Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Would it make the game better if we added this rule?

-No codex that is capable of forming a CAD may be fielded as anything other than a CAD or Allied Detachment.

Necrons are suddenly reasonable. Eldar are still broken but less so. The most broken parts of SM are prevented.

What do y'all think?

Ya, I personally really dislike formations. They're boring and really destroy the fun of diverse, interesting armies.

Personally I love formations, particularly the decurion-style Core/Command/Auxiliary type. I'm more concerned with fluff and fun than raw balance, so naturally something that increases the diversity of powerful armies and encourages relatively fluffy organisation with bonuses is something I'm going to view as good for the game. I do think there's an unfortunate power differential between armies that do and don't have access to this style of formation, which is why I've set out on a project to give fluffy and interesting Core/Command/Auxiliary detachments to every army, stating with the Tyranids.

I'm not suggesting that all of them are perfect - I think the Decurion RP bonus should be changed - but I find it ludicrous to claim that formations are removing diversity from the game when they're allowing things like full battle companies to actually become viable.

Dont take away my rites of war they help add diversity to eighteen armys built from one codex.

This sort of overly broad solution never fixes anything man

Another thread like this? Did we really need another one, and in the Proposed rules section no less?

I know that my opinion is in the minority here, but I'll say it again: Formations are an integral part of Warhammer 40,000 now. Everything has been leading up to this with the initial introduction of alternate CADs/FOCs and now with the new Formation-of-Formations Detachments.

Bharring wrote:Would it make the game better if we added this rule?

-No codex that is capable of forming a CAD may be fielded as anything other than a CAD or Allied Detachment.

Necrons are suddenly reasonable. Eldar are still broken but less so. The most broken parts of SM are prevented.

What do y'all think?

Again, no. As you yourself pointed out, there is quite a lot of variation in terms of the power level of these new formations. The Craftworld Warhost is hardly broken, and while the Necron, Mechanicus, and Space Marine formations are nasty, I don't believe that any of them are necessarily broken. There are too many unit taxes and restrictions in these formations to make them OP.

Eldar Vampire Hunter wrote:Personally I love formations, particularly the decurion-style Core/Command/Auxiliary type. I'm more concerned with fluff and fun than raw balance, so naturally something that increases the diversity of powerful armies and encourages relatively fluffy organisation with bonuses is something I'm going to view as good for the game. I do think there's an unfortunate power differential between armies that do and don't have access to this style of formation, which is why I've set out on a project to give fluffy and interesting Core/Command/Auxiliary detachments to every army, stating with the Tyranids.

I'm not suggesting that all of them are perfect - I think the Decurion RP bonus should be changed - but I find it ludicrous to claim that formations are removing diversity from the game when they're allowing things like full battle companies to actually become viable.

I agree. With all the lore about the Necrons' Nodal Command and the way that Eldar fight, the new formations make sense. The new Space Marine formations give major boosts to units that you would have to be crazy to use in the last codex.

Dakkamite wrote:This sort of overly broad solution never fixes anything man

My thoughts exactly. I personally have an idea about how to balance formations: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652033.page

What we need to do is find a way to balance the new formations against the older 6th edition and 7th edition codexes.

I think we should ban some formations, or at least nerf them. I agree with above gentlemen that formations can be a good thing, but some just buff already OP units.

Formations add some flavor to 40K. Nobody would have ever bought and Eldar Vyper previous to the formations. I think its good for people to expand their collection a little bit.

I don't think the problem is formations, as such, the problem is the poor job of balancing that comes out of GW and the perpetual meandering of the game focus; the newest codexes will always be the meanest (barring absolute botches on the part of GW) simply because they are the most "in tune" with the current edition's thinking about power and where power should be. This is why the factions that have been released with the formations and formations of formations get so nasty.

Meanwhile, formations provide a way to increase diversity in the game, tune power based on use, and generally make things more interesting.

So, my opinion, no; banning formations would not be an improvement.

