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.

leopard wrote:
if the identical units in a building are from the same formation it matters less (as the enemy targets one and can say "the damaged one" etc). but yes if they are from different formations it all stacks up

and no way its working on a 12" wide sideboard, especially not as the rules, dice etc have to live somewhere

while maybe not that practical here for vehicles "casualties" can be denoted by having a smoke or flame marker for the vehicle, removable turrets etc - woirks in 15mm but I suspect not that practical in 8mm - pity as its very visual

Well the issue wasn't break related at the time just if we pulled casualties from the wrong structure, the two structures were like 40+ inches from one another. The thing too with TO's coming by to help is it may not be an issue of cheating simply untangling what happened. Like if we hadn't caught the possible mistake of pulling dudes from the wrong building at the time, its one example of just normal things that can go wrong without any ill will on either party's side, but having to contend with that while also all the book keeping that competes for space, its just nuts.



A note too on weapon loadouts if an event doesn't have some kind of policy. There are 36 variations of malcador loadout. I could make a 1 formation 3015 point list right now with 30 malcadors and 12 baneblades and still not have every permutation of loadout for the malcadors. So while I get formations breaking points ect, its also a game where every detachment in every formation can basically max out unit size almost to absurdity (with corresponding increase in firepower per activation)..

ahh yes, though I think in a way GW have made "how big should my unit be?" quite an interesting one be prohibiting splitting of fire against multiple targets with very few exceptions

so yes you can have large units that are more robust but much firepower is wasted

and you can also have smaller units that will never actually do much but are flexible, if easily destroyed.

and +lots to in all innocence removing models from the table as they die but in effect then putting them in the wrong place

and mistakes will happen, I guess the trick is to get a good few games down and work out how best to try and minimise them

I'm trying to come up with the most elegant solution to this dillemma, and the best I can come up ATM would be to double dip on the order tokens.

You could have custom order tokens with the formation number on the other side of the token. Now, tokens are a hassle because you need a lot of them, but if a token had a way to change the number value on its other side (a circular plastic/resin/paper disc you can rotate ala Epic 1st edition Titan void shield markers on their base), you could just have a bunch and could set each to the required value at any given time. Then you'd still need a way to denote which detachment has activated somehow.. maybe by placing a token on top of a model denotes this detachment has activated already? Determining break point would then be performed by counting the tokens remaining on the board, if they number less than a formations break point, you know that particular formation is broken, no dead pile counting required. Isn't formation breakage calculated in the end phase? By that time, every detachments order token has already been flipped to show its formation (and placed on top of a model to denote they have activated)

For tourneys however, these tokens would need to be static.. in which case the only viable way I can see it working is with having custom made tokens with the formation numbers permanently fixed to them. You'd basically need to print a large batch of tokens to use for your games

It's not a perfect solution because you'd need to make a foolproof way to know which detachment has activated, and you'd need a flockton of order tokens for a larger tourney game, but its the sanest method I can think of ATM

 tauist wrote:
I'm trying to come up with the most elegant solution to this dillemma, and the best I can come up ATM would be to double dip on the order tokens.

You could have custom order tokens with the formation number on the other side of the token. Now, tokens are a hassle because you need a lot of them, but if a token had a way to change the number value on its other side (a circular plastic/resin/paper disc you can rotate ala Epic 1st edition Titan void shield markers on their base), you could just have a bunch and could set each to the required value at any given time. Then you'd still need a way to denote which detachment has activated somehow.. maybe by placing a token on top of a model denotes this detachment has activated already?

For tourneys however, these tokens would need to be static.. in which case the only viable way I can see it working is with having custom made tokens with the formation numbers permanently fixed to them. You'd basically need to print a large batch of tokens to use for your games

It's already going to be a challenge to have enough order tokens on hand alone until everyone's sets come in. We had one set of paper tokens on friday and quickly rand out. It's been a big enough task coordinating with friends over where to get tokens for orders. Yet more tokens can't be the answer, that's not a fair ask of anyone coming to an event, a pen and paper sure but a hole new set of token isn't tenable at scale.

Well IMHO a bag of hundred or so tokens per player (they can be paper or anything easily printable) is a better solution than pen and papering it out, and having to have sideboards and whatnot.. but feel free to come up something that suits you better

 Crablezworth wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I'm trying to come up with the most elegant solution to this dillemma, and the best I can come up ATM would be to double dip on the order tokens.

