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.

Here's a point that came up during the recent Facebook Q&A that I don't think people have been taking note of.

One of the reveals of the new rule set is that there will be 14 different FoCs. Each of these FoCs gives you a certain number of Command Points for meeting it- the more stringent the requirements, the more Command Points you get. You can spend 1 CP per phase to incur a special effect. Examples given include rerolling a dice result, or interrupting your opponent's turn so that you attack first during the Assault phase. There are likely other "generic" effects as well, and additional thematic Command Point abilities will be introduced as new codexes are released.

To me, that sounds an awful lot like formations/decurions. You've got army builds that are constrained to a particular faction and structure, but give you thematic bonuses for adhering to them. In current 40k/AoS, you get a layered stack of passive/always-on abilities for a formation/decurion/warscroll battalion; in 40k they're free, and in AoS they have a set point value.

If I'm understanding the new system right, they've turned the stacked passive bonuses into an active, expendable resource. That way it's conceptually balanced- you get more uses for taking a large thematic army, but you need to actively use them. That also saves you constantly perusing your warscrolls/dataslates for exactly how many bonuses a particular unit gets, or from trying to keep track of which unit belongs to which battalion. It also sidesteps the issue of how much a particular formation should be costed.

Thoughts? Am I off the wall on this? Personally I'm all in favor. The "decurion" idea was interesting, but even in its stripped down AoS form it's quite unwieldy.

we'll have to wait and see could be intreasting.

I think your assessment is pretty valid. Without knowing what the FoCs look like exactly, it's tough to say if it will more or less carry over formations similar to what we already have, or if it will be more radical. All I know is there better be an all fast attack FoC or I've been wasting a lot of time on Ravenwing

Well it all depends on how good the bonuses are for the points, and what you will be able to spend them on, for each specific army.

I would be sad if the Skyhammer Annihilation Force is no longer possible. It's cool and fun.

We can hope formations, as they exist now, die for good with 8th, nothing of value will be lost.

Now, alternate FoC's can be functional and good. We've had variations on that for many editions and they can work fine. If they are consistent across armies, then the playing field is relatively level, and that can be worked with if executed properly. I look forward to seeing what that ultimately looks like.

But the "buy X models and get gobs of free game breaking abilities or 400pts of free tanks" that formations currently are was awful game design that needs to be buried ASAP.

I can see them doing something like AoS where rather than building your army using formations, you build your army using the FoC and then if you have the required units for a certain formation you get to add that formations bonuses to your army.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We can hope formations, as they exist now, die for good with 8th, nothing of value will be lost.

Now, alternate FoC's can be functional and good. We've had variations on that for many editions and they can work fine. If they are consistent across armies, then the playing field is relatively level, and that can be worked with if executed properly. I look forward to seeing what that ultimately looks like.

But the "buy X models and get gobs of free game breaking abilities or 400pts of free tanks" that formations currently are was awful game design that needs to be buried ASAP.

I don't disagree at all. I think formations/decurions were an interesting attempt at rewarding thematic armies, but the system they ended up with was a mess and a half.

Like Marmatag says, it'll depend a lot on what the bonuses are. But making them active- even in your opponent's turn- and expendable is a big plus in my book. It reminds me of the expendable reroll system in Blood Bowl, which I'm a big fan of.

I have a feeling that all previous formations, like codexes are getting axed, though presumably with an update.

This probably is a necessity, as the ruleset of the game sounds like it's changing.

Though, who knows. I do know that some people are going to be a bit miffed if recent formation books like ynnari and traitor's hate get thrown out. CSM especially, as traitor's hate is pretty popular.

I'd be sad to see some formations from waaagh ghaz go, but on the whole, ork formations are terribad. If they do start over, I'd like to think they couldn't do much worse than they did for orks.

It has been confirmed on their Facebook that all codexes and supplements are invalid. All formation are gone. This is confirmed. Good riddance.

The new FoC system that requires strategic thought to use active abilities is far superior than derp I get 300+ points of free transports.

