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.

As a TO for my LGS I am happy to have made the decision to ban the bonuses from using formations. I started playing towards end of 5th and have seen the game denigrate to a race for mid maxed buffoonery in lieu of a meaningful fun game. Example , my friend. Who,got me into 40K has quit... A guy playing since 2 nd edition with easily 12,000 worth of stuff refuses to play!! At our LGS years ago you couldn't even get a table on 40K night , now hear the silence.....
Now you might say well what's your point .... I'm running tourneys that are seriously toned down , no fortifications , no,non character LOW .Guess what people like it! 4 events so far and all were well received. 5th is coming up and I only have 7 spots left. This means that if the community takes the bull by the horns we can tweak it to a game that can still be a lot of fun and tactical! We've also gone to one source with no allies. Feedback for this is 50/50 . A lot of guys like it and some are on the fence.
However with the format we use and the nerfs the games have been really , really good. Both in play testing and the actual tournament. The only problem has been formations and the bonuses from using them. I have seen casual players with no concept of how to use their armies show up with a net list and formation and become world beaters. For,anyone defending formations ... Come on..... GW doesn't even play test the units invidiually never mind how the work in a formation. Formations and summoning are both deseigned ONLY to sell additional models with no regard for the integrity or balance of the game. Good tight rules for a competitive game would in the long run waay outsell what GW is doing now.
For the record f anyone thinks this article is a case of sour grapes. I have all the models of douchbaggery and buffoonery . Your name it and I have it , so if I chose to I could easily take the broken units and formations. Point is I love 40K , the models the fluff , the artwork. However we as a community should take matters into our own hands and create the game we want. I think the ITC is a big step in the right direction . But as is precludes the average guy from showing up at an event and not getting steamrolled. My events are deseigned for the average guy to show up without having the latest in the meta and still have a chance to compete and score points each round. As stated 40K in our LGS is not even a fraction of what it once was.... There's a reason for that.

I appreciate what you're doing here. But I don't believe banning all formations is necessarily a good thing. For as long as I've
played marines I've enjoyed running a demi company. Come the new codex and lo and behold my beloved demi company was included. I was actually rewarded for running units that many considered suboptimal. I won't disagree that some formations are not broken or overpowered. I just don't think banning all formation bonuses is the way to go.
My 2 cents

Tyranids' Formations are super fluffy and make underpowered and underwhelming units useful.

Formations are part of the game. They shouldnt be taken out

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Formations are part of the game. They shouldnt be taken out

A malignant tumour is part of a person. Should we leave those in, too?

Since BA have zero good formations, I'm in favor by default. I already don't have any formations.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Formations are part of the game. They shouldnt be taken out

A malignant tumour is part of a person. Should we leave those in, too?

Saying formations is a tumour isnt the accurate way of putting it. It all comes down to the people who dont have them about not having them. Wait your turn to get some "overpowered" formations.

Formations, in theory, are good. The scaling between them is not. It makes no real sense for a Marine player, especially an Ultramarine, to deploy with a single captain and two tactical/scout squads and everything to be added to that. The Demi-Company and by extension, Gladius, allow for a fluffy army to be taken that would otherwise not fit in the CAD FOC. However, the main problem people have with the Gladius is not the benefits of OS or the extra doctrines, it is the perk of having two Demi-Companies, with the free vehicles. If that was toned down, and other Formations which stand out (looking at you, Decurion and Skyhammer), Formations would be far more fun and fluffy to use.

Guys thanks for the replies , these aren't just rants. I've play tested all of what I've wrote.

I.E -- yesterday I ran AM vs. GK using the 1st mission for our upcoming tourney

I had 2 Vultures , 2 Vendettas , 2 Wyverns , bunch of melt vets and blobs
He had 2 storm ravens , dread knight , purifiers , terminators , Land Raider .., yes an actual Landraider

In 5 turns we almost tabled each other with AM squeaking out a 12-10 victory . Guess what the game was a blast competitive and BOTH players had a good time and felt the game balanced and fair. When the losing player says it was a great game something is working. From all the play testing which is dozens of games the feedback has been pretty positive.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Formations are part of the game. They shouldnt be taken out

A malignant tumour is part of a person. Should we leave those in, too?

Saying formations is a tumour isnt the accurate way of putting it.

I didn't say formations are tumours. I was just pointing out that just because something is part of something else, it doesn't mean that it's automatically a good thing. It's a non-argument. Of course formations are part of the game - otherwise we wouldn't be discussing the bloody things.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It all comes down to the people who dont have them about not having them. Wait your turn to get some "overpowered" formations.