Formations aren't an integral or fun part of the game. They mostly give massive bonuses for no real drawbacks. When White Dwarf used to publish alternative or experimental army lists they always came with massive drawbacks in exchange for their strengths, usually in the form of points cost or unit count restrictions.

Formations fulfill the same role as war gear and warlord traits, piling on buffs with no points cost. Re-roll reanimation protocols, all war gear is free, etc. It's just lazy, unfluffy flavor of the month garbage.

We have the force org chart, that should be the tool for crafting armies, not formations that give you 12 fast attack slots. In 3rd edition, you didn't have an artillery formation, you had a mission to defend an artillery battery where you gained access to an extra heavy support slot but lost fast attack choices. That carried much more fluff than "my artillery formation stumbled upon this field of mcguffin tactical objectives."

The problem is, you say that, while I say "cool, I can put 100 Orks in one giant mob?"

If you don't like formations then just don't play with them, but you'll struggle to convince players who do like them that your ideas about the game are better than theirs

TheSilo wrote:Formations aren't an integral or fun part of the game. They mostly give massive bonuses for no real drawbacks. When White Dwarf used to publish alternative or experimental army lists they always came with massive drawbacks in exchange for their strengths, usually in the form of points cost or unit count restrictions.

Formations fulfill the same role as war gear and warlord traits, piling on buffs with no points cost. Re-roll reanimation protocols, all war gear is free, etc. It's just lazy, unfluffy flavor of the month garbage.

We have the force org chart, that should be the tool for crafting armies, not formations that give you 12 fast attack slots. In 3rd edition, you didn't have an artillery formation, you had a mission to defend an artillery battery where you gained access to an extra heavy support slot but lost fast attack choices. That carried much more fluff than "my artillery formation stumbled upon this field of mcguffin tactical objectives."

I think that formations we an excellent way of representing the lore on the tabletop. Eldar are the elite warriors supported by strong grunts they were meant to be, Necrons are an unstoppable silver phalanx, Soace Marines have their Astartes doctrines, and Orks are an unstoppable horde.

You argue that the standard FOC/CAD is all we need. I disagree. It might suit the Imperium well, but not xenos armies. Just ask the Tyranids. The examples you provide are from four editions ago and when a White Dwarf was a useful resource. Like it or not, the game has changed since then. The new formations do have restrictions I terms of the units taken and cost.

Dakkamite wrote:The problem is, you say that, while I say "cool, I can put 100 Orks in one giant mob?"

If you don't like formations then just don't play with them, but you'll struggle to convince players who do like them that your ideas about the game are better than theirs

Exalted for truth. I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of players who don't post here that really like the new formation system. I know I sure do.

For tournament play? Formations could go in the closet IMO.

They make it a nightmare for TO's to check legality. Ain't nobody got time to spend 10 minutes talking to each player and double checking each formation.

They are apparently (according to the 9000 times they've had to be explained in dakka threads) highly confusing to players. One of my opponents at an ITC event didn't understand the decurion, and accidentally made himself unbound by including a last couple units with his final points not in a detachment. No one caught it til day 2, (I did) and it created a mess since he was in the top tables.

They have ridiculous balance issues across several of them. Much worse than the codices without formations IMO. (I experiment with formations quite a bit in tourney practice, for experience.) Some of them are indeed fluffy and make fun little extra rules that aren't over the top, but they're in the minority.

They bring up situations where you have to differentiate multiples of the same unit on the table. IE which wraiths are from your canoptek harvest, and which ones are in your CAD?

They bypass the main balancing mechanism of the game, which is point costs, by giving "free stuffz" including models, rules, and wargear.

They also bypass one of the secondary balancing mechanisms that is force organization slots. You don't need to take an HQ and troops tax to get your sweet little broken formation.

We've had a couple small tournaments with no formations allowed, and they seemed to work out well.

So yeah I think dropping formations from tournament* play would be overall healthy for the tournament scene. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. There are still codex imbalances even without formations, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

*again, tournament play. How you play with your buddies at your LGS is your business alone.