It's more likely that formations will be more in-line with Warscroll Battalions in AoS. Basically, if you take specific units as part of an army and pay the points cost, you get bonuses, but you still have to fit within the standard FoC.

I'm fine by limiting or reducing the number of formations.

And i find it luls that people complain about free transports but not free summoning. Herald chaining is so much more OP than freaking a bunch of rhinos running around getting stuck on speed bumps and getting instagibbed by basically anything.

In any case, it is a little weird to release all these new books and formations, only to completely invalidate them.

Makes me feel like the team writing 8th was different than the team designing the gathering storm rules.

Loopstah wrote:
I can see them doing something like AoS where rather than building your army using formations, you build your army using the FoC and then if you have the required units for a certain formation you get to add that formations bonuses to your army.

That's not how AoS works...

Most of the books are organized into a decurion style setup. They have formations there too, and formations made up of formations.

I don't get how people can love FoCs/rites of war but hate formations because they are the same thing, take X units of Y type to get Z additional benefit. The three they showed were a company, a platoon, and a battalion, which rewarded you with more command points for filling out more of your FoC with a specific faction. Same old X of Y = Z, which is fine it's a wonderful way to encourage fluffy single faction armies. These will be the generic ones, I imagine there will be role specific ones for certain scenarios, and faction-specific ones that can be taken instead of the vanilla ones and they will be differentiated by both what types of units can be taken and what you can do with your command points. They essentially said everyone gets formations, but somehow that's the death of formations...

 Vaktathi wrote:
We can hope formations, as they exist now, die for good with 8th, nothing of value will be lost.

Now, alternate FoC's can be functional and good. We've had variations on that for many editions and they can work fine. If they are consistent across armies, then the playing field is relatively level, and that can be worked with if executed properly. I look forward to seeing what that ultimately looks like.

But the "buy X models and get gobs of free game breaking abilities or 400pts of free tanks" that formations currently are was awful game design that needs to be buried ASAP.

I was really hoping that all the Formations would die off and was disappointed of the news of 14 (!) new Formations. OTOH, if they are meant to be generic formations for all armies (like CAD) then it can be all fine & well. I only hope that the bonuses they give are reasonable and not Monty Python type "If you have exactly three tanks they get an awesome bonus. Two shall you not have, nor four. Five is totally out of question..."

My fear is that even if they start out reasonable, upcoming codices soon power creep the heck out of them again...

 Grimgold wrote:
I don't get how people can love FoCs/rites of war but hate formations because they are the same thing, take X units of Y type to get Z additional benefit. The three they showed were a company, a platoon, and a battalion, which rewarded you with more command points for filling out more of your FoC with a specific faction. Same old X of Y = Z, which is fine it's a wonderful way to encourage fluffy single faction armies. These will be the generic ones, I imagine there will be role specific ones for certain scenarios, and faction-specific ones that can be taken instead of the vanilla ones and they will be differentiated by both what types of units can be taken and what you can do with your command points. They essentially said everyone gets formations, but somehow that's the death of formations...

An FoC isn't a formation, because the positions in an FoC can be filled with any unit with a specified battlefield role. Not so for (most) formations.

Anyway, formations as is aren't that big a deal. It's the formation/decurion system bolted on to the old FoC system that caused problems, because suddenly figuring out which unit was from which detachment, and which rules they got, became a nightmare.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I can see them doing something like AoS where rather than building your army using formations, you build your army using the FoC and then if you have the required units for a certain formation you get to add that formations bonuses to your army.

That's not how AoS works...

Most of the books are organized into a decurion style setup. They have formations there too, and formations made up of formations.

I believe we will continue to see Decurions when the faction books come out. This is in addition to the 14 CADs/formations/whatever in the core rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I can see them doing something like AoS where rather than building your army using formations, you build your army using the FoC and then if you have the required units for a certain formation you get to add that formations bonuses to your army.

That's not how AoS works...

Most of the books are organized into a decurion style setup. They have formations there too, and formations made up of formations.

