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.

So the chapter approved warcomm articles are telling us that formations are coming back.

Am I the only one that recalls the terror of 7th edition formations?

8th ed has been evolving really well to the point now that we are only 2 codices away from being complete and having a meta that is evolved and stable. But now we see the old shenanigans maybe making a comeback.

Do you guys feel like its a return to the old ways or are you confident GW will handle them with baance and grace that they have kinda showed so far in 8th?

They are significantly different from 7th Edition Formations. Just check the samples that have been presented. They are no longer free rules for taking XYZ. They now cost CP to take and present options (WL Trait and Relic) along with Stratagems, which cost CP to use.

Big fan, adds some flavour and they seem relatively well-balanced atm. Not auto-takes, but useful in the right situations.

The Indomitus Crusaders one is the closest I've seen to an auto-include, but it basically eats all your command points to do it.

Indeed, the formations in the 7th ed turned 40k into another game.
Just remember Decurion for Necrons was too much.
They definitely give GW a way to make more money with shiny new formation/supplement books.

It all depends on if one of the formation writers decides to go overboard.

So far the ork and IF ones seem pretty tame, but all it takes is for a writer to misunderstand a small part of the game (which is VERY common,) and either write a rule that works far better than he thought it would, or give buffs to units that are far better than he thought they were, and we’ll be back in the 7e situation of have-nots vs over the top formations.

Also I really really hope they keep Phil Kelly away from the Eldar formation.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
It all depends on if one of the formation writers decides to go overboard.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I think its safe to assume that formations were designed to sell models. If you have fairly tame formations combined with fairly tame points drops in CA then the formations may stand out more than before.

This idea of paying for them is good but it also does change the game considerably. I'm not an avid tournament player but the idea of stepping up to a game and having a basic understanding of most army rules is out the window again. There is yet more rules to learn and account for and the rallying cry of 8th edition that it would fix the problems of 7th is echoing as a hollow promise currently...when do more and more rules become rules bloat. How many books do you now need to lug around for a game?

I'm liking the idea of the 4(5) different Guard formations representing different regimental detachments. It will fit the fluff much better to have an infantry detachment and an armour detachment that have been combined together for a limited mission. Putting the russes in a spearhead detachment will also make more sense if you can get more than just obsec as a bonus. I will have to finish some mortars to fill the russ-shaped holes in my brigade though.

My only issue is some of them that shouldn't be restricted to chapters being restricted to chapters. Like the siege cohort.

Sir Heckington wrote:
My only issue is some of them that shouldn't be restricted to chapters being restricted to chapters. Like the siege cohort.

I think it is far easier to balance marine formations if you don't have to worry about the plethora of chapter tactics and special character interactions involved. On the other hand, I would be quite annoyed if only Cadians could use a formation, so I understand it can suck. Let's just hope there are enough formations to cover everyone adequately, and that the neglected races don't stay that way too long.

 Trickstick wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
My only issue is some of them that shouldn't be restricted to chapters being restricted to chapters. Like the siege cohort.

I think it is far easier to balance marine formations if you don't have to worry about the plethora of chapter tactics and special character interactions involved. On the other hand, I would be quite annoyed if only Cadians could use a formation, so I understand it can suck. Let's just hope there are enough formations to cover everyone adequately, and that the neglected races don't stay that way too long.

That's all I can hope for. I really hope some FW factions get formations though... even if it is unlikely. If every faction/subfactions get formations it'd be fine, but it's hard to balance it while leaving some guys out.

So far, they don't REALLY look like Formations, but rather additional Stratagems that only benefit XYZ units, indirectly encouraging you to field XYZ units, but not requiring it.

Personally, I'm all for actual Formations coming back as they were a great idea, just executed poorly.
I'd like to see them as new detachments that require XYZ units, grant a specific number of CPs and come with a Stratagem specific to the units in the detachment.
So just like 7E formations, but instead of "free" rules/abilities, you get CPs and a cool Strat.

-

Sir Heckington wrote:
That's all I can hope for. I really hope some FW factions get formations though... even if it is unlikely. If every faction/subfactions get formations it'd be fine, but it's hard to balance it while leaving some guys out.

FW unfortunately never recovered from the death of Alan Bligh. Have they even had a major publication since then? Their 8th Edition rules have been a real mess, I remember that the Guard index I got was plagued with errors. I hope they get back on their feet at some point.

 Trickstick wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
That's all I can hope for. I really hope some FW factions get formations though... even if it is unlikely. If every faction/subfactions get formations it'd be fine, but it's hard to balance it while leaving some guys out.

FW unfortunately never recovered from the death of Alan Bligh. Have they even had a major publication since then? Their 8th Edition rules have been a real mess, I remember that the Guard index I got was plagued with errors. I hope they get back on their feet at some point.

No they haven't. I still use the guard index for my Renegades and Heretics... and its a mess. Traitor Guardsmen cost the same price for worse guardsmen, less BS/WS and SV. I'm really hoping they'll get around to their armies, but I really aint expecting it, or formations for that matter.

I actually see it as GW trying to balance some of the issues indirectly, instead of just adjusting points and redoing codexes.
It looks like they want to boost units that are not currently meta. Take Eldar for example, they have a windrider and spirit host. While yes, these models are prominent in their new boxes (no coincidence there), they are also the lesser seen Eldar units (no Rangers, aspects...mainly Spears and Reapers or Ulthwe guardian bombs).
I hope that thus is the case anyway.

 bullyboy wrote:
I actually see it as GW trying to balance some of the issues indirectly, instead of just adjusting points and redoing codexes.
It looks like they want to boost units that are not currently meta. Take Eldar for example, they have a windrider and spirit host. While yes, these models are prominent in their new boxes (no coincidence there), they are also the lesser seen Eldar units (no Rangers, aspects...mainly Spears and Reapers or Ulthwe guardian bombs).
I hope that thus is the case anyway.