You could have custom order tokens with the formation number on the other side of the token. Now, tokens are a hassle because you need a lot of them, but if a token had a way to change the number value on its other side (a circular plastic/resin/paper disc you can rotate ala Epic 1st edition Titan void shield markers on their base), you could just have a bunch and could set each to the required value at any given time. Then you'd still need a way to denote which detachment has activated somehow.. maybe by placing a token on top of a model denotes this detachment has activated already?

For tourneys however, these tokens would need to be static.. in which case the only viable way I can see it working is with having custom made tokens with the formation numbers permanently fixed to them. You'd basically need to print a large batch of tokens to use for your games

It's already going to be a challenge to have enough order tokens on hand alone until everyone's sets come in. We had one set of paper tokens on friday and quickly rand out. It's been a big enough task coordinating with friends over where to get tokens for orders. Yet more tokens can't be the answer, that's not a fair ask of anyone coming to an event, a pen and paper sure but a hole new set of token isn't tenable at scale.

well for this its something that can be as simple as a pack of 20mm round MDF discs and a sharpie. but also "token" is more of a concept here, its a marker of some sort, could be a paper label, coloured glass bead, painted mark. these do not need really to be game specific in any way, though obviously they could be

and the starter game I had used two sets of the flimsy paper ones, not enough of one, forget which, for everything

main point was that the other side of a token is currently underutilized, yet you must have one for every detachment. To my peabrain that unutilized space sounds like an answer to designating formations. How to make it happen IRL, well that's the tricky part.

What seems obvious however is that there is a screaming void waiting for 3rd party token manufacturers to step in. Everyone is running out of tokens even as they are, yet you cannot buy more of them from GW..

 tauist wrote:
main point was that the other side of a token is currently underutilized, yet you must have one for every detachment. To my peabrain that unutilized space sounds like an answer to designating formations. How to make it happen IRL, well that's the tricky part.

What seems obvious however is that there is a screaming void waiting for 3rd party token manufacturers to step in. Everyone is running out of tokens even as they are, yet you cannot buy more of them from GW..

Removal or the sequence/phase of removal of the order tokens is part of the documentation for activations, But even with your example in the context of an event I don't control what tokens people have, some it might be paper ones from the starter, others it may be custom printed two sided ones with their army's symbol on the back. I'm not just pulling out that example out of nowhere, was looking with a friend at what tokens to get yesterday and its very likely that the ones I get, the back will have a raven guard symbol on all of them.

 tauist wrote:
main point was that the other side of a token is currently underutilized, yet you must have one for every detachment. To my peabrain that unutilized space sounds like an answer to designating formations. How to make it happen IRL, well that's the tricky part.

What seems obvious however is that there is a screaming void waiting for 3rd party token manufacturers to step in. Everyone is running out of tokens even as they are, yet you cannot buy more of them from GW..

tokens with a colour to the main body work, until you get more than a few formations, also issues around colour-blindness to consider, ones with a formation number of the back, full size, and the front, smaller with the order icon works and scales, but not quite so much "at a glance"

personally wondering on combining the two

formation 1: mid brown
formation 2: red
formation 3: orange
formation 4: yellow
formation 5: green
formation 6: blue
formation 7: violet
formation 8: grey
formation 9: white
formation 10: black

as a base colour, contrasting colour for a number and the order icon

Crablezworth 812348 11619250 wrote:
Also, no one has been able to answer me how this will work with 1 foot of sideboard (playing 4x5 on a 6x4), I'm playing with 4 feet of sideboard (8x4) and it was borderline untenable to do both that and track all the separate piles of dudes who are in buildings. So this isn't just "i don't like this rule" It's entirely untenable from not jus ta TO perspective but a logistics/physical space requirement

I tried to buy maybe I was not clear enough.

1x A4 with boxes denoting Formations. Casualty tracker in each. Actual casualties go in one stackable box per formation under the table next to one of the table legs, if you need to verify, or count total points for a secondary objective.

Another A4 for buildings/transport if you need to track those.

 westiebestie wrote:

Crablezworth 812348 11619250 wrote:
Also, no one has been able to answer me how this will work with 1 foot of sideboard (playing 4x5 on a 6x4), I'm playing with 4 feet of sideboard (8x4) and it was borderline untenable to do both that and track all the separate piles of dudes who are in buildings. So this isn't just "i don't like this rule" It's entirely untenable from not jus ta TO perspective but a logistics/physical space requirement

I tried to buy maybe I was not clear enough.