Yes but the formations are additions to your army based on what you've already taken, not what you take in the first place. For example I can't just take a couple of Gorethunder Cohorts as then I wouldn't have any battleline units, where in 40K I could take a couple of Skyhammer Annihilation Forces and not need to take troops at all.

Unless in 8th only troops score!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I can see them doing something like AoS where rather than building your army using formations, you build your army using the FoC and then if you have the required units for a certain formation you get to add that formations bonuses to your army.

That's not how AoS works...

Most of the books are organized into a decurion style setup. They have formations there too, and formations made up of formations.

That's also not how AoS works. When using battalions, you still have to have your battleline requirement (troops choices in 40k terms) and are still limited to a certain number of leaders (HQs) and behemoths (Heavy Support/LoW?).

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I don't get how people can love FoCs/rites of war but hate formations because they are the same thing, take X units of Y type to get Z additional benefit. The three they showed were a company, a platoon, and a battalion, which rewarded you with more command points for filling out more of your FoC with a specific faction. Same old X of Y = Z, which is fine it's a wonderful way to encourage fluffy single faction armies. These will be the generic ones, I imagine there will be role specific ones for certain scenarios, and faction-specific ones that can be taken instead of the vanilla ones and they will be differentiated by both what types of units can be taken and what you can do with your command points. They essentially said everyone gets formations, but somehow that's the death of formations...

An FoC isn't a formation, because the positions in an FoC can be filled with any unit with a specified battlefield role. Not so for (most) formations.

Anyway, formations as is aren't that big a deal. It's the formation/decurion system bolted on to the old FoC system that caused problems, because suddenly figuring out which unit was from which detachment, and which rules they got, became a nightmare.

only was a nightmare when people excessivly mixed and matched, but yeah, if you where running say a gladius of 1 demi-company, 1 libby conclave and a 10th company strike force, along side a CAD of a Libby and 2 scout squads, with a predator (a fairly reasonably space marine army, partiulcarly if the space marine player wanted some tanks but didn't want the massivly bloated tank formation in codex spacemarines) it could get confusing fast.

I can see them keeping formations but making us pay points for them as well as requiring us to make them fit within a FOC. They can do cool fluffy things, like the Space Marine Land Speeders + Whirwinds formation that lets the Land Speeders act as spotters for the Whirlwinds. A "spotter" rule could be included in the BRB, but formations can do a similar thing while going with the philosophy of having a small and free set of core rules and more specific rules being on individual warscrolls/formation sheets/whatever.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I can see them doing something like AoS where rather than building your army using formations, you build your army using the FoC and then if you have the required units for a certain formation you get to add that formations bonuses to your army.

That's not how AoS works...

Most of the books are organized into a decurion style setup. They have formations there too, and formations made up of formations.

That's also not how AoS works. When using battalions, you still have to have your battleline requirement (troops choices in 40k terms) and are still limited to a certain number of leaders (HQs) and behemoths (Heavy Support/LoW?).

That's Matched Play.

Matched Play is, and always will be, exceedingly stupid. It was arbitrary crap thrown in because of whiners who could not figure out how to interact socially.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's Matched Play.

Matched Play is, and always will be, exceedingly stupid. It was arbitrary crap thrown in because of whiners who could not figure out how to interact socially.

Social interaction is an interesting balancing mechanic for situations such as tournaments. How does it work, exactly? Do the opponents agree that the match is roughly fair and wink lovingly at each other to start the match?

 Luciferian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's Matched Play.

Matched Play is, and always will be, exceedingly stupid. It was arbitrary crap thrown in because of whiners who could not figure out how to interact socially.

Social interaction is an interesting balancing mechanic for situations such as tournaments. How does it work, exactly? Do the opponents agree that the match is roughly fair and wink lovingly at each other to start the match?

Tournaments are stupid too!

But realistically, the Open Play setup was fairly good to start with. There were a few standout cheese units but most people you'd play would be interested in doing scenarios from the books, etc which tended to have some balancing mechanics built into them.

