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.

No, it isn't "wrong".

Just like it isn't "wrong" for any other person to not want to play someone else for any other reason they can conjure up.

But that also means that it doesn't make the other person wrong for wanting to use a formation and not wanting to play a game where they can't. People apply their personal preferences as some kind of moral standard, and anyone who violates it gets a bunch of pejoratives thrown at them; WAAC, TFG, casual, competitive, power gamer, CAAC, etc etc.

There's nothing "wrong" with wanting to play the game a certain way. With formations, without. With SHs/GCs or without. Only playing against painted armies, or even playing against only unpainted armies. It doesn't matter. Both parties have agency to decide if they want to play the game or not and what standards they agree to.

If you both agree to play a game with a certain set of restrictions, and one person goes against the previous agreement, then that person would actually be wrong.

Oddly enough my chaos marine army doesn't give a crap about the skyspear formation, so I lose a few bezerkers, meh, I get charged by a few assault sqauds, meh, I'll be summoning down more bloodletters etc. Next turn anyway, I do love the new deamonkin book, it's all Ivan drago to me "if they die, they die"

Formations wise the deamonkin ones are cool, fluffy and not too powerful, so I'd be annoyed at someone refusing to play them, but I'd get over it and slaughter as much as possible, blood for the blood god!

 Formosa wrote:
Oddly enough my chaos marine army doesn't give a crap about the skyspear formation, so I lose a few bezerkers, meh, I get charged by a few assault sqauds, meh, I'll be summoning down more bloodletters etc. Next turn anyway, I do love the new deamonkin book, it's all Ivan drago to me "if they die, they die"

Formations wise the deamonkin ones are cool, fluffy and not too powerful, so I'd be annoyed at someone refusing to play them, but I'd get over it and slaughter as much as possible, blood for the blood god!

edit Woh derping i replied to the wrong thread

Veshnakar wrote:
As someone who plays harlequins and skitarii I would be kind of upset as neither of my armies have the option for HQ and thus can't be fielded as CAD.

So? I play Harlequins too. We have a Masque Detachment. It's not a formation. Cegorach's Jest, Cast of Players, Heroes Path, etc... those are the formations. My only pet peeve for Harlequins is that aside from Formations and the Masque Detachment, we can't be taken as an Allied Detachment.

I think saying you wont play against formations is your decision but it does really exclude people that play the formations that aren't as cheezy. You should probably just not play against necrons, elder or sm.

The more you talk to people you play with, the better an understanding you will all have.
If you are expecting for things to be removed when your first meeting an opponent in a store, then it's probably too late for a lot of changes. I tend to only take what I am going to play with that day. So big changes are not possible.

If you want to play in a certen way you have to find people who want to play that way, in the end where I am dropped the game for others because of this.
As GW offers more and more it will be harder to find opponents if you do decline games In Such a way.

I edited my OP since some people got the wrong idea but that is mostly my fault.

Nah, it isn't unreasonable to decline a game against anything. I have declined games against people because I don't like them as people. I have declined games against armies because I am bored of fighting them, and I have declined games against armies because it just plain didn't sound like it would be fun.

There is no issue with declining a game. Just be polite about it.

I am moving to CAD necrons, because I just don't think my opponents have fun anymore against decurion. When the opponent celebrates killing a single sub 20pt model, something is imbalanced.

It isn't wrong to refuse a game for any reason, it's just a personal preference.

Also, just to be nit picky: The Necron Decurion, Eldar Craftworld Warhost, and Space Marine Gladius Strike Force are types of Detachments, not Formations.

 Ghaz wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
As others have pointed out, CAD is a formation. The only non-formation game is to play Unbound. The fact that you have decided that one formation is fine and others are not is the issue here.

Not true. The Combined Arms Detachment is just that, a Detachment. While all Formations are Detachments, not all Detachments are Formations.

And things like the Decurion, Demi-Company, or Eldar Warhost are Detachments as well.

They're detachments which have specific components chosen for you, similar to a Formation.