1x A4 with boxes denoting Formations. Casualty tracker in each. Actual casualties go in one stackable box per formation under the table next to one of the table legs, if you need to verify, or count total points for a secondary objective.

Another A4 for buildings/transport if you need to track those.

Will the event be providing x amount of boxes? Assume it was, if the error was a player placing a dead model in the wrong box, I still don't see how a third party is going to figure that out. If it was me making the mistake, all my identical models look the same, I couldn't tell you at a glance which base of velletri belong to which formation and the entire point is avoiding having to make those distinctions objective and visual for all to see, the boxes don't solve this and this is the core problem and what has to be avoided to make the whole thing tenable. With my solution one only need one's box and that can be their army case which gets the event or store off the hook for added costs, and the TO only has to verify count and not do a complete census and the event doesn't have to invent a whole set of rules gw didn't to properly document identical models from different formations.

drawback with combining all formations into a single number and then having the army break as a whole is you lose the granularity

the way to defeat some armoured formations will be to break them, they are vulnerable to this as they can be quite small. denies them "first fire" and makes it safer to approach to finish in detail.

in effect your superheavy formation is now being padded by the cheap infantry behind the hill

it is of course a lot faster to break the army in one go, but I think you are losing a fair bit of flavour in the actual game mechanics

there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

Yea not fan of single break point. Just dumbing game down for "competitive" game. Bleargh.

tneva82 wrote:
Yea not fan of single break point. Just dumbing game down for "competitive" game. Bleargh.

does still leave the question of "whats a practical way to actually do this, especially as games get larger?" though

leopard wrote:
there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

This does seem to be the way the conversation leads. If space, game time and complexity are a problem, then reducing the size of the game seems the natural solution. Rather than paper around the problems of large games, restrict things to 2,000pts, or 2 or fewer formations.

Not only does that ameliorate (or eliminate) the problem of formations break points, but it's also more practical for players who – by the sounds of things – will be relative newcomers to the game. Simply having less on the board is easier for both players to grasp, takes less time to set up and play (so more time for thinking, chatting and socialising), and leaves more space for the sideboard.

As an aside, the design notes for Titanicus specifically noted that the board (4 x 4ft) was smaller than GW's usual games (6 x 4ft) in order to ensure space for terminals etc. I can only assume a similar consideration is behind Epic: Legions' odd 5 x 4ft set up.

tneva82 wrote:
Yea not fan of single break point. Just dumbing game down for "competitive" game. Bleargh.

If i pick up one of your models right now, will it objectively tell me what formation its in>? If the answer isn't yet, you're in the same boat as me. This isn't even about competitive, this would be just as important in a fluff event or multiplayer giant game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yea not fan of single break point. Just dumbing game down for "competitive" game. Bleargh.

does still leave the question of "whats a practical way to actually do this, especially as games get larger?" though

Exactly, the same logistics and problem is there for everyone. All my tanks say "317" because its the army not the detachment, i don't even have room left if i was ocd enough and inclined enough to give every base and tank some unique identifier.

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yea not fan of single break point. Just dumbing game down for "competitive" game. Bleargh.

does still leave the question of "whats a practical way to actually do this, especially as games get larger?" though

The game is clearly an homage to old-school design – and 'pen, paper and plenty of time' is probably the answer. I don't think this is going to be a problem when you're playing with friends in a casual environment – or at least not one that can't be solved through a little chat and sorting through the casualty piles.

Still, since the question is focussing on competitive tournament gaming, I still think there are more elegant solutions than an army break point for the reasons outlined above.

 Apologist wrote:

leopard wrote:
there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

This does seem to be the way the conversation leads. If space, game time and complexity are a problem, then reducing the size of the game seems the natural solution. Rather than paper around the problems of large games, restrict things to 2,000pts, or 2 or fewer formations.

Not only does that ameliorate (or eliminate) the problem of formations break points, but it's also more practical for players who – by the sounds of things – will be relative newcomers to the game. Simply having less on the board is easier for both players to grasp, takes less time to set up and play (so more time for thinking, chatting and socialising), and leaves more space for the sideboard.

As an aside, the design notes for Titanicus specifically noted that the board (4 x 4ft) was smaller than GW's usual games (6 x 4ft) in order to ensure space for terminals etc. I can only assume a similar consideration is behind Epic: Legions' odd 5 x 4ft set up.

