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.

What does the community think of formations? While they seem cool and are giving rules to support the increased viability of some types of play (they are a huge boon for Tyranids), they ignore the FOC. I hope that 7th integrates them and allies as part of the standard FOC.

It also slightly annoys me that they are paid add-ons and not part of the codex.

Between allies, dataslates, formations, and other add ons, makes me start to wonder why the force org chart even exists.

Decent idea, poor execution.

My view on formations is the same view I have on Allies and even units in your own codex: As long as you stick to the same sort of competitive level as your opponent go nuts, if you abuse the cheese I have issues.

I think that a Formation should occupy the ally slot... However that's more of a custom rule. For actual tournaments, I think they should be allowed.

I don't mind them, I loved formations in apocalypse and I enjoy them here. (Now port over strategems GW!)

Not a big fan of the Riptide one but that's because I'm just sick of seeing that thing.

The new Tyranid ones are pretty cool.

Aren't these really just WD articles?
I'm only buying the codex (ebook) these days. Everything else can sit rotting on the shelf, as it were.
Books cost too much, and I'm not paying that kind of money to download 2 pages of rules.

I like the idea of formations rewarding fluffly, if sub-par options.

I don’t like them violating the whole concept of the FOC, or as a money-grab excuse to push plastic to as many players as possible.

From a balance standpoint, I don’t like getting something for nothing. If you are going to give formations special rules, there should be a drawback. Either balancing disadvantages, point cost, wargear/option restrictions, or bundle the good with the bad, so the whole is balanced.

Overall I think the concept has potential, but the application is flawed. I’d rather not have them in their current state.

Nevelon wrote:From a balance standpoint, I don’t like getting something for nothing. If you are going to give formations special rules, there should be a drawback. Either balancing disadvantages, point cost, wargear/option restrictions, or bundle the good with the bad, so the whole is balanced.

jifel wrote:I think that a Formation should occupy the ally slot... However that's more of a custom rule. For actual tournaments, I think they should be allowed.

I agree with these... taking formations should preclude taking Allies.

To be honest the whole detachment / FOC system has become a mess over the last year or so. There are so many caveats and exceptions* it's now a full time job to keep up with what is a legit army list... not to mention the fact that you need to pay to do so. Up until last year all the rules for choosing an army were in the BRB and everyone could read them regardless of which army they played. Now these rules are spread around lots of £5 and £10 DLC, each slightly different.

Really GW should have made formation dataslates free to download. They can help push model sales on their own, and at least then your opponent can see what he's up against fairly.

*hello Inquisition, LotD and Knight codexes!

considering some armies do not have access to allies, and some armies allies access is significantly better than others for what you can get...coupled with many "competitive" builds taking 2 min sized of the cheapest troops, I really so no reason exclude dataslate formations.

I wish they would have included the rules [not fluff] for a formation INSIDE the formation box you buy...just saying.

I think there is a lot of potential for them to be good. With Tyranids having difficulties with this edition having allied formations to give them more flexibility would be a good idea. Or even a Guard formation for an Imperial army would be great as it can be a fluffier option to taking an ally.

However, some of them like the Tau one that lets you take a riptide and an absurd amount of broadside battle suits, is just meh and expensive.

I see some good, and I see some bad.

I like the idea of fielding formations and getting bonuses for them. It reminds me a lot of historical wargames, as I'm pretty sure Flames of War has something similar.

I like the idea, unsure about the execution, since I've never seen it happen in a normal game.

Blacksails wrote:Between allies, dataslates, formations, and other add ons, makes me start to wonder why the force org chart even exists.

Decent idea, poor execution.

Pretty much this.

If the game used a percentage system and Formations was part of it, then it would make more sense - but as it is, it makes a mockery of the Force Organisation system.

Then, I've never been a fan of Force Org charts since they came out in third. ^^; I miss Characters/Units/Support divisions.

 R3YNO wrote:
I think there is a lot of potential for them to be good. With Tyranids having difficulties with this edition having allied formations to give them more flexibility would be a good idea.

Formations only increase the issue with allies though. Formations exist outside the FoC and can be taken by anyone with the appropriate option for an ally, even if they don't take that ally as a detachment. So now I have Taudar with a bunch of Space Marine flyers, while Tyranids have to buy dataslates just to get rules that should have been in their codex from the start.