I don't think you should say no but it's your choice. I just played the new Gladius Strike Force against my friend's Necron Decurion. Both were 'strong' but at the same time fluffy. It was one of the funnest games I've played. Very evenly matched and bloody.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
As others have pointed out, CAD is a formation. The only non-formation game is to play Unbound. The fact that you have decided that one formation is fine and others are not is the issue here.

Not true. The Combined Arms Detachment is just that, a Detachment. While all Formations are Detachments, not all Detachments are Formations.

And things like the Decurion, Demi-Company, or Eldar Warhost are Detachments as well.

They're detachments which have specific components chosen for you, similar to a Formation.

Not really. They're more like other Detachments, with certain requirements and a number of choices. It still doesn't make all detachments formations, no more than a Granny Smith apple makes all apples Granny Smith apples.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
but I'm telling you one thing: formations will become the staple say to create armies in all codices, sooner of later.

They won't.

How so? almost half the codexes already have this style of fielding a list. The other 3 still needing an update for 7th (Tau, AM and Tyranids) probably will get it as well. GW's telling us the decurion-way is as valid as the old FoC. I can bet FoC will be gone with 8th ed.

Play the game as you enjoy playing it against people you enjoy playing.

Well having just glanced over the new SM codex I'd have a hard time making a CAD list I would enjoy today, with the changes to Telion and Chronus now taking up an HQ slot, Honor Guard and Command Squads now taking an Elites slot, and any other changes I haven't noticed yet.

I'd also have trouble custom tailoring a list you like on the fly. I roll in a big carrying case of models, and I have several lists made from those models, but my lists are designed to be fun for me. Your lists are supposed to be fun for you. The fun for both of us should come from playing the game.

How far does this go? Should I roll 2D6 for each 1D6 I'm supposed to, and you pick the one that's more fun for you?

Can the player of an all scout army demand no ignores cover weapons?

Hey guys, I'm playing Nids, so no shooting.

If you want to have a game, then have a game. If you want to make up rules for a total stranger who did all the same painting modeling and list design work you did then design your own game?

No, there's nothing wrong with declining a game against someone with a cheese-list that you don't want to face... and there are some cheddar formations out there.

There's also some fun, pretty light-weight formations out there, as well. I think refusing to play against -any- would be overdoing it a bit, BUT, you have a right of course to play against who you want.

If these guys you play with really are 'friends', you should be able to explain your side and at least make them reconsider taking it. If you can't reach an agreement, you COULD offer to compromise - on the next visit, use formations. On the visit after, no formations, on the visit after that formations are ok again, and the visit after that, no formations. You could certainly do that, too.

But if you -know- you are going to have a miserable time... why bother? Like the old saying goes, you don't have to take a bite of a poop-sandwich to know it's going to taste like poop. If you -know- you're going to waste 3-4 hours of your life not having fun, don't bother. Play something else, especially if they are friends you only get to see once in awhile.

I dunno, my opinion changed when the Gladius came out, even though I don't plan on using it...

Play how you like and ignore neckbeards who will write pages about what is/isn't a detachment/formation.

I hope people dont do this when DA comes out. Ours will be average at best

 Kiggler wrote:
I am merely asking is it justifiable to decline a game and ask my opponent to make a list with out formations seeing how their army is fully capable with out them?

The answer is no. While you can justify anything if you try hard enough - and lord knows several in this thread are trying - you have to remember that you have precisely 2 obligations in any game of 40k: to make sure you have fun and to make sure your opponent does. That's it. That's the whole point. If you can't have fun playing against formations or detachments, you have to ask yourself why. If it is because you like the game the way you like it and don't care about your opponents wishes or enjoyment, then you're being a miserable narcissist; if it's because your friends are using powergaming to wipe you by turn three and mock you for your lack of mad skillz, yo, then they are. So the problem is either you or them, not the formations.

Talking to your friends and saying "You know, I really don't like them. Can we just run CAD?" is acceptable. Have the discussion. That's how this is supposed to work. But if they disagree and you then say you won't play against them, then you are making the choice for them rather than discussing it.

In terms of the detachments, I'm not convinced they're actually that great. I doubt I'll ever run it for SM, and only occasionally run it for Eldar. They lack the options that make me enjoy 40k so much. So I mostly run CAD. But I certainly won't refuse another player for using a tool that I don't like.