The second you have more than one formation that may have any crossover in units, you're going to have to have the ability for anyone to objectively identify what formation the model belongs to so it's not just points level. Example, I can make single formation right now that's over 3000pts (3015 in fact) and contains 42 models with a breaking point of 21 and not have to mark anything and only need a note bad, but this is also a list of 30 malcadors and 12 baneblades and a whopping 8 activations. I don't think formations are some big balancing thing people seem to think they are. This is a game where weapons loadouts the vast majority of time aren't costed at all.

go with the bare minimum for SA and each formation is 70 points.. and not very effective..

plus side, you do get a lot of them for 3k

 Crablezworth wrote:

 westiebestie wrote:

Crablezworth 812348 11619250 wrote:
Also, no one has been able to answer me how this will work with 1 foot of sideboard (playing 4x5 on a 6x4), I'm playing with 4 feet of sideboard (8x4) and it was borderline untenable to do both that and track all the separate piles of dudes who are in buildings. So this isn't just "i don't like this rule" It's entirely untenable from not jus ta TO perspective but a logistics/physical space requirement

I tried to buy maybe I was not clear enough.

1x A4 with boxes denoting Formations. Casualty tracker in each. Actual casualties go in one stackable box per formation under the table next to one of the table legs, if you need to verify, or count total points for a secondary objective.

Another A4 for buildings/transport if you need to track those.

Will the event be providing x amount of boxes? Assume it was, if the error was a player placing a dead model in the wrong box, I still don't see how a third party is going to figure that out. If it was me making the mistake, all my identical models look the same, I couldn't tell you at a glance which base of velletri belong to which formation and the entire point is avoiding having to make those distinctions objective and visual for all to see, the boxes don't solve this and this is the core problem and what has to be avoided to make the whole thing tenable. With my solution one only need one's box and that can be their army case which gets the event or store off the hook for added costs, and the TO only has to verify count and not do a complete census and the event doesn't have to invent a whole set of rules gw didn't to properly document identical models from different formations.

I think you're slightly looking for problems now, having each player bring a box per formation is very doable and doesn't require any painting or codification.

You 'll never get past the problem of trust though, so your TO specific worries about verifying aren't going to be bullet proof however, any player can place casualties wrongly unintentionally or intentionally. If players cheat then so be it, players shouldn't have to worry about that as trust should exist in basic form. If a player cheats and people find out they're burned.

A think this game is best approached from a non tournament perspective anyway. This discussion is now very TO specific and easy solutions during a casual game exist.

 westiebestie wrote:


A think this game is best approached from a non tournament perspective anyway. This discussion is now very TO specific and easy solutions during a casual game exist.

And yet that context being the operative one didn't stop you. I didn't create the issue and as I've said, you're likely in the same boat as me if I can't pick up one of your tanks or infantry bases and not immediately be able to objectively identify what formation it belongs to. I'm not the one creating that problem, I'm the one pointing it out it's an issue that exceeds far more than just trust, but physical reality of space available. It's not about the box you put a dead unit in, it's about being able to figure out objectively if you put it in the wrong box, that may be the entire thing a to is helping to untangle but literally can't if its subjective and not objective, something anyone can verify "ah yes this tank is part of formation 3 as marked here on the back" and the problem with that expectation is its basically an impossible standard. This isn't me trying to find a problem, the problem is there for all of us regardless of an event or not, but in the context of this thread and trying to find a work around in order to be able to run an event the single breaking point is the best I've got. It's the one box solution to speak to your example. It wouldn't require either of us to come up with some intricate signature system for tracking detachments and formations.

Yeah I understand you and the problem, don't want to belittle it. I just meant this thread is named and started as a discussion around tracking Formation casualties which seems to have a consensus in the thread. Now it's TO limitations. That's fine.

The game does indeed involve more book keeping need than hoped.

I just think its manageable and there are multiple non intricate practical solutions to this as mentioned.

If basic trust is not there however, or visual verification is needed all the time then as you say, quite a big sideboard is needed for this game.

sprung up another thread to capture tournament, and tournament logistics specific issues - this is noted there

this one also feeds into casual games as well

 westiebestie wrote:
Yeah I understand you and the problem, don't want to belittle it. I just meant this thread is named and started as a discussion around tracking Formation casualties which seems to have a consensus in the thread. Now it's TO limitations. That's fine.

The game does indeed involve more book keeping need than hoped.