I play Necrons. I already have overpowered formations.

So, no, it's not about people wanting OP stuff - it's about people who actually want to see the game improve, as opposed to forever wallowing in ever escalating pay-to-win absurdity.

Anyway, I feel the issue with formations is exactly the same as the issue with various units making other units troops in 5th - it's either the only way to make a bad unit playable (because it had no business being a non-troop option in the first place), or else you're breaking an already strong option by allowing it to be spammed (and, in the case of Formations, giving it extra bonuses to boot).

Basically, I feel that formations could be largely removed if GW just balanced the units properly in the first place.

There is by far enough collective talent within the gaming community to tweak a lot of things. I hate to bring up AOS , but the guys right here on Dakka have done a fantastic job regarding adding points to AOS. probably much better than GW ever did. The quote about pay to win absurdity is so true for today's meta. Free vehicles ??? Tons of free summoned units??? Necrons that never ..ever die.... ??? Come on.... The game overall has the framework within itself to be so awesome and a lot of fun. However I truly believe a lot of help is needed from the community to tweak and nerf some of the abuses.

And the solution for that isn't to get rid of Formations. Because now you have buggered Tyranids, removed so much of the thematics that Space Wolves can bring, made Haemonculous Covens impossible to play and took a lot of fluff out of the game. Goodie, more min troops lists... I can't wait...

Haldir wrote:
The game overall has the framework within itself to be so awesome and a lot of fun. However I truly believe a lot of help is needed from the community to tweak and nerf some of the abuses.

Agreed, we think alike good sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
And the solution for that isn't to get rid of Formations. Because now you have buggered Tyranids, removed so much of the thematics that Space Wolves can bring, made Haemonculous Covens impossible to play and took a lot of fluff out of the game. Goodie, more min troops lists... I can't wait...

You've also removed a good percentage of what makes 7th ed terrible, 40k is a better game than apoc, and right now, we've got apoc.



The argument of "removing x formation/detachment makes faction x worse" doesn't hold water because the codex and factions are simply not balanced at face value at all, look no further than the imperium basically functioning as one faction. Does taking away formations/detachments make nids worse? Yes, no question it does. But Nids are an underpowered book to begin with. The codex's aren't balanced from one to other.

Playing without formations/detachments and potentially other apoc crap (super heavies/gc's/fortifications) doesn't fix the fact that the factions available to players of this game aren't balanced, but it does in my opinion improve the enjoyment of the game and bring back towards the glory days of 5th. It doesn't fix game balance, but it makes the gaming experience less obnoxious.

Basically, instead of getting rid of Formations, we need to work on making them more balanced with eachother. Would that be a better reaction than just knee-jerking away and banning them outright?

No formations and anyone who put a insane effert into painting harlequins bwuterfully with patternes and all is basicly got nothing but a pretty shelf ornament.

Balance, work on the overpowered, boost the weakest, adjust instead of demolishing the whole lot

Il be honest i don't agree with banning formations at all. For example I'm switching over to KDK and by banning formations unless unbound is allowed my 1500 point list just became illegal (I use a mayhem pack) also my army becomes quite a bit more formidable with the slaughter cult/blood host bonuses. Do imho banning all formations is wrong

 Crablezworth wrote:

Haldir wrote:
The game overall has the framework within itself to be so awesome and a lot of fun. However I truly believe a lot of help is needed from the community to tweak and nerf some of the abuses.

Agreed, we think alike good sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
And the solution for that isn't to get rid of Formations. Because now you have buggered Tyranids, removed so much of the thematics that Space Wolves can bring, made Haemonculous Covens impossible to play and took a lot of fluff out of the game. Goodie, more min troops lists... I can't wait...

You've also removed a good percentage of what makes 7th ed terrible, 40k is a better game than apoc, and right now, we've got apoc.



The argument of "removing x formation/detachment makes faction x worse" doesn't hold water because the codex and factions are simply not balanced at face value at all, look no further than the imperium basically functioning as one faction. Does taking away formations/detachments make nids worse? Yes, no question it does. But Nids are an underpowered book to begin with. The codex's aren't balanced from one to other.

Playing without formations/detachments and potentially other apoc crap (super heavies/gc's/fortifications) doesn't fix the fact that the factions available to players of this game aren't balanced, but it does in my opinion improve the enjoyment of the game and bring back towards the glory days of 5th. It doesn't fix game balance, but it makes the gaming experience less obnoxious.