Frankly, all formations/dataslates do is allow GW to write crappier and crappier rules, then charge you to download updates that fix the broken rules. It's stupid.

With respect to Tyranids I think formations get a huge "Yay".. 3 nid dataslates were announced along side the release of their lack luster codex.. Therefore, it wouldn't be hard to conclude that these formations were planned and intended to be used along side their codex.. (which somewhat justifies GW not giving expanded FOC or an allies alternative to the nids in the dex itself).. And most importantly, the formations on their own don't seem OP or game breaking at the moment.. The only one that comes close is the scoring gargoyle formation, and even then, you have a 2 harpy tax to get that formation which somewhat balances it out.

However, if the nid formations were abused, broke what little game balance there was, made nids so OP that people would say nids and taudar in the same breath, then I would not be happy.

 streamdragon wrote:


Frankly, all formations/dataslates do is allow GW to write crappier and crappier rules, then charge you to download updates that fix the broken rules. It's stupid.

Can't quote this enough.

I mean, the Knight 'Codex' is for two units, that would normally be a single unit with a weapon swap. They'll probably charge you extra for dataslates or formations for additional types of Knights in the future.

Ridiculous.

 Nevelon wrote:
From a balance standpoint, I don’t like getting something for nothing. If you are going to give formations special rules, there should be a drawback. Either balancing disadvantages, point cost, wargear/option restrictions, or bundle the good with the bad, so the whole is balanced.

You'll love the Nid formations then, half of them require you to take Warriors.

It was fine in Apoc matches, there was at least one formation that anyone could use, at the time i ran a Tau one which was something along the lines that if i had 2 skyrays and a devilfish i could get rerolls or something, in normal games i can't really see how it would work or boost the game much, and i know for a fact if someone payed $15 just to get a tiny but game changing move on me then 40K really has become "Who with the most cash wins".

Wow. Looking at the poll, its really close. Formations can be really fluffy, but imho they really should have been a part of the codex and FOC.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Wow. Looking at the poll, its really close. Formations can be really fluffy, but imho they really should have been a part of the codex and FOC.

I agree, not spending $18 for the rules and having a formation take up your allies detachment or something sounds reasonable to me.

I voted conflicted.

I have always loved Cypher and his fluff. I actually love his rules, too. I am glad they addressed them. Should it have been part of the "main" Chaos codex? Well... no. I rather like the way they handled his dataslate and extra rules because he's a really complex character and the ability to use him in both loyalist and traitor armies is pretty cool, and unique enough making him outright an extra thing didn't rub me the wrong way. Bel'akor too I suppose, as he's also usable in two seperate armies.

Some of the dataslates are just atrocious. The Tyranid ones come to mind. Not because they aren't good and make that army better, but precisely because that. It's stuff the base rulebook should have already had in it. All the 'nids Dataslates smell just like day-one DLC in video games. It was already planned before the codex dropped and splitting it up into further tidbits and downloads was just a cashgrab.

And then you have stuff that's basically broken like the Riptide formation. Formations existing outside of Apocalypse are just stupid.

And like everyone else, I am not a fan of how all the dataslates ignore Force Org. The point of Force Org is to limit the power levels of armies, yet it hardly did that in the first place and is now something you can completely bypass outright other than the 1 HQ 2 Troops thing.

Cool idea, badly-implemented. If I were in charge I'd have written Formations as "you take these X units in your FOC, you get some extra boon" not "anyone ever can take these X units and get this boon with no restrictions).

 AdeptSister wrote:
Wow. Looking at the poll, its really close. Formations can be really fluffy, but imho they really should have been a part of the codex and FOC.

I would like formations to be added to the FOC in their own slot.
1-2 HQ
0-1 HQ Support
0-3 Elite
2-6 Troops
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support
0-1 Formations

And that is how I plan to play them.

I also think allies should count against your FOC slots. This would go a long way to clean up 40K 6th edition. My expectation is that 40k 7th Edition will probably implement something like this.

A single army can now bring...
Primary Detachment
Allies
Fortification
Lord of War
Inquisition Detachment
Legion of the Damned Detachment
And any number of Formations.
It's not impossible to see
5 HQ units
Probably a dozen or more free HQ slots
11 Elites
8 Troops
4 Fast Attack
4 Heavy Support
A Titan
And a building

That's not counting the infinite number of options you can bring with Formations.