I just think its manageable and there are multiple non intricate practical solutions to this as mentioned.

If basic trust is not there however, or visual verification is needed all the time then as you say, quite a big sideboard is needed for this game.

Trust is needed in 40k and yet despite that games happen. If you can't trust opponent you are screwed in 40k as well.

It's ridiculously easy to cheat in 40k. Hasn't stopped 40k tournaments. Not issue in li either.

leopard wrote:


there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

THIS

In the end it is going to be the best approach.

PS also, that will make formations bigger, and there will be less spam of certain detachments...

SU-152 wrote:

leopard wrote:


there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

THIS

In the end it is going to be the best approach.

PS also, that will make formations bigger, and there will be less spam of certain detachments...

Can limit formations but that doesn't get rid of the problem until you limit it to 1 formation, the problem starts the moment you have 2 or more formations. I also want to point out, formations limit like nothing. I can make a single formation that is worth over 3000pts and contains 42 tanks, I don't think formations limit anything in a game where every formation allows the maxing out of every single detachment other than hq. Like the super heavy detachment is 6 super heavies max... that's not really limiting much. 3 identical formations is 9000pts... so even if I limited formations, it doesn't really limit anything. The game already has built in discounts for adding to existing detachments instead of forming new ones and that starts right away with any formation.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

leopard wrote:


there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

THIS

In the end it is going to be the best approach.

PS also, that will make formations bigger, and there will be less spam of certain detachments...

Can limit formations but that doesn't get rid of the problem until you limit it to 1 formation, the problem starts the moment you have 2 or more formations. I also want to point out, formations limit like nothing. I can make a single formation that is worth over 3000pts and contains 42 tanks, I don't think formations limit anything in a game where every formation allows the maxing out of every single detachment other than hq. Like the super heavy detachment is 6 super heavies max... that's not really limiting much. 3 identical formations is 9000pts... so even if I limited formations, it doesn't really limit anything. The game already has built in discounts for adding to existing detachments instead of forming new ones and that starts right away with any formation.

For **** sake, yes it helps.

Limiting the number of formations reduces the book-keeping of casualties you and I are complaining about.

And prevents spamming of support/rare slots.

 Crablezworth wrote:


Can limit formations but that doesn't get rid of the problem until you limit it to 1 formation, the problem starts the moment you have 2 or more formations. I also want to point out, formations limit like nothing. I can make a single formation that is worth over 3000pts and contains 42 tanks, I don't think formations limit anything in a game where every formation allows the maxing out of every single detachment other than hq. Like the super heavy detachment is 6 super heavies max... that's not really limiting much. 3 identical formations is 9000pts... so even if I limited formations, it doesn't really limit anything. The game already has built in discounts for adding to existing detachments instead of forming new ones and that starts right away with any formation.

Uhhuh. I have demi company full of infantry and armoured company full of tanks.

Pretty easy to determine then which formation casualties came from?

You can't fit all the tanks you want to demi company generally anyway so putting them all to armoured company.

Limiting one would break game pretty hard btw. I managed to just about fit 1.7j into one demi company but that results in silly list where you just max out everything. Everybody plays same as there's not much of freedom. 1.7k marines, warlord, 700 pts empty...Gee. Oh wait max 1 formation so no warlord either.

Guess we better get used to play 1,7k games ;-)

2000 points and 2 formations max (+1 Titan or Knight formation) sounds like a reasonable approach for tournament play. Larger games than that will take far too long to resolve anyways.

Not enforcing a formations cap in a tourney setting is just asking for trouble.. 70 point SA formations anyone? Cheesefest in the making.. I mean, was it not already established that the game is unbalanced in terms of points effectiveness? If you dont cap formation amounts, WAAC tryhards will just push that problem over the top, because they can always just spam a min sized new formation to get access to the more OP detachments

I also dont see how it would be unreasonable to demand "all models must be easily identifiable in terms of formation it belongs to", even in 40K tourneys they usually have a strict WYSIWYG requirement no? And still people manage just fine.. In the Epic of olde, stands had these flags on them, you could add something similar to LI (heck, you could even magnetize em so you would be able to use a specific model in any future formation)

there is a huge issue with limiting the number of formations though

you are essentially telling Solar Auxilia players not to enter, they need multiple formations to get the HQ units to make the army work.

indeed they quite specifically do not want a low number of large formations as thats a gateway to the bulk being outside the command range of their HQ units, and provides an easy quick kill through killing those commanders