That's your opinion and not fact. The only fact there is that you want to remove gameplay options to better suit what you define as fun. That's not cool. Formations aren't obnoxious to everyone. Formations are simple, straightforward things to a lot of people and some Formations are very fun on the table. I've played Apoc, in the last week even, and I can promise you that a game of 40k with Decurion and Skyhammer and a Wraithknight is NOT Apoc. Not even close.

If someone across the table from me demanded I get rid of Formations, I'd simply pack my models up and move on. Make improvements to the game regarding balance. I'd be happy to play Decurion with only a 5+ max Reanimation if someone had trouble playing against the 4+, but as a new Necron player, I will not abandon my Formations just because you think they're overpowered. And if you attempt to take away my Tyranid Formations, the only way that Nids can do things outside of Flyrant spam, we simply don't need to play against one another. I go to a club to play 40k, not some cut down nostalgia induced game halfway between what it is and what it used to be.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Haldir wrote:
The game overall has the framework within itself to be so awesome and a lot of fun. However I truly believe a lot of help is needed from the community to tweak and nerf some of the abuses.

Agreed, we think alike good sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
And the solution for that isn't to get rid of Formations. Because now you have buggered Tyranids, removed so much of the thematics that Space Wolves can bring, made Haemonculous Covens impossible to play and took a lot of fluff out of the game. Goodie, more min troops lists... I can't wait...

You've also removed a good percentage of what makes 7th ed terrible, 40k is a better game than apoc, and right now, we've got apoc.



The argument of "removing x formation/detachment makes faction x worse" doesn't hold water because the codex and factions are simply not balanced at face value at all, look no further than the imperium basically functioning as one faction. Does taking away formations/detachments make nids worse? Yes, no question it does. But Nids are an underpowered book to begin with. The codex's aren't balanced from one to other.

Playing without formations/detachments and potentially other apoc crap (super heavies/gc's/fortifications) doesn't fix the fact that the factions available to players of this game aren't balanced, but it does in my opinion improve the enjoyment of the game and bring back towards the glory days of 5th. It doesn't fix game balance, but it makes the gaming experience less obnoxious.

The only fact there is that you want to remove gameplay options to better suit what you define as fun. That's not cool.

Should I not be enjoying myself?

I've seen the Necron decurion and 4+ is just silly. But you bring up a great point with a 5+ it's kind of workable. But again , what I've written and our tournaments come from a lot of play testing . That is always the best measure. We have to agree that a lot of the formations are plain silly and broken. No? I have huge Nids and necron armies and think both have a lot of potential for fun and competitive games.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:


If someone across the table from me demanded I get rid of Formations, I'd simply pack my models up and move on.

No one is doing that, we're discussing our preferences for gaming on a forum.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
but as a new Necron player, I will not abandon my Formations just because you think they're overpowered. .

Nor should you, we likely just wouldn't have a game. The world turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
And if you attempt to take away my Tyranid Formations

Listen to the language you're using, my god man. No one is doing that, unless Haldir has kidnapped you and is currently forcing you yo play in one of his events.




Here's what I know about people, it;s easier to never give them something than to take it away. And that's the problem with all the stupid apoc crap that's migrated from apoc into 40k. It's hard to disarm once you've built up a stockpile.

Haldir wrote:
However I truly believe a lot of help is needed from the community to tweak and nerf some of the abuses.

It's a nice thought, but often not easy to implement.

I mean, for a start, there have been people on dakkadakka saying that Eldar are just fine and don't need to be toned down in the slightest.

And, even if you can get people to agree a unit is overpowered, you then have to agree on a solution - far from an easy matter. What if one person thinks Scatterbikes need a 5pt increase, and another wants s 15pt increase, and yet another wants a 5pt increase and for them to be limited to 1 heavy weapon per 3? What if one person wants D weapons to be removed (or else cost an excessive number of points), and another wants them to stay? Same goes for stuff like formations - what if one person wants to buff the weak ones, another player wants to nerf the strong ones, yet another player wants them to pay a tax based on their abilities, and yet another player wants to remove them altogether?

You could do a vote, I guess, but if everyone wants different things then you still might not get a majority on any one change. And, if a majority of players play a particular army, then you also run the risk of bias for that army and/or against buffs to other armies.

And, you'd be doing this for an awful lot of units, wargear, formations etc.

Finally, these rules have to be acceptable to everyone you play, which could be everyone at your club, or even complete strangers if you do pickup games. And, as above, everyone has to be happy with all the changes.

