fix every single balance issue, by all means.

I'm well aware it won't fix the underlying issue, and I've stated as such a few time now. I'm also aware GW won't do anything about it.

For the purpose of this thread though, formations add a layer of further imbalance to the game. Removing them would be step 1 in my 14834 step plan to un feth 40k. Of course I don't have the patience or time to re-write a whole ruleset, much less when I'm not getting paid for it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for the Blacksails Re-Mastered Ultimate Pretty Much the Best Thing Ever Edition.

I mean yeah, the more stuff you add to a ruleset, the more imbalanced it's going to become. But does that mean I'd prefer to play the game without Flyers, giant monsters, fluffy formations, ext? Not really.

I would prefer it without all that stuff and forts. This could be achieved by putting all the stuff that GW spooged into the core rules back into optional supplements where they belong. Then everyone could be happy.

I'm not against formations as a concept, only against the implementation by GW.

Daemons just got their formations about a week ago! In other words I would go through several stages of denial if they took away what just came out

Reavas wrote:
Daemons just got their formations about a week ago! In other words I would go through several stages of denial if they took away what just came out

And Daemons are an example of formations that (though are a big on the big side) are fairly balanced. You pay a heavy tax on taking extra groups, but get a big of a benefit.

I like formations in the same way I like allies in 40K: they allow for some really cool, fluffy combinations that just don't work under traditional FOCs from earlier editions. I also like formations and allies in the same way I like nuclear bombs: I trust myself to have them, but you... not so much

Thanks for all the feedback and replies.

I like certain formations. I like the demi-company because it rewards me for running the models that I always have (Tacs, Devs, and ASM). If formations were to be removed I would be disappointed, because I like getting a bonus for running the type of army that I do, but I would ultimately get on with my life and continue running the same lists that I always have. The CAD does still allow for a lot of flexibility

There are usually 2 balancing mechanics in strategy games, especially video games:
1. Some kind of points/population cap, limiting the overall size of your army with a cost per unit that is based on the units effectiveness.
2. Points/pop cap aside, certain powerful units have a hard cap of 1, or some other number that limits the number you can field of that particular unit.

Basically, things have to be appropriately costed for their effectiveness, and even with balanced costs some things still have to be limited because a whole army of them is way too powerful. In older editions of 40K, there were 0-1 restrictions and CADs to enforce this, and buffing units was fairly limited so you generally got what you paid for (assuming an appropriate base points cost). Formations and allies as implemented have broken both of these rules; they add value to units without increasing cost (your models die 17% less!) and eliminate the last vestiges of unit-type caps that existed (take up to 12 wraithknights!). To balance 40K points costs need to be much more carefully thought out, but the methods for turning a 19 point unit into one that should cost 30 points need to go away as well.

 Filch wrote:
They need to remove scoring from every unit type and only let troops score like back in 5th edition.

Then people will take more troops instead of wraith knights and rip tides, etc.

Scat bikes will remain kings.

Troops scoring only? This would lead to buying less non-Troop units.
This is not what GW wants. Therefore, 40k was turned into a mini apoc game where all units and models can sell equally well. They don't, since some units are almost useless gamewise.

And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

 Jimsolo wrote:
And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

As well as Skitarii.

Jimsolo wrote:And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

krodarklorr wrote:
As well as Skitarii.

That's sort of a separate issue, though. GW intentionally designed these books as allies. If we're talking a significant change to the current rules, these 'dexes would have to be rolled into an appropriate parent codex. Frankly, no codex with only half a dozen unit choices should ever be called a codex, but I digress.

 the_Armyman wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:And speaking of...

Cutting formations could cripple certain codexes, like Clowns and Covens. Covens and Harlequins would be essentially unplayable without that option. Covens armies can still go back to the main DE dex, but harlies would just be hosed.

krodarklorr wrote:
As well as Skitarii.

That's sort of a separate issue, though. GW intentionally designed these books as allies. If we're talking a significant change to the current rules, these 'dexes would have to be rolled into an appropriate parent codex. Frankly, no codex with only half a dozen unit choices should ever be called a codex, but I digress.

On the flip side of that though, without Halries having their own codex (and relying on formations) would we ever have seen a plastic solitaire/skyweaver/starweaver/voidweaver...

and if they were rolled up into a single codex... which codex C: WE?, Covens?,C: DE?

Truth be told, if you remove formations you destroy at least 2 factions, and tbh with the harly codex at least they couldn't be implemented into another book... not after they have expanded this much

Harlies could easily just be added to the other Eldar books, their total unit count went up by what...3 unit entries? A couple of Vyper/Venom knockoffs (amusing in its own right given that the Venom was originally a Harlequin transport in previous editions) and the Solitaire got re-introduced to the game? That's a couple extra pages to C:CWE or C: DE.

GW doesn't seem to have any problem with the same units being in multiple books and often running with different rules for sometimes years at a time.