In the grand scheme of things, there is no blanket answer for these sort of things. While I think formations as a whole are mostly harmless, there are some very strong (almost game breaking) formations that really ruin the game for some players. That being said, there are some formations that are pretty much required to make some models viable at all. An example being the Helbrute formations.

I'm still part of the minority that doesn't use allies or formations. I have no real reason for this other than they just don't interest me and I don't want to invest in forgeworld to just have a decent option for allies. (I play CSM) To me, they're just another ploy to sell models, GW is a model company after all. Thus why a lot of the crazier formations require unit taxes. Same thing with allies. Your army has some sort of hole that can't be fixed? Best invest in an army that can fix it and bring them too.

I think in the end, It's really up to the players and TOs to let formations be used. Playing a friendly game and the opponent brings a SMASHFACE formation and ruins your day? Just don't play against them again when they're using that formation. Most TO's see what these crazy formations can do and can just outlaw them on the local level, just like unbound and ranged D. Whether they outlaw all formations or just the scary ones is up to them. I think the biggest issue most players have is they see the BRB as the end all way to play the game. I think of it more like a source material like a D&D book. It may have a campaign to get you started, but it's really there to help you create your own story and dare i say... forge the narrative.

Just because you can bring an unbound, D-filled, formation filled list.... doesn't mean you should. That sort of thinking is related to basic human decency though, which I won't have enough room on even a hundred threads to properly go over.

If you think removing formations is gonna balance tournament play... yeah my Orks, along with DE, Chaos, and all those other gak dexes want a word with you

 Dakkamite wrote:
If you think removing formations is gonna balance tournament play... yeah my Orks, along with DE, Chaos, and all those other gak dexes want a word with you

The answer to imbalance isn't to add more imbalance.

The real problem is the people who abuse the game.

Instead of banning formations find better friends.

People know when they are being TFG. Show them the door...

 TheSilo wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
If you think removing formations is gonna balance tournament play... yeah my Orks, along with DE, Chaos, and all those other gak dexes want a word with you

The answer to imbalance isn't to add more imbalance.

Warhammer 40,000 is a fundamentally imbalanced game. Never was balanced to begin with, and never has been. All we players can do is try to give each army a roughly equal playing field. Banning formations isn't the answer to that. Banning TFG, on the other hand...

Formations are a base-breaker; I'm in the camp that says they turn army-building into "Color-the-numbers", their main point being to "Add more slots that normally don't exist in a CAD."

I would have to disagree. The game is change to a more formation based play. Which is good. It prevents players from spamming the crap out of specific units. Also, many other games use this style of army construction. Its nice to see 40k changing to make this. Unfortunately it is going to take some time to update all the codex again to this specific of Gladius/decurion style of army construction.

My real problem is the Pay to Win stuff has gotten rediculous.

New codecies being stronger will always be a thing. But GW is now selling an expensive bundle with new rules *not in the codex printed a week earlier* that give you a buch of gakky OP bonuses that destroy most armies easily.

But only if you shell out several hundred dollars *beyond just the Codex*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glicha,
Some formations *force* spam instead of restricting it. Look at most CWE ones. No variability. No mix and match. Want one? Must take three.

First, the Warhost. I was thinking maybe 2 Defenders and a Storm or Windrider. Nice and fluffy, and allows using the right tool for the right job. But nope. 3 units of the *same* type. So *30* Storm or Defender guardians. The last of an elite race, when it fields a Warhost, apparently are just fancy hordes. Or windriders. Because every CWE player wants to field 3 units of Windriders.

So, in a Warhost, where every life is precious, and every individual is hyper specialized, and must use the right tool for the job, I not only have to bring a ton of hammers *or* screwdrivers, not both, I also have to bring the cheap kind. Because nothing says Eldar specialists like having an army full of the same unit.

Other formations? I want a Crimson Hunter? 3, or gtfo.

I want an Aspect Warrior? 3 or none. And they all need to be either CC or shooty, or I'm wasting stats.

If I want to bring a Wraithknight? That's fine. Two? Fine as well. Only points prevent you from spamming them, and the points cost is low.