Put simply, whilst community designed/modded rules are a nice idea, I think getting the community to agree on such rules is far from an easy matter.

 vipoid wrote:
And, if a majority of players play a particular army, then you also run the risk of bias for that army and/or against buffs to other armies.

And you see that problem manifest itself with ITC voting and comping/faq. I like the transparency of it but it's the classic problem "I don't play that army so screw them" vs "this benefits my army, obvious vote is obvious".


I don't think it's within anyone's power to balance the codex's. It's just not possible. All we can do is format, that's it. I'll be the first to admit that if you cut out formations/detachments and even super heavies, gargantuans and fortifications. The codex's still won't be balanced. Elder, Marines, Tau and so on will still do very well. The game would just be less obnoxious and cynical, a little more like 5th instead of apoc. If you go the extra mile and just do one source foc/cad, it's still not balanced as some codex's are just better than others, but it's a step in the right direction. In my opinion, Haldir is certainly on the right track and I would much rather attend an event along the lines of what he proposes than ITC hammer.

It is a tricky one, since many of the new formations have simply added to the power creep and make some already units even better. That said, they do add a good element of background to the game, and encourage you to use units you perhaps otherwise wouldn't. It adds a new element of listbuilding; do I go out of my way to include this otherwise near useless unit so I can use a formation, or do I sacrifice any potential bonus from the formation for units that are straight up more useful. Sure, some formations are no-brainers, but that's a fault of the individual formation in question, rather than formations as an idea.

My FLGS recently ran a CAD only tournament and, although I couldn't attend and so don't know the nitty gritty details, it sounded like it was both different and successful. I don't think formations should be removed from the game in any sort of "comp" system, but it's nice to see tournaments that don't use them from time to time, just as it's nice to see tournaments that switch the game up in any way, to make it a little more different and engaging for players.

 The Shadow wrote:
Sure, some formations are no-brainers, but that's a fault of the individual formation in question, rather than formations as an idea.

Sure, right, but it's political suicide to start banning/allowing each formation/detachment at a whim. Having to justify each decision will just make for bad air and everyone accusing everyone else of being arbitrary or spiteful.

If I run an event, I don't feel the need to justify the terms to attendees. Attend or don't, my focus will be on putting on a good event with quality tables that look awesome, not on playing politics and proving to everyone that their favourite formation is unfair. They can use their favourite formation or detachment whenever the want, it;s fine, just not at my event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Shadow wrote:
I don't think formations should be removed from the game in any sort of "comp" system, but it's nice to see tournaments that don't use them from time to time, just as it's nice to see tournaments that switch the game up in any way, to make it a little more different and engaging for players.

Agreed, I'd rather cycle through different formats with different allowances and restrictions than always play with everything in. Another problem the game has though is with all the freedom of having such varying styles of armies and units it really leads to terrible matchups, to me I'd rather see an event mandate that everyone must have say a super heavy in their list than simply allow them. At least in 5th both sides had an army, now a days the guy across from you could have warhound and handful of models and call that an army. That's the cynical apoc stuff I personally don't care for and want to move away from at all costs.

I don't think it requires draconian banning either, I just think GW should index the "gong show" level gaming to point level to keep everyone happy.

If 1500pts and under was just once foc, old school, normal ass 40k and everything above that point level was crazy 7th ed pay to win wallet-40k apoc madness itc hammer I think I could live with it.

The only complaint I have about Formations, as a whole, is the ability to take them with Unbound Armies.

I agree in theory. Allies are the worst thing to happen to the game since I've began playing in late 2nd. I also don't like the fact that formations got rid of the 1 hq/2 troop minimum requirement.

I do like how formations encourage a fluffy or story accurate list. The wrath host for example is imho a decent one because it allows an all wraith army fitting with the craft worlds background. The bonus it gets, and the units it uses could be tweaked rules wise, (getting rid of D weapons) but otherwise it's decent.

Smaller bonuses from formations are ok. But I think they should stick to replacing the 1 hq 2 troop requirement to something similar for that factions fluff. Ie a dark angel death wing makes terminaters troops, maybe gives a small bonus to that formation (something nice to have but not game breaking) - but it also comes with restrictions. Take a death wing and now stuff that the particular faction dosent use/have acsess to are now HS slot or elite - or made 0-1 choices. They used to do this with certain HQ/characters.

I like the idea behind formations but the execution is poor and Not thought out. It's obviously a "buy more of this" scheme. - taking the game from a hobby and game expirence into a "pay to win" one.