Well, some units are "decent", but get amped up by stratagems. But not all units have stratagems that help them. Formations can certainly help with that.

The reality is time will tell how they pan out. There are a lot of people that don't deal with change well. I'm one of them. I really got hyped on the 8th ed propaganda and while it hasn't fulfilled some of those promises it is a good game.

However I feel it is very different to the 40k that I've been playing fervently for 20 years.

7th ed was the lowest ebb for me and 40k and I consider leaving but now that these echoes of 7th are coming back i'm getting all once bitten twice shy about it.

I can't help feeling that the design team haven't finished making 8th the way they intended it to be. Its almost like we've been playing a beta game since it launched and formations here are one step closer to their final vision...when will it end?

These formations are a far cry from 7th. I don't think you need to worry.

Will there be some stinkers? Likely, but nothing that can't be petitioned for a fix.

Im still of the opinion that 8th is far too basic at its core to make a proper game. I don't see GW letting formations become insanely unbalanced (yet) but the bigger issue is that the core mechanics are too basic to support a massive amount of rules layering. Also formations seem like a further means to force "No model, No Rules" units out of the game because they won't be included.

 Vankraken wrote:
Im still of the opinion that 8th is far too basic at its core to make a proper game. I don't see GW letting formations become insanely unbalanced (yet) but the bigger issue is that the core mechanics are too basic to support a massive amount of rules layering. Also formations seem like a further means to force "No model, No Rules" units out of the game because they won't be included.

There are tons of decayed model rules without stratagems - this doesn't change that. This doesn't add a layer, either - it's a replacement set of stratagems, relics, and traits that you pay for to get access. Not very different from making another chapter of marines.

I like the idea of formations in 8th edition. I also feel like it is a great way to rebalance some of the struggling armies out there without necessarily writing a whole new codex. For example, Necron AT kind of sucks this edition, instead of writing a whole new book to fix it, these campaign books could release a new unit to fill that gap, or to allow a cheap (cp wise) formation to allow warriors and immortals to have a version of the old gauss rule back.

This opens a ton of space for design, I am really excited by what could become of this. Likewise, I never played 7th, but I have heard how unbalanced it all was. Let's hope they keep the good stuff for just the weaker armies to help compensate.

GW has managed to build some capitol with me on even if they drop a lights out OP formation, it will be nerfed in the next round of Faq.

I'm in wait and see. I love theme forces, but such things only need one or two detachments to have a rules problem for the whole thing to become a headache. Especially the Ultramarine and Imperial Guard ones, since people are so touchy about those factions.

Reemule wrote:
GW has managed to build some capitol with me on even if they drop a lights out OP formation, it will be nerfed in the next round of Faq.

It would be rather annoying to have everything revolve around, for example, servitors for several months. Posts about OP servitors, servitor conversion guides, servitor painting tutorials, podcasts extolling the virtues of 60 servitor armies, etc...

Looks like we've got the Xenos Preview up:

Anointed Thong turned out to be GSC

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/12/05/5th-dec-xenos-specialist-detachments-rules-previewgw-homepage-post-4/

Looks ok so far, altough there's a lot of information missing.

Two big difference from 7th's formations. 1) They require CPs to get the good rules which is inherently a limited resource. And 2) This isn't the same "F*** you" GW of 7th and they at least try to keep some semblance of balance with yearly chapter approved and bi-annual FAQs.

Not saying there won't be problems but I'm cautiously optimistic.

Are melee wraith constructs any good right now? Cn't say I have seen them much.

Tomorrow, we’ll be looking at the Specialist Detachments available to the Imperial defenders of Vigilus

Should get at least one Guard detachment, I wonder which it shall be? I'm taking a random guess at tank.

 Trickstick wrote:
Are melee wraith constructs any good right now? Cn't say I have seen them much.

Tomorrow, we’ll be looking at the Specialist Detachments available to the Imperial defenders of Vigilus

Should get at least one Guard detachment, I wonder which it shall be? I'm taking a random guess at tank.

Someone took a heavy wraith list to top tables at SoCal if I recall correctly.

They've always been good, but as it goes people ignore marginally worse units for bleeding edge ez-mode.

 buddha wrote:
Two big difference from 7th's formations. 1) They require CPs to get the good rules which is inherently a limited resource. And 2) This isn't the same "F*** you" GW of 7th and they at least try to keep some semblance of balance with yearly chapter approved and bi-annual FAQs.

Not saying there won't be problems but I'm cautiously optimistic.

My biggest cause for concern would be Guard formations - they have the CP to spend and amping them could be problematic if they don't see appropriate point increases in CA. I do welcome though if they make playing Guard more dynamic.

 Trickstick wrote:
Are melee wraith constructs any good right now? Cn't say I have seen them much.

Tomorrow, we’ll be looking at the Specialist Detachments available to the Imperial defenders of Vigilus

Should get at least one Guard detachment, I wonder which it shall be? I'm taking a random guess at tank.

Unless the names are misleading, guard get four and there is one Militarum Tempestus one.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Unless the names are misleading, guard get four and there is one Militarum Tempestus one.

I meant that we would get a few details about at least one tomorrow.

MORE RULES BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT GOD!