If all the Formations were like the ones in the SM book, aside from Conclave (Seriously? Manifesting on a 2+? Omgwtfbbq?), they might be awesome. But they aren't. Many of them force spam.

(And my Harlies? Can't field a DJ or SS as an IC unless I take 3 Troups. Can't take a Troup without either DJ+SS or a Voidweaver. Can't take Skyweavers at all without a Voidweaver. Where's a CAD when you need one...)

 CT GAMER wrote:
The real problem is the people who abuse the game.

Instead of banning formations find better friends.

People know when they are being TFG. Show them the door...

And where exactly do you draw the line between "powerful" and "TFG?" Because where YOU draw the line is probably a little different from where a thousand other people draw their lines.

Also some of us like to play the game competitively. (Yes yes 40k, bad tournament game etc etc heard it all before.)
So that solution doesn't help us.

Playing with your buddies in your LGS is exactly where a bunch of the OP formations SHOULD be used. At least there you can discuss them and then make missions around them like "oh skyhammer seems pretty powerful, let's see if it can beat my army with a handicap, or in this special narrative mission."

No one cares if your local group likes or dislikes formations. It's your group. Play what you want: I'm not sure why they ever even come up in discussions like these. Competitive play is where this is actually an issue.

I believe that banning formations from organized play is analogous to turning a catastrophic multiple train wreck into just a few traffic incidents, as far as balance is concerned. Again, it DOES NOT fix everything. There are still books that are born with silver spoons in their mouths, and some that are charity cases, but the spread isn't as terrifyingly bad as it is WITH formations. That makes it a huge leap in the right direction.

 Glitcha wrote:
I would have to disagree. The game is change to a more formation based play. Which is good. It prevents players from spamming the crap out of specific units. Also, many other games use this style of army construction. Its nice to see 40k changing to make this. Unfortunately it is going to take some time to update all the codex again to this specific of Gladius/decurion style of army construction.

I dunno about you, but the best formations are those that let you take lots of the same unit. Be it the Firebase Support Cadre, Bullyboyz, the Aspect Shrine formation, Gorepack, Adamantine Lance, Destroyer Cult...

Don't agree, Tempestus Scions are useless without their formations at higher points.

Bharring wrote:
My real problem is the Pay to Win stuff has gotten rediculous.

New codecies being stronger will always be a thing. But GW is now selling an expensive bundle with new rules *not in the codex printed a week earlier* that give you a buch of gakky OP bonuses that destroy most armies easily.

But only if you shell out several hundred dollars *beyond just the Codex*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glicha,
Some formations *force* spam instead of restricting it. Look at most CWE ones. No variability. No mix and match. Want one? Must take three.

First, the Warhost. I was thinking maybe 2 Defenders and a Storm or Windrider. Nice and fluffy, and allows using the right tool for the right job. But nope. 3 units of the *same* type. So *30* Storm or Defender guardians. The last of an elite race, when it fields a Warhost, apparently are just fancy hordes. Or windriders. Because every CWE player wants to field 3 units of Windriders.

So, in a Warhost, where every life is precious, and every individual is hyper specialized, and must use the right tool for the job, I not only have to bring a ton of hammers *or* screwdrivers, not both, I also have to bring the cheap kind. Because nothing says Eldar specialists like having an army full of the same unit.

Other formations? I want a Crimson Hunter? 3, or gtfo.

I want an Aspect Warrior? 3 or none. And they all need to be either CC or shooty, or I'm wasting stats.

If I want to bring a Wraithknight? That's fine. Two? Fine as well. Only points prevent you from spamming them, and the points cost is low.

If all the Formations were like the ones in the SM book, aside from Conclave (Seriously? Manifesting on a 2+? Omgwtfbbq?), they might be awesome. But they aren't. Many of them force spam.

(And my Harlies? Can't field a DJ or SS as an IC unless I take 3 Troups. Can't take a Troup without either DJ+SS or a Voidweaver. Can't take Skyweavers at all without a Voidweaver. Where's a CAD when you need one...)