 Grimgold wrote:
I don't get how people can love FoCs/rites of war but hate formations because they are the same thing, take X units of Y type to get Z additional benefit. The three they showed were a company, a platoon, and a battalion, which rewarded you with more command points for filling out more of your FoC with a specific faction. Same old X of Y = Z, which is fine it's a wonderful way to encourage fluffy single faction armies. These will be the generic ones, I imagine there will be role specific ones for certain scenarios, and faction-specific ones that can be taken instead of the vanilla ones and they will be differentiated by both what types of units can be taken and what you can do with your command points. They essentially said everyone gets formations, but somehow that's the death of formations...

The issue is that these will, seemingly, be generic enhancements, consistent across all armies giving bonuses that apply relatively evenly.

There's a difference between "Take a CAD (available to nearly all armies and the standard for 3 preceding editions of the game) and get ObSec on Troops Units" and "Buy this web bundle exclusive for Space Marines consisting of Assault Marines, Drop Pods, and Devastators, and they all get to come in turn 1, shoot Relentlessly, and assault from Deep Strike!" or "Buy 3 Riptides and run them together and they're even more broken!".

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm fine by limiting or reducing the number of formations.

And i find it luls that people complain about free transports but not free summoning. Herald chaining is so much more OP than freaking a bunch of rhinos running around getting stuck on speed bumps and getting instagibbed by basically anything.

Summoning is an issue as well, but has a different origin, and in general has a lot more variability in terms of raw power level. That said, having a ton of extra ObSec scoring units that transport other units has value as well, and not just the inherent value of the rhinos and drop pods but in what all else you can pack in to boot by not having to pay for those transports, within the framework of the formation, as well as more basic board control and target saturation.

In any case, it is a little weird to release all these new books and formations, only to completely invalidate them.


Makes me feel like the team writing 8th was different than the team designing the gathering storm rules.

Standard GW procedure, not all that uncommon on both counts.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's Matched Play.

Matched Play is, and always will be, exceedingly stupid. It was arbitrary crap thrown in because of whiners who could not figure out how to interact socially.

Social interaction is an interesting balancing mechanic for situations such as tournaments. How does it work, exactly? Do the opponents agree that the match is roughly fair and wink lovingly at each other to start the match?

Tournaments are stupid too!

But realistically, the Open Play setup was fairly good to start with. There were a few standout cheese units but most people you'd play would be interested in doing scenarios from the books, etc which tended to have some balancing mechanics built into them.

Playing prepared lists from the book is... not exactly open play. The idea behind having a points system is that you can build the army you want to, and be assured that it will be roughly equivalent in power to another army of the same point value. Not that that's necessarily true for 40k at the moment, but it's the idea anyway.

Well. I stopped playing 40k when the only way to play my army fluffy was to hamfist a fething IK in every game to get complete insane bonuses. Like free equipment and relics. Just stupid.

That sounds right, and pretty damn good to me OP.

This was something I had suspected as well, OP. And I think it's great.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's Matched Play.

Matched Play is, and always will be, exceedingly stupid. It was arbitrary crap thrown in because of whiners who could not figure out how to interact socially.

Social interaction is an interesting balancing mechanic for situations such as tournaments. How does it work, exactly? Do the opponents agree that the match is roughly fair and wink lovingly at each other to start the match?

Tournaments are stupid too!

But realistically, the Open Play setup was fairly good to start with. There were a few standout cheese units but most people you'd play would be interested in doing scenarios from the books, etc which tended to have some balancing mechanics built into them.

Playing prepared lists from the book is... not exactly open play. The idea behind having a points system is that you can build the army you want to, and be assured that it will be roughly equivalent in power to another army of the same point value. Not that that's necessarily true for 40k at the moment, but it's the idea anyway.

Scenarios were not simply "prepared lists from the book".

Some scenarios were certainly like that; notably the ones that were directly tied to the campaign material.
Others were just scenarios with loose guidelines. For example, one might tell you:
a) Whichever side has more models is the Attacker.
b) The side with fewer models is the Defender.
c) If the Defender is outnumbered by a ratio of 3 to 1, then Sudden Death rules are in effect.