I would suggest to the OP - banning allies is awsome. Keep formations, but remove the bonus from them. All the formation does is allow a "bound" army. That way people can bring fluffy armies without being crazy. A skyhammer with everything deep striking is awsome. I love the idea of a combined assault with jet pack and pod - it's the epitome of the space marine attack style. Auto pinning, charging after deepstrike, bonus to wound, etc etc makes it broke. Remove the bonus, now it's fluffy and fun without being crazy.

For the lord of war - I don't know why GW decided to make super heavies a part of normal 40k. It's a terrible idea and only serves to market more expensive kits. Get rid of it - they only belong in apocalypse - or specific scenarios like "the enemy is developing a super weapon - take it out!" Kind of thing. In wich a SH has a token small force gaurding it against a larger enemy non SH force.

 DarthSpader wrote:
taking the game from a hobby and game expirence into a "pay to win" one.

I would argue that the game is pay to win from the get go, only in so much that the player with more units to choose from will always have an advantage over the player who plays with literally every model they own and it barely scrapes 1500pts. Because the size and scope of your armies directly correlates to your wallet, it always has been and always will be pay to win to some extent. It's just gotten way more cynical and obvious with the breaking down of the wall between apoc and 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthSpader wrote:
I would suggest to the OP - banning allies is awsome.

Agreed, the matrix is a mess and really favours imperials. It also leads to crap mini factions existing only to be harvested for their better units and discarded. I'd rather have whole factions than the cynical crap we saw with splitting mechanicus into 2 instead of making a real faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthSpader wrote:
Keep formations, but remove the bonus from them. All the formation does is allow a "bound" army. That way people can bring fluffy armies without being crazy.

I disagree, make everyone use an foc/cad. You don't throw away formations/detachments because of the innocuous stuff no one takes, you throw it out because of the unbearably obnoxious crap everyone all of a sudden pretty much has to take to remain effective. Cut it off at the legs, big boys can make lists within an force organization charts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthSpader wrote:
For the lord of war - I don't know why GW decided to make super heavies a part of normal 40k. It's a terrible idea and only serves to market more expensive kits. Get rid of it - they only belong in apocalypse - or specific scenarios like "the enemy is developing a super weapon - take it out!" Kind of thing. In wich a SH has a token small force gaurding it against a larger enemy non SH force.

Agreed, as cool as a lot of those models are, they're for a whole other points level, keep them in apoc where they belong. All the apoc stuff is really where the pay to win side of things becomes unbearable for a lot of people with sickly or weakened wallets or severe deficit in painting/modelling time.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
taking the game from a hobby and game expirence into a "pay to win" one.

I would argue that the game is pay to win from the get go, only in so much that the player with more units to choose from will always have an advantage over the player who plays with literally every model they own and it barely scrapes 1500pts. Because the size and scope of your armies directly correlates to your wallet, it always has been and always will be pay to win to some extent.

That's true, but it doesn't mean the game can't get more pay-to-win.

 vipoid wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
taking the game from a hobby and game expirence into a "pay to win" one.

I would argue that the game is pay to win from the get go, only in so much that the player with more units to choose from will always have an advantage over the player who plays with literally every model they own and it barely scrapes 1500pts. Because the size and scope of your armies directly correlates to your wallet, it always has been and always will be pay to win to some extent.

That's true, but it doesn't mean the game can't get more pay-to-win.

Agreed, the transition from 5th to 7th has only made pay-to-win a bigger and bigger problem. I think a big part of that too is if you look at the better detachments/formations, they often don't even involve variables like casting a psychic power, and thus why try and cast a psychic power (that could fail or be negated) to twin link a unit when I can just twin-link my whole army with zero percent chance of failure? It's bad design, but that seems to be the way things are going, all upside, no downside. Look at the new tau fromation that just makes a ghostkeel and some stealth suits have no cover and hit rear armour. It's not even an ability to get on a dice roll, it just is. It's even sillier when you consider of all armies that need no cover, tau aren't exactly hurting in that department being the only army that can hand it out like candy.

Gw of today is such a stark contrast from forgeworld. When you look at the 30k rules, it's a striking difference, there's so much to take into context, so many selections and abilities become important decision points because they're often mutually exclusive. Youre forced to make hard choices, benefits also come with risks or downsides. On the 40k side, it's more more more ,buy now, here's free stuff. You deserve to win every game if you go without food this month, you're a powerful consumer, a capitalist tyrannosaurus of glory.

Not sure why you're a TO if you have such a problem with competetive play. I play mostly narrative pick-up games... But I go to tourney's on occasion for a competetive setting. I'm sure there are some people out there who would like your idea- but I would never play in a tourney where the TO did that.