You can always refuse to play anyone who doesn't agree to play with the 4th ed rules, too, you just might not get many opponents. The game is evolving, and if you don't evolve with it, you'll eventually get left behind.

"I've got a guardian stormhost with a full wraith host with lords and wraith blades with 3x Shining Spears in an aspect host."

Get away from me you WAAC TFG.

The Necron decurion is stupid, granted. The Eldar Codex contains ludicrous units, the Warhost is actually not that bad. A Warhost containing Scatterbikes and spammed Wraithknights gains almost no benefit from the Warhost, it's nastier in a double cad.

And after my first game against the "scary" full company list, I can say with confidence I'd rather face that list 10 times out of 10 than invisible cent star.

 DarkLink wrote:
The game is evolving, and if you don't evolve with it, you'll eventually get left behind.

I haven't devolved with it and I'm having a pretty good time.

For me, it's not a question about formations in the first place. It's about overall army.

Skyhammer seems rediculous but when there's skyhammer + a bunch of footslogging marines with bolters, why not. The overall power is fine.

Decurion is powerful, yes. But if the cron player doesn't abuse things like wraiths and ott combos, i don't mind.

Warhost can be ott but when the opponent's running footdar, it's more than reasonable.

Besides, there's a number of formations that really add fun to the game without being ott. Like the greentide or helbrute formations.

They don't add much fun for armies that got no formation in their books. There is little enjoyment playing an IG army versus the older, necron or marine ones. But it is true that as long as they are not FW, there is no way to stop someone from using them.Someone could try to not play against people using those, but that limits opponents to sob and mirror matchs vs other IG, not a very fun prospect considering how many people play those two.

Say no to anything you don't like

Practically, I prefer just to decline a game if there is a very low chance the army that I want to field has a chance to do something useful and fun. If I know I'm going to be destroyed in 2 turns, and I don't feel like wasting an hour, I'll just tell the guy. It's not really because it's a more advanced formation or whatever, it's just because I know the army I have with me or feel like playing isn't a good match for theirs.

Hey man, you can reject a game for whatever reason you like. The real issue is how you actual convey that decision to the other person.

If you say you don't want to play them and use wording that belittles them and their choice to use things which are available in GW's published rules then that's wrong of you.

Just say that you were looking for a more laid back friendly style game and it is your experience that many of the Decurion style formations are at a power level above that which you find a fun game. Thanks but no thanks.

It's all about empathy. Understanding that what you think is fun has absolutely no bearing on what someone else thinks is fun is the first step. And hopefully meet in the middle ground for a mutually enjoyable game. But never attempt to make someone feel worse for how they want to play the game if they haven't even been disrespectful or unpleasant.. That's the most important thing.

Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

Skyhammer is only as effective as people are saying in a tournament environment - that is to say on a wide open field with minimal terrain. In a standard 40k game, this formation has a hard time landing and getting in its shots. Against units fielded in ruins, especially on a 2nd or 3rd floor, it's a joke. Most Dev weapons would be able to hit these targets anyway, only now you're out in the open and your targets are the ones with the cover save. The assault portion of the force has to land close enough to the terrain to make it into assault, but far enough to not risk mishap or dangerous terrain tests. Not an easy needle to thread. It's primary use is blowing up LoWs and exposed deathstars. You're only going to see it dominate in tournaments that can't afford to field the proper amount of terrain.

And the Gladius dual demi company? Meh. Lots of easily blown up boxes wrapped around MSUs with no real firepower to speak of. And all those free points? You get a hell of a lot more running the Archangel Sanguine Wing - which no one seems to have a problem with - with 400pts of free power and combi weapons for its 30 vets. You can run two of them without breaking a sweat in 1850 for 800pts in actually useful upgrades. Those Gladius Bawx armies are some of the best hype GW has ever generated. Those Rhinos and Razorbacks are going to end up collecting dust on shelves after folks actually play with them and the hype train derails spectacularly.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

It is a good thing that the Demi-Company nothing at all like you described. You need Six tactical squads, two assault squads (or equivalents), two Devastator squads (or equivalents), a Captain, and a Chaplain to get the free transports. Don't spread misinformation just because you are butthurt.