Hate to break it to you, but this is GW we're talking about . They have made it clear that they are in the business of selling models. They treat the rules as a means of selling certain models. The Eldar codex is the best example of this; make the newer kits OP as all get out, and force people to buy the kits that weren't selling well to use the formation.

The Craftworld Warhost is actually very well designed from a gameplay perspective. You give up Objective Secured, but get lots of MSU to compensate. Sure, you can spam the same aspect three times, but that isn't a good idea as you need to have a toolkit unit for every role.

The formations are intentionally restrictive to prevent spam by virtue of their being expensive (barring the Wraith Construct, but that's another discussion). Want to run the Crimson Death? 340 points. The Wraith formation? Pushing 1500 fully kitted out. Even the core formations will run you almost 1000 points if you kit them out properly. I've done the math; you can't have a non-cheesy Warhost that's effective in games of less than 1750 points.

Honestly, the Warhost is one of the most balanced things in the Eldar codex. If you're going to complain about spam, complain about six units of Scatbikers in a CAD.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Don't agree, Tempestus Scions are useless without their formations at higher points.

Is that indicative of formations being a positive force in the game or lazy codex design? The MT codex added 0 new units and is basically a stripped down version of the AM codex. The problem is that the MT codex had no imagination behind it and almost no purpose since the AM codex can already run Scion platoons each consisting of dozens Scions and only taking up one elites slot.

The formations dramatically reduce the flexibility within each codex since they essentially present super-army lists that outperform the broader codex.

I'm not against the IDEA of formations, but I really feel that they should be the exception rather than the rule, as they can get over-restrictive and goofy.
But again, not opposed to them as a nice bonus, just would rather normal CADs remained the primary way to build armies with a few special formations thrown in if you want to really do a specific thing or want a bunch of specific stuff.

why not just say no matter what formation or CAD you bring you have to bring 2 troops from somewhere whether its part of a FOC or another formation or the same formation.

So say you wanted to take the new 1st company strike force, you'd have to find 2 troops choices to go with it. You could take 2 tac squads with an HQ in a combined arms detachment or you could take 3 scout squads in a 10th company strike force but you've gotta find those 2 troops from somewhere.

On the other hand you may run a demi company in which case you've already got your 2 troops.

I think with the next iteration of the rules GW does, they should strengthen the different detachment types, refining those that are there.

Combined Arms Detachment
* Works the way it does now, but maybe a few extra perks or some kind of universal special rule to promote use over Formations and Unchained, while still providing a good alternative to the Specialized Detachments (see below).
* Allied Detachments taken as normal.

Specialized Detachments
* Included in Codexs. Have their own rules and fluff. Given third bonus or just stronger bonuses overall to promote use?
* Allied Detachments taken as normal.

Formation Detachment
* 0-1 HQ
* 1 Formation
* 0-2 Troops
* 0-1 Elites
* 0-1 Fast Attack
* 0-1 Heavy Support
* 0-1 Fortification
* Provides Warlord Trait re-roll, but nothing else added. No access to Lord of War, unless a Lord of War unit is within the Formation.
* Must include at least one Character which can act as your Warlord.
* Allied Detachments taken as normal.

Unchained Detachment
* At least 50% of the points total being played must be spent on only a single Faction.
* Now uses rules for Allies. Allies count as a separate detachment. Allied Unchained Detachments cannot exceed 50% of the total points being played.
* No bonus special rules.
* Fortifications are still 0-1.
* An Unchained Detachment must include at least one Character, which can act as your Warlord.

 CT GAMER wrote:
The real problem is the people who abuse the game.

Instead of banning formations find better friends.

People know when they are being TFG. Show them the door...

The real problem is faulty balance allowing the game to be abused.

find better friends? That's a nice gated bubble you have there.

Showing someone the door is seldom a luxury everyone can afford, and trough your ignorance you make the problem worse.

Functional rules aren't there for your friendly games, they are there when friendly games aren't an alternative.